"Beginner's guide to ArmA Modding" Project

[rksl-rock 1300]

oh god, i forgot about this thread..pity it didn't took off as rock wanted:

It did and it didnt... unfortunately a lot of the early contributions were obeselete once the A2 tools came out. Others weren't really aimed at the "beginner" end of the market.

In the end I began writing a full guide by myself. I'm about 40% through. Problem is that I keep finding out new info and new ways to do things which mean rewrites and so on... and then theres other distractions.:D

[PuFu 4591]

In the end I began writing a full guide by myself. I'm about 40% through. Problem is that I keep finding out new info and new ways to do things which mean rewrites and so on... and then theres other distractions.:D

the more you know, the dumber you feel :D

you know my skype if you wand an extra...pen (anything but o2 modelling - i don't use it for modelling)

Edited May 17, 2011 by PuFu

[mach2infinity 12]

RKSL-Rock: all the best with finishing the last 60% of your guide. I downloaded and used your Eurofighter addon a while back and I think it's excellent by the way. Top work.

PuFu: by no means am I expecting anyone to give me tutelage on all aspects of mod making. I just wanted someone to point me in the right direction to get started. Thanks for doing so. :)

One thing. I've installed "B.I Tools 2" and I was going to look at the tutorial for "Oxygen 2" so I can learn to grasp it. However, you've said not to use it. As a total novice, should I use it anyway or is there a better programme? The only thing though is if a better programme means a consumer/commercial product, it will cost a bit.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

;1925952']One thing. I've installed "B.I Tools 2" and I was going to look at the tutorial for "Oxygen 2" so I can learn to grasp it. However' date=' you've said not to use it. As a total novice, should I use it anyway or is there a better programme? The only thing though is if a better programme means a consumer/commercial product, it will cost a bit.[/quote']

Hey top gun. O2 is a pig for achieving quality if your a begginer, will need to use it but you can actually do the vast majority of the work in other programs

Get blender, its free and powerfull

http://www.blender.org/download/get-blender/

Realy good crash course in 3 parts by this guy, he is quick ,but you got a pause button, and hell give you enough to start

http://www.youtube.com/user/ralusek

Use leopatams o2/blender import /export

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=105516

Of course there will be other stuff you'll need to know, search fuction on this forum, and the O2 modelling section, are good places to go.

[[frl]myke 14]

Please stop talking that bad about O2, especially this "you can't make good quality with it" BS.

I use O2 exclusively, all my work is done with O2 only:

http://www.glt-addons.armaholic.eu/photogallery.php?album_id=3&rowstart=0

Please take a look at the GBU-43/B (MOAB), the GBU-39SDB, the AN/AAQ28 and the BGM-109 Tomahawk. Those are made with O2 only, textures manually made with GIMP.

Now please tell me again that you can't do good quality models with O2.

I do agree, if you use other software and you actually understand how they work, it will help you to get faster and probably easier there. But at the very end, no matter what software you use, at the end it is a bunch of points and faces.

So i wont disagree with the rcommendations made, just please, stop this BS that you can't do proper modelling with O2. It's just utterly wrong.

[PuFu 4591]

;1925952']RKSL-RockOne thing. I've installed "B.I Tools 2" and I was going to look at the tutorial for "Oxygen 2" so I can learn to grasp it. However' date=' you've said not to use it. As a total novice, should I use it anyway or is there a better programme? The only thing though is if a better programme means a consumer/commercial product, it will cost a bit.[/quote']

That line wasn't addressed to you. but to rock. and was talking about myself - i don't use O2 for anything else but setting up the addon, not for modelling, UVs etc

The software you want to use is your choice, but no matter what you'll need to properly understand the O2 layout

Myke;1926125']Please stop talking that bad about O2' date=' especially this [b']"you can't make good quality with it"[/b] BS.

myke, really now, who said that here?

