simba

Would you mind to tell us a little more Deadmeat ?

on the same subject : link

^ relax UNN I'm not sure he ment this, and like me he's trying to help. Did you try to define the animperiod in the animsources or not ?

haha, I was waiting for bd to pop up let's imagine you have a weapon with a long belt. Why don't you wanna do it via script... performance ?

The idea is certainly good but 2 things : - why should we create a new lod in order to attribute "penetration material " isn't it easier to simply do it into fire geo ? - what about this ? at the bottom

bdfy doesn't like to answer questions direclty , but I think he ment (and I agree) that you have to look in the config\animSources\animperiod and change that value if you want to play a user anim faster, at least have a look at it (It might be only for translation). In your case you gonna have to define a new animationsource in order to define the animperiod. you can use multipler param to make the weapon recoil for each shot and give it 1000 mags (or script), but that's a crappy solution. I did it via script (this animate ... )for RHS hind and I'm quite happy with the result.

imo the problems of UAVs is rather that they can't fire unguided weapons, they seem to use hellfires wish isn't the best to kill a couple of irakis. if they could carry rockets instead, they could engage much more targets.

Thanks for posting UNN, do you mean that user anim can't go very fast like some hardcoded anim ?

I mean this list is way too long, many suggestions are useless, devs will be asleep before finishing it.

anything else agreed disagreed, those suggestions will cripple gameplay. Arma II must be faster paced game, not the other way around. see ragdolls thread. not a bad idea, blast of wind would be particularly nice for air vehicles. who cares... BIS has just to hire 10 new modellers/texturers

Thanks for posting

^ there won't be a ragdolls patch for Arma. Well you can talk as much as you want about ragdolls but I doubt this is a priority for BIS anyways.

^ you cheater The thing is BIS won't be able to do all of them properly, as you know... imo that's what happend for Arma, and things weren't done properly because they didn't have enough time for polishing or getting deeper in dev. examples ? - multi turrets don't work properly for planes (who wants a B-17, AC-130H sory can't be done properly) also making the turrets closer to hand held weapons should have been done (recoil, shell ejection,...) - according to maruk, AI was exctensively reworked, anyone feels a big difference compared to ofp ? - new destruction are very simple, the bridge destruction is done via .rtm anim file, it's safe to say that nearly no work has been done to improve destruction, appart from impelementing .rtm for non human units and making the buildings sink into the ground. - HDR implementation is also partial, the blur effect only works when aiming or using camera, it should work as soon as anything is close to player's face. - now a little icon appears when close to ammo crate or vehicle, this is nice, but they should have found a real alternative to action menu. - new anims are very nice, many people seem unsatisfied with them, more testing could have outlined the flaws prior to release. - ... Now I'm happy the way they did it, even if there are some glitches left. For Arma II, I don't wan't to have semi done destruction engine or too few new gameplay features just because a part of the team has been dispatched for ragdolls.

Arma is still a kid, it will get better and better with time.

Hi Baddo, how are you mate ? if ragdolls is only about fixing those "bad dead man position", it doesn' sound very exciting... About real gameplay/look improvements I don't see much either, of course shooting with a shotgun at close range could be cool, and seing bodies falling from roofs too, or medics dragging bodies and you could see the limbs being pushed by the stones and branches,... but it ain't much. Just a question Baddo, in this list what's the order of priority for you ? - ragdolls ( as seen in other games) - deformable terrain. ( explosions digging holes, or placing trenches from editor) - improved destruction and penetration effects. ( holes in walls, cutting trees,...) - true FLIR ( each vehicle would have it's own radar signature) - better AI ( shooting from corners, hiding behind objects, covering fire,...)

Could anyone explain what's so exciting about ragdolls ? I sometimes too get all sweety in my bed for let's say... lock on like heat exhaust, but with a bit of distance it's just the kind of thing you totally forget when playing.

Arma II is our last chance to ask for features, we must now think deeply before asking for something, do you really really think shadow that ragdolls will add anything to gameplay ? because that's were lies the probs in Arma imo...

^ excellent idea.

if I had to choose between better destruction or ragdolls, it would clearly be the first.

You should be at least consistent in your complaining How does one 30-poly object manage to be any better than several discrete cubes at this? I suggest the solution that you'd accept isn't really viable. yes sorry I wasn't very clear, my point is that: - Durg use far to many boxes... why ? because he tried to exactly follow the shape of the foliage. . none should be able to hide behind such tiny branches. I also think that using more complex shapes like BIS did would considerably reduce the polycount of view geo. I personnaly never felt the need for such modification, but since it seems many people are going to use it, optimizing the thing isn't a bad idea. There are many attempt to make arma less laggy, making such unoptimized models is counter-productive imho.

agreed, was it necessary to use so many cubes to replaces only one 30 poly shape ? covering a single branch with a cube isn't realistic either, in RL you 'd see through it.

if you want to do it in O2 and if I understand well your problem, the easiest solution is make a seperate texture from your main one, apply it, then merge it into the main one again. the problem you'll encounter is that the part you cut in the main texture must be in a ^2 square/rectangle proportion and same for distance to the borders. your 1/4 example would work with this technique. edit : before considering using this method, in my knowledge even the last O2pe version doesn't support texture merging, and i f you export in old .p3d format to use the merging feature of old O2, again there is a risk it won't work. these info are just warnings not verified facts.

I think the cheap workaround simulates not too bad what happens in RL, and it's easy to do...

couldn't BIS convert the anims for you ? I know this is tricky but still...

maybe you could tell us a little more... some might find a workaround.