DaSquade

I'm a big noob when it comes to coding etc, but imho i think DX11 might be somewhat the answer for BIS problem. We all know ArmA has a hard time running smooth/performant. From my quick search on DX11 it looks the main keyfeatures of it are performance. *Tessellation and Compute Shaders (like ambient maps) for example should help FPS and at the same time improve visuals. I really hope BIS wil take the time to experiment. Visuals aren't everything (although BIS once told graphics weren't their main priorities, releases has shown it was though...), but again performance are. I do'nt directly see a need of Tessellation features on units, weapons, objects although if it really is that good and has no performance hit why not. But i think this might be very usefull for terrains. Offcourse the question is if geo can be linked aswell. *dreams of smaller grid cells/micro terrain. EDIT: Wait, maybe the fact codemasters apperently will be one of the game developers that will be using DX11 (according to an AMD youtube interview) should wake up BIS again :p .

@Recta DP: Please do not spam this topic with useless footage that has nothing to do with the topic in question. Not every body will notice your footage is a lame wanna-be movie... Stop confusing people.

@MattXR Don't see what the military has to do with BIS approche. Two seperate things and afaik neither of the two prevents the other from doing something. I would even say it is more the oposite, althought it took time and it apperently had to open some eyes...but in the end, there is an understandable reason behind that. @TheDecline: Yup all the same enigne, just improved versions. From what 'experts' have been telling me, the BIS engine is very outdated in the way it works. On the other hand, it isn't something you change or even delete to start over. Something like that is only possible by mayor game developers and even then it holds many risks. A risk that in these days often isn't picked and maybe for the best. Anyway, yes the current version of the engine is far from good and i suppose it is one of the reasons why new features are harder to implant then it looks for non-experts. Button-line is, i think this engine will be the one that will have to do it for as long as BIS decides to make games in this genre. If you can't life with that, i suggest you start to open a paypal account and invest in BIS future.

Pointless topic imho, especailly if you have seen one of those latest interview with BIS. Although the question of 'selling their engine' was asked with a lot of humor, i think it shows how BIS feels about their 'baby'. Imho, although i do'nt know jack about engines and coding, i still think the engine still hasn't reashed puberty. Imho the lack of competition in its genre has caused it still isn't a full grown boy/girl. Doesn't it makes you wonder that since OFP: dragon all of the sudden several years old features are getting implanted, even though the technic was availible in some way? Yes, if find it very lame of BIS (they know :p ) but in the end of the day it is their call and (i hope) they msut have their reasons for it. There is just still a long way to go...even if that means taking a few steps backwards (optimizing the game isn't code work only ;) ).

Ah ok about the "sucks, nothing new, it is already in Binkowski pack". Looks i didn't fully got that part in your first post ;) . Well, you are correct. Most people are idiots, nothing new aswell. Carry on...

@ProfTournesol: About (2). Well that isn't always the case. Like i wanted to point out with the M249, villa's one is a model with the current stock would looked ok..some years ago. From my research (witch is the key thing and some of the guys posting critis happen to have that free time to look up in detail what has changed) this is typicly about US. Weapons layout change alot in the form of upgrade programs (land warrior etc). Often it takes a lot of deep research before one finds that out as a simple google search won't show a weapon in its latest form. Often it are those small changes that make the ( visualy) difference and what upset some. At least it would be an eyecatcher and a reason why 'your' model wins it over the XXX other released models. Downside to these programs is, often it is pretty hard to find info and decent reference material (if you want it accurate). Before you got it right there is already a new upgrade program. But i guess that makes it a bit interested for modelers, there is always something new ;) . PS: in case of the M249 there are other new/newer upgrades, up to you to find out what. As for the 'more russian over US thingy'. Well i think the fact there are tons of reference material of US things and they are constantly beeing upgraded (even though most will never see what...) makes making US gear that interesting for me. I have made several russian items...well finding reference material is a pain in the b***. @Vila: Open your eyes mate and read my post again :p. Indeed nothing 'new' in my eyes aswell and still looks as 'crappy' as the stock old BIS M249. Please take the time to read my posts and you will maybe see what i meant. For the normal users the M249 didn't changed in years, for someone how did +16h of research on the latest layout of the current M249 or actually is using the weapon day in/out, it isn't. I don't want to troll, that i explained in my previous post. It is your call...just saying some do make correct comments. It is up to the maker how you receive and deal with those comments. I would like to give you one very good source: https://peosoldier.army.mil/. Welcome to 'modern warfare' ;) . Looks the term 'sarcasme' didn't reached Poland yet? This comment is sarcasme aswell before you wonder :) . Lighten up, personally i can see the humor in that advertisment. Sad for the one that lost the bike, good job on the creativity of the second poster. That is life...

