Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

IrishDeviant

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    108

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by IrishDeviant

  6. Posted · Edited by IrishDeviant

    I know, I know...JAG bursts of patriotism. :D

    But if you are into military stuff its actually a nice show, they have an unusal eye for accuracy and detail. For example "chinese soldiers" appearing on the show use chines made AK-47s, while "iraquis" use russian AKMs etc.

    But, the acting is just awful. Maybe if they managed to get someone better looking than Catherine Bell it 'might' be more appealing, but I doubt it.

    -Main post updated

  7. Posted · Edited by IrishDeviant

    Wow, thanks for letting us vote!

    Normally Id say a MiG, but I have seen both the CSLA mod and several other doing some high quality MiGs, so my vote goes for the F-14 Tomcat.

    EDIT: I also like your stance on not just creating a model, but insisting on some sort enhanced functionality, like the Jammer for the Prowler. I wonder what could be done for the navigator / weapons officer of the F-14. Mando already made a wroking missile indicator warning system, Im sure there are other possibilitys.

    For RIO's, I was thinking of some sort of GPS overlay on the screens in the rear. I'm not entirely sure this is possible as I don't think animated textures work in Arma II. But, at least some sort of guidance that the RIO can relay to the pilot. Also, have a separate weapon system from the pilot, like only AG for the RIO, and only allow AA weapon systems for the pilot. Don't know how all of that works, but what I do know is that I don't want people to have to use a million different addons to make the aircraft work. The aircraft should function by itself, although I will likely require the GLT Missile Box as I've made some of the weapons in that, and will likely make a few more.

    Anyway, I'm really not concerned about the coding for the aircraft I'm working on now. There is already AC-130 codework out there, and fighters are pretty basic, even if they don't have a bunch of new features. But, the whole point of the EA-6B is the jamming system (or at least the jamming is an integral part of the aircrafts role), which is why that one can't move forward for the time being.

    I'd be happy to take input on what systems and features people would like to see, however, I would prefer those types of discussions to be redirected to a coding thread... Because, again, I won't be doing the code. I'm actually trying to talk GLT Myke to take lead on my models and release them as GLT addons. However, I'm not sure if he's interested in doing that. Nevertheless, I'll probably be looking for an established addon maker/team to work on my aircraft so that they can be grouped together as a single addon. (and updates to that addon for each new aircraft)

  8. Posted

    lol im soooo confused haha

    Ok, to sum up... The EA-6B isn't going to work at the moment. Coders are working on finding a way of realistically implementing the jamming system, but I don't want to invest the time into making it unless the code work is going to be ready for it. Therefore, I'm putting the EA-6B on hold.

    I'm allowing the community to express their interest in which aircraft they would like me to work on until the code for the EA-6B is ready. Also, I'll be working on the C-130 at the same time since it's a fairly easy aircraft to model.

    So, I'm going to wait a couple more days for some more input as to which model the community would like to see, and will be working on the C-130 (also an F-35 as a low priority side project). Therefore, you can expect to see the C-130, the F-35 (not the X-35), and an aircraft of the communities choosing, sometime before the end of the year.

    ...Ok, yeah, I'm confused too. :confused:

  10. Posted

    Just a small note regarding the Herc info in the first post: The C-130J is the upgraded Hercules with a digital flight instrument 'glass cockpit', Rolls-Royce AE 2100 engines and 6-bladed propellers, not just a stretched Herc.

    Stretched Hercs are called C-130#-30 (# replaced with whatever model Hercules model the base aircraft was). For example the RAF has the Hercules C.3 which is an Allison T56 (with 4-bladed prop) engined C-130H-30, i.e a stretched C-130H (RAF Hercules C.1)

    There is a C130J (Hercules C.5 in the RAF) and stretched C130J-30 (C.3 in the RAF). The USMC Hercules already available in ArmA 2 is the standard length C-130J.

    Thanks for the information. I was under the impression the J model was 7ft longer than the H even without the -30 15ft stretch. Just checked the wiki and you're right on the base J model not being stretched. So, to clarify, I'm making the C-130J-30 and the AC-130U Spooky II. Also, I may consider the new KC-130J as another variant.

  12. Posted

    Well all the guys who are here since OFP (which came out 2001) are at least in their middle twenties. So yeah, this community is quite mature

    To be honest, sometimes I think it became even a bit too mature, during OFP you saw a lot more creative and "crazy" addons, much very well done SciFi stuff, all this has changed more to a demand for serious, realistic addons.

    I personally will fight against this when I finally figured all the RVMAT and other texturing obstacles out :D

    Oh and hooray for the F-14. A F-14 cockpit as detailed as the one in the Su-25 or MiG-15 would be amazing.

    lol, just to be clear, I haven't made up my mind yet. Still waiting on some more responses. However, your vote has been noted. :j:

  13. Posted

    One completly redone F-14 would be my dream. Maybe even the F-14D which, according to Wikipedia, was actually more capable then the F/A-18 Hornet. (But also more expensive in maintenance).

    Either way, thanks for letting the community influence your next project, thats pretty great in itself.

    rgr on the F-14... And, as for letting the community have a vote, well, it's going surprisingly better than I thought it would. Video game communities tends to be very, well, how should I put this... ungrateful, whiny, spoiled, etc, etc, etc. I get so tired of hearing, "why don't you do this instead", or "making that model is stupid, we don't need that", ....Fortunately there hasn't been much of that in this thread. And, the whole idea of letting the community vote was to subvert some of that. But, I'm sure when I make my decision on which aircraft I'll be doing, there will inevitably be a few posts from people saying how stupid they think it is that I'm making whatever aircraft I decide on. Then, they'll list a dozen reasons as why they think the aircraft is a bad idea. It just kind of goes with the territory. To be honest, it's just the anonymous internet factor that lets a small number of these community members act like pricks. I must say though, in general, I'm fairly impressed with this community. I've had some issues with a few people, but nothing like I've dealt with from other communities.

  14. Posted

    Just to be clear, it's unlikely that I'll be modeling an older aircraft. If something like a P-51 Mustang gets a lot of popular support, then I'd be happy to add it to my short list of side projects, but in my first post I did make the recommendation of voting for something that has not only a practical function within Arma, but something that can be used by mission makers for a more advanced and diverse combat experience. It can be said that if a mission maker was making a mission for a WWII mod, then I'd understand it's relevance, however, most people aren't running WWII mods. I'm just trying to find an aircraft that has both popular support, and will be relevant and widely used. There's really no point in modeling an aircraft that's going to show up on one or two servers.

    I have actually already started making a C-130 as well as an AC-130 Spectra/Spooky variant. As well as a F-35 Lighting II. ...I know some of you may say there is already an F-35 in Arma II, and to that I would say, "bullshit, there's an X-35 in Arma II". ...The C-130 is fairly easy to model and shouldn't take me too long. And, the F-35 is something I was going to make regardless of whether people want it or not. Although, since the C-130 will be done shortly, I will still be looking for another aircraft to model, and whatever aircraft you guys decide on will take priority over the F-35.

    So far though, I think the Jaguar is in the lead for support.

  15. Posted · Edited by IrishDeviant

    As much as I'd rather continue to see work on the Prowler, even with limitations of the game we all have to work around, especially since its far from a flight/navy sim, I suppose my vote would go towards the F14 just cuz its my favorite plane, and I tire of the old ported one. However if not that one, then E2/E3/RAH66.

    JDog, I understand other people who actually know how, and have time to do scripting must finds ways of making their aircraft work. However, I don't have that kind of time. I am already willing to dedicate much of my spare time to make an aircraft for the community, and would think most people would appreciate that... Not complain and ridicule. If you would like to write the code for the Prowler, and can show me a functional prototype, I'll start back on the model. Until then, I'm working on another project.

    Well guys, a Jaguar is really outdated, more than the F-14 everyone loves. The U2 (hey Bono :D ) is not really practial for ArmA as it is a very high altitude recon aircraft. And outdated too. What I would prefer is a new C-130 - but with some modifications.

    The problem with all the AC-130 Scripts is that they are scripts. There was one real AC-130 model (video to find on youtube) but they got problems with BIS as it seemed they ripped the BIS model to edit into AC-130.

    So my vote goes to an AC-130. I hope that your C-130 project folder does not limit to this. I don't think that you would need help with scripting, they are already out. ;)

    What do you think, Irish?

    The C-130 is a possibility since BIS hasn't released a sample of theirs. I know it could use additional functionality... As for the AC-130, it's just a C-130 with the weapons and a modified interior. There is also the C-130J which is a longer, more modern version of the C-130 that could be used for a larger cargo load. (it just requires a simple stretch of the cabin just in front of the wings, and just before the tail) Although, I think someone was telling me they thought there was some engine limitation keeping the AC-130 model from working. I don't know why they would think that considering the scripting for the regular C-130 seems to work, but it's worth looking into.

    Well, the jamming idea was used by atleast one aircraft in ArmA, and I was going to see if it could be expanded. The basic idea is this...