I use O2 exclusively, all my work is done with O2 only:

http://www.glt-addons.armaholic.eu/photogallery.php?album_id=3&rowstart=0

Please take a look at the GBU-43/B (MOAB), the GBU-39SDB, the AN/AAQ28 and the BGM-109 Tomahawk. Those are made with O2 only, textures manually made with GIMP.

Now please tell me again that you can't do good quality models with O2.

Well, of course you can. But i assume you are aware of its limits on the other hand (i guess some starts from the fact that O2 is vertice based and not polygon base software).

Especially for human meshes or organic ones, O2 is tenfold harder (not impossible though).

I do agree, if you use other software and you actually understand how they work, it will help you to get faster and probably easier there. But at the very end, no matter what software you use, at the end it is a bunch of points and faces.

And no one said otherwise.

So i wont disagree with the rcommendations made, just please, stop this BS that you can't do proper modelling with O2. It's just utterly wrong.

If you start from scratch, it is advisable to work with a software that is known, has a wide community around it, and follows to an extent the industry standards (not even talking about the package as a whole, and tools that can help save time and mood). Blender is the only one in that category which is free. I guess that was the point berzeker wanted to make, especially if you associate that with the scope of topgun's mod

anyways, this is quite offtopic here, feel free to PM or grab me on skype if you want to continue with this discussion

Edited May 17, 2011 by PuFu

[[frl]myke 14]

myke, really now, who said that here?

Hey top gun. O2 is a pig for achieving quality if your a begginer,

Not exactly the same phrasing but at the end the same meaning. And also postulated in other occasions by other members aswell.

And so far i didn't encountered serious limits which couldn't be worked around to get the same desired result at the end. Probably it took some steps extra, agree on that.

(i guess some starts from the fact that O2 is vertice based and not polygon base software)

To be honest, i don't even understand what this means. Nevertheless, at the very end the result is still a bunch of points and faces.

Still, if you get the grip with Blender i wouldn't say to stick with O2. For me personally it turned out that i feel much more comfortable with O2. When i started, i've managed to create a simple textured box within 2 days, figuring out all (or most) by myself. With blender, even after a week with help of some tutorials i didn't managed to even create a simple box, let alone have it textured.

I don't blame Blender for that matter, it's just O2 being closer to my way of thinking.

[PuFu 4591]

Myke;1926157']Not exactly the same phrasing but at the end the same meaning. And also postulated in other occasions by other members aswell.

I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion. You and me the same.

And so far i didn't encountered serious limits which couldn't be worked around to get the same desired result at the end. Probably it took some steps extra' date=' agree on that.[/quote']

i wonder if you'd say the same thing if you'd be trying to do animations, human meshes or environment.

To be honest, i don't even understand what this means. Nevertheless, at the very end the result is still a bunch of points and faces.

It means most of the 3d software packages tools are designed on and for polygons-faces (tris/quads/ngons) as base work unit(?) while O2 works based on points/vertices.

Still, if you get the grip with Blender i wouldn't say to stick with O2. For me personally it turned out that i feel much more comfortable with O2. When i started, i've managed to create a simple textured box within 2 days, figuring out all (or most) by myself. With blender, even after a week with help of some tutorials i didn't managed to even create a simple box, let alone have it textured.

I don't blame Blender for that matter, it's just O2 being closer to my way of thinking.

And again, it is YOU who have decided what to use based on your demands, scope and way of thinking. Why shouldn't others do the same.

I am just saying you are taking it a bit too personally each time O2 is being blamed for not being up to par with other software out there. Which is understandable in the end, since it a free software with a limited purpose.

Remember there are at least 10 very well known 3d modelling software pakages out there, for every pocket and workflow (not even counting the SDKs). If there wasn't demand for different approach on the same subject, it would have been only one. Autodesk itself sells 3 of those, different from each other, all capable to do the same thing in the very end.

Edited May 17, 2011 by PuFu

[[frl]myke 14]

I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion. You and me the same.

Couldn't disagree. :D

i wonder if you'd say the same thing if you'd be trying to do animations, human meshes or environment.

