[aps]gnat

requote

ha ..... a wilderness survival game where the map is small ........ Gez ..... that sounds like a PvP to me.

Havent played with CFGSounds myself but ..... Where is your CFGPatches ? You may need it. class CfgPatches { class MyTag_MySound { units[] = {}; requiredVersion = 1.00; requiredAddons[] = {}; }; }; class CfgSounds{ class Vas_yessir; // inherit an existing sound class sf_1oclock_s : Vas_yessir { name = "1oclocks"; sound[] = {"tg_shotfinder\sounds\shot1oclock_2.ogg", 1, 1}; titles[] = {}; }; }; Untested

This old chestnut, still kicking my butt http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?66796-Self-Shadow-cutting-in-out Have a vehicle model that I just can't get the Shadow LOD(s) to cast a shadow on itself / on its own skin. properties lodnoshadow = 1 & class = vehicle in all LODs Super shaders in place Shadow lod casts perfect shadow on the ground Sharp edges and Triangulated Shadow lod I've simplified just to see it happen, but it wont. Seems to be the same as other vehicles that have no issues. Thoughts on why its resisting? ---------- Post added at 22:35 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ---------- *sigh* its always the last thing you try after spend hours and hours trying to fix, and you make a post ..... Seems fixed just by making sure I have a _CO file extension to the PAA !

ARG! Found the problem ...... I was sort of close with the first answer. Turns out the PAA file format is the problem (not my model or converted textures) !! Took the PAA, saved as TGA, then converted back to a PAA with the default TexView2 settings ....... now I get shadow on itself. Thanks for the suggestions Max

Pretty sure thats a no, its not. Again, no. Very unlikely that will not work. I've never seen smoke come from anywhere except the "center" of the model. You can likely influence the "center" by placing un-named memory points in the MEMORY LOD in odd locations. e.g. placing a memory point 6 meters in front of the chopper will likely move the "centre" 3 meters forward. BUT, this will also very likely effect the "Flight Dynamic" centre of the aircraft. Likely to produce unwanted effects.

Nope ! Wasn't that simple :( Added a few more bits, now I've lost the self shadow ......... Any ideas?

Some ( ) would ensure the code is not been mis-read by the engine. condition = "((this animationPhase ""ani_door1"" < 0.5) AND (speed this < 30) AND (driver this == player)) OR ((player distance this < 3) AND (player not in vehicle))"; Untested

Thanks!!

I'm sorry, for some reason I thought BIS made the RV engine and we feed off the crumbs to make addons. Should have realised all the detailed code and the exact way it must be used comes from us users. /sarcasm off

Don't think you can redirect that one. No memory point to my knowledge. ..... happy to be proven wrong by someone ......

!! You running an old version of the tools? Should be using 2.51

Quoting someone I know ;)

So you retest everything with and without a mod loaded ..... ? ..... so how the hell could you tell? And everyone here runs every beta, and tests everything ..... ? Arh ... no, definitely not all cases. Mods with potentially wonky code don't set the rules, BIS do.

Put 2 side by side ?

Really don't know how people can raise bugs when they are running Mods !! !! Or even assess a Beta ...... Unless you know EVERY LINE OF CODE in those mod's you can hardly any confidence in what you see .....

Ooooh, that makes it tough ! But we really appreciated.

class CfgAmmo { class LaserBombCore; // External class reference class RKTF15E_GBU10Bomb : LaserBombCore { class RKTF15E_mk82Bomb : LaserBombCore { class RKTF15E_cbuBomb : LaserBombCore { class cbuBomblet : LaserBombCore { class RKTF15E_mk84Bomb : LaserBombCore { class missilebase; // External class reference class RKTF15_AIM120 : missilebase { class RKTF15_AIM9 : missilebase { class RKTProxDetonator : missilebase { class BulletBase; // External class reference class RKT_F15_M61A : BulletBase { class CfgWeapons { class BombLauncher; // External class reference class RKTF15E_GBU10_8Rail : BombLauncher { class RKTF15E_mk82_6Rail : BombLauncher { class RKTF15E_cbu_6Rail : BombLauncher { class RKTF15E_mk84_6Rail : BombLauncher { class MissileLauncher; // External class reference class RKT_F15_AIM120_6Rail : MissileLauncher { class RKT_F15_AIM120_2Rail : RKT_F15_AIM120_6Rail { class RKT_F15_AIM120_4Rail : RKT_F15_AIM120_6Rail { class RKT_F15_AIM9_4Rail : MissileLauncher { class RKT_F15_AIM9_2Rail : RKT_F15_AIM9_4Rail { class CannonCore; // External class reference class RKT_F15_M61 : CannonCore { class CfgMagazines { class VehicleMagazine; // External class reference class RKT_F15_M61 : VehicleMagazine { class RKTF15E_GBU10_8Rail : VehicleMagazine { class RKTF15E_mk82_6Rail : VehicleMagazine { class RKTF15E_cbu_6Rail : VehicleMagazine { class RKTF15E_mk84_6Rail : VehicleMagazine { class RKT_F15_AIM120_6Rail : VehicleMagazine { class RKT_F15_AIM120_2Rail : RKT_F15_AIM120_6Rail { class RKT_F15_AIM120_4Rail : RKT_F15_AIM120_6Rail { class RKT_F15_AIM9_4Rail : VehicleMagazine { class RKT_F15_AIM9_2Rail : RKT_F15_AIM9_4Rail {

You posted in ArmA1 forums. You meant to?

Huh? Don't think so. The big orange box on the left side says "update" only when I select the I44 mod ...... Normal UI design suggests that has nothing to do with betas.

Usually goes black when theres something wrong with your NOHQ file/definition

Since the upgrade of the tool its now telling me my I44 needs updating! No possible. So why is it saying that? Very wary of selecting update because despite the fact it shouldn't be able to see my (older) development I44 folders, I can't trust this tool not to do something like overwrite them.

Typically I've found up-scaling bits, past some arbitrary number, causes all sorts of problems both visual and physics. The terrain "squares" (imaginary, coded by the engine) seem to visually clip ALL large objects (buildings, carriers etc). Where the border of those squares are, you can never tell.

Yeh, think that would be a really good idea, just incase BI change something too. Hate to have your great tool side-lined because of some future change by BI or others. No, dont use comments, but as suggested, good to be there.

BI / ArmA series are about simulation and being a (non arcade, RL relate-able) real challenge. Even CC. A full sci-fi version would hardly be a challenge as I see it. When players can't relate content and dynamics to RL, then it doesn't generate the same deep technical interest. Community content then also becomes a free-for-all. "No, I really believe the 30KW Maiser should not penetrate the BM80's side Bi-Hyber armour! Its not realistic for proper gameplay." wtf! ArmA3 is not really Sci-Fi, its really current (or under development) technology, set in a few years time.