    When jamming is activated it creates an extremely large number of false radar contacts, and randomly moves them around at a good speed. It makes it where if anybody attempts to target an aircraft (with tab or whatever custom key ya use) you lock on to one of the many ghosts.

    Admittedly there might be a ver small chance of the lock aquiring the real target, but with 50+ false radar contacts moving around rapidly the only way to lock would be to get really close and attempt a manual lock (using right click) but if the jamming aircraft had escorts or was at altitude the chances of having someone manual lock on you should fall under acceptable risk.

    Its a very... simple workaround, but it worked pretty good in A1, so an experiment with A2, with more radar targets and an expanded range, should be examined.

    This sounds like it might have some promise. I think something similar was already suggested in another forum. The only real restriction is that the other friendly strike aircraft would need to fly relatively close to 'hide' inside the cloud of targets. But, that isn't a big deal.

    the facepalm pic is overused by you. Every other post from you has it attached, it's like an old joke.

    Who really cares what emotes the guy uses. If you honestly are upset about a little icon in somebody's post, you need to find a hobby. ...or a therapist.

    Twice in a month/month and a half or more. You have an odd definition of "overused".

    I'll take a look at the script, i don't understand much scripting wise but i should be able to tweak the values for number of targets/range they are at from the aircraft.

    Dude, use it in every post. I personally don't get the 'joke', but who cares. Also, appreciate the interest in getting the Prowler working. I am going to continue on with another aircraft, but I will be coming back to the Prowler soon, so the code work is much appreciated. Thanks

  16. Posted

    I might have a solution for the jamming, expect a pm later tody.

    If my solution is crap then I say bring on the Dragon Lady. ;)

    Sounds good. I've got to step out for a bit, but I'll be back later. Although I think I'm going to go ahead and start a different aircraft for now. If scripters want to do the code work using a proxy aircraft (the C-130 would probably be a good proxy because it can carry 4+ passengers) and get a working prototype, then I'd be more comfortable getting back to the Prowler.

    And, your U2 vote is noted. ;)

  17. Posted

    Perhaps use the disableAI command, both target and autotarget? You could also remove all magazines from the AA when the Prowler is around, then re-stock them when it leaves?

    Also, my thinking with the mergeConfigFile, is that you could have a custom config that changes the parameters of the base class for the radars to make them less effective. But, that poses the greater challenge of how to change them back when the Prowler isn't around.

    Good luck!

    Yeah, I'm sure it's possible, but I'm not a scripter... I actually feel like a bit of a free-loader asking scripters to figure out how to make it work. But, modeling is what I do. I dabble in scripting for little stuff, but have no interest in diving into some huge scripting issue. I just figure my time can be best spent working on an aircraft with fewer code related issues. Like a simple fighter or bomber. Or maybe even a reconnaissance plane like the U-2 that feeds a UAV style camera view to UAV trailers and Comms officers.

    If scripters want to start a thread for figuring out how to make jamming, signal interference, and various other systems of the Prowler work, then I would happily follow along to see if progress is made. But, I just don't have the time to make it my issue to solve. I love the idea of a Prowler in Arma II, I think it would add a whole new aspect of gameplay and combat strategy. But, I don't love it enough to learn how to do scripting just for this issue.

    My apologies to those who were looking forward to the EA-6B, and I hope I'm able to make it in the near future, but unfortunately, not at this time.

    I will continue this thread until people have a chance to comment on what aircraft they're interested in, and then I'll start a new WiP thread for that aircraft.

  18. Posted

    Hey Irish -

    - scripting - hey, have your scripters considered the new mergeConfig command? It may be possible to change the actual config values of radar functioning when the Prowler is around. Of course, the problem will be changing it back if the Prowler is shot down or leaves... :doh: :)

    - next project - saw the Jaguar in there! :) One of my faves. I did a skin for it for another game years ago. Nice a/c. Gets my vote, as it is a good strike platform.

    I'll look into it, but the main problem is the fact that the EA-6B's primary role is jamming the radar of AA installations so the 'other' aircraft can come in to destroy them. Getting the Prowler itself to have a semi-realistic jamming system isn't really the problem, it's being able to affect other aircraft in the area. Which means, it can't be an 'aircraft side' script. It will have to be something done to the AA units on the OpFor side.

    For example, one suggestion was to have the script, when activated, force all OpFor AA units to go to hold fire. But, the problem with that is if those units have a group leader, which they likely will, the looping created by the jamming script fighting with the group leader code, would cause performance issues. Another theory is to have the Prowler just emit tons of invisible flares, but it's still unclear as to whether or not it's possible to tell other aircraft (BIS and addon) to do the same, if within a give radius of the jammer. Also, another theory is to make the jammer script do a removeWeapon on all AA units until the jammer is turned off. But, that theory doesn't have any testing either.