Didn't really want to give my comment on this, but maybe you need to look at it from the other side. If not mistaken you are very common/knowledge with russian weapons and afaik you were the one that kept begging BIS to change one of the MG or was it AK47/74 because there was one elements that had (completly) wrong, right? Well, i don't call myself an expert in US wepons, but i do know for example your M249 you showed in a WIP pic looks pretty outdated (for example the M249 is using a newer stock since a few years). But i suppose the main problem is the fact it is based on the BIS model, witch is afaik in the case of the M249 a model that is in use since OFP? Since i had a good look at the model the last few weeks i can say it is in a extremly bad shape (very poorly optimized and UV mapping shows its age aswell). This is the same for the BIS .50cal and MK19 (i used to remodel them and was able to make a much more detailed model with the same polycount). Just saying, afaik you reuse a lot of BIS parts (correct me if wrong) some of your weapon models start to show its age. Not saying it is wrong, jsut saying as you know that something you make from scratch will allow you to make with more detail and up to these days standards. We all know how long it takes to make something new, at least for me. When i sometimes see how fast you have something done.... Don't consider it as a bad thing mate. Like Celery i think a modeler needs to take bad critis lightly, but on the other hand put your ego aside and try to look if that comment makes sense and what you can do for the future. In the end, don't let it get you down. If person X doesn't like it, well then simply point person X that there are public tools out so if he wants model Y or whatever, he can always do it himself. Maybe an additional point: At least this is my standpoint, i always try to make my models as detailed as possible. Yup many have called me supid and insane because of the fact most of my weapons have the same triscount as planes or vehicles (that include weapons :d ). Personally i have put that comment aside me. It is my work, my way of making....Fact is that by doing this, you raise the bar for others and more specificly for BIS. An other good thing about that is, my models will still look 'normal' in X amount of years. Where others will have to remodel to keep up with the demanding quality. For example, imho a true 3D ris bar is a must these days (in my eyes). Seeing some models of you still having a 2D ris (again correct me if wrong). But again, game addons aren't all about quality and that i know. But personally i don't play anymore so what i make i more consider as making art (for myself in the first place). It is something you decide for yourself. Quality over quantity or the other way around. As long as it makes yourself happy.

1. With bad sub-edges (probebly not the correct term anyway), i meant an edge that splits a normal poly (4 point face) into a tris (3 point face). Here is an example of one in your model: Note that the blue marked edge defines one face very small in witdh compaired to his lenght. If you had splited that original (?) poly along his other diaginal as shown with the green edge, the two faces would be more or less equal in dimentions. There for the normals of that face will be more 'relaxed'. Depending on how 'correct/accurate' (in depth i mean) this can affect the outcome of the lightning of those faces alot. Also note the 'turn edge' tool marked. Like said, select those two faces that share a wrong sub-edge, select the turn edge tool and press with the cursor on the wrong edge. It should flip the edge without effecting the UV. In case you don't need to worry about the UV (like in your case atm, no UV yet). You can always delete the two faces and drawn them individually. Also you can select all 4 point and press F6 (make poly), press / to trianglate. If the subedge is wrong, then you need to flip the face (W) before trianglating it, trianglate it and flip it again. Like with many things, there are many ways to come to a final result. An other mistake in your model: Make sure you have closed shapes. This isn't always needed as often one can work with open shapes. This is what is called (optimize your model) -> Same geo but no effect on end result. An good example of optimizing is when you work with cilinders. Note the difference in numbers, something where it all turns around in gamemodels (well, polycount is one of the factors). Small info: Note the darker/thicker red marked edges, that are sharp edges, where the softer red edges are smooth edges. When you define an edge as sharp, it will actually split the edge and so create two new points. So it is very important you give proper lightning values (U - I) to your mesh! Note the example only covers a small item, consider the impact on a full model. Last an quick photoshop example on what edges in your model should be sharp (red marked lines). Offcourse i could be wrong (check your reference material) and often it is an artist impression.

