-duke-

ok, i'll make it a bit slower. I have a few questions Symbiot that have been nagging at me a bit: 1. Rain direction: I wonder if there is a way to have it coordinate with wind direction because smoke and debris seem to blow with the wind so I'm curious as to why rain can't? 2. Visibility: I think your on the right track if visibility is reduced through rain. This is the way it is in the real world as well, the harder the rain, the worse the visibility. Varying degrees of visibility would be an asset to this mod IMHO. The only worry I have about limited visibility is that it should also affect enemy AI, they already see too damn good. As for the large, horizontal rain droplets, I fully understand if they are meant to simulate water droplets running from the helmet. Anyone who's worn a hat in rainfall will see the exact same effect as the rain tends to accumulate on any slight vertical surface prior to succumbing to gravity. I believe this is called surface tension. This effect would also be great if it were timed so it doesn't kick in until rain has had time to start running down a soldiers cover (a few seconds to a minute, depending on rainfall). Anyway, just some more feedback, take it for what it is. Either way, I really like what your doing with this mod which is why I'm following it as anxiously as I am. As it is, it's already much better than the default rain so you should be proud.

NP Symbiot, glad to help. @ TheVoodoo, Wow, good eye. I never noticed that until you mentioned it. I was standing there like a n00b, waiting for the lightening to strike because I felt it would ad as much contrast to the rain effect as possible. All in all, the new rain adds a lot more to the game than the default rain does so I'm pretty happy with it and will continue to use it in place of the default. That said, I look eagerly await any and all future versions of this mod.

First off, I want to say that this is by far the best I've seen any rain in ArmA so very great work Symbiot!!! The only reason I'm providing any critique is because you asked for input on your first post. I think the speed looks really good as does the blowing rain sweeping in at a 45 degree (ish) angle. The only thing I'm not crazy about is the straight, vertical lines of rain, I'm assuming that is to simulate rain running off the helmet. I've included the following image for your review. Again, this is not a major critique at all, merely something that I believe looks a bit unnatural. Cheers. Symbiot Rain LARGE Since I'm adding input I guess I'll ask something else that I'm not sure of and too big a n00b to actually do for myself. Is there any way to make rain drip off the barrel of a weapon? <---EDIT---> I just thought I'd add, is there any way to get the angled rain blowing in from the top left or right corner (depending on wind direction) instead of just dropping straight down?

For the life of me I can't remember my CodeM info so I went to YouTube for the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL4aEYbJvf4 It definitely looks like a splash video or perhaps an FMV. Chilling to think that one day, games will actually look like that though, can't wait.

For the life of me I can't remember my CodeM info so I went to YouTube for the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL4aEYbJvf4 It definitely looks like a splash video or perhaps an FMV. Chilling to think that one day, games will actually look like that though, can't wait.

Marketing BS my ass. So are you saying that he shouldn't have upgraded his system for other games using it because they cant figure it out? Going from a P4 to Q6600 was totally worth it. Anyways, i'm going to hold my judgement about Arma2 until we see details(hopefully in a couple days). I'm sure they have something nice stuck up their sleeve and are rofl at some forum posts(i hope *gulp*). But I really hope they make the 2008 release date. Mid 2009 i'll be in USMC boot camp. Again, the BS is on your side, not mine. Performance gains from a P4 to a C2D has nothing to do with the core count, it has to do with the fact that the entirely different architecture within any one of the Core core's is vastly more efficient than the hotplate legacy P4's. Secondly, I call shenanigans on the other games that claim to be 'optimized' for dual cores. I cite the mountains of threads of people pointing out how their applications run smoother and faster when they lock their affinity. Additionally, the so-called optimization is generally little more than forking off little nigglies like more smoke particles, which are intrinsically multi-tasking friendly, but a minuscule part of the entire linear simulation cycle on CPU load. The more serious and complex parts still remain sequential - AI, viewport, collision, visualization, all those inherently require preceding logic to be executed, in sequential order. Guaranteeing that they will be executed in proper order across multiple independently scheduled threads is an entirely impractical mess. You know something, it's guys like you that make a community like this so great. You get one little bug in your arse about what someone says and you think anything you have to add comes out as a pearl instead of the sh1t nugget it really is. All I did was make a simple comment on how I wish the game ran more fluidly and you decided to ram it down my throat. I don't know if you run any of your own sites my friend, but this is not a recipe for healthy communication. You're right, I don't know how to create software to utilize multi core CPU's but Adobe does so clearly someone's doing it. I believe Alan Wake will also be optimized for multi-core CPU's so it can be done, hence my remark.

Marketing BS my ass. So are you saying that he shouldn't have upgraded his system for other games using it because they cant figure it out? Going from a P4 to Q6600 was totally worth it. Anyways, i'm going to hold my judgement about Arma2 until we see details(hopefully in a couple days). I'm sure they have something nice stuck up their sleeve and are rofl at some forum posts(i hope *gulp*). But I really hope they make the 2008 release date. Mid 2009 i'll be in USMC boot camp. Again, the BS is on your side, not mine. Performance gains from a P4 to a C2D has nothing to do with the core count, it has to do with the fact that the entirely different architecture within any one of the Core core's is vastly more efficient than the hotplate legacy P4's. Secondly, I call shenanigans on the other games that claim to be 'optimized' for dual cores. I cite the mountains of threads of people pointing out how their applications run smoother and faster when they lock their affinity. Additionally, the so-called optimization is generally little more than forking off little nigglies like more smoke particles, which are intrinsically multi-tasking friendly, but a minuscule part of the entire linear simulation cycle on CPU load. The more serious and complex parts still remain sequential - AI, viewport, collision, visualization, all those inherently require preceding logic to be executed, in sequential order. Guaranteeing that they will be executed in proper order across multiple independently scheduled threads is an entirely impractical mess. You know something, it's guys like you that make a community like this so great. You get one little bug in your arse about what someone says and you think anything you have to add comes out as a pearl instead of the sh1t nugget it really is. All I did was make a simple comment on how I wish the game ran more fluidly and you decided to ram it down my throat. I don't know if you run any of your own sites my friend, but this is not a recipe for healthy communication. You're right, I don't know how to create software to utilize multi core CPU's but Adobe does so clearly someone's doing it. I believe Alan Wake will also be optimized for multi-core CPU's so it can be done, hence my remark.

