bad benson

lol. this was bound to happen to this thread :lol: good effort though fabio. i don't want to be that guy since i really appreciate the 3d editor effort and all. but it kind of baffles me that the UI is still basically the same at the same time. very strange priorities.

i think he's asking for a little update on the particle textures. that's all. i tend to agree. although i think the whole system could use certain, even small, additions that could make a big difference.

arma already does that. each model has different LODs (levels of detail). and textures are being mip mapped like in any other modern (been like that for a while actually) engine, most games do that actually. seems like arma is already more complex than you think :P "optimization" is actually the deal breaker here tbh. you can't just do a lot of stuff at the same time without clever resource management and dynamic scaling of detail in simulation much like with the visual LODs. there are, on the sqf level, more methods than just creating new units with certain properties on the fly and deleting them again. one is moving units around from outside the map. another is creating one of each unit at mission start near the camera to load all the textures into the RAM and stuff. but again. BIS, if they wanted to do this, which i'm not sure they do, could design the whole engine around all this. you should consider what the target gameplay actually is, which is what the campaign is. the examples i listed are what people actually trying to partly achieve what you described came up with after testing and seeing what actually can be done with mods and considering the current engine architecture. i honestly don't know if ALiVE considers supply lines but i think it would be a great feature. adding the possibility to attack a weak spot of a concentrated force instead of only being able to attack that force directly would be great. are those games you had as examples doing all that in SP or MP? that makes a huge difference too since you get essentially a bot net with lots of players if you do it right :lol:

yea arma is more of shooter with a ery large map. not really built for any of this at all. but when you said on a much smaller scale i was thinking like a mix between HETMAN, ALiVE and DAC would be great. like having the advancing of HETMAN and then have them build bases/fobs like the DAC respawn camps too and of course having everything be virtual until you actually get there like in ALiVE. i think considering the horrible driving it could work to have the supply routes virtual. you could have some ambient trucks actually driving them if you get there but the route's functionality could be down to other factors like enemy presence around the road.

i love these unique places you guys are making. i hope you are using Neo's Map Builder :lol:

i don't think so. but my info might be outdated. you can only replace the main cursor via an addon or maybe do something real hacky like getting the control ID of the cursor and replacing the picture on the fly or some shit. that would be a great feature request actually. having a property inside a dialog class to set a picture for the cursor.

first thing i noticed is your bone definitions. i'm pretty rusty with all this but i'm pretty sure the wa you have it set up the bones are parented to eachother in a row like a spine. you have try this instead or something like it. again. been a while.

you should post your model.cfg and config.cpp

i remember some time thinking of trying this myself. this thread is useful for it. https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/151006-interaction-with-inventory-items/ you get the IDs for the listbox in the inventory dialog that you want to add your item to. and you can then use the listbox commands to add an entry there i think. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/lbAdd https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/lbSetPicture this could be tricky to make it behave 100% unglitchy but definately worth a try at least imho.

well obviously you can't use a fish config for a mammal...hurr hurr hurr. sorry i know i'm a retard :lol: i can only give some general pointers. first of you should check if you have all memory points that a fish has. and in general try to copy all the non visual lods too as best as you can. you can use eliteness to analyse the binarized vanilla fish models without opening them in o2 (which under normal conditions you can't). is there maybe a fish sample in the samples_F folder? if so, then i'm too out of the loop already. when it comes to these kind of things arma is like a house of cards. so it's always good to be as close to a working example as possible. same goes for the configs of course. i know i'm stating the obvious but i wouldn't be able to spot anything in the files you posted. it's all guessing without real time hands on involvement. so a good excercise could be making a clone of an existing fish that uses the same model and all but has a config with all the same paths but different classnames in terms of animations and CfgMoves name. i hope some of this vague stuff made you come up with something. :lol:

i like how planetside 2 does it. the map looks similar to the ones you showed from those other games but on a smaller scale closer to arma's. http://i.stack.imgur.com/5reqF.jpg

exactly my thoughts. i bet they wouldn't be half bad if he'd make them engage eachother from afar. but who knows what the editor allows you to do. maybe they have a super short spotting distance and you can't place waypoints or something. but like this? looked impressive in some ways but i think there is no AI out there that can handle such chaos gracefully. simply too many priority targets at once. but what i also liked a lot aside from the animations is the screams. anyone remember DSAI for arma 1/2? i loved that so much. arma 3's radio shouts come closer but not enough for my taste. in that video the screams combined with the sound engine made for some great dramatic atmosphere. and all procedural.

