max power

They tend to do interiors if it's important to the functioning of the vehicle, or if it's part of the infantry experience. For instance, if you have men in the cargo seat positions, you're going to want to have some kind of view in there. Otherwise, you'd be waiting in blackness with nothing to do. You can't tell me though, that the inside of a tank that you can't even see out of, and aids gameplay in no way, is the same thing as the inside of a troop transport or the cockpit of an aircraft. ---------- Post added at 12:48 ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 ---------- There was no aggressiveness intended. When I type I just mean what I mean in plain English and I'm not implying anything. For instance here, when I say 'plain English', I'm not implying you have a problem understanding the English language. I just mean that if you read what I say plainly, you'll probably get an accurate read of my intention. Also, this forum has reached a state where literally nothing I see being brought up hasn't been said and discussed thoroughly before. This is probably the 5th or 6th time I've contributed to a discussion on the topic of 'why doesn't BI just hire slaves, then we can have all the things with no cost'. In this industry, you define your own value, more or less. Right now you've defined your value to be $0, which is likely a dramatic under-appraisal.

You can get away with something further from the wall than you think. You also might try playing with the z priority of the faces by selecting your billboard and going to faces/move to top or move to bottom and seeing if that makes a difference. Unfortunately, the z buffer, the thing used to calculate the draw order based on distance, uses a ratio that gets less accurate the further you get away. Usually, the buffer is more than adequate to accommodate the range of distances seen in games but this game has a very wide range. The result is this 'z-fighting' artifact you're seeing there, as the renderer can't really tell which thing to render first, it's rendering bits and pieces of each per pixel per frame.

By what I heard at e3, it seems like the issue is more that the RL helicopters cost 10 fps everytime you board one. Also, I remember reading something a while back about Rotorlib being hard to reconcile with PhysX in that it was hard to get them to work together.

Specifically, what is against the EULA is altering a product without permission to do so. In order to use several mods, you need some compatibility. Usually, if addons are built to be used in arma, and are designed properly, you can use several of them together. Addons designed to be used with the core game can also sometimes work in other Mods. Since DayZ is a total conversion mod, and no doubt alters several things on a fundamental level, likely there is no way to make it and arma 2 work together. Without knowing much of anything about DayZ itself, I think the approach you would need is to develop a mod for DayZ, not for Arma 2. Since DayZ is a mod for Arma 2, Arma 2's content is already included even if it's not used. The idea here is that you would make configs for the Arma 2 content already present.

Please use the addon request thread PartyHead indicated. It's where you can see if a mod already exists or if anyone wants to make one if it doesn't.

These actions are forbidden by the EULA. Publishing an addon or missions that use other peoples' work without permission is bannable on the forums. The appropriate action would be to ask the content owners for permission, or to be supplied with the files you require.

Because projects have a budget... Because skilled professionals don't work for free. Because you get what you pay for. Because when you're asking someone to do something for free, you get what you get, and it takes time / money to keep track of all of these and their commitments / schedules. Because people who are doing stuff in their spare time are often not able to meet hard deadlines or sometimes even do anything on what they've committed to do. Not to mention it's questionable to have someone getting paid a decent living doing one job and someone slaving away for no compensation doing the same thing. It's easy to say 'people will help out'. But how about you? Would you commit every second of your spare time for the next 3 months on a project you a) aren't getting paid for and b) aren't free to define your own timeline / quality / specifications / workflow / ??? and c) other people are getting paid for doing the exact same thing and then they have spare time on top of it? There is a massive difference between doing a passion project for yourself, and doing work for a company.

In terms of machineguns, they're used as carbines as well, and they always have. It's another expression of the same problem- there's simply no real disadvantage.

structure/convexity/find non-convexities To make sure your components are indeed convex. Select non-convex components and do structure/convexity/component convex hull To create some convex hulls over ones that aren't convex. Then you have to make sure you double check that didn't break your components by crossing faces or other weird stuff. Then, identify your convex components to the program using structure/topology/find components Did you try changing the alpha priority of your object? This is an alpha problem you're experiencing, so manipulating the face alpha would probably be a good area of exploration.

I think BI's particle effects are usually very large so you can see them at long range.

Are you sure your viewgeolod was created with convex components and the components were validated? You might try saving a copy of your scene and selecting the faces in your resolution lod and choosing faces/move to bottom as an experiment.

Do any other objects have this problem in the glass?

Your axes (axises) are positioned properly? The skeleton for the wheels has the wheel axes is in the correct order? The axes for the wheels are included in the named selections that turn the wheels right and left?

Well, I guess the same logic would stand. For every tank interior they make, they could make a whole other vehicle.

If they have budgeted their time (and money) correctly, they have exactly 0 extra time before their release date to ram in features that aren't in their design document. Ideally, they have planned out their sprints already and so everyone is 100% loaded for the duration of their development cycle. If this is true, you're basically asking people to work overtime (more than game devs already work) to plan, spec out, and implement a feature that isn't supported by their art assets or anything else. Or, you're asking them to push back some other work that was planned to fill that time. Even after the main development ends, they will be shuffling people around to work on DLCs or other products to keep everyone moving and productive. My point is that I think adding features is pretty cool, and they schedule it in on occasion, but they aren't going to commit expensive resource to putting in something they aren't going to use. You'd be better off trying to convince them that they need it for their own product, I think.

Committing the programming team to create/shoehorn/hack in contentless hidden features is a waste of time and money.

I removed your image to hide your link. Don't worry, staff and administrators can view the edit history of your post and see it if they so desire. I advise you with sincere concern not to install any 'hacks'. We have had countless cases of people having their cd keys stolen by viruses contained in hack files. Thank you for your report.

You can make faces planar by triangulating them. Triangles cannot be non-planar. Think though that warning flags are just warnings, and the real problems show up in the arma.rpt.

Proof pl0x. I think you're saying that if I create a vehicle for arma, and hand place every polygon, write every line of config code, and paint every pixel of texture, that US law demands that it's property of BI despite BI explicitly releasing copyright to the orginal authors. Sounds far fetched.

Mig-17s have all teh wing fences!

The issue is that to say that someone's claim is ridiculous based on another, unrelated claim is not logically cogent. Facts here |==================| facts over here. <=== not related. I can like hockey but hate golf regardless of whether they are two sports played with sticks.

Humorous thinks are often not logically cogent.

Hi. This has been discussed. Please use the search function before opening a new thread. Closing.

Thunderchief has no wing fences.

I believe that would be what we call a 'red herring' in the field of critical thinking, Flogger23m.