    Simply put, I didn't realize how much new, unexplored coding would have to be done in order to make it work. And, since I don't want to spend a ton of time making it and not have it work like it's supposed to, I've just decided to hold off on it for awhile.

    And, your vote for the Jaguar is dually noted. :j:

  20. Posted · Edited by IrishDeviant

    Looks nice. If you want to send the file to my PM box, that's fine. But, I can't guarantee that I'll find time to work on it. If you do send it to me, be sure to include a text file with your screen name so that I know who sent it to me for credit.

    Also, I prefer any of the following formats:

    .obj

    .3ds

    .ma (Maya ASCII)

    .mb (Maya Binary)

    .max

    .3dm

    .lxo

  22. Posted · Edited by IrishDeviant

    hehe

    My friend. I'm think that you posting those pics has proven my assertion that you are a very talented man. :)

    I beg you to continue to disagree, though. :D

    lmao, I'm not disagreeing that I can model... I'm questioning your opinion as to what the defining skill set is behind it. ;) ...by the way, some day I'm actually going to finish some of my aircraft models that found themselves in the black hole that is my "3D_Projects" folder. lol But, the EA-6B and my ViperJet model have the priority for the time being, so those files will just continue to languish, growing digital rust.

    Oh, here's one I actually started for Arma II and never got around to finishing: (though this one is on my short list to get done soon)

    USS Dallas:

    4124240505_14c4b5f326_z.jpg

  24. Posted

    (This is me agreeing to disagree...) :)

    I've done box modeling like that. I have a personal-use-only big huge jet. Probably the biggest thing I ever modeled and skinned. Basically, your 45 minutes took me 3 years. And it STILL sucks! :D

    All art is a process. Some artists prefer portraits, others landscapes. Doesn't matter what you don't like to do, only matters that what you do, you do well. I think you don't give yourself credit.

    NOW GET BACK TO WORK! :D

    lol... Alright, like I said, I understand your point. And, I'm not suggesting I don't do what I do well. I've been doing it long enough, I'd hope I don't suck at it. But the point I'm trying to make, and maybe should have articulated better, was in reference to using Oxygen/O2 editors to model. Programs like Maya, Max, Modo, Rhino, XSI, etc, etc, all make like much easier. Personally, I use Maya... Only Maya and I are having a disagreement right now :mad:, so I'm using Max. Having the right tools makes it easy. Sure, there's an artistic element to it, but it's more engineering than art. At least the modeling aspect of it. From there, it becomes purely artistic.

    Nevertheless, you're not the only one that spends years on models. I have a mountain of unfinished models sitting in my projects folder... Rule #1, don't start working on a model unless you're being paid to do it, or you really REALLY want that model for something. (like Arma) If you break Rule #1, you'll never finish the model. I have never made a single model that didn't at some point make me bash my head against my desk. And, if you're not motivated enough to finish it, then it will simply pile up in the "don't really give a shit" folder.

  25. Posted · Edited by IrishDeviant

    Awesome stuff, but I have to call you out on one point (in a friendly way). :)

    I grew up around artists. That's like saying good art is more about knowing how to use the paintbrush. :D Yes, it is a part of it, maybe even a significant part of it. But, IMNSHO, the overwhelmingly more important part is to have talent.

    You, sir, have talent... by the bucketful.

    But, I think we agree that the basic model is relatively easy compared to doing the rest of it. And, since I'm more on the scripting/config'ing side, the best model in the world is only half the equation of getting it in-game. :D

    PS Keep that F-5 model for your 'downtime'... I'd love to see it in-game, even without a cockpit.

    lol, well, we'll have to agree to disagree on the 'art' part of it. For ex, I couldn't model a human, or a sculpture, or anything abstract, even if my life depended on it. That's where really good 3-view drawings come in. Calling that art is like tracing a picture and turning it in to your art teacher as if you've mastered the art of drawing. lol

    I get what you're saying, but modeling mechanical objects with schematic type drawings isn't art, it's a technical process... The art is in the textures, normals, specular, etc. This area is very much about being an artist regardless of what tools you have.

    Oh, and as for keeping that model, when I get around to modelling an F-5 I'll start from scratch and do it properly. This model isn't worth using. I just kind of rushed through it to make a point. ...Basic outline with low poly mesh, a brief bit of sculpting to get the lines where they need to be, crease the edges where lines need to be sharp, add smoothing modifier, use boolean to imprint outline of cockpit and control surfaces, detach cockpit and control surfaces, done. ;)

×