yea man that would be super useful for door breaching scripts too.

it's not that i dislike the idea as such but what does that have to do with anything? i don't think this is about popularity in general but more about mod distribution and how convenient it is. glad you brought up the updating. i'd like to add that to my suggestion too. could be possible too with the linking i described, i think. not sure about traffic and stuff but checking if a file on some mirror is uptodate should be possible.

i think this is one of those threads that was doomed right at its conception. the whole topic is and will always be one of the polarized ones. and since the thread started with simply one person of one of the both extreme sides of the spectrum stating his subjective opinion and asking everyone to conform, this was bound to happen. i think next time it would be good to start with a question of what can be done to improve the overall situation and some possible solutions. simply stating your opinion of "i think people should do X" will get you no where. shouldn't we know better by now? :lol: just kidding of course not. this is how we roll :D --------------------------------------------------------------- i'm personally on the fence on this one. right in the middle. i love connecting with people who like my stuff in such a direct manner (SWS) but i totally see armaholic having a huge advantage in the fact that it moderates content BEFORE it gets uploaded which makes SWS and the creators who acually spend time of their days to hunt down uploads look insane and the process crazy tedious for no reason. but i get that the question who would moderate the arma workshop section could be tricky. not unsolvable though. -------------------------------------------------------------- i think the whole armaholic VS SWS debate is a useless one. that's the wrong question to ask. in my eyes there can be convenience cooexisting with variety. in my (humble) opinion it's totally wrong to demand what would basically be a 100% central mirror. there's no benefit there. the opposite. once it shuts down, for whatever reason, we're fucked. always good to have backups and alternative means. ----------------------------------------------------------------- what i think is needed is a central hub, a universial connector of all the mirrors provided by BIS. the launcher. i think the launcher is cool and all but, as with many things with BIS, i think it's just a small taste of would could be. awesome start for sure though. i have proposed this elsewhere but since, like everyone else, i'm in love with my own ideas, i'll just repeat it here before this thread turns into a vortex inferno leading directly to hell. ----------------------------------------------------------------- it would be great if the official launcher would be able to pick up links similar to torrent files (lack of better comparison) so you could integrate armaholic (or any site) into it. so you'd basically just run one file you get on armaholic and it automatically puts it into the launcher and the rest is automated. with that kind of tech you could do all kinds of things. clans could use their own servers and just pass around those link files. all people would have to do is run the file to create an entry in the launcher, exactly like when you subscribe on SWS, and make the launcher feed from the custom mirror. something modular like that would mirror the whole state of arma since years much better. which is a modular pile of everything all connected into something cool. arma is like the opposite of central. i think that should be embraced by passive connectors to keep the best of both worlds. and please remember guys. there are even more benefits to those fansites than the ones i mentioned. so it might be a bit early to turn your back and hiss "go F yourself we don't need you anymore...we got new toys now" :P

this is so weird. they don't seem to be worried about shots from inside. so why not break the top part that moves, to check out the lock from inside? must be some strong stuff like those metal bars that go from side to side or something. the cell phones ringing cracked me up good though :lol:

looks fantastic already! i can't tell you how happy i am to see such hilly pine forests. looks like you already created some interesting and unique places i'd love to explore. man and even a river. you've got a nice collection of features already. keep it up. :)

thx for clarifying da12thmonkey.

welcome to arma modding! that's a nice model for a beginner and i also really dig your avatar :lol: i think it would be best for you to get skype and join the "model maker" channel from this thread. https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/125141-skype-groups-other-contact-groups/ lots of nice helpful people there that can help you out with experience, learning the arma specific quirks and stuff. as far as i remember you should be fine with 2048x2048 textures and double the size is probably fine too. arma does mipmapping so it will down scale based on texture settings per user. if i remember correctly square textures are a must (AxA and not AxB etc). might be outdated here though. but you can get more accurate info on skype. another benefit is that most of the time someone will be online so there is a always a high chance to get your questions answered somewhat real time. it's a great way to get a grasp of all the arma specific things and speed up the progres of getting stuff working and learning hte basics. documentation tends to be really scattered and often incomplete so imho it's the best way to learn. if you prefer the forums just go ahead and ask away. try to be a little more specific about what exactly you want to know. what kind of a weird ass question is that?! if it's some kind of back handed accusation of him not having made the model himself then you might want to get some proof or some rational reasoning for it before throwing around assumptions like that...sorry if i misunderstood but that's how i read it.