Probably not. For what i do and need it, O2 serves me well.

It means most of the 3d software packages tools are designed on and for polygons-faces (tris/quads/ngons) as base work unit(?) while O2 works based on points/vertices.

Thanks for the explanation but my point was more that i don't need to know the difference since i already get what i need at the end. But i admit that i only need it for modelling some minor ArmA 2 stuff and not in a professional way (meaning, i don't do it for a living). Don't get me wrong, appreciate your explanation, just for myself (and really just speak for myself) it doesn't have a meaning at all.

And again, it is YOU who have decided what to use based on your demands, scope and way of thinking. Why shouldn't others do the same.

I agree again, but...

I am just saying you are taking it a bit too personally each time O2 is being blamed for not being up to par with other software out there.

How could i not take it personally? Not from you, more generally speaking.

- i create models with O2

- people saying that "it isn't possible to create high-quality models with O2".

Conclusion: the models i made aren't high-quality, whatever that means.

Again, there surely is 3D modelling software which can do things faster and easier and it is up to everyone to find the appropriate piece of software that suits him/her best. For me it was/is it O2.

All i'm saying: don't put O2 out of question that fast when it comes to the question "what software to use".

Again PuFu, this is not pointed towards you. Just reading the same s**t over and over again is...well, frustrating to some point...don't know if you get what i really mean.

O2 might not be on-par with other 3D modelling software but still, it deserves a chance.

[PuFu 4591]

Myke;1926208']

How could i not take it personally? Not from you' date=' more generally speaking.

- i create models with O2

- people saying that "it isn't possible to create high-quality models with O2".

Conclusion: the models i made aren't high-quality, whatever that means.[/quote']

Slap! Are you certain you are of age you say your are? :eek: no one ever said that mate, on the contrary!

Again, there surely is 3D modelling software which can do things faster and easier and it is up to everyone to find the appropriate piece of software that suits him/her best. For me it was/is it O2.

All i'm saying: don't put O2 out of question that fast when it comes to the question "what software to use".

O2 is being blamed for not being up to par with other software out there means it lacks the tools that makes YOUR life easier, and just that. (by that i mean subD polygon tools, bake to texture, projections, custom working planes, boolean objects etc etc)

You know there is a saying: the shortest route (from A to B) is the one you know, not the one with the shortest distance.

Again PuFu, this is not pointed towards you. Just reading the same s**t over and over again is...well, frustrating to some point...don't know if you get what i really mean.

i understand it (and you'd be a weird one if it would be directed to me :D)

O2 might not be on-par with other 3D modelling software but still, it deserves a chance.

true, and your are not the only one who have been giving it a chance (scuba, panda and synide comes to my mind now - although they've all switched to modo in the last year :rolleyes:...oh, and gnat).

But it is good to let other know they have alternatives out there, and O2 is not the only (free) thing one can do models with.

Edited May 17, 2011 by PuFu

[[aps]gnat 28]

Hey top gun. O2 is a pig for achieving quality if your a begginer, will need to use it but you can actually do the vast majority of the work in other programs

Quality, sure, theres a few limitations. But you have to have great skills to think O2 is a drag.

O2 is the ideal tool to start learning 3d modeling

IMHO. Many other tools have layer upon layer of features (like stuff to make your own movies etc) that are completely useless in the ArmA2 world.

With O2 you can quickly go from "Car with wheels" in 3d editor to "Car running on wheels!" ingame.

Unfortunately unlike may of PB's other mentioned tools, there isn't a great lot of video tutorials etc for O2.

.... win some, lose some.

........ Problem is that I keep finding out new info and new ways to do things ......

Yeh, big problem with the "deeper" technology behind the game engine. Just when you were sure you had the WHOLE answer, some other factor pops up and sends you sideways, scratching for more answers.

Edited May 17, 2011 by [APS]Gnat

[Prydain 1]

Gnat;1926224']O2 is the ideal tool to start learning 3d modeling

I agree. I don't think it is that hard to use O2. It is quite easy to build a wheel, for example.

