DaSquade

Like Jenny said, at first look it looks very decent. Congrats since it's apperently is one of your first models in max. Keep it up. As for suggestions, see overlay. 1. Smoke pods: Personally, as long you are looking for reducing the total amount of polys, i would leave out the extra cilinder on the pods (marked in red). Maybe instead of the two 10 segment cilinder, you could make it out of 1 16 segment cilinder. If not mistaken: 2x10 segement cilinder: 40 points - 28 faces - 56 tris (with removed invisible faces) 1x16 segement cilinder: 32 points - 23 faces - 46 tris. Additionally and a bit hard to see, if i'm correct the current pods are made out of a 10 segment cilinder. I always try to work with 8 or 16 segement cilinders, as it is much handier for the later procces when you will need to make reduced poly lods. When working with 8 or 16 segment cilinders, it is very easy to remove paired edges. That way you will be able to make out 32-16-8-4 variants without problems of reshaping. That principle i use for all my 'round' stuff unless there is need to go rounder due to the scale... 2. Antenna: hard to tell of angle, but looks the 2 horizontal edges could be dropped. Like above, might want to keep an '16-8-4' segment setup in mind. 3. The cap on the 'radar' (not sure if radar or view turret). Not sure if that extra cap detail is needed. but since model is pretty good, the only thing that noticed me....Would leave it as it is . Imho, it would be best to collapse your faces and manually construct your sub edges for all faces that have more then 4 points. Examples: End caps of cilinders, the turret, commanders view turret etc.... Afaik, it needs to be done anyway as O2 doesn't automaticly does that and will give you import errors. On the other hand, the exported model tends to have wrongly created edges by default as i have experienced. The default edge creations often creates more errors then when you do it your self. Especially on end caps of cilinders i have seen very insane and overdone edge creations. I suck at explaining, but if you don't understand let me know and i provide more info. Nothing to care about at moment. The ST errors are normal as the new created model is not mapped yet and therefor will show your ST errors. The Non-linear and planar errors are also not directly a mayor problem but might be good to fix them already. The easiest way is to select the named selection (so the 'bad' faces are selected). The simply press / or use the triaglate tool in the sub menu in O2. Easiest way, but sometimes it is best to studie your faces and check if it isn't best to first reverse the face, then triagle it and reverse again. This needs to be done as sometimes it will create bad lightning on the face. Also often mirrorred stuff will have oposite edge creations...something i prefure to make identical. Keep in mind it is best to make sure this methode is best done on all res lods and best to make sure it is identical, again as sometimes lightning bugs will be noticable. All i can think of atm. Good luck, hope it helped a bit , in the end i'm no expert. Oh, forgot to say, sort out the lightning on the radar-back dome thingy (see last comment of the extra cap near the antenna). The top of the radar needs sharp edges. Maybe the sides aswell depending on the actual model.

Just wanted to throw in some info on the SCAR models regarding polycount versus LODs. Workfile model (base model with all accesoirs, covering all variants, dual laser devices, surefire, ABC bipod, EGLM and one scope). LOD0.000: 10.358F/10.259P LOD0.500: 8.978F/9.037P LOD1: 7.006F/7.027P LOD2: 4.620F/4.730P LOD4: 2.910F/3.059P LOD8: 1.718F/1.915P LOD16: 979F/1.085P LOD32: 527F/626P LOD64: 254F/291P LOD128: 73F/98P Mix of quads and tris where needed (no linear and planar errors).

