Alwarren

Normally, you need the context of an operator to do such things. But even then, you won't be doing things very differently either, the Blender API is ... special ...

The function doesn't work anymore for some reason, I forgot to remove it. I need to make a new release, or you can download the code directly from GitHub, but with the latest version (on github, not the released one) you can simply add a triangulate modifier and it will automatically triangulate stuff when you export it.

We got it the first five times you said it, thank you.

Which is exactly the reason why I question the choice of time period. Especially for a game with the realism approach as Arma, I find it weird that some units still have iron sights. Sure, you can argue gameplay, but if that is your reason for "toning down" technology, maybe pick a time period that isn't as far into the future in the first place. The game came out in 2013, placing the whole thing e.g. in 2020 would have been a more credible scenario and would still have allowed for some design freedom. As it is now, the 2035 secnario has a couple of things like the automatic turret but the standard infantryman is still underequipped, even more so than soldiers on the contemporary battlefield.

I am not personally the biggest fan of the Cold War but TBH I would prefer it to the 2035 setting, mainly because I think that the current 2035 setting is not going far enough in terms of equipment and battlefield aids. I mean, I am not advocating Martian Goliath Mk 3 power armour, but I somehow doubt that 2035 will have a lot of iron sights in military use... and a good deal more drones. Personally, I prefer the contemporary stuff (avoiding the term "modern warfare" intentionally 😄 )

I am quite sure that using military naming for things, like call it an M1025 instead of a HMMWV is fine, and you can always go the route of Coyota, SunDat and Handover Offender...

Well, if we interpolate from an M1, M1A1 and M1A2, then the differences in looks will probably be rather minute. Which is fine. Alternatively, go for a fictional design that looks somewhat like an Abrams and could be the logical continuation of it. My problem with the Merkava is that it is exactly that, a Merkava, and I find it highly unlikely that the US will replace their current tech with Israel's current tech. There are test variants of the Abrams, for example with the crew entirely located in the base like with the T-14. As I said, I know why it turned out to be the Merkava, if you watch earlier videos of Arma 3 development you see all that stuff with CSAT camo Well, yeah, most planes have names like that or have a nickname like "The Hog". but.. WIPEOUT? That was a game for PS1 in my book 🙂 Didn't Maruk hint at going back to the Cold War on Twitter ?

Only that the tank looks EXACTLY like a Merkava, and the tracked APC looks exactly like a Namer, both IDF-Vehicles. It's very likely a leftover from the original planning, since in early screenshots and videos all of these vehicles, including the M-ATVs, have hex camo, which would make more sense since apparently in 2035 Iran has conquered Israel and have been using their equipment, including the Negev and Tavors I can understand that due to certain circumstances, the existing assets had to be shuffled around. However, that still does not excuse the silly names. I remember RiE's "Googly Eyes" stuff, but to be honest, "Slammer", "Stomper", "Wipeout" and "Scortcher" are googly eyes level silly. I would be prefectly fine with M1A3 Abrams MBT's It's not NECESSARILY the fact that they are all of a sudden using existing Israeli equipment that bothers, my problem is that they name it like a 13-year-old would name his favorite Marvel superhero. IMO it shouldn't have been Merkavas or Namers, but I can see why that happened ("The Incident", requirement for large-scale changes in the game etc). But seriously, did I mention "Slammer"? SLAMMER?

Weapons is fine, there is no real naming scheme and it greatly depends on the manufacturer. But seriously... Slammer?

The only thing I never really could get over is the naming... Blackfoot is okay, but Slammer? Stomper? Scorcher? Wipeout? These sound like a 13 year old came up with them. They are also out-of-sync with how the US usually names their equipment..

First of all, I will assume you have converted them to png because Blender cannot cope with paa and sadly there are no hooks to teach it a new image format either. You need to make a material and put the texture into the appropriate slot (diffuse color to the _co/_ca texture). The import should have created the materials, so you need only slot in the right texture. Then, make sure to enable Blender's texture display

Reports like this really belong to our issue tracker.

Ah, Ambush, I must have played that mission a hundred times in the OFP demo. Still waiting for the playable conclusion 😄

Here's my guess - you have a material slot on your object but no material assigned to it.

They could spent it on drugs and hookers for all I care. If you sell a product, you sell a product. You want to make a profit out of it. This isn't a charity. Of course I want Arma 4 as much as anyone else, but a company is a company.

