pathetic_berserker

^ Now that is just dripping in awsome sauce IB. The only way to beat the adrenilin of pure high speed is to be big and heavy at high speed, love it!

Personaly, not liking any of the driving changes, auto centering, wierd cursors, and I see no benifit in just pionting the mouse to where you want to go, unless your driving on relatively long stretches of road you still have to 'steer' to stay on the road or avoid obstacles when offroad. Looks like we're just heading toward evrything that was wrong with OFP steering.

Your absolutely right, personaly I'd go with the ocean on one side and 'Clafgan' sized mountains on the other, sort of like Hong Kong. I think what I was trying to say is that folks too quickly dismiss the idea via some implication that there is no cost worth paying for such a map, where I think that even if some cost is unaviodable, it is still worth doing.

I love it when I take a peek in this thread and get totaly blown away

hehe, don't normaly either, but when when I saw how cool that fuction was, it ALMOST had me. ( BTW ACE lovers, don't get me wrong, 'ACE' is in fact ACE!, just dosn't normaly fit/or sway, my server choices ;) )

Well, not exactly, the discussion doesn't exclude community made content, or the possibility of BIS creating additional islands. Personaly I think BIS would probably be doing themselves a favour if they made a single small dense urban map with some larger scale buildings on it. Even if it meant doing BF3 style boundaries with blocked alleys and unenterable buildings. Sure it may not be perfect, but neither is it right that everyone pushes for only open widerness with the occasional postcode. At the end of the day it would be one extra island that would (in my opinion) effectively double the interest in the game and assist in creating more varied mission styles and go some way to sustaining better PVP. And before anyone pipes up and says "b.b.b..but ArmA isn't about that", I reckon about 50% of my time playing across the whole series has been PVP, in my eyes ArmA is about everything, and this is just an area that could do with more support.

At this stage it is unlikely that there will be an ACE specific version. It is just a happy coincidence that some things work from ACE when inheriting default classes. Sorry I cant tell you more at this stage as I'm not particularly good with config stuff. Oh' I could probably give you a basic working version ,......eventualy, but I want this to be very much complete when I release so I'm getting help from Zguba

Ignoring the flaws in the OP's initial post , I think this is exactly what it comes down to. It's a bit of shame there are not more people making buldings but at the same time I do understand why (and this applies to BIS as well) they are an incredible amount of work. Sure they can often be reduced to relatively primative shapes, but if you want to realy make it look good, be enterable, make it AI freindly, and have reasonable levels of destruction without overly killing FPS, there has to be a huge investment of time and creativity. But it can still be worth the effort, and I'm sure that some could make a better looking project than my attemp of a large scale urban construction http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?87769-Stadium-Beta

I know Icebreaker started a rumor about a Molitian version a long time ago but it appears that there was atleast one other country to benifit from Russias export program. pics 70 - 200K I can confirm that recent tests with ACE gave the more correct SACLOS missiles behavior. I believe it probably should use MCLOS as the As' used the first generation AT-2 but its still a huge leap forward from the BIS default.

^um..wow its amazing to think my project has inspired to you post after being a member for so many years. Much appreciated, and I hope I don't have to make you wait too much longer.

Early production version, Russian, in the grey green (Winter??) as shown in screens Late production version, Russian, in two tone brown (desert) as also seen in screens And at least one export version, Afgan or Takistani, probably in light brown and green for some variety and maybe a North Vietnamese version, in sand/dark green. Historicaly there are about 4 different camo's used by North Vietnam, as well as Algeria, Libyia, Cambodia( ?maybe). So I'm also hoping to get the 'setobject texture' thing to work and open it up for people to do thier own versions. But nothing is final yet.

Well config stuff at any interesting level is often beyond me. Luckily for you and I there is now someone smarter than myself looking at that side of things, so I will raise the possibility with him. In no small way thanks to yourself and EricM. ;) Funny how now that I'm nearing the end of the modeling phase I would have greater confidence starting something like this on my own. But in knowing what it took to get to this point I think I would have chosen a diferent aircraft.That cockpit was a proverbial At least now I think I can say MGS and COD-BO can kiss our ..Hind lol. Getting around those shading issues cost me dearly in verts, I'm think I'm about 30-50 verts from bulldozer telling me to go away when I preview my first view lod and I ended up using 1 proxy in my pilot lod. Stiil, not noticing any frame rate issues yet, even with multiple units on the screen. That reminds me, I should try it on my old dual core tonight. Yes, it should have one, not realy sure whats broke there, but I expect the final release to have all the bells and whistles functioning. At the moment we're in an Alpha stage and I'm focusing on furthering textures while zGuba takes his first look at config issues, but i will see if I can't fix it for future screenies.

*Images between 150 and 300 k* Early production version confirmed

So here are some of the results, some in flight shots, the shadow lod is still wrong and theres a bunch of text/labels to be added to the panels but I think I'm happy with the direction. edit = must remember to not let these sites resize images, fixed now.

NP, keep your clap

Still no real argument from me except it isn't 'My' impulse theory, is something taught in first year physics. So any time someone tries to write off KE I question wich bit of KE they are really talking about. I think the biggest problem with the question being asked is that it becomes a statistical analysis where the data for most of the events is unknown or imprecise. As far as I can see the only true scientific method would be to take at least 200 (considered a scientificaly relevant number) people of approximately the same build give them a full medical and MRI scan then shoot each one aiming for the same point under the same circumstances then analyize the result. Of course this would also have to done for each bullet type at various ranges, different hit locations and so forth. Naturaly anyone who thinks this a good idea is a prime candidate for being one of its subjects. Secondly once we take all this 'best we got' statistical data we have to come up with a way of plugging it back into the game wich will imvolve a formula, and probabaly a fair bit of theorising as to how to achieve parity with the statisics. see what I'm saying yet.

You still don't get my point. I don't have a problem with your argument in general terms. I have a problem with the way you use the term Kenetic Energy. All those mechanical effects you just rattled off require kinetic energy to fuction. As soon as you say KE is irrelevant you lose all scientific basis. It may sound like semantics but science is. The term a physist would use for the effect your disputing is Impulse. So personaly I don't think many of articles you have quoted have any more scientific basis than the people they are trying to dispute. And the only room I see for study here is how observation turns into anecdotal evidence, turns into myth, turns into quasi science types getting bees in thier bonet and shouting your wrong! Need to bring this back to being game relevant.

Well and good but the effect doesn't exactly cease just because the bullet is just under the skin its defined more by its rate of deceleration. Sorry if i didn't make myself clear enough before and I know this is a bit like the rest of the thread wich is a little off the topic of 'stopping power' but I think much of the misunderstanding I see is because peope using the term kinetic energy a bit wrongly. Kinetic Energy is the field of study that encompasses things such as velocity, impulse, momentum, acceleration, deceleration, speed, bacicaly any body or object in motion, so as long as its it's actualy moving KE plays a part, can be measured and can be used to derive measurments.

Um... without KE the bullet does nothing.... literaly. And I've seen holes big enough im myself to revleal bone and realy have no definable answer for you, coz its always in the aftermath, ie would I prefer to take a lucky hit from a very hard very fast object that passes entirely through me leaving a few simple holes or a larger slower object that leaves a wide messy wound path and possibly shatters a bone or two. Point is, to determine any of the other factors you have to know its KE because energy is ALWAYS conserved. The bullet cutting flesh dosen't happen just because its a bullet. It happens because it has the KE to push through your flesh.The penetration of said bullet is dpendant on its shape and area and its structural integrity as this determines the rate at wich its 'kinetic' energy is disapated, the higher the energy, the longer it takes, the smaller the area the longer it takes.The shorter the time it takes to stop the bullet the higher the rate of energy change or 'impulse'. The width of the temporary cavity you showed in your last post is also very depandant in the change in velocity (or 'Impulse' or change in energy) As long as the bullet is in motion, be it in the air or in your body, it is coverered by the field of study called Kinetic Energy. Which is why I'm a little confused by some of the statments I see, Because they appear to argue along the lines that its not the height that kills you its the fall, no its not the fall its the landing blah blah blah, If you make the statement that KE has nothing to do with the resultant wound then you have no idea what KE is.

Though you are more correct to say so, I there is actually some effect from the change in energy or 'impulse' as its termed. Not only is it a defining factor in how the bullet material meets your other critera it can also causes shock waves through tissue which can have some realy nasty effects. Kind of why I dont see the point in chasing the science too much on this and looking for the holy grail that translates it. No matter wich way you look at it, whether you start with the bullet and chase it or try reverse engineer from its final resting place, the science itself says it's realy too hard to perfectly predict. BTW Ryan I don't in any way mean to discredit your excelent explanations. Just see why many peple get confused coz not all KE is alike.

Word of the day: phenomenal

It works well Architecturaly, Does permission include updating and improving the textures where required?

The version I have in game is about 23000 verts Lod 1 and performs well, but I havn't had a chance to do any real stress testing yet, wich wil be waranted when I get the current version ingame. So far in working on various addons I've found section counts to be far more important than verts, and on that I count 2 Current machine is a Q9650 OC'd to 3.6Ghz, with 8G DDR2, and a GTX285, so not the latest but still plenty of grunt. When I get around to it I will push it through my old machine a dual core witrh 4G DDR2 and a GT250., wich buy the way plays A2 well enough for my kids, or to be used as server.

Ok I predicted the gunner and pilot views would take me a while, and I was very right. At the moment I'm not quite ready to take up zGuba on his offer but very ready for a break. Thankfully with it being the holiday season and all I'm going to be forced into a break, but should be able to devote a little holiday time towards getting back into this project in the new year. After reading Nodunits comments in his own thread about the state of WIP news I also thought that instead of just thowing up a few pretty pics to tease I would show you all my general process for detailing the gunner and pilot positions. (So appologies for the image quality but I didn't think focusing on a pretty cluster of verts or a near complete render was going to help my topic.) I should also note that I still consider myself a noob at this stuff in that this my first attemp at at modeling at this level of detail so I put this out there to test the idea, if ayone knows better chime in before others may follow. OK this first shot is not a UV map, but its my instument panels laid out and modeled in more or less a flat plane.I have found this helpfull in a couple of ways, firstly it has allowed quick copy/paste of like gauges, switches and components, also when I make my uv map from this point via 'project from view' my panels UVs are scaled nice and consistant. Now from this angle they are difficult to recognise but the floating geometry makes it easier to keep some sections seperate when baking materials. I'm not sure about other programs but for good results in blender it is best to work bottom up for material baking though it doesnt seem to mind at all when baking normals(just pick your bottom plane and go). Of course for a good AO pass you need to have everything together With the space left after projecting my panels on the UV, I map all the objects that are not particularly flat and that I think deserve more detail in the lod. I also move off any flicky or twisty bits (switches) that I want to remain as geometry into clean UV space so there is no pixel bleed from geometry to geometry (understood?) Ok now I have all my geometry basics sorted and UV's created I take all the floating geometry and 'sink' it to its correct position. Once it is all in place and connected I move it into place by snapping my instument panels to and rotating from, key verts From this point I can create a reasonable AO pass and consider my vert culling. PS; Another point of progress Lod 0.6 24305 verts Lod 1.3 19504 verts Lod 2.1 8548 verts Lod 3 4458 verts Lod 4 2110 verts Lod 5 1054 verts Lod 6 243 verts Does this seem reasonable? I don't realy see the target of 11k for lod 1 as being possible for this bird. I would consider proxies, but still not exactly convinced

The latest Blender doesn't require python to be installed, and has a nice new UI, i'd say it's worth a second look Realy good crash course in 3 parts by this guy, he is quick ,but you got a pause button, and hell give you enough to start http://www.youtube.com/user/ralusek Use leopatams o2/blender import /export http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=105516