Darkstorn

No, i didn't forget this thread, i'm just damn lazy. :P Anyway, as you can see there's lots of progress, but i've yet to make a new scope for it(i have started on the model for it though). Also, ignore the non-realistic frame colour, i just thought this particular one looked the best in Source. I'll do both the more realistic green one i showed earlier and also black. Anyway, soon i can also start the solid stock.

And that's why i ever said unrealistic stuff can look better. In this case RH's guns are from CS: S which has a limited lighting system(improved nowadays because of phong and other stuff), and thus all lighting and highlights must be painted onto the texture. Which usually results in a better looking thing even if the engine knows how to light it properly; It's not realistic, but it'll look better. I personally make stuff that is half way between totally bland and painted lighting. Effectively meaning my stuff looks still relatively good in both Arma and HL2(only one of my things have ever made into Arma though, and it's old), but not in Hl1 for example. (last post about the issue)

Sorry, i only did it because dyslexic people have trouble reading regular sized text if there's lots of it. And i assumed he's dyslexic because he argues about things i didn't say. I just thought RH's addons do look extremely good ingame, no matter how realistic or not they are. Vilas was clearly trying to undermine his work, what other purpose would there be in randomly coming in and claiming RH's stuff is unrealistic? I say keep at it RH, but do keep asking permissions though. The more unrealistic models we get, the more open and friendly this place might become... I've seen lots of flaming ONLY due to the fact that some random person didn't think something was quite as realistic as he wanted it to be. RH, wanna convert my Galil into Arma btw? It is unrealistic, but only due to an accident.

Sorry, i only ever said that 'unrealistic'(according to Vilas) models can look better than realistic ones, nothing more, nothing less. It's humanly impossible to argue about things like that, but he's still doing it, mind you, putting words into my mouth nonetheless and grasping on points nobody ever said. He's arguing with himself so to speak.

I don't sacrifice realism for looks on MY stuff, i was talking about what i would be USING. And i thought i was being clear... *hint* I do not use my own stuff *hint* My logic isn't flawed, it's your ability to understand what others say that is flawed. I was actually only talking in the third dimension, Vilas was as well. Mostly because it's totally impossible to create a texture that would be even 90% realistic in all situations. You don't have much modeling/texturing experience, do you? It's very possible to make something that in real life looks good, and then suddenly bad ingame even if it's totally realistic. There's so many things that could potentially go wrong. No. You have no idea what you're talking about. My logic is NOT flawed, no matter how you look at it; You're just misunderstanding EVERYTHING i say. I say it again; I mean SMALL changes to models in order to make them look better, not changing the whole damn thing. For example scaling; Sometimes a perfectly scaled model will not work properly ingame in Arma. They are also rarely light grey... Exactly how Vilas' work is. But i too do not want to insult him, it's my opinion; I'm from the old school of modelers and texturers, who do not leave stuff to be done by the engine itself. We make it work even in the oldest possible games with the same visuals. Vilas' stuff would NOT work in a game that doesn't have a proper dynamic lighting for example. Wrong. I only mean in a case where making it more realistic would cause harm for the overall good look. I do not like brand new looking models and textures, and it's exactly why i don't like Vilas' stuff; Not enough texture, too much depending on the engine itself. Bland can mean unrealistic as well... I'm starting to think you have dyslexia, i've tried to explain it many times but you still keep grasping onto something i have NOT said myself... I said unrealistic things CAN look better, and that some authors choose to sacrifice realism for looks, especially for CS. There is NO REASON IN THE UNIVERSE why an unrealistic model CANNOT look better than a realistic one. However, with realism you'll have limitations. And i never said realism equals to bland, i said Vilas' stuff is bland and that i think it's sad he has to come to this thread and make himself believe his own stuff is better(he's done it before too); Vilas' stuff is more realistic than RH's converts, but they aren't even nearly as impressive. Neither ingame or from an artists' perspective. Your way of thinking is pretty black-and-white it seems. I NEVER said realistic stuff is always better than unrealistic, and that adding random crap to things makes them automatically better. I said: Unrealistic stuff CAN look better than realistic stuff. There is no rule, it can be the other way around too. I also never claimed unrealistic stuff is realistic, which is rather obvious... You're the one saying random things and then claiming i said it... You wouldn't understand, and you DO NOT understand. This post only proved it... I never said anything unreasonable, i ONLY EVER CLAIMED THAT UNREALISTIC STUFF CAN STILL LOOK BETTER THAN REALISTIC IN ORDER TO COUNTER VILAS' POINT; HIS POINT WAS NOT ONLY WRONG, IT WAS UNREASONABLE. HE TRIED TO DEFEND HIS OWN WORK BY CLAIMING THAT ALL CS AUTHORS ALWAYS MAKE UNREALISTIC STUFF. What have you EVER done that has anything to do with modeling or texturing? There, understand now? I DID NOT CLAIM ANYTHING LIKE THAT. Stop putting words into my mouth.

