Aqu

Looking superb. Especially in such a short time - I gave the retard and other stuff in..15h ago  I hope the east end of the beach is equally good  ...

For the tags...I don't think it's a good idea to start replacing tags for stuff which has their own tags. Only for vehicles etc which do not have tags already, it would be worth adding a tag system. You probably break quite a bit stuff otherwise and it won't fix anything. I'm not quite sure what you are making, but I would probably make a list of vehicles I want to add to the mission. I have suggested already that rip should make a readme file (or similar) which lists all the class names (among other things) for vehicles, ammo, magazines and weapons at least.

Wow. Great pics of some old retards At least at the west end of the beach those lines clearly have been retards. I see two kind of those. One with horizontal planks and large gaps between them. Another one with vertical planks and very few if any gaps between. @zippa Many of those are OFP converts IIRC and 88 is one of those. They are quickly made so that you can have more stuff to play with than just one endlessly polished model in the first phase. Rip has done insane amount of work (the map and the WW2 warfare conversion to mention a few) and it is amazing that we have even this much in such a short time. EDIT: No. I'm sure Rip won't rip (excuse the pun) anything for which he dones't have a permission.

Well. In the map it says "retards". My dictionary says "retard" means "to cause delay". Based on this I would put my money on some sort of a sand stopping wall. I cannot find reasoning why a pier or dock is called a retard (unless the map maker has been such). I thought too that they were piers until someone mentioned those walls. Here's a pic of a man holding his groins at a beach (v 0.0001). pic

Great work. That seawall turned out to be good. Works nicely for little cover too...if you get that far

I don't know about 'new'. What was mentioned in the long list, I could add that my P-38 comes in 4 loadout versions (J-25 model). My StuG-IIIg comes in 8 versions or actually in 4 and StuH-IIIg in 4 versions (early, mid and late version with and without schürzen, topfblende gunmantlet ("saukopf") etc stuff in different combinations). I have to warn that the Stug version list might get shorter if lack of time or getting bored to paint 4 camouflages. I'm sure someone will tell when we see it.

Great to hear. Care to post a pic? (the finished du Hoc)

Great plane to to fly. Nice sounds. Good job Can't remember to notice anything funny. Every 109 (from E and later at least) had 1,000 bullets for every 7,92mm MG (MG17). If you have two of those, it's 2,000. Because they are groupped into the same 'weapon' slot in Arma, it is/have to be firing double the IRL rate to deliver the same amount of metal. (or othewise you have to make it fire 2 bullets every time). That is because how it is done to fire from multiple guns. Arma engine has this limitation ot have only 1 gunpoint. In this case it is put in the cannon end. The MG bullets come out of the same point, put they are moved to the end of the MGs. Because the bullets fly so fast teh system cannot move them fast enough to the MG ends and you see a short c 10m long trace before they are moved. Not noticed that last one myself. EDIT: I was 1 min slow.

I have tryed to make my model swim deeper, but no luck yet. I have tryed to alter the weight distribution in the Geo LOD and moved the model to a different place on the Y-axis. Neither seems to have much effect. EDIT: I suspect the explanation was not so good. I ment that the boat class vehicle looks too light, when it bounces like a ballerina on waves. I would like it to swim/float/sail/move deeper, so that the waterline is higher. EDIT2: Ok, got it. I had copied how it had been done in BIS examples. Their zodiac didn't have land contact LOD. Looks like it is not needed, but if you put it the waterline comes to the same height as the land contact points.

That error message doesn't make sense to me. I can't see any "mainGear" bone in your config. You have mainGear anim, but I doubt it refers to that. Also there is no mainGear bone in the Plane skeleton which it inherits (or Vehicle which is inherited by Plane). Are you sure you looked the right place in the rpt file? It can get quite big if you don't delete it once a while. I think you could try remove teh inheritance of the Plane skeleton if you don't need it for anything. As long as you have the mig-23 Vehicle class inheriting the Plane _vehicle_class (or what ever is the correct parent class according to the Vehicle class tree). I would be tempted to ignore the message if the anims worked in the game (and in Bulldozer if you have them in the model.cfg, not config.cpp)

Thanks for the comment. The geo lod alone seems to work bit better than the land contact lod. It is the same system I tryed in the first place, but I still has the same problem. Although if you have a very heavy and tall ship it probably doesn't hurt if it sinks bit into the seabed in shallow water and those are rarely placed on dry land anyway. For a ship with size bit smaller than a small patrol boat it would be nice to have a kind of waterContact LOD too. In shallow water if teh ship keel hit the beach it would lift teh ship bit higher.

Have you tryed like this in the skeleton section?... <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> class PRACS_MiG23Skeleton: Plane { skeletonInherit="Plane"; // <---- NOTE THIS isDiscrete = 1; ...

I found the land contact LOD is not a very good solution. If it is on a very shallow water or on a dry land it sinks into ground up to the level where the land contact is. Anyone with a better solution? Looks like I'm having a monologue here

Yes. In other words northern Africa and Italy. I think, you can leave the P-39 Airacobra for later too. It is not really needed over France. Russians were again the primary users especially the later models (as well as the P-63 Kingcobra). They even liked it. P-39 did see some action in Pacific.

I don't have figures right here, but I think Soviet Union was one of the biggest users of P-40. It is also famous for its role in China where it was flown by US pilots. It wasn't so great plane anymore in '44 and it is no wonder it wasn't used in the western Europe (actively at least) which was the 'main' theatre for the western allies. Corsair is of course one of the famous planes of WW2 and a must for the Pacific, but if you add that to a European campaign or mission you give a wrong idea that it would have been in big use here. There is still quite a lot to do for the European theatre, stuff that was used extensively, and thus I would leave those planes the last thing to finish at the moment. Only if you have nothing else to do... I would rather do even something for the Bulge phase

Looking great! Now you have time for Avranches Mmmm...how about copying/porting the Mission from CoD2?

If you want that the bunker cannot be put on fire with a flamethrower you could put line "flammable=0;" (without "") into the config vehicle class. Buildings are now by default 20% "flammable" (flammable=0.2) if there is no such value defined. If you want your house to catch fire easier, then put it over 0.2 (the legal range is 0.0..1.0). This is valid only for classes derived from "building" (directly or indirectly). (note: the "flammable is not a normal arma entry)

Sure. I have 1 p3d file in P-38 and ...mmm...let me count...4 versions. If you have bombs as proxies... make both the 4xSC50 and 1xSC250 proxies into the same p3d file. Then make named sections in O2 like ... bombs_4xSC50 (containing all the SC50 proxies) and bombs_1xSC250 (only the SC250 proxy). Add those named sections into the model config. Now just make different versions of the plane in the config and just hide those parts/equipment you do not need (bombs_4xSC50,bombs_1xSC250 or both in the fighter version). BTW. Great film! Reminds me bit of the battle of britain film scene that airfield strafing

Naturalily I ment that the shorter wall section is copied to get longer walls. The longer wall section is just that it creates too long hole. Yes about 2m section would be ideal, but because of the huge number of object it creates I think around 5m would be a fair compromise. Some objects (like houses) are not subject to gravity. I think (not tested) this is also for plants. So if you destroy a wall below them, the plants remain hovering in the air. This was the problem in the other version I suggested first (the version where just add the plants on top in the visitor). Even if you could destroy the plants (they don't just fall over) there is a risk that they remain floating when the wall is destroyed. I'm a coder and I have problems accepting a system which works 99% of time when I now that the 1% will happen eventually. About the wall section...It is c 5m long at the top and 7m at the bottom (ground level) (trapezoid is the proper english word?). So if you place them 5m apart partially overlapping each other, and one section get destroyed a flipped trapezoid shape hole is created 3m wide at the ground and 5m wide at the top. About width of a tank. The trapezoid shape makes it also suitable for end of the wall use. @rip The vid looks great. I suppose you took the terrain texture from the modern aerial photos. The trails which are there today might not represent the actual trails in 1944. About the shell holes...What if you create some big holes, but cover them with similar shaped 'plugs' which are about as strong as a big house. So if you bombard the cliff top for a while the plugs get destroyed one at the time and the holes become visible. Just a thought...could be nice to test and now you have a chance make deep craters.

I don't know about that sort of add-on. Could be, but it doesn't remove the floating plant problem. If you put the plants into the hedge section then you definately need more than one vegetation version. E.g the 5m straight part needs to be in several vegetation versions (some having only bushes, some having also a tree or two, etc). You cannot make them very much if you also plan to make the hedgerow in different lengths and shapes (e.g 2,5,10m straight and 90 degree corner,T cross and + cross). Actually the 10m section is too long, because if you destroy that one it creates a 10m hole in the line. The corner parts could be left out too if you use the straight parts in angles.

Good post about the nature and origin of the hedgerows Old Bear. I remember playing a game years ago (I think it was 101st airborne or something) which featured the hedgerows quite well I think. Climbing over the 'walls' was slow and risky, but traveling the paths and finding those openings was like trying find a way in a maze. About adding more plants to the walls... I agree that they need more plants than what I had put in the pic. But let me quote myself... That would be easier and also you could manage with maybe only 1 wall section! If you integrate the plants to the wall then you need several sections so that it doesn't start to look repetetive. In a nut shell... Seperate plants on visitor ------------------------ + need only few wall sections + Vegetation is truly unique and hedgerows are not copies + wind movement for plants - when the wall section is breached/destroyed the plants remain floating in the air? (-) can you even place plants over walls/buildings in visitor? plants integrated into the wall ----------------------------- + no floating plants after destroyed/breached + easier to construct lines in visitor when not needing to place vegetation afterwards on it. - more work to do for several wall sections - each section needs several reso lods that it doesn't kill the fps in the bocage country (like the northern Sahrani forests) - You cannot use the special shading flags etc used for plants (named properties in O2) (or can you?) - No wind movement So how to implement it needs some testing. I have no experience making maps so maybe somebody with both map making and model making skills could continue? *cough*, *cough* Rip? P.S. I can send the WIP model I have made

I made bit further testing after I got fond of the idea. Put some textures and added some vegetation from BIS examples. It can be made look quite good without too many faces. The earth wall section takes 100-200 faces and the vegetation maybe 200-1000 per bush/tree (depending on the size). Although I think it would be better to place the vegetation in Visitor as separate objects, because otherwise it doesn't move with wind. It blocks the view to the other side very well and can hide big objects. Climbing the wall is so noisy and messy that once you get on the top there could be a whole army pointing you with a gun on the other side. (pic)Â

Sounds good, but I hope you would consider making a pure figter setup too. If you plan to do some figter missions, it is bit unrealistic to dogfight with a bomb hanging underneath...or drop it once getting airborne. I don't think extra fuel tanks are needed so much in maps of these sizes. I skipped them too in P-38.

I made a quick test with a hedgerow model. (pic) It is 2m high (6.5 ft), 2-3m wide (at the base). The ditches are 0.3-0.5m deep (the bottom goes bit under the ground level at the pic). The model goes still 5m wider than the ditch centers so that the ditches wouldn't seem to go above the ground level. This piece is 5-7m long, but in this 2 pieces are put in line partly overlapping (when put in line, one line piece occupies c 5m section even it is technically 7m) To make it look better some plants and small trees should be placed on it. I tryed to use proxies, but the problem is that they are too big (there seems to be some scale issue? = plants seem bigger in O2 than in game). This size is just about the limit that only after some 'jogging' against the wall you are able to climb it, but you really have to some work for it. With tanks...not a chance. You cannot see over it from the ground level and especially if it has vegetation on it, it will be hard from a vehicle too.

The lower one seems to be carrying 4 x SC50 bombs.