PuFu

It is for a very good reason - i tried not to put down my own issues with it in order not to influence others. Issues i have experienced: 1. no matter how clear the EULA was written and spread about via different social media channels, forums, etc, there are still people who will say "fuck it" i don't care, despite EULA, monetization TOS etc. This means i either need to hunt these down individually or have people report them - a lot of free time wasted on my part - yes, 100% of my many reports towards BI have been dealt with, so no issues there 2. The rules section that should be clearly visible as per monetization TOS, is ussually available only after making an account on the associated server forums 3. there is NO real control over it from BI's part in terms of what happens if server owner choose to say fuck your TOS and go ahead and set their own server rules - for now, they can only choose to close the BE for that server...not really a way to strong arm people to respect this rule - this is the most important issue out of them all = the lack of being able to spank someone into submission 4. there are people that, although do not want their addon to be monetized, they don't have the time and resources to go ahead and hunt the people that are infringing their rules. After a few reports and frustrations they ussually say fuck these and stop modding altogether - this is a hobby, and it should be treated like one. 5. there is no real overview of the situation - there should be a filter for the game server browser, and a list containing all the servers that are monetized - not the community that runs these, but their actual servers - with their respective IPs etc -> so while i do agree that for any sort of addon there should be a real framework behind it to make it work, so should be for servers - and in all truthfulness, there isn't one. 6. Most of the addons that these monetized servers are running, besides the ones they have no permission for - are ripped, stollen, ported or other half-assed content from different parts of the internet with no regards to a proper way of doing thing properly, or actual respect for other people IP rights. Allowing these sort of people to actually monetize that is anything short of supporting theft 7. Remember that it is easier for me to find about a p3d that has been ripped from RHS for instance and added to a different pbo (same shape, UVs, vertices position etc) than it is to find a custom script for instance, that is shared with the community for free as long as some ungrateful prick doesn't make some money out of it. 8. The argument that server costs money is bullshit. Everything costs money. My software licences costs money as well btw. So does the server running a website, or a test server... agreed, but if there would be no addons made for this game (again addons = any sort of custom content, not just mods) the lifespawn will surely be a lot shorter one solution would be to simply disallow any mods to be used on monetized servers by default, unless the owner comes forward with a list of addons that are to be used, and that list has permission in writing from their respective owners (and there is a real confirmation beforehand anyways). What i am trying to say is that in the current situation only one part has something to gain at the expense of everyone else...there is no real framework that allows control over the way these monetized servers are running their "business". PS: i am not saying everyone is a dick about how their run their servers, i am saying that from my own experience 80% are though

yes it can be shared of course, but tbh i don't get why one would, it will only limit the way you unwrap on the second uv set

to be more specific: i consider an addon every piece of community created content, be it mission, script, mod etc why isn't arma framework equiped to handle addon monetization?

Please forget for a second about my forums signature and the fact that i am part of RHS...there is no relation whatsoever, also, i have voted NO on all 3 above questions if that makes any difference...

why would you need 4 UV maps (although that is possible yes). using 2 multimaps is a matter of selecting faces and associating a rvmat for these faces. You cannot use 2 rvmats for the same selection if that is what you are asking.

@da12thMonkey explained it perfectly. when creating a handanim, you can simply ignore anything else but palms/hands and fingers, the rest are auto-positioned.

are you modder yourself? if not why are you basing your entire argument on something you know nothing about? PS: there is a thread for this topic already

handanims will change NOTHING BUT the hands, not the arms, not the elbows etc.

awesomesouce!

not sure why it adds sections to your p3d to be honest. the same _ca and rvmat used in a single .p3d should always count as 2 sections (one for the texture and one for the material) for a structure i usually have: 5-7 sections.

that is made on p320, but it isn't actually the same. so until there is more info on it, doubt anyone will spend time on this - i know i won't

yes but there is a high chance to have these removed at some point in the future...

i just tested this in VA, @600 and @900m i can take down an unarmed person in 1 shoot, i can do the same with a headshot no matter of the helmet used, and it takes from 2 to 3 shoot center mass for a pretty heavy armored guy (IOTV and SPC). Used same ammo and weapon as you did btw

it is actually an issue with named selections (i'm 99% sure of it) in any case, @PotonForry i've heard that argument many many times before. You will surely get your help when you'll bring original content to the table (at least that is my stance)

by looking at the same script: nameOfVehicle animateSource ["ramp",1]

1. unlikely, but you never know. If i were to personally embark to making a new model, i would rather do the Gsh-18... 2. no 3. because that is mostly used by FSB and other internal troops, which are not represented in RHS. besides, it has been replaced by vityazSN

afaik you cannot force this player side setting for everyone, but i think you could make your own script to overwrite the change of scope model

revarding the way to do it. that is not hard to do (the puddles) on an existing texture. the real problem is having them as separate objects, mainly because the thing needs to be both transparent to get the color from underneath texture and also still reflect things. the feathed edges is achieved via the alpha channel of that ca texture, nothing complicated there either

yes

not what pbo prefix does. you can try and check A2 samples for the old ones and change that if needed.

no, but you can always make a new one yourself

your hp model needs to fit inside your cage. it seems it doesn't. as tips and trick, you hp mesh should also fit inside your lp mesh as much as possible for a cleaner bake to be easier to achieve

CDF is not made based on ukrainian military. no one said it cannot be done. it is a matter of "does it really matter all that much to out effort into it, especially when that effort is not negligible"?

it is in relation to where the weapon bone is in relation to the mesh - IE whereever you made that animation, your bone and your mesh are in different positions than the defaults

http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view_all_bug_page.php