->If...you...don't....like..it,....then...don't...download...it! Remember this addon isn't build for your fun only. Some modelers have been working for the OFP/ARMA engine for all these years, it is hard to keep working on a 1980 limited low poly count standard. As for Jenny, shouldn't be talking for her though, she isn't a super speed addon robot that spits out common addons every week. For her and some others we try to bring quality models into a game engine where we can be proud of... If not mistaken it has been repeatatly mentioned the engine is more then capable to run smoothly and polycount isn't the main factor of performence. It is mainly the section count and its texture/shader count. Test would need to proof it, but personally i rather go for 3d detail then a texture effect to simulat a certain 3D that not always represents it correctly (fine for 'inner' 3D imho). True, the good old 'your weapon has as much polys as a freaking BIS plane'saying...heard that before. It is freaking 2008 people. Beside, i rebuild some stuff in the past based on BIS contence. Well with the same amount of polys i was able to put in more detail then stock. So polycount doesn't says it all. On the other side, i though it was more or less why this game still exists. BIS provides the core, the community fills it with contence. It is our job to raise the standards, i stopped playing with lego (bocky objects) years ago. Can i quote Shin on this? "Don't blame the modders for BIS running behind"..or something in the lines of that... And personally i find that a very poor lod structure. Imho a +5k model should have at least 6 or more lods. The more, the more choise the engine has to switch through lods. 2k->6k that is 4k faces the engine suddenly has to deal with. Put 20 objects in and you speak of a wooping 80k faces. Anyway... Sorry Jen, back to you .

@Scuba: Polycount for the MK4 is very good imho, knowing its build. @Ebolax: The reddot sight is like Scuba said indeed for the included EGLM. It was an old pic i found, lets hope Scuba doens't kit them wrong as the file i sended contains almost all MK16 variants with some gadgets. @Pando: Texturing never was my cup of thee and i have to admite i did use a photo with heavily photoshopping, although it was for the upper only. As for the 'brightness'...i have lots of reference pictures going from the 1st untill the 4th generation, including some military testbuild pictures and i have to say they come in various desert colours . I went for the latest and most common desert tan, witch tend to go with a slightly pink tint. Like i told Scuba, PSD more or less are open for background colour so tweaks can still be made. In the end, rvmat will influence it also afaik. As for the overall polycount. For those who know me, i find it hard to leave out details. In the end the stock (S)CAR isn't that high poly, afaik around 4k. It are the scopes, lasers and additional accesoirs can bring the total polycount up (roughly 1k per item). But like said, i did my best to provide enough lods with nice transition to compensate it. Also the texturecount is fairly optimized...although some items where made seperated as they can serve on other weapon platforms. Old pic of EGLM variant Wireshots can be found in the folder aswell for those who are interested: SCAR gallery @Messiah: No comment on the Jackal mate. Looks as it should in current workprocces. By the way, could be wrong, but didn't i send you my swedish variant once. Was just wondering is so if you make use of it as reference or how it compairs with yours in dimensions etc...Just wondering as it would be nice to know how accurate it was. I suppose you also had to work of pictures without any actual data. Keep it up. As for polycount, afaik it should be ok. I remember i ended on a good +15k with weapons and detailed cockpit. Tube construction, open structure, multi weapon platform etc are killers anyway.

Wee, like told in the PM....big thanks for the stuff that could be recovered. Indeed the stuff that was added in the last modelsession got more or less lost, but vertexes still remained so in the end no big lose as with some patient i can rebuild it pretty fast. Named selections and edge hardness got lost aswell, but i suppose that is due to the recovery. Like i asked, if possible can you explain how you did the recovery? Might be handy but informative for others... @Scuba: You are lucky after all. Maybe not as the model might be a future replacement , so more work...

So i was pretty lazy the last few months due to RL and other things. But two days ago i decided to make an MK11 for fun. Made good progress and was nearly done. Worked until 4 in the night, saved the file onto my external HD where i always store my files.... As always i wait a few seconds and listen to the HD if it still makes any reading/writting noise. Heard nothing, so like often when it has to go fast i shut down the external HD. All of the sudden i get an error saying something about unexpected shutdown and changed where not saved... Had one bad experience with simular thing in the past, looks i still haven't learned it. After checking the file in question, yep i'm f**ed and i get an "unable to load. Load error". File itself still has 1.70mb of data. I tried converting it with p3d2obj tool, but the obj also doesn't contain any model (572 bytes). I was wondering if somebody knows if there is a change to recover something from the damaged file? For those who have something on the file for recovering testing: Damaged Stoner MK11 p3d RIP