I love ArmA to be perfectly honest so I'm really looking forward to ArmA II. That said, I really hope they don't use the same burned out vehicle wrecks because they look horrible now, using them in the next version is not a good idea. I don't mind the color of ArmA though because real life is vibrant in color, no reason a combat sim shouldn't be. It would be nice if they added some wildlife to the environment though because the current gameworld of ArmA is really just a barren wasteland with some insects in it. I also hope they optimize ArmA for multi-core CPU's. There is no reason that anyone running good hardware should be stuck with under 30 FPS at any time in any environment IMHO.

I love ArmA to be perfectly honest so I'm really looking forward to ArmA II. That said, I really hope they don't use the same burned out vehicle wrecks because they look horrible now, using them in the next version is not a good idea. I don't mind the color of ArmA though because real life is vibrant in color, no reason a combat sim shouldn't be. It would be nice if they added some wildlife to the environment though because the current gameworld of ArmA is really just a barren wasteland with some insects in it. I also hope they optimize ArmA for multi-core CPU's. There is no reason that anyone running good hardware should be stuck with under 30 FPS at any time in any environment IMHO.

I finally had a chance to try this sound mod for the first time as I've been using the one by FDF_Sounds for the past few weeks. I have to say that I agree with many of the posts in here; this is a great sound mod and would be a lot better if my weapon sounds were just a bit louder. Other than that, seems to be a great sound mod so far, nice work!

I had to null my vote because the only sound mod I've tried is the FDF SoundPack. I must admit that I really like the sound of it so far. I just dl'd chammy's sound mod and hope to give that a try over the next day or so. I have an 00ber desert battle with armor, helo's and all kinds of infantry so I'm hoping it provides good enough feedback over which mod (if any) is more immersive. BTW, to all mod makers, you all do a terrific job and should be proud of your product regardless of who comes out with the top vote. The fact that you put so much time and effort into making this already good game, great, deserves all of our collective appreciation.

Does anyone know where we can find a list of available sound sources? Thanks.

Big Thanks Bravo6 for posting the code! I'll definitely give this a try this upcoming weekend.

Would something from here work: http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ParticleTemplates

I'm also very interested in how to make it so all the clients hear the sounds in MP, it really makes no sense to use it otherwise. Also bravo6, can you post the code you used for running the script on as a trigger?

It would also be cool if you could have a few grunts actually loading the ammo as well or at least simulated.

I actually think a lot of these topics should be pinned because they are extremely helpful. It would almost be better if they were catalogued in a pinned topic and just linked to within that topic.

Why not post it here so anyone with a similar need can give it a try?

yes, no problem at all. i can even throw in a few flames if you like. just give me some time and i can make a few effects for ya ...and I'll give you credit for it in any missions I build that use the script.

@ lethal, is there any way to widen the base of the smoke billowing from the ground? I think it would be a cool smoke effect to simulate smoldering remains in city ruins but the base would need to look as if it were a fire originally. Thanks.

I have to say sickboy, this script really kix @ysh but I do have a question for you. I was wondering if there was a way to make the jump look a bit more realistic such as lowering the players sightline slightly (to simulate bending the knees in preparation for the jump) and then smoothening out the jump animation? Right now, it appears as if the player instantly goes from ground height to a few feet off the ground and then drops back to the Earth. Just curious.

I too am interested in this because I was hoping this script could be used to produce a much more volumetric fire and smoke effect with smoke travelling much farther in air than the ingame object.

Why don't you just setup mine fields around the outer perimeter and use natural out of bounds areas such as cliffs or the ocean?

You are talking about the current builds of fraps; in the times I used fraps it was buggy piece of shit. Hard to run it for a few minutes without a crash. In addition, the compression option was not even implemented, is it available now anyhow? Again I think his problem is definitely related to the things I listed above. Well it doesn't really do him any good to discuss old buids of Fraps now does it? As for compression, only screenshots are compressed in whatever manner you choose, raw video is always uncompressed.

This statement is simply untrue. The reason your files are so large is because they are recorded to your hard disk uncompressed. This means the higher the resolution, the larger the file. BTW, if you managed to actually record 20 minutes of ingame footage at around 1 GB then I'm impressed because 2 - 3 minutes represents close to 1 GB for me. Fraps is actually a great program as it is and if you have a registered version as I believe you already indicated, then you should have all you need to capture screenshots and record video. Fraps comes with it's own codec if I'm not mistaken so I can't see you requiring additional codecs to record with Fraps but I can see requiring additional codecs to compress Fraps files. As I stated before, much of what you'll get here is guess work so I'd strongly suggest contacting beepa support directly. They are very responsive and do all they can to help see you through your issues.