yea now that you say it, it might actually need a slightly different control scheme/system to work how i imagine it. like actually controlling like a mouse controlled vehicle or something. also keep in mind that i'm just brain storming from a theoretical perspective. i haven't been able to boot the game in months (wish i could right now, seeing your progress) so i have not really an uptodate hands on experience i am basing any of this on. but i guess if you feel it wouldn't be entirely useless the way you had it, options can never hurt. i'm planning to 100% retire from arma modding except from slowly finishing/maintaining my EM mod, but to be honest when i see this, it really makes me want to make a terrain :) who knows? maybe you will need someone creating some small areas on that Harz terrain you were working on. using your tool, making something for this game might actually feel like a harmless hobby again :lol:

that's fantastic! how about having the camera (optionally) orient with the brush too? seeing you trying to follow the resulted placement in the end of the video made me think that it could be useful for certain situations. like let's say you would place a fence or whatever that goes around some houses and the brush would be hidden by the houses. would be kind of cool to be able to "drive" around the map in a low camera angle while placing stuff, when the object density is high in the area. also wanted to say how awesome this is and how great that you keep quietly improving this in this way. you are a true tool maker. everything is so clean and simple and makes sense. @kerkkoh: awesome results. looks very natural. i really hope to see a lot of new terrains with that kind of detail coming out of this.

agreed. i think often times in games it's similar to magic. it's about creating the illusion. the "game/engine" knows everything anyways so it's about simulating knowledge by setting limits. i agree with cosmic10r that they should always go investigating instead of magically reacting even if they cross checked with friendly units that might have actual line of sight. i don't really see there being a problem with complexity. we're not talking about reality. do we really want to have AI go investigate friendly gunfire? i don't think so. and if someone wants that he/she can find a scripted solution. so suppressor/enemy weapon used or not. they should only consider enemy gunshots anyways since this is about creating meaningful gameplay and not simulating friendly fire accidents (imho). so i'd like a routine where they, as mentioned, investigate (seemingly) by changing their position, after hearing an enemy gunshot or footsteps, with the "secret" agenda to get actual line of sight to then, when they get it, engage in a justified manner. and the cross checking with friendlies might have to get limited in some way. because who knows maybe the fact they do that already is exactly the reason they shoot at stuff they don't see. it has to be considered that they should only get a "he's somewhere around that wall there" from a friendly instead of a pinpoint 3d position to create the illusion of human error and limited perception. so i'd even go as far as to remove shooting through walls entirely (squad mates having visual or not) unless they had line of sight a certain short amount of time ago (few seconds).

man that sounds promising and about time since it seems like it's common sense thing. i always thought i'd prefer 100% manual player spotting anyways. hate when my avatar reports stuff i don't even see. i hope you guys find more similar things like that. also the fact it's optional is great to directly compare FPS and of courseto not break anything. just out of curiousity. i assume since it's about raycasts that similar things to knowsabout like neartargets (parts of its data) and that new thing targetknowledge will at least "break" partly too?

indeed. however there's a slim chance that my old source files are still around and that i can fix the baking issue i had. basically i made new weighting for the existing model but also had to deform it to make it fit the skeleton better. so it needed new UV mapping onto which i still had to bake the old displacement data. all steps are done except the baking (automated process). so if i can fix that or find someone who can do the bake for me i could (MAYBE) at least give Icebreakr an updated model. no promises on that at all though since there are two outcomes. 1. it taking a few minutes since it's just baking. so push button...wait for texture output...done. 2. lots and lots of extra work. so i'd say 50%. however. i hereby grant permission to Icebreakr (or anyone else if credit is given) to do whatever you like with those old models (maybe new weighting? :D ). be warned though. the weighting still is and always was hidious, dreadful, horrible...just bad :lol: kind of against my pride to let them out there again but, if people really want them, i don't care anymore.

nah. i have no access to the game currently. kinda stuck with the theoretical side for now :lol: