mondkalb

You can change the default world config that is being loaded in two ways: Using the -worldCfg=yourCfgWorldsClassName startup parameter in the buldozer link Changing the initWorld=; parameter in those core configs to be your world config

Heya, I stumbled across this command buldozer_LoadNewRoads and was wondering how to actually run this in Buldozer when connected to Terrain Builder. There was no console available or any interface for script input. Using the Dev-Build executeables as Buldozer didn't enable the internal debug console as well (RscDisplayDebug). You used to be able to use the Cheat1 + C hotkey to bring up the internal debug console, but that's no longer working (for me). So I did quick and dirty config trick. I took the core configs on P:\ drive and modified the F1 menu that appears in BZ when connected to TB. How to: Unpack P:\dta\bin.pbo or debin the config.bin in P:\bin Open P:\bin\config.cpp Find "RscDisplayOptions" Find "class Controls" class Controls { Go add this into a new line under the open squiggly-brace: class G_Expression: RscControlsGroup { x = "SafezoneX+0.1"; y = "SafezoneY+0.055"; w = "SafezoneW-0.2"; h = 0.23; class VScrollbar { color[] = {0,0,0,0}; width = 0.001; autoScrollSpeed = -1; autoScrollDelay = 5; autoScrollRewind = 0; }; class HScrollbar { color[] = {0,0,0,0}; height = 0.001; }; class ScrollBar: ScrollBar{}; class Controls { class TextExpression: RscText { x = 0.01; y = 0; w = 0.2; h = 0.03; sizeEx = 0.027; text = "$STR_UI_DEBUG_EXPRESSION"; }; class ValueExpression: RscEdit { idc = 101; style = 16; x = 0.018; y = 0.03; w = "SafezoneW-1+0.76"; h = 0.16; sizeEx = 0.027; colorBackground[] = {0,0,0,1}; colorSelection[] = {0,0.4,0,1}; autocomplete = "scripting"; }; class B_Apply: RscButton { idc = 102; x = "0.018+0.1"; y = 0.195; w = "SafezoneW-1+0.76-0.1"; h = 0.03; sizeEx = 0.027; text = "$STR_UI_DEBUG_BUT_APPLY"; default = 0; action = "call compile ctrlText ((findDisplay 3) displayCtrl 101)"; }; }; }; Save it and run BZ again. Receive this: Maybe this helps one or the other, and maybe this could become a regular thing from the tools side, as this core-config hacking means you'll have to update this every time a new config.bin is placed in P:\bin, which is probably every buldozer.exe update. Cheers.

I would recommend you to start with yourself: Introduce yourself and lay out the reasons why this thematic/topic interests you. What skills would you bring to the table of your mod project? What is the scope of the project? What would need to be done, how far has the project gotten already? Show any concepts, layouts, stories, gameplay ideas you have or what you are looking for and open to. Potential interest can only be created by being interesting. Simply referring to a previous post that was locked due to becoming off-topic won't cut it. Right now the entire mod idea is depending on you pitching it well and honest. Without that I would guarantee you that this will not go anywhere, as people don't know you, don't know what you have done so far and are unsure whether your project will actually be still around a month from now.

Terrain is looking very stunning. I haven't seen one like this so far. And great use specular wet puddles. Definitely something to learn from. If I see that correctly, you are using the shapefile roads to draw field furrows. This does look great from afar, but I am wondering how those look from a close up, since there won't be any parallax on them to my knowledge. Or did you manage to work around that limitation? Keep at it!

Not enough moustaches to be era-specific. :D Otherwise, very nice!

Ohh nice. This brings back memories! Glad you are carrying the CWR spirit forward! I have this completed (Textures, LODs, Config) M16A2 doing useless rounds on my HDD, I'd be happy for it to find a new home here. Let me know. :)

I'd just like to make it clear: Obviously this is an unofficial addon, neither BI, BISim nor LEGO were involved here. I won't continue developing the addon either. It's a one-off thing really. Of course it's all non-commercial, too. And should LEGO get concerned about this, I'll of course remove the content download links. (Just to be sure and hopefully safe) I picked the brickmen theme because they were quick to make and easy to animate. :D

Oh wow. :O Regarding the CTD: It's indeed a major problem. This project was initially intended to just find out what Arma3 can and cannot do, so I am not massively sad about this limitation stopping it. But the potential is there to work around it. I believe all it would need is to make use of the original skeleton setup, so that the bone-index stays in order. It would be a massive pain for the data side to shoehorn, but nonetheless possible.

Sure there is. Duplicate your Armature, bake the poses with the option to remove all constraints. Then duplicate your actor puppet and assign that to the dupe armature that is now basically a carbon copy of the rig except that it no longer is following your rig controls:

Shameless plug for Cold War stuff: We do!

Never seen this before, either. It seems that proxies are in their correct position, but the rest is missing. It would be good to know where the rest is in relation to the cargo-proxy / character-bindpose. When the bug appears, check with "dude1 selectionPosition 'LeftHand'" to find out where the hand is in relation to the character's origin. Then do this after the bug is gone and the character appears correctly. If the values are the same we know its a rendering issue. If they differ then it could be an issue with preloading the .rtm file.

Any plans for a Sahrani 2017? Re-Establish the North, with a greater and better wall to protect the new revolution!

Hello, this info was just given to me: http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/announcements/deaths/deaths/15020902.Paul_Lorenzo_Pelosi/ Out of respect for Paul's family I ask you to seek contact with them before you decide to attend. Thank you.

This season will be a Cold War...