actually it was just a random thought, you don't think it's weird to suddenly see a person who joined in january and has almost 3000 posts? And no, i have no idea who you are. Yes i am, what's wrong with it? I just don't do it for my own stuff. I like realism, but as a graphics artists i also like good looking stuff. For example, if there were two guns for you to choose; One that was 100% ultrarealistic but looked like total crap, and a model that is only 70-80% realistic but looks insanely awesome, would you STILL choose the first one only for the sake of realism? If you say yes, you're playing the wrong game my friend. And i'm not saying you can't have a 100% realistic model that looked good, there are several but rarely are they among the best. Vilas' stuff is indeed realistic, it just looks extremely bland and boring. Even if these alterations are not realistic? I see... Yes, although you obviously are thinking of unrealistic as something totally unreasonable(like that retarded comment about a howitzer in a chopper). Just the same way a totally unrealistic painting can look better than one that aims for realism; I'm talking about LOOKS only, not how 'badass' or 'cool' such additions are, graphics only. You wouldn't understand. And by changes of realism i mean extremely small stuff; Such as scaling, and slight alterations. Not even Arma's default stuff is 'DM-approved-realistic', let alone OFP's...

And you would be absolutely correct. Um, well Vilas WAS comparing them already... My point was that you don't have to have absolute realism in order to have good graphics. And comparing Arma/CS models is QUITE fair in fact, considering 99% of all the gun models ever released for both Arma and OFP ARE in fact from CS. Even the more realistic ones. I for one do not sacrifice realism for looks. I'm not going to dignify this with an answer; Instead i'll ask how old are you? Ps. 316.60 posts per day? 2000 posts within a week or so?! I can't see anybody posting that much meaningful stuff... So i'm assuming most of your posts are in fact redundant.

I haven't even thought about that really yet. I think i'll go with something quite standard(being a pretty standard scope in the first place). Well, i was in fact planning on doing the Valmet M76 next.

Oh please... Not only is the scale only minimally different, you didn't even bother to measure it correctly; In fact most of the gun is perfectly in scale, try moving it to the right; Only the barrel & gas tube are 'wrong'. That and it's incredibly hard to actually be able to use the scale tool perfectly, there's no telling how inaccurate that picture is due to your own errors... And sometimes you need to sacrifice realism in order to make stuff look good. Most AK's made for CS have oversized barrels for example because normally an AK barrel is quite puny, and would look kind of weak ingame. Plus they are modelled after such photos in the first place; So IF the scale is wrong, it's on purpose. Sometimes better can be less accurate in terms of realism. In fact, in most cases it is. Most 'cs AKs' are in fact quite awesome, especially any new ones, i've never seen anybody in the Arma community to ever accomplish anything even remotely similar. /E: I checked that thread... And from what i see(even page 89), Robert's addons are FAR more impressive regardless of the fact that they're not really 'his'. Your models might be accurate, but that's pretty much it; They don't LOOK good at all, bland and grey, that's it. Hell, i'm not even sure(too small pics but the lighting looks very familiar) but the AK on that page looked a lot as if it had stuff from an AK *I* did several years ago...

Well, i don't use AO, i always paint the lighting myself. Unfortunately Arma isn't the only game i'm doing it for, which means i have to do the lighting anyways, and i really don't like how AO looks like.

Well, as far as i know, the only differences are the text on the barrel, and the .300 Win Mag barrel is also slightly smaller. So maybe, although it's fairly unnoticeable. And thanks for that link, although i already have it as my main source of refs. /E: Of course the magazine and bullets would have to be fixed as well, but again, you never see them ingame anyways.