Hi. I have searched this and a couple of other forums, but nobody seems to know this for sure. I'll give it another try. In the OnUserConnected server.cfg script, I want to call a function that verifies whether the player connecting has all the required addons. Unfortunately, the Arma 3 UI is apparently incapable of telling the user what he/she is missing, so I wanted to make something that would help identify these problems. However, it looks like nothing I enter in the onUserConnected entry will actually work. The only few commands that seem to do anything is kick, ban, and similar. execVM, call, and whatever else just give a script error. Is there anyway I can do something actually useful in that handler? Or is this really this limited? Thanks.

I will update the release ASAP. I have recently added a few rather consequential updates to the code that I wanted to test a bit before committing, but it seems that most of it work. A few kinks remain that need to be addressed. In the meantime, pulling the source is the best practical solution. Sorry for the inconvenience.

All collections are visible. I haven't found a way to only make one collection visible via script, but if you simply press the "1" key it will hide all but the first collection, which is probably what you want.

Looks like one of your weights in the named selections are off, which is weird since weights can only go 0..1 If possible, can you send that file with only that one LOD to my email address (Hans-Joerg@friedenhq.org) ? I'll have a look then.

I need more context. What did you do, and if possible, where/what line was the error reported?

The question isn't "is it possible", the question is more "who is going to do it". Right now there are no plans for that.

Actually, it does... However... Make sure you are using the right version. There is a legacy version for Blender 2.79 (https://github.com/AlwarrenSidh/ArmAToolbox/releases/tag/bf-1) which is the last one for the old Blender branch Your models MUST NOT be binarized. The Toolbox will not open binarized models. This is intentional, and is not going to change. I highly recommend updating to Blender 2.90. Python scripting between 2.79 and 2.80 and beyond are incompatible, so the 2.79 branch of the toolbox will no longer be updated. Something else, if you get any sort of error, an error message would be helpful. "I get an error" doesn't really say much. If in doubt, in Blender go to the menu Window -> Toggle System Control and cut-n-paste the error message from there. Anything else will leave me guessing.

Well we did and concluded that a different color would not be very likely to break a lot of missions. Seems we were right. Case closed.

I would seriously not call a car changing color to be "broken". We do our best to keep classes that we removed in the game as scope=1 to avoid breaking missions. But we will not hesitate to do things we consider an improvement, and quite frankly, random color changes is not a big deal. It would be different if your mission didn't load anymore because we removed a class.

*** ATTENTION *** This is a highly experimental test release of the Arma toolbox. It is not recommended for production use, but for testing only. I would like to receive feedback on the new features in this version. download link What's New - Imported p3d files will now set the name of the first UV Map to "UVMap" to avoid merging problems - New Merge operator that can merge two objects while retaining Proxies (see below) - New Export option: "Apply Modifiers" will apply all modifiers on the exported model, for example, put a Triangulate modifier on an object to only export triangles - New Export option: 'Merge same LOD's" will try to merge all lods of the same type and/or resolution setting. That means that if you have two LOD 1.0, they will be merged and show up as one in the exported P3D New Merge Operator: In order to use the Merge operation, you should map it to a key. By default, CTRL-J joins all selected to the active object, and this operator behaves the same, so it can be a full replacement for that since it doesn't do any special magic unless the selected objects are actual Arma objects AND have proxies. The easiest way is to replace the CTRL-J key mapping. To do that: Go to Edit -> Preferences and select Keymap Open the ""3D Mode", "Object Mode", and "Object Mode (global)" panel Either add a new keyboard shortcut, or find the CTRL-J shortcut As operator (if you added a new keyboard shortcut it will say "None") add armatoolbox.join Save the preferences and close the window To join objects: In the viewport: - Select the first object then shift-select the next object, selecting the "receiver" last. - Press the shortcut you used (CTRL-J if you are an optimist like me) In the outliner: - Select the first object then ctrl-select the next object, selecting the "receiver" last - Press the shortcut you used For context, "receiver" in this case means the object that will be preserved. all of the other objects will be merged INTO that one. Also note that there is currently a limitation, namely that named properties are NOT merged along and the named properties of the merged objects are simply lost. As I said, this is a highly experimental version and should be treated with a ten-foot pole. Still, feedback is welcome 🙂