Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Defunkt

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2558

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by Defunkt

  2. Posted

    Don't see what difference that makes (there's no certainty such things will ever be released), much better if people can look at the screenshots posted here and know that whatever they see is available for DL. Pretty sure the distinction was made when people were sharing 'early access' builds of 'in development' updates with patreon backers thereby effectively monetizing mod access. A simple rule forestalls inevitable abuse and jealousy.

  3. Posted

    8 minutes ago, ShiftyzZ-98 said:

    like i get the whole idea of Private mods as mostly not always it been an ripped content, but what i dont understand is not being allowed to post content thats Already released but few parts of the content in the screenshot is from future update. "WIP/Development screenshots should ideally be in their own WIP/Dev thread" but isnt the Screenshots posted here even a nice way to promote an addon thats going through development?...i just dont get the whole idea of not being allowed to post screenshots of something thats public but just "outdated"

     

    The obvious abuse being that anyone could then post screenshots using private mods and simply say it's 'in development'. The best rules don't require second-guessing of peoples' motives.

  7. Posted

    An update, likely the last - hopefully it's an improvement (stare at something long enough and it becomes impossible to tell).

     

    Decided it's probably best to deliver the terrain mod colour-correction-neutral so have removed the EO_Real_3 preset. Anyone who wants to retain that look can subscribe to the stand-alone version HERE. A big thank you to EvilOrgan for being so cool about me using it.

     

    Otherwise just incremental tweaks, trying to inject a bit more variation and subtlety while chasing down some of the worst looking artefacts;

    - Middle-distance noise is now blended more gradually with near detail textures.
    - The influence of satmap colour-corrections on near detail textures is configurable per-terrain.
    - The influence of the terrain normal on noise intensity is configurable per-terrain.
    - Additional application of noise sampled with a coarse UV (to defeat tiling patterns) is preset per-terrain;
    - + First channel preset linked to terrain colouration.
    - + Second channel preset linked to terrain gradient.
    - + Third channel preset linked to scope magnification.

     

    Instruction count has blown-out some but I'm hoping performance cost will remain within/around the 1 FPS mark (as most video cards are under-utilized in Arma).

     

    Also posted another companion mod which significantly boosts the size and strength of the sun. Don't expect it to be popular - likely I'm the only person who appreciates the immersion of dealing with sunstrike and of course there are implications in competitive play - or I'd have bundled it in the terrain mod 😈.

     

    Finally I should make clear that this mod maintains your shadow render distance - nominally at 200m. This provides a mechanism whereby the shader can receive real-time updates on your level of zoom (it tweaks the noise as magnification increases beyond 1:1). An overdue thank you to @killzone_kid for posting his FOV calculation script which is used here.

     

    ANZINS Terrain
    ANZINS Terrain DLC (for Livonia)
    ANZINS EO_Real_3
    ANZINS Sun
     

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 3

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, AirShark said:

    some plane canopies are getting opaque when using this mod eg, the A-10c on the USAF mod i really cant see anything when inside it ,is there a fix for that ?

     

    Just tried it (this mod with CBA & USAF:A-10C on Altis) and can't say I see that, canopy seems entirely transparent in daylight, twilight and night time. First thing to try would be removing the bundled colour corrections (colour.pbo), especially if it might be doubled-up with some other CC mod.

  9. Posted

    5 hours ago, Gunter Severloh said:

    Hey Defunkt, did you remove ANZINS Terrain IFA3 from the workshop, as its not there anymore, any particular reason?

     

    Yeah, quite a long time ago. I wasn't really doing anything in IFA3 myself so maintaining even the little I had configured, much less progressing it, turned into a chore I never looked like getting on top of. Might revisit when IFA3 is a little less in flux.

    • Thanks 3

  12. Posted

    VERSION 1.2.2 (2019-09-09)
    - Minor tweak of Altis configuration.
    - Livonia; https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1856859227

     

    Haven't spent much time in Arma since Contact dropped but I wanted to have a crack at Livonia (for all it's already very pretty). Not final, but a start. Choices were largely subservient to a desire to try and get the wheat field clutter to transition a little better (in terms of both texture and colour -  albeit only on average).

     

    Comparison (with vanilla).

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  13. Posted

    81,863,817 bytes will show in explorer as (approximately) 79 kilobytes (you need to right-click > Properties to see the actual byte count). But if it's come down again it's almost certainly the latest.

     

    So, interested in your mod list but honestly, we'll get to the bottom of it much quicker if you (being the person who already has all of the mods you use), engage in a process of trial by elimination. Start with running A3 with just this mod and testing whether the issue occurs (without any other mods). Assuming it doesn't it's then just a case of adding mods back in stages and checking again until the issue manifests again. Once I know which mod is behind the conflict (so I can recreate the problem here) I can set about debugging the issue.