Inspired by feersum.endjinn and his Section tutorial, i will try to provide a rough guideline in fixing ST errors, non-linear and non planar mapping errors. Bear in mind, this is not official and i might be wrong on some parts. Also i'm bad at explaining, so feel free to correct or adjust. First of all, O2 has provided us the 'check faces' option witch helps us moders to find any non optimized errors in brand new or old models. Some are nasty some are tollerated and unavoidable afaik. So when you have your models in O2 after you are sure all needed merged points are connected (depending on style of import). Now some say it is best to completly convert your model into tris (1 face-3 points) instead of working with polies (1 face-4 points) as in the end the engine will always have to work with a tris. But for editer and user i prefure to work with as less tris in my screen. *You can convert your full model into tris by selecting your model and press /. *You can convert your full model into polies by selecting your model and go to "Structure->Squarize (or Squarize all LODS). Note: If you have an imported model, it will not convert some tris into poly as those will by non linear meaning one or more of the points making out the face is not aligned with the rest. Again depending on your workpipe, sometimes you will not need to do this, sometimes it is a good thing to do the poly->tris->squarize. Note: As this prosess involves making and deleting edges, this is very important regarding your sharp/smooth values as they depend on the existing or non exisiting edges. A new created tris edge will normally have a smooth value so most of the times it won't screw the overall values of a face. Lets continue and run the 'check faces' option that can be found under Structure. ->This will add the 3 following named selections in your selection menu: If you don't see any added named selections from the above, jump around and feeel happy. If not, continue... Without going into detail of the errors itself (check wiki or forum for more info about that), lets split up the errors: * Non-linear mapping: Easy to fix: press the named selection (* Non-linear mapping) and press /. In normal cases that will fix the problem. * Non-planar faces: press the named selection (* Non-planar faces) and press /. In normal cases that will fix the problem. Note: normally if you already did the above explained part about tris/poly you will normally don't have the two previous 'errors'. In the end these aren't big problems, it is more about how the engine will deal with them. When they aren't defined or cleaned out you let the engine deside what to do with the faces. This can turn out good but sometimes not (example: invisible faces under certain angles, deformed textures, bad lightning values, ...etc). Next step are the nasty ones, bear in mind this is out of experience and not official... * Cannot generate ST coordinates: From what i know there are two kinds of ST errors or there are two ways you can encounter an ST error, but in bought examples they deal with bad mapping. 2 examples of ST errors are: -Overlapping faces (mostly by bad defined polies where the engine will create a bad or crosssection edge when converting into tris). -Very badely deformed and streched UV mapped parts. In most cases these errors can only be fixed by taking your model (back) into a more advenced 3d program or if you can life and work with the O2 uv editor you can try to fix them there. In some cases you can fix them up relativly simple by playing around with the following tips, but like said most of the times you can't and you will need to step back to the mapping: -Work with one of the "ST coordinates error" face per time as the way you fix them depends on their individual needs. -Select one of the faces you have an ST problem is and study them (be it in the wireview or bulldozer/render). -If you can't noticed any deformation you might be able to fix it by converting the dual tris (depending on problem area) into a poly. Invert it (press W) and make them tris again and reverse them again. I was able to fix some ST errors this way, but like i wanted to point out the problem is sometimes not reversable. ->More will be added if i can think of some or additionally info is requested. Hope this helps some and provide a better optimized model. In the end this is only one of the many steps an modeler needs to run through when he aims for making the best out of his work!

Thanks Jenny, lets hope he doesn't take over all my standarts (make a lot, but only finish 1%) . MK4 looks good. Polycount? Now that the cat is out of the hat:

Just noticed your post... Not sure if i refure to the correct item, but: http://www.primeportal.net/misc/dieter_krause/us_20_liter_canister/?

Well polycount doesn't really mather mate, i mean amount doesn't says it all. It is what you make out of it. Don't really want to go into it, but the model lacks some key details and in some places like Robert mentioned it is way of. There are plenty of Gen 3 high resolution reference pictures on the net to guide you. @wipman: i guess you are correct he went for the 553 and you are correct about the comment. But please make sure you provide correct information/ ref. pics (-> That ain't a 553). *Let's C ya.

7k without scope and GL? Sorry to poop on your party, but you will need to do some serious remaking and optimization. I honestly thought it was like 3k all included. With 7k you can do a lot more . Meant as a possitive remark... Good luck. EDIT: Again, party pooper, but imho this model isn't ready to be ported into the game yet. I understand it might be one of your first models thought. But some things you can't rush.

I just asked for the polycount refurring to what we see... . ->Slightly goes offtopic: Imho polycount is more or less put to the background these days. Out of recent experiments i can say the enigne is more then capible to run higher polycount models then stock BI. Offcourse one needs to consider the role of the platform (used by the mass vs unique model). From what i know, less in terms of understanding, is that these days it is all about textures and model optimization. Eyecandy (refurring to shaders) killed the "radio"...We can't get around it anymore these days or at least here, so this is the area that needs more attention. Offcourse it is all linked in some way (shaders on faces or was it vertices). In the end, some like eyecandy some like FPS. Take it or leave it. Anyway, back to the model. Can you tell me what grenade launcher that is you modeled. Looks AG-36 if not mistaken. Not that it can't be used, btu why not go for the grenade launcher of the kit (EGLM)? In the end i still need to find my find 'battle-ready' reference picture...

Polycount please?

Feels like 2003 all over again...Nimitz... Anyway, just wanted to post the link, if allowed, to give you some background. If not mistaken there is some important facts in it, but non that aren't known. Refuring to the geo/fire/roadway lods dimensions. In short, make sure non of the pieces are bigger then 60mx60mx60m. If your Nimitz is scalled correctly, it should have at least 10-12 pieces as the carrier will need to be split in width but as you already did, in lenght. Anyway, do some very good test with basic parts representing the carrier before you carry on...OR IT WILL HUNT you after many years . Good luck. Maybe one day you will release an true replacer for (my/hawks) Nimitz. No need for an other bugged one. Last meant in a positive way! No, he doesn't got beaten. They simply 'made' a port, with all the bugs that come with it. Had an interesting topic on Armaholic about it today...again. If Stilton decide to go through the rofe and boared (but interesting and informative) part of making a test bed so it is bug free, he will OWN the party .

Not possible. New O2 brought us our extrude tool... maybe next O2 (ArmA2) will hopefully bring subtract tool. ->Untill then you will need to manually create your intersections or use a 3d program that has the tool.

My dust collecting Cheytac M200 If interested, feel free to PM me.

..like said, cfg noob here... But nice to hear it is 'that' simple. Would it be simple aswell to have an cfg replacement so we all can enjoy no-recoil effected vehicles? Would be very appreciated if you or someone could come up with one... Again, cfg noob here and thought it wasn't possible. But after checking it in XXX2 (xxx as it is still forbidden to mention it ), their mk19 vehicles don't respond to the recoil. The mk19 itself simulats the recoil on the mount only . Make one wonder why this 'simple' cfg tweak still hasn't made it in a beta. One can only hope...

No, i don't have any military background nor i have ever seen an MK19 (vehicle mounted) firing... But some YouTube movies or any other movies (non-hollywood) show me cleary the vehicle itself doesn't get effected by the MK19's recoil. Afaik the mounts itself already obsorve most of the force of the wepaons recoil. Somehow i smell bs on your story wld427. Feel free to backfire me if your story is correct, but please proof it in some way. No hard feeling but sofar i haven't found any proof of any vehicle who 'moves' due to recoil. RL vs Gameplay: Well we all know recoil has and still is messing up with any vehicle witch has a 'grenade' launcher mounted. Afaik this is core coded and can't be altered. Correct me if wrong, otherwise i suppose someone (no cfg talent here) should make an low recoil replacement cfg...Since i have never found one..has it is up to BIS to fix this. I know, lots things 'still' to fix, but this on is really a gameplay party poper imho. Personally the MK19 is my most favorite vehicle mounted weapon. I consider it as a mobile artillery support versus enemy inf. and soft vehicles. It is simply priceless if you can use it from behind cover and have coms to adjust your firings during an MP game. -> But this often gets messed up by the recoil. After several bursts you are forced to reposition your vehicle . Please fix...