I would suggest you drop the idea to unwrap (-> uv) your models in O2. It is generally known that the unwrap tools in O2 aren't that super. It is only good for planar mapping. Since you are still starting to learn that part, i would suggest you witch to a more professional program. Personally i use Modo, but there are a lot of other programs that do the same. I use modo as it includes the option to bake ambient maps, normal maps and some good manual model reducing tools. Since it supports .obj and .fbx files they work hand in hand. Don't let a new program scare you, it will pay off in time. Making models in O2 isn't a problem and i personally still use O2 as my main 3d model making program. So no problem with that ;) . I quickly check the handgun. - Some parts (like the sights) are inverted. A good indication of something beeing inverted it to select the part and check the normals of the points. Make sure the 'show normals' button is ON though. On each point it will draw a blue line. That line should be facing outwards, if not your face is inverted. Simply press W to reverse a face/part. - As for the triangle polys (tris). Well, if i model i tend to keep my faces/wire as clean as possible so i keep them in poly shape (4 point face). When it comes to non-planar/non-linear (non-flat) faces it is advised to manually convert the face into two tris faces, so you can decide what is the best sub-edge position is. Because if you auto-convert your mesh ( / key) it will often screw it. I noticed there where a few faces on your model that had bad sub-edges (-> very small-long faces where it should be better to have the sub-edge the other diagonal). You can always fix that later (even if mapped) by selection two faces and use the 'turn edge tool'. Simply use the tool and press on the inner closed edge to swap direction. Last thingy new modelers tend not to know is the use of smooth and hard edges. Atm your model has all edges smooth, witch doesn't look right. Use the U (sharp) and I (smooth) keys to adjust the edge values. The technic is a bit of hard to explain as it depends on your model, but you should be able to find some tutorials on that on the forum. All i can think of atm. Main thing is, learn, practice, learn, practice...

@Firehead: Looks pretty good. But i might suggest you bevel it a bit so the model will look smoother. Something like this (an old model i once made): PS: Don't be afraid to post a bigger resolution picture in the future, as long as it isn't over 100kb offcourse. Bit hard to judge on such small pictures.

Correct me if wrong but i don't think NV will be able to utilise the thermal materials in some way. Maybe there will be something hardcoded that will make this possible, for example the laser material will afaik have some kind of special material unless it is pure code work that makes it visible in NV. Bit offtopic: Somehow i hope they will because i was wondering if those new generation NVgoggles features could be used (refuring to normal nightvison goggles but with the new feature that they calculate and overlay/hightlight heatsignatures so heatsignature above a certain temperature are drawn in an red overlay).

If you want to make it realistic, i would suggest to leave out the option to disable FLIR. From my research the real thermal sights don't have the option to use them as non-thermal sights, it is thermal-on or nothing. Unless you ofcourse use a clip-on sight, but i don't think a clip-on sight on a high recoil weapon is a good choise. Anyway, good solution for the moment offcourse.

@Raddik: Like said, 'quick search'...i even managed to overlook the building progress on the wiki. Forgive me and thanks for the youtube footage. Looks there is already some decent footage availible. Carry on :).

Personally i would skip the idea of 'looking forward'. From my very quick search, the CVN-78 is only a concept. If it is already beeing build, info and drawing/reference material is very hard to find. Since i suppose it is the job of the maker to make it as accurate as possible (not even mentioning details), one should first have a very good archieve of reference material. On other hand, since there isn't much availible yet it give you a free path for creativity, but one would be very dissapointed if lets yes in 2-3 years the first official drawings or pictures get released. That is always the danger of recreating prototype models (been there, done that...won't do it anymore). If i would make one, it would be one of the latest currently in use CVN, like the CVN-76 or even 77 (last is very new afaik?). At least there should be enough info and material to base your model on. Keep in mind 'yours' will need to last for the next 5-6 years (or that is at least the plan i think). Anyway, good luck. PS: I was offcourse joking with the permission of the Nimitz. I always give permission for all my stuff, unless i can't :) .

LOL, i can't believe after..what is it...5-6 years, someone is still considering porting over the Nimitz 68. I guess we all know the model is far from stable due to the messed up splitting into parts. YES, i'm to blame for that since i made the Nimitz and the reason why it got messed up was because it was my very first model i ever made for the BIS engine. Although i did several test with the splitted parts, in the end the deck turned out to be having holes due to working on the limites of what the roadway lod allowed. Hard leasson learnd..never push it on the limites :) . Anyway, it still makes me smile people enjoy the carrier for what it is worth. But on the other hand, now that we all know the limites better and the engine allow more functions i think it would be better if finally someone started from scratch. So by this, i don't give permission to port the model over :p. Nah seriously, in the end it shouldn't be that hard to make a carrier. It will take some serious planning and if you want to bring it to the level of detail to these days standards, it will take some time but it isn't the end of the world. I wish i had nothing on my hands as i would jump on your boat anytime. Sadely i have many projects running and i don't see a big hole in the near future. Maybe i could help out with some smaller stuff (some of the weaponsystems and other 'individual' stuff), but no promise. On the other hand, using or participating in a project that will contain purchased models is a bit against my policy. Don't be affraid to try making your own models. Like with my Nimitz, we all had to learn somewhere.

Tank tracks use a hardcoded engine animation and only has 2D effect. It simply rotates the images around a path (3D mesh). But the Talon in VBS actually uses a 3D track witch is animated.

