Corkey

Nice pictures all! http://i159.photobucket.com/albums....r_1.jpg http://i159.photobucket.com/albums....r_2.jpg http://i159.photobucket.com/albums....r_3.jpg A little humor now that the Masada is finally UV mapped properly.

I have read several posts regarding interest in the Mark V SOC. Has anyone made a commitment to creating this craft? If not, I may consider making one for ARMA.

Nice job! I'm wondering if you need some sort of spec map to control the shading? Right now I'm still digging around the ARMA files to see all the different types of maps that are used. As of the present, I have identified the color maps and tangent normal maps. The two remaining maps I believe to be shadow maps and secularity maps but I have not been able to confirm this. Â Technically, until we receive the next version of the modeling program, I don't believe we will be able to properly assign multiple textures to materials. That is, if the ARMA models even use materials. Regardless of the current limitations, nice job on the BTR-80.

Nice job! I'm wondering if you need some sort of spec map to control the shading? Right now I'm still digging around the ARMA files to see all the different types of maps that are used. As of the present, I have identified the color maps and tangent normal maps. The two remaining maps I believe to be shadow maps and secularity maps but I have not been able to confirm this. Â Technically, until we receive the next version of the modeling program, I don't believe we will be able to properly assign multiple textures to materials. That is, if the ARMA models even use materials. Regardless of the current limitations, nice job on the BTR-80.

Thanks for the comments everyone. As for the model, it's one of my projects. Right now her color maps aren't too hot and until we get an ARMA compatible modeling program, I'm afraid she will remain a static object.

I have had a similar experience just a few hours ago while playing the campaign. My head was locked to the gun and I couldn't "Drop" the weapon to a low ready stance. The result being: I was killed by two OPFOR hiding behind my gun. As you have stated, it would be nice to have "Weapon Ready" system, where you could drop your stance to match the desired level of focus. During CQB - Entry, it's often best to keep the gun at "Low ready," where the gun is at the shoulder but tucked against the body. When initially entering an area where you have detected hostile presence, it's best to go in with a "On guard" stance, where the gun is shouldered and raised but out of your line of sight. Once a target is acquired, you can simply "Snap" your weapon up and fire. For longer range work you can use a "High ready" stance, where your weapon is shouldered and in your lower line of sight. Once a ranged target has been identified, the weapon is raised and you draw a bead on the target. As far as sights and FOV goes, from my personal experience, your FOV doesn't change at all, only your focus. When using iron sights your line of sight and FOV is severely reduced, simply because you are concentrating on keeping the sights aligned and the target centered. As far as open optic sights go, you can peer through the glass for precise shots or you can simply hold the weapon at high ready and the red dot "floats" out into the center of your vision. The prior method is extremely useful for closed areas where you need to be able to aim accurately without blocking off your line of sight. A side note on iron sights and view movement. While on the move, you can turn your head, while keeping the weapon trained on a target, then "snap" back to the target without a whole lot of adjustment. Granted, if you are really moving, the sight isn't always going to be where it is supposed to be. In the end, iron sight control and stance preference will differ greatly from individual to individual. You have brought up a valid point about the FOV / camera switch when using the iron sight mode. It doesn't happen in real life as ARMA currently portrays it. As much as I'd love to have eyes that can zoom in and change FOV like that, it just isn't going to happen. Additionally it's down right distracting, having the camera switch FOVs when I go into zoom mode. Not only can I see less but it also takes away the challenge of having to concentrate on what I'm aiming at. To sum up my feelings about the issue: "I do not find the "Auto Zoom" feature helpful, when switching to iron / closed sights. Additionally I support the addition of a "Weapon Ready" and "Precision Movement" system to ARMA."

There where hopes that operation H20 would remain a secret. Alas, the populous of the island were alerted and the violence that occurred, is too graphic to display. However, the "Package" was extracted without receiving any collateral damage. There are rumors of a cryptic message being propagated by the larger of the two images. http://i159.photobucket.com/albums...._PC.jpg ARMA V1.5 - Unreleased addons, WIP.

ARMA V1.05 / Unreleased units.

(Larger Version) http://i159.photobucket.com/albums....aa2.jpg Unreleased unit and rifle - ARMA UK v1.04

What version of ARMA are you running and what is your difficulty level set at? I am able to save at any time, as well as being able to save multiple times per mission, when running ARMA v1.04 - UK release, with the difficulty level on easy..

I believe you would add the armor values to the units config, just as you would in OFP... I do not have ARMA yet, so I am not entirely sure.

Very nice landing! http://s159.photobucket.com/albums....EMD.flv

ViperMau, thanks for the link to the game store... Did your version come with starforce?

Gnat, firstly, save a backup of this .p3d, as it may be useful in the future when we need to hide something using this method. Secondly, as DaSquade mentioned, something is flagged in the p3d, which is causing the geometry to disappear when it is covered by a .paa file. I would suggest looking in the face / vertex options and seeing if checking different layer options causes the model to appear while overlaid with a .paa texture. *edit* Your submarine on the very right appears to be showing. For texture view, I believe you need to have the "Hide known file extensions" turned off in windows. When saving the file you need to give it a new name and .pac after the name. Works for me, last I checked.

-OFF Primary Topic- Is it just me or does every topic, suddenly veer off course as soon as mesh density is mentioned? I don't see how anyone can comment one way or the other on how well a model will perform until it's been thoroughly tested. True you can make an educated guess, but without the proper tools for porting content, we are all out in the cold, noses pressed up against the glass, while we gaze inside. Essentially all models are tris, although we use quads to make editing and mesh flow visualization easier. Just as all programs are "Machine code" once compiled, the text is just there to help the humans. Likewise, quads and Ngons are just there to help the modeler visualize his mesh geometry. -On primary Topic- The main point in game content production is consistency. Right now we do not know for sure how many verts / edges / faces / tris each BIS model contains. Until we do, it will be difficult to effectively match the BIS content. Boomer1985, the model looks nicely done, however it is a tad below ARMA quality in terms of mesh density. Sure you could make up for this with a complex bumpmap but it will still look out of place, when compared to the BIS G36. As a low detail model, it's not bad at all. As ARMA content, it needs some improvement. As my teachers have told me, never give a crit without offering some solution. Right now your basic outline and geometry appear to be well constructed. Personally, I would concentrate on adding details: Such as the vent ports in the hand guard, the RIS, fire selector ect... If you continue to add abit more detail to your mesh geometry, I believe you will have a solid model.