Jump to content


CDLC Developer
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by mondkalb

  1. 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

    • Like 3

  2. 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.

    • Like 1

  3. 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.

    • Like 1

  4. 38 minutes ago, NexumX said:

    You are welcome to try and find 4M DTM of the Island for free. I couldn't! So I purchased some topographic maps (digital) traced the contours and then after some fiddling generated a pretty accurate DTM, I then tidied it up in Visitor 4 and VBS and exported the work in progress ASC.


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

  5. 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...

    • Like 7

  6. Great to see the CUP being carried further and farther!

    I just skimmed the changelog and noticed this:

    * CUP_AirVehicles_UH1H - All display names now refer to the UH-1H correctly as UH-1D


    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.

    (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. :)

    • Like 3

  7. 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.



    • Like 25

  8. EDIT: When you have a BI Dev saying how difficult this is going to be to police, I think everyone has their answer.

    But why didn't you read into it that a BI Dev is acknowledging the difficulties of the policing and is first-hand knowing how problematic it will be? Wouldn't that be a second, valid interpretation?

    (Acutally the BI Dev tags are a relic. I am a BISim-Person. :P)

    Edit: The main-reason, the one that has the punching-weigh in me halting my release is that simply my content, that I personally create in my free time, is not 100% legally sound for monetisation. This is entirely a problem of mine and the way I choose to create my content.

    If I use 100% self created textures, without the use of CG textures, or by acquiring a commercial license for CG textures' content, then I will be personally a lot more solid in defending my claims about my content, with official help from BI. :)

    Perhaps oversimplified: It all boils down to the man in a glass house throwing stones!

  9. So a few questions if you would (To every content maker following this thread)....

    ( A poll would be better)

    Will you continue to release content and work on your existing projects ?

    1) If not why Not ?

    2) If yes

    a) What EULA if any will you release with your content ?

    b) Would you want / expect any economical gain other than donations ?

    Speaking as a private addon-maker creating content in my free time:


    actually two weeks ago I was looking to put in the finishing sprint of my current buildings pack, but then I did some digging into how my content is being used and quickly decided against a release.

    I haven't followed the addon-landscape for a year or so, but I found out after a quick search how widespread it was that my content was being monetized. How it was being re-hashed in mod packs that you can only download under certain conditions that one must fulfill first. Let alone how ideas of mine are being re-used and entered into MANW. (I don't mind that: Imitation is the greatest compliment, but at least acknowledge me)

    Now my first and foremost motivation for creating freely available content is that I am looking forward to using my content with friends I know and care about. Another big item is just the fun of creating it.

    However, I was also always of the opinion that when I am done and happy with it, I should release publicly to allow other people to have fun with it, use it and expand their gaming experience with it. Terox definitely can vouch for this. :)

    The agreement however was always to leave it exactly the way it is. Nobody should modify my content, charge directly or indirectly money to use it or use it for military purposes. Collecting donations to run a server that occasionally uses my content is ok IMO, but if you downright make a profit off it, I get annoyed. Especially since some of my content uses textures that aren't licensed for commercial use. I'm sure there is some twisted lawyering out there that can make me responsible for the damages. And that is nothing I want to do with, and the biggest reason I stopped my release.

    So now I keep my content in a very tight circle of people that personally know. We play(ed) on a server that is owned by a single entity and didn't require donations. My content was distributed directly by me. Of course the content was then being shared further and further out of my control, but it never reached a frontpage release.

    What sucks most is that I want to share the stuff I make, but it is just going to be abused horribly. That is something I "felt" that only stated happening in the past 2-3 years. Of course releasing content back then was just as "dangerous" as now, but now people are breaching the agreement more often and definitely more willingly.

    To answer Terox' question in short:

    No, I will not continue to release my content and work of my existing projects.


    Because I cannot police it effectively anymore. The respect for content and their creators that existed at least until around 2009 is fading drastically. My releases relied on this respect.

    My content is not securely licensed to be commercialized, and I am not sure how I will be liable if someone does end up commercializing it, even against my will. By just making it available I am surely making myself partly responsible for enabling violations of third-party licenses. (CG Textures in my case)

  10. Heya everyone!

    I have received a lot of messages and e-mails about this in the past months.

    As stated in the readme and in the first post regarding the changed disclaimer for WOO:

    You are free to take and modify WOO the way you like it!

    But please be so kind and do not forget to provide correct credits to the people whose work you are modifying.