Yup indeed. That way you avoid the massive texture count (1 texture versus 10 textures for a simple number set). Downside of that technic is it will increase your polycount, but like said...one needs to worry more about section and texture/material load then polycount in this engine (hope that is still a fact). So basicly you make a cilinder and apply your individual numbers each on his own face and use animations to controle the wanted visiual face. This does has a downside though as the all faces you don't to be visible need to be covered by some other objects or in worst case work with the 'alpha-bug'. Anyway, might need some decent planning again if you consider changing concept. You might even want to mix the two concepts, like daylight gauges on one texture and night gauges on an other, but use the hidden selection methode to swap them (but afaik you can't swap material for night effect :s ).

Since i used to make the same talon some many moons ago, this is nice to see again. Especially since it is looking more detailed then mine was... Any WIP numbers like poly/triscount so far. Good luck with animating the 3D tracks. Should be possible, especially these days. Can't wait for your next project if you keep this quality. Thought too at that time. Used to have good fun with it in VBS. But somehow it wasn't that usefull, maybe it needed a good transport script (so you are able to take it with your men to the combat zone where it is needed). I mean that would double the use and function of it... I think that is why Norrin and my work on the HuntIR round was that nice and usefull since it was mobile and functional. Just saying :) .

Well i suppose the mayor problem atm is the fact you used a lot of small individual textures for the gauges and counters. As i think you are working with hidden selections and settexture? If so, it might be better to work with mapped cilinders where the textures are 'merged' into one texture. Anyway, you might want to try to merge and limite the amount of textures....this might result in some mayor rework. Anyway, just pointing and suggestion. Nothing is perfect.

Hm section count looks very bad, no offence mate. Maybe i'm not following correct but is that the final section count or is that the cleaned up version? Maybe a small overview of the amount of textures and used material could reflect that number better. Meaning, in theory one mapped part with one texture and one material counts for one section. When you have in that selection a part with the same texture but different material it will make 2 sections etc... I'm aware that if you import stuff or sometimes even copy/past workparts the section count will raise...where it in reality should be lower due to certain things. So might want to go true your model and see if you didn't made any mistakes on that part. Sometimes it can be a big mess cleaning it up if intense workfiles (like you mentioned yourself) and there are several things you can do to clean up the section count. But often that involves it will screw up your set alpha layer orders aswell... In casr you are a bit now to that part, there is a short tutorial on the forums that covers that. Will need to search myself, hoping i or someone else can dig it up. Anyway, as many including the devs have mentioned, section count is one of the most important performence killers in the game...bigger killers then texture/materialcount then tris/vertex count. Just wanted to bring that to your mind :) . We all learn by doing and again, this shouldn't effect your overall workresult. Keep it up. EDIT: Link to above mentioned tutorial. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=65537&highlight=sections+tutorial

Can you share some info on the cockpit section count (can be found in O2 on the button, near face count etc). As this is in some ways more important then the sizes of textures and polycounts. As pointed out by Rocket, you can always consider replacing some parts (prefured static items, like maybe even the cockpit body) by a proxy model. Forgot exactly what the polycount (read: vertexcount) limitation stands for again in a single p3d file..but it is sort of an indication you are walking on the borderline of visual quality of a model for game use. I'm all for model details, but sometimes you have to drawn a line (luckly for my type of models that is often within the limites :d ).

Since when is this a demand and answer topic? :p I thought this was one of those 'wast pages' so the other sections of the forum would be clear of nonsene. In short, lighten up. *Generally i think most modelers that are even remotely possible to fullfill some peoples (insane) idea's, aren't going to wast there time on it anyway. Some people think we poop addons i think :p . Anyway, continue requesting...and no offence on the requesters. Keep on hoping :) .

Hm, you are a bit low on sharing specific info imho. I suppose you mean, faces as in the human heads right? If so, BIS released a sample head in the example files of ArmA2 for learning purpuse. Afaik, you are free to edit them and use in your characters. If you release those units there is one condition (afaik) and that is that you will have to release an mlod model of the face in question so other can view and use it. As to your question on how to edit them. Not sure in what way you mean that. Simply remodel/retexture/something else?

*Dragging the topic back to track :p Anyway, no comment beside two big tumbs up. Like Rock and i were chatting about your work some days ago, amazing to see what you have pulled off in this short amount of time knowing you are sort of new to the BIS engine. Please keep it up. Nice to see that it will probebly turn into a pretty high poly model with high quality textures (you don't hear me complain ;) ), but also with the amount of animations and additional /new features, the bar of expectation has been raised again. Community work from the past that was superior in those days became the standard of current days etc. Lets hope BIS can follow up, but BIS never claimed to be a flight sim (although i hope one day...).

Again nice one Scnapsdrosel. Maybe me, but the mag pouches look a bit too big?