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    @CAWA Gaming Hey, obviously just check first that your installed copy has updated (dta\bin.pbo should be 81,863,817 bytes - as of a small unrelated change posted this morning).

     

    Failing that I'd want to start with your RPT file (so I can see what mods you have loaded). The problem I fixed most recently was a conflict with Laxemann's Suppress (seemingly use of DynamicBlur with a priority < 1000) - just checked again and that issue remains fixed (for me at least).

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    5 minutes ago, EO said:

    Again please forgive my ignorance but what "benefits" does the new ADPL-SA license bring if the Licensed Data Packages remain unchanged?

    I'm sorry but this announcement seems confusing, if only to me....

     

    As I read it this is mostly of interest to DayZ modders who can now access the A2 sources for use in DayZ. I certainly don't begrudge them that but until such time as similar sources for DayZ SA are released under this license (which would allow porting to A3) there's not much new here of interest to A3 modders (so far).

    • Thanks 2

  18. Posted

    8 minutes ago, haleks said:

     

    I'm not sure that's really relevant though... If it's really 'early access', then it's certainly not locked behind a paywall (this would be the issue), as it implies that it would be followed by a public release.

    Pledging to their patreon remains optional and, unless I missed something, not doing so won't prevent you from subscribing to the workshop release?

     

    What guarantee, or indeed motivation, exists that there will be a public release as long as they can make money off it remaining in 'testing'? Seems like it's already been in testing a long time. These things are best governed by black and white rules that aren't subject to interpretation or second guessing of intentions.

  20. Posted

    Aren't the 3D aircraft HUDs (assuming one can be instantiated other than within a vehicle) extremely limited in terms of data sources for the 'bones'? I'd have thought you could do a lot more using a standard 2D display and animation via a non-zero period on ctrlCommit. Or did Jets bring something more to the table in terms of scripted sources?

     

    EDIT: As you were, have just perused the new(-ish) MFD stuff in the scripting reference.

    • Like 2

  21. Posted

    I dunno, I guess I just take tight-lipped as the industry standard approach, and given some of the wailing that goes on whatever BI does I don't blame them for following that.

     

    Ultimately I'm still something of a fan-boi. They could never release another Arma and I'd still be grateful these crazy Czechs gave us something no other studio will likely ever even attempt.

     

     

    • Like 2

  22. Posted

    18 minutes ago, froggyluv said:

     

     Its called trajectory and where the focus (or lack) of has appeared to have been heading for some time. You cant blame people for doubting BI's long term intentions because BI has some sorta weird internal gag order on the long term plans of the series -darkness breeds spores, molds and fungi. For gods sake if they're all happily working on some new cutting edge engine that would finally realize some of the old mil-simmers long held dreams than shed a little light on it. Ever see Star Citizens long term plan roadmap available to the public -god knows if they will hold up but they have quarterly assessments of what areas of Combat/Ship AI/Infantry AI/Group Behaviours/Civilian Behavious etc mapped out for the next couple of years.

     

    Might have something to do with the $200 million dollars the players fronted for development. Hardly something that can be held up as a norm.

     

    Besides, on past results I have far more faith in BI to deliver. It used to be I'd load up SC once a year to see what progress had been made but I haven't bothered for a couple now, each time I'd be immediately confronted by clipping through models and the lurching vomit-inducing canned animations and exit immediately wondering; how is this shit NOT 100 times more important than yet another ship re-do?

    • Like 2

  23. Posted

    12 minutes ago, lex__1 said:

    I like any content and any direction of development. I am interested in creative works. Everyone finds their own interest. But it hurts me when my interest is limited by the platform, which is not stable and the workload for troubleshooting the platform is reduced, since there is no reason to do so. VR is more limited than the enthusiasm of the Arma team and the enthusiasm of the guys making different mods.

     

    Perhaps that's why all of BI's engine people are working on a new one? Do you actually want them taken off that to twiddle with the current 5-year old platform?

     

    Meanwhile other non-engine developers are probably most usefully engaged in generating development funds by releasing a content pack for the current game. If you don't want that fine, don't buy it, but it's daft to equate that with a failure to improve the platform (which obviously BI is very actively engaged in doing right now).

     

    Honestly it's like some of you have your dial so stuck on "Maximum Whinge" you can't even think the simplest of scenarios through.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  24. Posted

    35 minutes ago, krzychuzokecia said:

    And I don't really have any of those problems, for me game runs amazing.

    ...

    But for him there's not enough of interesting non-military content in the game (which I don't agree with).

     

    Sounds to me like the opinions you're presenting as 'what the players want' are quite diverse and you're pretty much at odds with all of them. Forgive me if I'm not convinced by your claim to know what 'the players' want.

     

    Right now this forum is fair bubbling with posts claiming to know what Arma is all about, what is the right way to play it and what BI should have done to support that. Funnily they often bear little resemblance to one another. Could be people just imagine that what they want is lent credibility by claiming to speak for everyone.

    • Like 2
×