Select your model and press W. Select the the individual parts (same texture) and press E.

No need to cap you opinion and flame one other. Opinions simply can't be all the same. But i agree EVO and its variations 'were' fun as it was one of the first platforms that was released for ArmA that made people join in large groups while it allowed a long-open-dowhatyoufeel type of mission. But i guess the rank system, kind of players etc...has over time killed it. Imho i simply can't beat a good (small) unranked coop be it PP vs PP, PP vs AI. Like mentioned, it is in a certain way a brain on 0 mission and at times there simply isn't any cooperative between players. It happens but only on certain servers and with certain players. Like mentioned in many other topic about it, we can't blame the maker of it, but it is indeed a big shame 99% of the server have this mission or its variation playing. I'm glad Foxhound was able to fix his server and we could enjoy some oldschool coop missions with friends. Offcourse many will think different, but imho EVO is played by BF and those other (acrade) games, as it fits their needs (score, ranks and many respawns). Sad ArmA had to evolved into this, but what one can do about it... In short, just not my piece of fun. Give me an coop where you are in the first place proude you survived a 1-2-3h battle with different kind of objective without beeing killed. The fact you helped your team alive and together made it untill the end with tactics and communication.

Also 'just' want to say how good i find this sound pack. Sticked with FDF a long time, but this is a very nice piece. Haven't followed it much (as i read is is/was part of an other sound pack). Anyway, great new atmosphere.

@ArmaAddons: Some way i'm glad you made the poll here as i suggested. I hope it give you your inview you wanted. But on the other hand, i'm sad you didn't listened to me when i suggested you should think about changing your concept. That was the main reason we at armaholic didn't and couldn't support your topic and it got locked. So again, as you already know by know, legally this isn't possible to even think providing such a service. You should really reconsider changing your project into "payed on demande model service". What i mean is...your team provide every part of the model as a set for the customer. So have a set of resolution lods that is unwrapped and has textures and shaders if customer wants. Has the needed geo-fire-road-view-memory 'lod' (->model) in a file extention other then p3d so someone outside your project can import and bring into life. You can't simply sell 'addons'. ArmA supported models on the other hand (where no BIS tools have been used) can afaik be selled. This offcourse limits your 'public', but one have to obey rules. Unless there would be a huge demande for an payed 'addon' and/or 'model' service, only then it might be worth for BIS to check what legally could be done, like a salepage through BIS's hands (quality/performence/legal checks). Like Ebud, i would be interested. Heck, i would pay if it would mean i don't have to be sitting behind my computer day-in day-out making own creations. Not that i don't like it, it is just very time consuming, and like we all know, it is more time consiming then in OFP days. On the other hand, in what way will you be our money worth... Like i have requested over PM on armaholic, as long I don't get to see some samples/portofoli/whatever evidence that shows your and your teams skills, nobody will pay you anything. Like mentioned, people are greedy (be it free or payed). I don't even want to go into how this service would work (payment when? encryption how? support? timeschedule? price?). Imho i don't think this will financially will gain you guys much. Offcourse depends on your price, but if i would count the houres i spend on stuff....you couldn't pay it (no need to scearch anything behind it, just explaining i'm a slow worker with eye for detail ). In the end, if your interest in money, then this isn't your hobby anymore and afaik 99% of the (old) community did something because they like doing what they do, want or want to prove. If you are for the bucks, you need to consider working in co-workership with a developer .

I suppose he made new models, so no imports from OFP. Well we could help, if only you provide some more info and best some screenshots of what is not working. Info: like how many textures and materials.

Hm, wild guess as i do'nt have much experience with rvmat's myself, but have you played around with the "forced diffuse"? Downside is, again if not mistaken, you will loose a lot of your original colour as the effect is putting an 'layer' over your texture...

Well you are correct Adam (Skull) didn't add a topic description or more rules. In the end his is no longer allowed to post ( wasn't their a new forum coming witch would wipe peoples 'history'... Anyway, well feel free to post your project without people can help. In your case i would say...simply make your own topic where peolpe can happely complain and troll about what the 'real' vaules and effect are (no offence meant mate, just picking up where it useally runs into.