scubaman3D

I've been working on improving the already great textures by Dasquade for the SCARs:

You completely ignored my argument about constitutional abuse. Sometimes people are "flexing" the constitution so much that it is breaking. The constitution is clear in that it says anything that cannot be ascertained from the text, the bill of rights, and the rest of the amendments should fall to the states. Still, the federal government continues to trample on states rights by "bending" the constitution to consolidate more power to itself, rather than leaving the decisions to the states. I already gave the example of this false doctrine of the "seperation of church and state" - which is a statement not found in the constitution. The abortion debate and homosexual "rights" also should fall under the state authority - for voters in each state to decide on matters like this. Neither of these issues are mentioned in the constitution. So I would say the flexibility of the constitution comes because it limits the power that the federal government should exercise. When new issues arise, they should be left to the state to decide - and if then, the states decide to let the fed deal with it - so be it.

But this wasn't a federal courthouse - it was an Alabama state court. So you believe the framers of the constitution intended to make such displays illegal or is this your interpretation around the "flexible" 1st amendment? Also, you apparently don't believe in state's rights or respecting the majority opinion of the country. CNN reported that only 20% of people polled nation-wide supported the removal of the display, while 80% said the courthouse should be able to keep it. This was a clear case of dictation from the supreme court, making laws as they go.

Or maybe they are bending the constitution to fit their needs. I think many of the abuses taking place, which are supposedly "constitutional" were never intended by the framers. For example, this doctrine of the seperation of church and state does not appear in the constitution in the fashion by which it is exercised today. In fact, this phrase isn't even in the 1st Ammendment The state cannot establish an official state religion but that doesn't mean they intended it to be illegal to have a monument of the 10 commandments in Alabama, outside a courthouse or a nativity scene at a town hall during Christmas time. It didn't matter that polls in Alabama showed 80 some % of people wanted them there. Hell, the supreme court has a monument of Moses and the 10 commandments in their courthouse too. The forefathers were clearly not atheist and, in fact, most of them were Christian. It would seem strange they would frame a constitution to make these sort of displayed illegal, when they themselves approved of the symbolism. What you are describing by "flexible", I call judicial dictation.

I see one big problem and one smaller one. First you're using an M16/M4 upper and lower receiver and a 20rnd 5.56mm magazine in your model. The M110 and SR25 fire a 7.62mm projectile and has modified upper/lowers. The smaller problem: They don't make M110's in black. They're all "dark-flat-earth" colored. There are SR-25s (the rifle from which the M110 was designed), which are black out there. They're almost identical, with just a few configuration changes. I would probably suggest calling it a "KAC rifles" addon, rather than an M110 pack.

Here's another gadget I'm working on for mine and Dasquade's SCARs. Its an Aimpoint CompM4S.

Ok, the M110s are done. Here is the MK13 wip. Next, I think, will be the CompM4S version of the SCARs and then onwards and upwards.

I'll texture if you model it

thanks for the effort on that tut.

right, there wasn't an export to obj, only 3ds. And yeah, I think you loose UV info also when you export as old p3d and then to obj. You loose it at the old p3d-to-obj step.

After trying everything I could possible think of and asking several more experienced modders, I finally I had to drop the parallax effect from my stuff. I stubbornly began to realize that for how little the parallax effect adds, it just isn't worth the downsides. My reticule is slightly in front of the glass, so you can't see the ret while walking/looking at the gun but its also difficult to see when not aiming through the sight. Unfortunately, this is what I found to be the best compromise. My setup

Thats good to know. At least it should be "technically" possible. There probably isn't any way around the animation problem. It should be ok in 1st person but 3rd person might be obviously strange looking. @MehMan Thanks, I'm glad you think so. I have good teachers. Dasquade and Panda, namely - and for as much as I can resent criticism, I have learned a lot through it.

Yeah, we're adding a full flight simulator and tank simulator with clickable cockpits - something more like Janes F/A-18 than Lock ON - since we're only volunteers.

Here is something I've been working on with help from Dasquade. Its a standalone grenade launcher. The thing I'm wondering about is how best to implement it in ArmA. I'm leaning towards having this added to the pistol slot. Aside from animations, does anybody know if this would be a problem? Some technical data: 6.4k tris, 2 sections Picture is rendered with diffuse only.