You have my respect for this tricky set of data. I can see why you wouldn't want that work to go to waste.

Great to see more incentive for creating terrains and islands in particular! Overall the idea is very similar to the ancient old terrain competition I ran in 2012: However, I see some issues here: With this Lampedusa challenge won't you end up with a couple or so terrains based on the same location? Personally that deters me from partaking because of two reasons: - I can't work on a location I really want to, and - At the end there are similar terrains based on the same area, which makes the effort seem a bit more futile. One winner terrain is "used", and the others will be forgotten about. Running the competition with a wider scope ensures that even the results that aren't celebrated as the winner will still retain purpose and future use simply by being a different location/region/area. Basically my gripe with this is that the purpose of the contest is "Make 1 island as good as possible", and not "get people into making terrains". Some people may even suspect you are doing this competition as a proxy to "buy" a terrain you want...

Congratulations to the entire team for this! I hope you will have an enjoyable resting time before you move on to the next project. :)

Liking your post feels wrong. Any plans to address these issues? Or at least some priorities assigned? I'd suspect the AI issues would be top of the list.

We'll be needing all of these...

"Wanna hear a secret?" "Wait, come back!"

Check this out. :)

Great to see the CUP being carried further and farther! I just skimmed the changelog and noticed this: The model used (From Arrowhead) is most definitely a UH-1H. Externally you cannot tell between UH-1D and UH-1H's alone by turbine and transmission parts used. Instead, you must refer to peripherals: Original US-made (Early ~1960s) and Vietnam-deployed UH-1D most definitely did not have roof-mounted pitot pipes or cable-cutters. (The Arrowhead model actually doesn't have a pitot pipe at all) Instead they have nose pitot pipes and in some cases long-range antennae. For the UH-1H these were moved to the top of the cockpit beginning with production in 1966. Later on cable-cutters were added for trainers at home first and then for the whole fleet. That means UH-1D only really existed during Vietnam and were upgraded at the latest by the 70s. Now, however, there is only one nation still flying UH-1 helicopters with airframe-designations listed as "UH-1D", which is Germany. This is due to a shorthand in the procurement process. Germany only ever had a handful of US-made UH-1D for evaluation. When the purchase and subsequent licensing was signed, helicopters matching the UH-1H plans and specifications were manufactured by Dornier in license for German Heer and Luftwaffe. But the procurement office already booked and logged the vehicles as UH-1D and henceforth its designation remained as UH-1D. The evaluation purchases and loads from the US, which were UH-1Ds, were upgraded with the newer engine and transmission, and AFAIK one of these handful actually survived. This original US made but German-used UH1 was sold to overseas a few years ago and still exists. But it is, by definition, UH-1H and only UH-1D by name. Source: https://www.amazon.de/Bell-UH-1D-%C2%BBHUEY%C2%AB-Robert-Busse/dp/3613031728 (Got the book, am building the bugger for Arma) So, I'd suggest: Change the stringtable-entry back to UH-1H, and only the German version should remain as UH-1D in display name. :)

Not directly relevant to the thread, but other people are working on this. :)

Hah, quite the surprise seeing my Nogova being revived in CUP. Glad it finally happened, even though I wish I would've been informed of this earlier. :D

Having done both plenty of structures and vegetation (unreleased for a reason), I feel this topic speaks to me. First of all making new content is always time intensive. Making new environment art however carries another extra requirement: It takes also a terrain artist to first of all use the new content in a meaningful way. Usually the people who create batches of new structures are also the terrain makers themselves, so time is rare. Then making just one new building is seldom enough. What's needed is a set of 10-15 new structures of the same style/theme to allow for anything meaningful on the terrain. A single new house of a particular style will stick out like a sore thumb unless you manage to match the surrounding content's level of quality. This level of quality nowadays also requires your structures to be (fully) enterable, so this only adds to the amount of time and work required to complete a single structure. Making these rough observations alone gives you already an impression that a new set of buildings is on par with the work required for making a couple of new vehicles (not variants of) for a specific nation. Even though a single structure is definitely created faster than a single new vehicle, the time still adds up to be respectable effort. Vehicles, weapons and the like however often have more exposure, more "reusability"-value, as they are terrain independent. They are simply easier to expose ingame. As for vegetation: This is a very difficult technical area to make, as you are fighting the engine on every bit. Random/Early LOD switching, simply bad or inferior LODs that are noticeable, the shaders themselves, differences between Buldozer preview and ingame preview just make the entire process very tedious and tiresome. There are indeed various tree-creation software packages out there, but those will only help you with the shape, not with the integration into the game. Again one must look at the "package size" to make this meaningful: 2-3 variants per tree, 3-4 different trees? Then what about shrubs, grass, flowers and rocks? Easily you reach another project scope worth years of time when done alone, including the research and "figuring out" phase. Currently I have something on the backburner going that includes 15 new living houses, two pubs and some industrial buildings. I'd say I'm half way done with that but currently lacking time and motivation to tackle it again: I found myself doing character art and weapons now. Just as you suspected. :) For the vegetation it looks the same: My plan was three variants of four different trees and then some shrubs as I feel like. I'm about half way done but absolutely unhappy with the ingame results, which also grinds on the motivation. In essence: New structures and vegetation will always require a large-scale effort. And these large projects are definitely not newb-friendly and will require a dedicated team with a unified vision and knowledge exchange. So you wont be dealing with the technicality, but also with people politics. :O I'll try to monitor this discussion for a bit and I'll see how I can contribute. Cheers.