I find that the hardest thing to learn is how to go through building a model, there are plenty of tutorials on how to work with O2, none/not that many on methods of modelling: like tips on how to build at none-facing angles, how to scale, how to build more difficult shapes, how to optimise.

[rksl-rock 1300]

;1925952']RKSL-Rock: all the best with finishing the last 60% of your guide. I downloaded and used your Eurofighter addon a while back and I think it's excellent by the way. Top work.

The RKSL Typhoon is made (100%) in O2.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

;1925952']One thing. I've installed "B.I Tools 2" and I was going to look at the tutorial for "Oxygen 2" so I can learn to grasp it. However' date=' you've said not to use it. As a total novice, should I use it anyway or is there a better programme? The only thing though is if a better programme means a consumer/commercial product, it will cost a bit.[/quote']

If you are interested in modelling for this game series I would recommend starting with O2. There are several reasons for it:

Again let me be clear this is my own opinion.

1. O2 forces you to think about your modelling in a game where verts and face/poly counts are critical. Most 3D packages don't.
   
2. It has a simple easy to understand interface. (if poorly documented)
   
3. Vertex modelling is often far more straight forward than solid modelling. In my experience its easier for a beginner to get to grips with.
   
4. You will have to use O2 for every model you put ingame (although you can now use Max and Modo instead but it get complicated with textures and name properties) so it pays to learn it.
   
5. Its lightweight and portable. I can run it on my crappiest laptop,
   
6. Its free. Ok there other free 3d packages out there but as i said at #4 you have to learn it so why not start with it?
   

I'm not saying it is the best package in the world but with a bit of practice you can make some pretty good stuff with it. And it will teach you to be mindfull (of the force?) of the game limits and think about optimisation.

But with the changing standards of models ingame, specifically organic (people etc) models with complex normal maps etc then its probably best you find a good 3d package. O2 isnt capable of baking high poly models down to textures and maps. But it you want to make vehicles and buildings etc O2 is perfectly adequate.

Let me finish by saying: Up until a couple of years ago I didn't bother with Max or Modo for ArmA stuff. I just used O2. Now I use a mix of Modo and O2 for ArmA2 stuff.

@Myke and Pufu

Guys, two choices left for you both...

1 - Get a room. What you do in that room is up to you. Kiss and make up, hire a pshrink, pillow fight whatever but do it privately. :D

2 - Take it to PM. We've all heard the "elitism" crap many times, couched in many different guises and rehashing it all and arguing here isnt helping anyone. ;)

Edited May 17, 2011 by RKSL-Rock

[soul_assassin 1723]

Gnat;1926224']Quality' date=' sure, theres a few limitations. But you have to have great skills to think O2 is a drag.

O2 is the ideal tool to start learning 3d modeling

IMHO. Many other tools have layer upon layer of features (like stuff to make your own movies etc) that are completely useless in the ArmA2 world.

With O2 you can quickly go from "Car with wheels" in 3d editor to "Car running on wheels!" ingame.

Unfortunately unlike may of PB's other mentioned tools, there isn't a great lot of video tutorials etc for O2.

.... win some, lose some.

Yeh, big problem with the "deeper" technology behind the game engine. Just when you were sure you had the WHOLE answer, some other factor pops up and sends you sideways, scratching for more answers.

here in lurks the danger. You see its just as easy to learn how to draw a polygon in say Blender, but time and time has shown that the more comfortable one gets with one tool, the more reluctant he is to try another. So if you start with O2 and get good at it you usually stick with it. And this is where the talent gets wasted. Yes the animation tools are useless and rendering is useless, but noone says you have to learn it, it safely tucked away behind a button, so just dont open it.

All models end up in O2 one way or another so knowing how to work with it is defenately a plus. But don't limit yourself like that. As I said, Blender can also point and click vertices and create polygons, but it also lets you create a chamfered edge, sweep an extrusion along a spline, uvunwrap with much greater ease, use symmetry and the list goes on and on. You can learn it at your own pace.

hire a pshrink

what is this animal :)

[rksl-rock 1300]

here in lurks the danger. You see its just as easy to learn how to draw a polygon in say Blender, but time and time has shown that the more comfortable one gets with one tool, the more reluctant he is to try another. So if you start with O2 and get good at it you usually stick with it. And this is where the talent gets wasted. Yes the animation tools are useless and rendering is useless, but noone says you have to learn it, it safely tucked away behind a button, so just dont open it.

All models end up in O2 one way or another so knowing how to work with it is defenately a plus. But don't limit yourself like that. As I said, Blender can also point and click vertices and create polygons, but it also lets you create a chamfered edge, sweep an extrusion along a spline, uvunwrap with much greater ease, use symmetry and the list goes on and on. You can learn it at your own pace.

I dont see starting with O2 as any limitation. Its a pretty good base tool to develop your low poly modelling skills on. When you have to create each face yourself you learn to be efficient quite quickly.

So much depends on the method you use to make the models. Most 3D packages teach people to be lazy, using the inbuilt chamfer, blend tools etc. I've seem some beautiful models made in max. Try and put them in game and you find very quickly that what looks good is just a pile of shite in a pretty outer skin.

These labour saving tools often add far too many faces that you then have to spend hours removing and optimising the mesh just so it becomes usable. Which means unwrapping and re mapping and so on. Spend some time in O2, learn the art of low poly modelling then make the jump to a 3D tool of your choice.

what is this animal :)

Psychiatrist, Therapist, Head shrinker, Marble polisher, Picnic repacker i could go on :P

Edited May 17, 2011 by RKSL-Rock

[[frl]myke 14]

No need for a room (besdies the one i'm actually in). Topic says "Beginner's guide to ArmA Modding" Project and for this, all i'm saying is that O2 is aswell a valid tool that should be evaluated amongst others. It misses some features/tools but you can get very good results with it.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Hey top gun. O2 is a pig for achieving quality if your a begginer, will need to use it but you can actually do the vast majority of the work in other programs.

Well atleast my little spark wasn't exactly off topic.

@GLT Mike, please note I didn't say that quality work with O2 was impossible, just implied that it was difficult for a begginer. I think there are plenty of examples of O2 producing quality models, but I don't think many of those modelers would fall into the 'beginers' catagory. Because to avoid problems in O2 you need to have a very clear vision of what your end result will be.

Just for the record, O2 was the first 3d modeling tool I had touched since dropping out of CAAD in the early 90's and I did learn to use it before looking at other software. In the end I found my self running into brick walls and wasting heaps of time whenever I realised that I wanted to make significant changes to my models (typical of a beginer)I also found the documentation and procceses re' texturing a bit difficult. And up untill leopatams tools I was only importing a base model and doing the rest in O2. Sure I may have become more comfortable with it over time, but it wasn't fullfilling any of my other interests in 3d modeling either.

I also agree that many of the arguments raised obout O2 being a good begginers tool are probably valid, but not for me. I was never realy happy with what I achieved in O2 but the tool options where not the same when I started. If I had to start over, today, I'd like that someone gave me the option, and I'd choose to go down the path I recomended.

So I appologise if you found my language a bit strong, but it was an opinion based on personal experience.

Now I would like to finish by saying. It would be great to see RSKL's push for documentation finalised and make it easier for people to understand O2, as it is ESSENTIAL to at least understand, and may negate the lure of secondary software for some users.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Pathetic_Berserker

[mach2infinity 12]

PuFu: regardless to whom you were addressing, if someone says they don't use a particular modelling programme; in particular someone with your experience. It's perfectly valid to enquire why. So that I know I'm starting with the platform best suited for someone of my level. I know the software of choice is up to me but I like to make an informed decision before I begin a big venture.

RKSL-Rock: I've already drawn a conclusion, the Typhoon was a superb piece of work. ;)

By extension that praises stretches to O². However, given what you said about finding a "good 3D package" for organic models. As I want to create the infantry soldiers from the "Battle: LA" film. I take it the caveat from what you've said is that O² may not be sufficient to create such models? I'm not going to be overly concerned with it right now as I haven't even started yet. Who knows how I'll get on, but I like to be aware of potential issues before they may arise.

There's some really good advice here for beginners, in amongst the disagreements. I'll stick with B.I Tools 2 and particularly O². As it's what most people have started on and as it's suited for beginners, it would be the prudent choice. I like the idea of experimenting with various platforms and the thought of trying other programmes such as 3D Studio Max and Modo later on appeals to me.

[PuFu 4591]

;1926546']PuFu: regardless to whom you were addressing' date=' if someone says they don't use a particular modelling programme; in particular someone with your experience. It's perfectly valid to enquire why. So that I know I'm starting with the platform best suited for someone of my level. I know the software of choice is up to me but I like to make an informed decision before I begin a big venture.[/quote']

fair enough. I don't use o2 because:

1. when i started messing about with addon creation, i was already familiar with the workflow of 3ds Max, as well as owning a student license for that one (and every other autodesk product out there for the matter).

2. nowadays i use max everyday for university or work projects. (reason behind max versus other software is purely based on the native .dwg import capability plus the huge amount of resources and tutorials its community produces each day).

3. I found O2 to lack a lot of tools i was accustom with in other 3d software packages, plus a different form of thinking needed to get from A to B. That said, i still had to learn some of it either way to get an addon in game.

RKSL-Rock: By extension that praises stretches to O². However, given what you said about finding a "good 3D package" for organic models. As I want to create the infantry soldiers from the "Battle: LA" film. I take it the caveat from what you've said is that O² may not be sufficient to create such models? I'm not going to be overly concerned with it right now as I haven't even started yet. Who knows how I'll get on, but I like to be aware of potential issues before they may arise.

For organic work, you'll most likely need to work with symmetry for most of the part, as well as other tools to smooth the edge flow (relax, subD etc), things that O2 doesn't have. That doesn't mean it is impossible to do it inside O2 though.

[mach2infinity 12]

All right PuFu, great stuff. Thank you. :)

[soul_assassin 1723]

fair enough. I don't use o2 because:

1. when i started messing about with addon creation, i was already familiar with the workflow of 3ds Max, as well as owning a student license for that one (and every other autodesk product out there for the matter).

2. nowadays i use max everyday for university or work projects. (reason behind max versus other software is purely based on the native .dwg import capability plus the huge amount of resources and tutorials its community produces each day).

3. I found O2 to lack a lot of tools i was accustom with in other 3d software packages, plus a different form of thinking needed to get from A to B. That said, i still had to learn some of it either way to get an addon in game.

Plus this awesome dude called Soul_Assassin made these uber tools to make your life easier :p

[PuFu 4591]

Plus this awesome dude called Soul_Assassin made these uber tools to make your life easier :p

very good point!

but this dude and i need to have a talk about adding more to 'dem tools after june :)

[f2f_bho 10]

Very Very Nice. O2 is my proverbial"Monkey Wrench" in my workflow, so it will be nice to be able to learn upto date techniques, using it so i can make modding a little bit faster.

[jedra 11]

Hi,

As this is the "Beginner's Guide To..." perhaps someone could put together some simple videos for the complete beginner in O2? It seems from the discussion above that there is a lack of this kind of resource.

I am a complete novice and I tried to get into Blender a while back, but could not get my head round it at all. I had more success with the resources I found for 3DS Max, but I only had the demo version - the full version is way out of my budget for the moment.

Simple stuff to start with - maybe a cube/box with some textures?

I certainly would find this useful.

[jtec 0]

Gnat made some brill vids to help guide new members within the modding community http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=83921 You may find them useful Jedra!