Are you referring to the LWRC SABR? No. That will not be in this pack - though it had caught my eye when I was gathering references for the IAR model I made. I think the planned SR25k and the SCAR H are plenty in the 7.62mm assault rifle role.

Nothing much new to report. I've been away for business. Now I'm sick - and I'll be pretty well busy through most of the week. Still, work is continuing, however slowly.

I knew this was going to turn into some bullshit debate. Hats off to the Marines. Now, on to business. No, terrorism doesn't necessitate the attack of civilians, only.

Nobody disagrees with this. Nobody is calling for the elimination of all social programs in the US. Everybody recognizes their significance. Most people disagree with their implementation and the extend of their funding.

Are you incapable of having a reasonable debate with somebody? I think my opinions are fairly balanced - as I admit that social programs have their role in society. I just do not agree that we need to take it to the extreme view you have. In addition, I could lob the same accusation to you of "missing the point", since you obviously didn't read my post closely enough to realize that what you said here: Is exactly what I said here: So, now are you disagreeing with me only for the sake of proving yourself "righter" than me? It appears that we will never agree on the role of government in society. You would prefer to be a slave to your government, and I would like to be more free from it. And what is this "good sir" trash? Â What are you? Some sort of noble from the middle ages? Pseudo-Intellectualism.

I couldn't disagree more. Your philosophy is backwards from where I stand. We do not owe the government anything. Our sweat, blood and tears forged the government out of nothing. We do not live to "repay" the government. Also, if history has proven anything, its that the least educated among us are those on welfare the most. It absolutely fosters an attitude of laziness because it is almost always implemented incorrectly by Democrats. You know why? You cannot govern behavior, you can only incentiveize people. How can you provide incentive when a person goes from making $13/hr to $14/hr, will loose almost all of their benefits - like what happened to a good friend of mine in NY state (where we have social medicine). You know, she actually turned down a promotion because of this. We have created disgusting conditions which holds the lower class down where they are because making the jump to the next level is simply too costly. Also, implementing it correctly - which I have a couple creative ideas about, would have an incredibly high initial costs for several years. It would likely double the amount of money we'd have to spend on it because initially more people would have to be in the system. It will get too expensive to do it "right" and in a free society like America - the people eventually make a stand against higher and higher taxes. Nobody is proposing the elimination of these social programs and there certainly needs to be a balance. I have said before, most tax payers simply resent those individuals taking advantage of the system. Lets find creative ways to encourage them to get off the system, get them educated so they realize the government isn't just a gravy train. Also, there are plenty of places to cut spending to free up more money for social programs. Raising taxes to ungodly amounts should only be a last resort. Speaking of which, it is a travesty that under obama's proposed tax plan, there will be people in this country paying 60% of their income to the government. It is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, you are 60% your way to marxism. An interesting poll I saw recently shows most people feel the maximum amount that a person should ever be taxed is 40% (don't ask for the reference, I don't remember). But we are already taxing our people that much under the evil "Bush tax cuts".

Too bad we can't use the thermal sight featured in that vid !

Another WIP: Loki, I'm glad you have taken such an interest in this addon but there will not be any "night variants". Credit to Dasquade for the base model (lower receiver, stock, barell, and misc) and Panda (hand guards). I know there is some lighting problem on the stock. I need to figure out a way to fix it.

I agree 100% You cannot govern behavior. The sooner people figure out that they shouldn't rely on the government to take care of them and they go out and work hard to obtain independence from the government, the sooner their life will improve.

Thanks guys for the complements. I'm adding a few more details here and there for the M110 and then it will be ready. There are some other cool weapons that will be tossed in (Carl Gustav, M249 Para, a new SCAR or two, and hopefully the EGLM standalone). Some more units coming soon to, from ardvarkdb. Stay tuned

Could be part of it. We call it "white guilt" here. Like I said, we do not need affirmative action policies any longer. A black man has obtained the highest office in the land and is now arguably the most powerful person in the world. Anyways, it was a decisive victory and although he does not appear to believe in the constitution, I do. So for now, he is my president. Even though I fundamentally disagree with obama on so many levels its difficult to keep track, and even though I don't trust him as far as I can throw him, he will start with an A and work backwards - which he has already begun to do with some of the appointments he is making. So far he is showing no signs that he is willing to "reach across the isle".