Hi, basically this is my first WIP/Addon post here ever, although i've been lurking the place for several years, and i do have even more years in terms of experience, i just never went into putting my stuff into OFP/ARMA before but i thought what the hell, let's go for it. Now, i have zero experience in modding for either game, but then again i don't put my own stuff into other games but instead i ask others to do it. So, why not again? Maybe RobertHammer would be up for the job, since he already converted my Sako RK95(more accurately, M92/S) into Arma. Without permission i might add but i don't mind too much, he did credit and it looks far better in ARMA than it did in Half-Life 2. So, the model is done, there are already a few textures released for this, but this is my personal project which is still pretty early. Maybe less than 50% is done even though it looks like it has more than that; As of now it's still basically basic texturing with lighting added, and almost zero grunge and dirt etc. And yes, there's two versions. I'm texturing the folding stock variant, but i might do the other one as well later. Here's a shot of both models: The folding stock variant is about 8300 triangles, and the regular one is 6500-ish. I did count the muzzle break and front sight for the folding stock model although both parts are 'extra'. And here's the still-heavy-WIP texture:

Well they obviously have achieved something if people want to use the stuff... In normal cases i and most other modders couldn't care less about permissions, however there are a few exceptions... Mainly the usage in larger addons, and mods. Most people, including me, also disagree with the fact that a person with really no control over the content gives it to others... Then there's the fact that this time MULTIPLE models have been used... A single weapon? Usually it's okay straight away with just credits, however in general we *require* permission even when put into packs released internally in our forums... Most Half-Life related releases also have a disclaimer in the readme that specifies permission is needed. Also, that last comment doesn't really help... You do have to understand that free in this case does NOT mean 'free to use as people wish'. You are not allowed to pirate a movie(even a free one in the internet) and then re-release it again, for obvious reasons. The same is for models, textures and any other artwork pretty much. It's just copyrights, a very important set of rules meant to protect the works... I'm sure you can see that... I wouldn't be so sure... Most might be like that but you *never* know. Either way, like i said, they are free but not public domain... Those who made the models and textures in fact DO own them, as if they were a physical product. /Edit: I do apologize for making this 'public'. Mind you, it wasn't really public until somebody posted a link to our forums... But i do have to explain a few things nonetheless: CDG.net is extremely overprotective about artists' rights. RobertHammer agreed to that(unknowingly perhaps) when he joined there... It is common practice to make a thread about a credit/permission issue in our forums, so people could better see if their work was used. The MAJORITY of the authors of those weapon models are in CDG, and they have a right to know if their work is being used... I made a thread about it as is the standard. That and we *ALL* know that threads are far more effective than private messages in things like these.

It won't end the discussion until you REALLY fix it. Now it says: Model: King Homer Textures: King Homer and something like 'these guys made it for cs' *insert a long list of people* What you need to do is REMOVE King Homer's name from those spots, as he DID NOT model OR texture it. No matter if you think he deserves credit, those two things are not what he deserves it for. Sure, credit him for the original port, but you still need to fix that.

It's NOT clear... The credits are still vague and quite untrue as well. I'll let others judge if i'm spamming or not... The way i see it, i'm trying to up the standards of your releases and make you have proper credits for them... Why is it so hard? He did NOT texture it, yet the credits still say that. He also did NOT model it, and the credits also say that. He might have converted it, he deserves credit for it if you want to give it to him, however he absolutely DOES NOT deserve credit for modelling or texturing them. That is just plain misleading from the original authors. From your vague list of CS authors, how would i know who is the modeller and texturer if i didn't know the people in the first place? Change the credits again, this time until they're correct. King Homer did NOT model or texture these models. You *will* replace his name on those categories with Iono and Wannabe... If i'm wrong, why haven't i seen resistance from anybody else but you? I'd say it's because i'm absolutely right, and that your release is NOT important enough for you to do whatever the hell you want. This could've been much simplier if you just had agreed with the proper credits but you choose to make it into a huge argument. Again. Third time now, nonetheless... Even if you for some reason have a grudge against CS/ CS: S modders, you'd do yourself well to fix the credits regardless. And, in real life / internet forums, saying 'get lost' achieves absolutely nothing except it makes you seem like a person who doesn't have respect for the forum rules... Only a moderator or an admin would really have the right to say that to somebody who is trying to fix something... In this case i'm trying to make you give proper credits to those who deserve it. It only made yourself look more arrogant.