[aps]gnat

Thanks for posting the solution. People like me will be using later :)

Too complicated geo lods I'd suggest. Make them simpler. A few boxes should be adequate

Lost model .........

When you open your model, does it list 2 "Geometry" LODs ? It should no longer say "4e13" No mass. Mine is a very simply copy of the main GEO LOD For a working example open the LCS model made available by mankyle

I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to suggest; In the event the coder/scripter isnt contactable. Coders in this community generally shares scripting code. Normal conduct is to credit the author both in the code and in the README. Many coders usually write their own version of a similar script, still usually crediting the original author. Coders who disagree with this usually go to great lengths to protect code and state the intent within code and readme's Any coders/scripters who suggest their code is 100% original is likely a bullshitter. And even if it was, they learnt everything prior from other authors one way or another :) But of course, all thats not official.

- Brought every BI games, even bought couple copies on the same version! - Brought all BI's DLC or expansion packs - Brought 3 copies/versions of FS over the years, never ever purchased any Payware. I think the BI formula to date has generated a great and creative community. Don't tell me the ArmA2/OA community addons, missions, terrains etc etc are inadequate .... TONNES of great content. I vote +100 to leave it well alone. If it ain't broke, don't mess with it.

OK good Too many vertex / faces. With too many, just because its visible in Buldozer, doesnt guarantee ingame works

Theres already a bunch of threads here discussing that problem. Checked them out?

Seems ok, but the devil is always in the detail Previewed in Buldozer? Whats you're config look like? Which log, the BinPBO log? How about your ArmA RPT log?

Absolutely. 100% +1

Wow, impressive project. Good Job.

We don't have ArmA3 tools yet, so its as good as it gets for now. Yes Not sure

Huh? What do you mean, it works still, right?

And hopefully another M4 lol Seriously though, community will be doing all those, BI needs to do some new much more modern aircraft. Mi48 is a good example (after a new cockpit :) ).

Well, I'm thinking I'm done here already. You're attempting to boil the ocean. Clearly there are NO resources around here to do that. I'd suggest if you really want to continue to push this theme (and fail to put better bounds/usable detail on it) start another thread that picks a smaller part of the theme. In the meantime I discuss my alternate idea elsewhere.

Sat back and observed for a while. What they said. How long is a bit of string. One end is people like me, other end is groups like BI. Theres a LOT of ground between. You said it. I'm going to use my sparse spare time to make addons, cuz I like being creative, but first, and on a regular basis I have to check everything meets dozens of "standards"? Nope, not going to happen. And its not as if I note other mod'ing communities are doing the same. But if Paid User Content comes about, I will reverse this and demand standardisation. Why, because I bloody paid for it and it better working along side all my other paid content or I want my money back :) But I can guarantee PUC will result in the opposite affect, mod'er will close shop doors and hoarding all sorts of information. All that said, as the guys have pointed out, there is already good chunks of unity. CBA, TAGs, distribution, etc etc I'd suggest the need isn't that great, its not as if A2OA addons were a gigantic mess and nothing worked along side everything else. Sure, some exceptions, but definitely not the end of the world. Suggested solution to improve this general situation without imposing on peoples creativity: Provide a BIKI site that talks about/documents the common mistakes (more so compatibility). More like: "Go forth and create! But watch out for these common pitfalls" Ask the experienced members to document some of their "WTF did I do there!" moments :)

Step 1 - get permission granted from original author of model. Step 2 - get useable file format from author Step 3 - come back with a better attitude and maybe we'll help.

Not sure I believe it, but that aside, BI would have to be SUPER SUPER sure that no content of a user made mod breached copyright etc etc, so they don't end up in court over some supposed exclusive DLC. On a big mod pack trying to audit and verify that could be harder and riskier than making the mod themself. Simply too risky in my book. Example: I make addons, but I couldn't swear on a bible that someone's copyright hadn't been breached ..... Just Not sure.

I think it's wonderful to watch that gear touch done :D With just an almost realistic little bounce from the front wheels. Very well done all round thanks guys. BTW, is PhysX implemented or not yet?

Think so? Old version gives problems, know so.

Yes, well, early indication are that if thats what he's meant to be doing, he's not doing it .... :)

Using the 2.5.1 version of the tools?

Well, sorry, they are certainly more common and well used than your "yet-another-editor".

Impressive ZeroG !! Could workflow instead go from L3DT --> CryengineSDK(add road contours) --> Visitor3 ?

True. Maybe the support need wouldn't be as great if they just fixed those 2 things. Yes, no 1 BIS person does it all. Same as there are very few experienced Addon makers here that can "know it all". The CaMSO's would just act as in-house conduits for the stuff they can't answer/provide themselves. Selecting the right 2 or 3 CaMSO's could create that spread of knowledge. Maybe select members of the BIS dev team should be asked to devote 1 day a month to build documentation, relieving some of the strain on CaMSO's They decided on a different route (sort of stage 2 of this idea), pulled The-Next-Big-Thing internal and started building a Stand-Alone DayZ. haha, nar, I wouldn't worry, theres 100's of addon makers here :D We're only asking for BIS to supply a couple. Cool Sure, the CaMSO or 1 of them would need to be able to quickly say yes/no/maybe, or to my earlier point, be one of the internal chosen, having quick direct access to BIS dev team who can provide advice/direction. So in part I think any experienced Addon makers external to BIS at the moment won't easily slip into this role. I think it has to be someone whos worked with the BIS team for a while, is known to them and will be supported whole-heartily from the other BIS members. At least to kick-start this idea.