WarFX Particles

[megagoth1702 252]

Anybody?

Yea it is.

Basicly the name Blastcore refers to the whole package in total not just the particles side of things so when you get "WarFX : Blastcore" it will contain the particles, sounds & and a bunch of other stuff.

Oh btw i need some help, does anyone know of a way to activate a script via .sqf from a weapons config file? Im trying to add backblast and muzzle effects to the AT launchers like the M136 and also my muzzleflashes wont work on rifles even tho ive set them up for the. Cheers

There we go. :)

[Opticalsnare 12]

Yeh its basicly just a new name, i also dont like the idea of having version numbers anymore but codenames. also WarFX : Blastcore is the name of the package in whole, which will contain the particles, sounds and some other stuff. Although your still be able disable each one.

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

So will all of this be compatible with ACE?

[Opticalsnare 12]

Dunno, dont really care.

[SgtVebo 10]

Warfx has always worked fine for me with ACE, but i agree, modders should'nt go out of there way to make their mods compatible with ACE.

[Berliner19 0]

Warfx has always worked fine for me with ACE, but i agree, modders should'nt go out of there way to make their mods compatible with ACE.

I Think it really doesent care modders if his Mods are Ace compatible or not.

[kremator 1065]

Don't want to delay Blastcore just to make it ACE compatible.

[fidai 12]

Don't want to delay Blastcore just to make it ACE compatible.

who cares about ace we are just waiting for BC :)

[UncleKeith 10]

Dunno, dont really care.

haha nice... what everyone seems to forget is the question isnt "is it compatible with ace?" its "is ace compatible with it?".

[Paintface 10]

i get the warning when starting the game that i need extended eventhandlers, i downloaded CBA and used the @cba approach + copied the pbo file in the warfx folder to no avail. What am i doing wrong?

[manzilla 1]

i get the warning when starting the game that i need extended eventhandlers, i downloaded CBA and used the @cba approach + copied the pbo file in the warfx folder to no avail. What am i doing wrong?

Try not copying and pasting. Just use the CBA mod folder.

Not sure if that will do it but it's worth a try.

---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------

haha nice... what everyone seems to forget is the question isnt "is it compatible with ace?" its "is ace compatible with it?".

As long as it still uses CBA there shouldn't be any problems.

It's not that people forget, it all depends on what side of the argument they fall on. Me, I don't complain either way. I really have know right to badger either party. It's there own work, they can do what they want with it. If something doesn't meet one's standards, well, then they just shouldn't use it. Plain and simple.

All that really should matter is whether things are compatible with the actual game. ;)

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

omg looking at some of the vids for this I really can't wait for BC to be released! Keep up the great work OS!

[mosh 0]

Dunno, dont really care.

Thank you for that. I'm glad you feel that way. :)

Your work is some of the best I've seen and I can't thank you enough.

[Mudkip 0]

Will Blastcore and CSM2 be like 'companion' mods?

[fideco 1]

Dunno, dont really care.

Yes,

Do not delay BC

Ace can be queued....

Thanks again for your work!

Cheers

[Opticalsnare 12]

What is reallllly annoying is that i could create some really stunning effects using .sqf methods and other scripts. Only problem is the more scripts being run causes some massive power drains on performance. :(

[snkman 351]

Hi Opticalsnare,

i know you are doing a lot of your FX config based so i was thinking to switch to this too but like you already said config based FX can not be coded the same way like scripted FX. Config based FX are some kind of static.

Well may the best solution would be a good balance between config and scripted FX?

[DRoberts69 10]

What is reallllly annoying is that i could create some really stunning effects using .sqf methods and other scripts. Only problem is the more scripts being run causes some massive power drains on performance. :(

Could always release two versions for high end and low end PC's if you really wanted to make one of them look that much better.

[bigpickle 0]

What is reallllly annoying is that i could create some really stunning effects using .sqf methods and other scripts. Only problem is the more scripts being run causes some massive power drains on performance. :(

How massive exactly? cos I would emagine that most of the people in here have pc's in the mid - upper range to run arma well tbh, so would it be that much of an issue.

Maybe make a small test mod? with the best effects for say 500lb bombs using .sqf methods in it, and then people can post how there systems handled it and the you would be able to get an average of what level of scripting you will be able to use to get the best effects.

[kremator 1065]

Interesting idea Bigpickle to test performance and see where the cutoff is for each machine.

[Opticalsnare 12]

Ar its serously horrendous, were talking like -30fps whilst the script is running.

[kremator 1065]

LOL for some people that would be great !

I understand what you mean however.

[mr burns 132]

Ar its serously horrendous, were talking like -30fps whilst the script is running.

The way ArmA2 handles/schedules scripts now is known to be suffering from some issues. While smaller scripts mostly run without any problems at all, the bigger ones make the new scheduling very noticeable, e.g. DAC can now take up to 2 minutes for initializing something thats taken 20 seconds in ArmA1.

Have you tried .fsm instead of .sqf? I harldy know anything about it so it might aswell be impossible to achieve the desired results, but there are people who actually understand it and are rewriting some of their sqf code to regain that last bit of performance.

[snkman 351]

To my knowledge F.S.M. is nothing else like a GUI based .sqf.

There is no big different by using F.S.M. or using a function which was executed with "call".

Functions which was executed with "call" do not have schedules.

[mr burns 132]

Functions which was executed with "call" do not have schedules.

That mean: Opteryx having many functions using call, thus using no scheduler and overriding the games own crucial calculations = -30 FPS ?

Would be a dead end then :confused: