b00ce

It's a part of Blast-core. If I remember correctly, he was having issues getting it to work properly at night, with the stock BIS muzzle-flash being visible. I think it looks fine, personally. Did you ever figure that out OS? P.s. TRTkCHE1sS4 :p

Well then, how long till release? I don't wanna have to wait till X-mas. :p

Could we see some examples of these effects? I'm really curious as to what they look like.

However, binarization isn't any form of encryption, it's an optimization thing, that just happens to not be able to be read or edited by O2. That being said, I strongly doubt that anyone will be able to crack any dedicated encryption as fast as T_D did, especially considering the fact that there were similar tools out for ArmA1, it's a small step forward. Decrypting a lock would require not only a completely new program, but a new way of thinking, because, as stated before, binarization =/= encryption. Tl:Dr Encrypting a .pbo =/= binarization of a model and cracking said encryption requires a completely new program that does a completely different thing.

That goes into the realm of modeling, you'd require a MLOD from BIS, seeing as those are Takistani Army from OA. I don't know how hard that would be. You'd have to ask; they may be generous and give you a couple MLODs to modify, who knows? If not, you'd have to start from scratch, boot, helmet and everything in between, and do the whole solider and create a UV, and what not. Sounds easy, right? :rolleyes: I'm going to have to do the latter with future endeavors. ;) Edit: It's 3d now :D

They're only calling you a thief if you actually stole something. Did you steal anything? No? So you're not being called a thief. And there you go again, telling people to not release addons. The optional lock would give them peace of mind and allow them to feel somewhat secure from thieves. Where you're getting confused and thinking people are calling you a thief is because people rant about how they "NEED" to browse .pbos to answer to some OCD tick, or whatever the reason is. What people are saying is that it's disrespectful to the addon maker for taking a peek. (Personally I don't care if you look into my .pbos, I come from the G-mod community, there is no .pbo to undo) What I do frown upon is the 1-2% of unscrupulous community members who think it's ok to steal other people's work. I know how it feels to have work stolen, back in my Gmod days some ass-hat stole a map of mine and uploaded it as his own, it's infuriating to say the least. All locking .pbos will do is keep the small time people out and discourage people from stealing. If you want to mill about, or have any questions, ask the addon maker via PM. 10 times outa' 10 he will help you out.

371 for ArmA2 and OA. (God bless steam) I can't even count all the hours I spent playing other games from my childhood. So I'd say a good 12 years.

If you tell people to not release their addons, they WON'T. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it, no more addons. :eek: And as for the "Being forced on bit"; it wouldn't be. What part of optional do you not understand? It is a choice for the addon maker to decide whether or not to "protect" his .pbo. Like I said, if every single .pbo was locked I would be against the idea, but this isn't the case. I'd rather have a whole bunch of addon makers who feel better about releasing really high quality addons because they "locked" their .pbo, then having next to no addons because people are too afraid of theft to release. Like I said earlier, you get to still have your unlocked .pbo, and the paranoid people, some of them rightfully so (Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't anyone out to get you.), get to sleep at night even though they have models floating around. Personally, I wouldn't lock my .pbos when I really get going on my USCM mod, if I had the option. That's just me, I don't give a fuck. But because I won't use an option, doesn't mean I want to keep everybody else from using it also. This would have no impact on the end user, save for the one that likes to snoop around. Even then it'll be hit and miss. Some people will choose to not lock up. And I'm sure if you asked the addon maker for help he/ she/ it will be more than happy to help.

And I will too. Like Dwarden said, it will always be possible to break into these sort of things. The analogy of locking your doors and windows at night holds true, if you do elect to lock things down it will afford SOME protection from burglars and the sort, however it is not, and never will be, fool proof. So far, the pro-choice people have made more and better points as to why it should be available for addon makers to choose whether or not to lock .pbos, the only valid rebuttal I've seen so far is the ability of thieves to hide behind the veil of a locked .pbo. But frankly, you should know your own work enough to be able to spot it in game from a mile away, so it shouldn't be too big of an issue. Personally, I'm all for allowing an option for an addon maker to lock his work if he deems it necessary. This has nothing to do with anything ArmA community related, I'm pro choice when it comes to every conceivable topic. If a choice is being stripped from someone, that's a freedom they don't have, and I like freedoms. If ALL .pbos were to be locked I'd be against it (Even though it would probably be for the better, IMO), but this is not the case, it would be an option, nothing more. However, I believe that locking .pbos should be strongly recommended, much like locking car and house doors and windows. With the option, people who do not want their .pbos to be locked can leave them unlocked, so people can browse at their leisure, and people who want them locked, for what ever reason (Be it IP protection, forcing addon makers to contact them for questions, preventing people from modifying the work so bug fixes can be made easier, etc.) can lock them. It's a Win win. Pros of a lockable .pbo option: Some protection from thieves Bonding of the community through cooperation More and better quality addons because people are sharing knowledge Less theft of peoples' work You don't have to if you don't want to Cons of a lockable .pbo option: BIS has to spend time and money that isn't devoted strictly to developing ArmA. Personally I'd rather see a new feature in the engine, like Render to texture than lockable .pbo files. ;) It CAN be abused (Much like anything else in life) think of it like a house people can hide stolen things in their houses, but that isn't a reason we shouldn't have them, now is it? It can be a minor inconvenience to talk to people and ask how things work and get good feedback (Gasp) Addon makers can go on holiday and/or be MIA for a while, so you'll just have to wait, or ask other people. (Oh noez)

It's way too clean (Especially the helmet), muddy it up a bit with scratches bumps and dirt and what not and you'll be golden. Also, use of the super-shader won't hurt either. :) Edit: Is that Niko Bellic?

While flying around in an A-10, I had a brilliant epiphany. Instead of making the HUD display close to the player, where it gets inaccurate when doing maneuvers, turning your head, etc., make the HUD bigger and further away, outside the cockpit a ways, and slightly larger to account for the change. This will emulate the effect that real holographic HUDs give and mitigate, or even solve that annoying bug where the HUD is terribly inaccurate. Just like in real life it's not going to be spot on, but it's going to be better than it is now. For those who aren't familiar with how LODS work, you wouldn't see this from outside the aircraft, and it wouldn't have any issues with collisions because only the pilot will be able to see it. If you run into something nose first you may have an issue with seeing it, but it's going to be the least of your worries if your airplane is nose to nose with a structure. ;) (I don't know if it's going to behave like the "pilot" LOD for a human or not, if it does then there won't be an issue and you'll see it no matter what.) I know these can be turned off (EX when the engine is off), so for helicopters with HUDs that can be moved out of the way, such as a UH-1Y or any Mi-17 or Mi-8 with rockets, the HUD way out yonder can be switched off while the HUD moves, so the player doesn't see a floating cross in space. Is this even possible? I know the HUDs are scripted, but they seem to be placed on a plane in 3D space, so it would stand to reason that wouldn't matter if it's 10 inches or 10 feet from your face. Forgive me for my ignorance. :o I wish my dropship was in game and ready for flying to test this hypothesis and get back to you guys with some concrete feedback on the viability of the idea, but sadly it isn't anywhere close. :( Hopefully someone can take this idea and run with it, I'd love to see this implemented.

So would the player's head move more as a result of this? or is it just excessive gees because the plane is super maneuverable? And in the F-16 that you picked up, the glass is near invisible, I can barely tell it's there in places, so I don't think it'll make a difference.

Peace through superior fire-power. I hope you can see where I'm going with this.:cool:

Couldn't we just... you know... get rid of the glass? :cheesy:

Great to know you're still going to be releasing addons, Rock. :D

I understand the basic principle of how the HUDs work in real life, hence the suggestion. :p What I was saying is move that text forward and the glass that the HUD is normally on is empty. And that effect of appearing on top of anything is going to help us overcome the cockpit glass mucking up our works. Unless you mean that the HUD will shine through solid elements, which could be problematic. However, for the exterior supports (IE A-10) this could be a blessing in disguise because those COULD "move" far enough to obscure the HUD if enough Gees were pulled. And I think the HUD support itself should be safe because it's close enough to the screen. Again, I could be completely off base in my thought process. (I'm not down deep enough in the rabbit hole that is ArmA modding yet to know the intricate details... :rolleyes: ) Perhaps you could run a quick proof of concept with an F-16 and see how that goes. :D

Blastcore will make you a goddamn sexual tyrannosaurus, just like OS. :p

For all the people beating me to the punch and berating the trolls; +1. As long as RKSL is releasing addons (Be it publicly, or underground), I'm happy.

Render to texture can't cost THAT much, Half life: 2 only costs 9.99$. ;) I'm really stoked to see all of the variety. This is going to be monumental. Are there other helicopters planned down the road once the Apache is done?

If only... :( Render to texture would add so much to ArmA. I really wish BIS would implement it, I know it's possible, and it shouldn't be too big of a hit on FPS either. (It isn't in source, and it's used EVERYWHERE.) So much immersion can be added with this simple little thing it's not funny, working car/ airplane rear-view mirrors, scopes that aren't that hideous black ring, and the MFD panels. I'm sure there are even more uses I'm forgetting too. Tl;Dr, it's an infinite good. The Apache is looking better and better every day. Keep it up Nod.

Do Mk. 82s and GBU 12s have sparks? :confused:

Absolute sex. I'm really looking forward to this.

Dat texture... :eek: The fibers... I can see fibers and intricate details, and it's not even overdone...

It's theoretically possible, walking around inside the cabin, but would require an engine update, along with all of the effected models and the sort being completely overhauled. It's more trouble than it's worth.