bad benson
-
Content Count
3138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
-
Medals
-
Everything posted by bad benson
-
yea agreed. in general it would be great, if all the sound features of the helos would be applied in modified form to the fixed wing stuff. otherwise it's a bit inconsistent and makes the fixed wing stuff feel a bit dull in comparison. not talking about advanced flight model or anything. just the awesome immersion increasing things.
-
The New York City Project
bad benson replied to bracer's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
looks nice. you should add some randomness though. like some windows being lit and some not. like so... -
Orshanets terrain 12.8x12.8km (Ukraine)
bad benson replied to Shelestov's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
no. it's actually as easy as replacing a pbos with the dayZ ones afaik. the problem here is that chernarus is not part of arma 3. so the options for BI are releasing a DLC or free patch with chernarus from dayZ (not going to happen) or updating the houses in arma 2 and thus indirectly allowing the stuff being used by the old AiA version (not going to happen either). yes it sucks a lot, considering how popular chernarus is among arma players, that we will probably be allowed, if ever, to use the stuff from dayZ or get it in another form (actual mlods) when it's not relevant anymore. much like we always get the sample models when the next game released. i will never understand why BI are so special about their models. it limits modding the game quite a lot. and i'm not talking about 1000 remakes of vanilla uniforms here. but that's off topic. fortunately there are peopel already taking on porting the buildings and making them enterable. i really hope people will outdo the dayZ stuff and add nice destruction and things to make the dayZ guys really jealous :p why porting pbos from a game people payed money for (dayZ SA) and using them in arma 3 is not allowed and results even in forum bans is beyond me. it's a bit insulting considering that the people who both own dayZ SA and arma 2 (it's safe to say that the majority of people who own arma 3 and dayZ SA own also arma 2), thus payed twice for the same map, are not allowed to use it as they want to. it's not like we're talking about ripping anything. so yea- "sigh" indeed. -
by the sound of it, this is about the killer and not he victim. so dead units don't report the unit that killed them. at least that is how i understood it.
-
-
speaking of finding objects. is there a text input search function? that would really help once you already know the class names of most of the stuff you use.
-
hm. so your whole view of getting "new" features added to the "finished" game is based on when exactly BI announce their game being out of beta and being final? i'm surprised how many people interpret things based on silly labels. are you thankful that you don't have to pay for new features for early access games that are still in alpha too? the flight model is the best example. it was promised a long time ago and is arriving late due to BI not being able to put it in the "realease/not alpha/beta anymore version". it's simply delayed. and it wouldn't surprise me if the same applies to slingloading and FFV. maybe this explains why not everyone is all "praisy" about stuff being added. those are just things that didn't make it in time due to a3's stoney road to release (or whatever the current consense on the actual reasons is). don't get me wrong. i want all the features i can get. but only so i can feel like i'm actually playing a new iteration with new possibilities and not a reskin with better graphics and better physics. BI got deliberately quiet about new features very early because people were already very pissed to not see stuff that had been shown before in the actual game. they said about many features "maybe after release" having them atleast prepared but not sure of being able to pull it off alongside constant bugfixing. bottom line: this game was far from finished at release. it still is not what they initially planned to do. so i'm not gonna be thankful for them being too slow for the labels they put on the game's state themselves at certain points in time.
-
Arma 3: Sweet markers system. WIP
bad benson replied to swatsteam's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
this, as the title suggests, is indeed very sweet. it's on of those addons that make you want BI just take it and stuff it right into the game as is. keep it up man. we need more people improving the clunky ass UI. -
that's why you don't do it in object builder/oxygen since the early alpha: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Modding_Characters the "character examples" under "requirements" includes a 3ds max script that will allow you to export weighted models. sorry if you guys already knew this. just making sure that valuable hours of work are not wasted for no reason :D
-
the launcher is awesome. i only use that to start arma now. it just needs that one feature to be finished. i just try to keep bringing it up so the DEVs know that it's needed and anticipated.
-
the launcher just needs the ability to recognize "@" folders and put them in the list already. i think DNA said it's planned. i really can't wait. please just finish it so we can stop asking.
-
that's exactly what some people don't seem to see. this is the same method any other company uses these days. instead of additional stuff that was basically a bonus like in arma 2 the DLCs are now used to basically complete the game. you feel the support and logistics part is underdeveloped? just wait for the DLC. you feel like shooting mechanics feel incomplete? wait for the DLC. i think you see the pattern. it's simple. by not delivering something complete you can call the missing parts, you then add later, "additions". same goes for "the things they give us for free" btw. these are just features that didn't make it into the game on what they called "release". as ground breaking as FFV may seem. it's like at least 8 years overdue. and the flight model and rope stuff is been requested since it was seen in take on helos. these are basically the things one could've called actual new features as opposed to physX implementation, under water and anims that don't look retarded. the latter are normal game upgrades that should be a given after so many iterations of the same thing. i don't mind selling content like this though, couldn't care less about some helos as long as i get the actual features. what bugs me is that people praise BI for giving them presents and supporting the game after release, when that is just a rebranding of the fact that the game isn't finished to this day and is basically still in BETA (alpha by definition since new features are beign added). i mean look at the changelogs. i see no difference to alpha. don't get me wrong. they should keep doing it but i won't praise them for features that they just didn't manage to add in time. if you think that they just have these ideas over lunch and then quickly throw them in, you are a bit naive. as far as i can tell there is much more foresight and calculation going into this. too much even. that's why FFV will probably stay in its "budget" state. i hope i'm wrong about the latter though...
-
Arma 3 (release candidate) 1.36.128482+ stress-test MP (MultiPlayer)
bad benson replied to Dwarden's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
i wasn't gonna say it because i plug arma 2 ins all the time but yes that would be great. especially with opfor player slots. it's also a good mission to use from a technical standpoint. it already does caching but at the same time can have quite some AI present at the same time. -
amazing detail and variety. only thing i'd liek to see is usage of some custom lighting. while it already looks amazing, i'm really tired of seeing that redish brownish greek lighting. especially seeing all this nice green you haev there i'd really love to see a mix of what fabio did for AiA's cherno port and what you have now. just a suggestion of course.
-
Arma 3 (release candidate) 1.36.128482+ stress-test MP (MultiPlayer)
bad benson replied to Dwarden's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
yea and i second the suggestions about having only one or max two servers. make the slots rare. make people want them :D also please start cycling different missions. while i understand the thought of using "clean" PvP missions and the need for a controlled environment, i think it would still make sense to test missions with lots of scripting and AI too. because this way it's not very representative of the actual MP spectrum of arma. now you could say "but coop missions have bad scripting" my answer would be "make a simple one yourself then" :p seriously though. i think testing AI is very important. why not make a very simple benchmark mission that is still enjoyable? maybe some parameters to scale AI to see where the limits are and stuff? just put "cleanable" sectors on all/many settlements. otherwise there is no real testing happening of what is considered arma's thing. prolonged large scale missions. -
Arma 3 (release candidate) 1.36.128482+ stress-test MP (MultiPlayer)
bad benson replied to Dwarden's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
on my way. hope it's still up. -
L_NV - Restricted nightvision in ArmA3
bad benson replied to laxemann's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
for the AI you could look into this https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setSkill_array spot distance looks like what you need with your approach. i also kinda agree with the depth pf field/focus thing. i already have an idea how to script that. gonan make a test and report back. -
Adding content from TKOH for Helicopter DLC
bad benson replied to dezkit's topic in ARMA 3 - GENERAL
i really like the OP's idea. it's some nice content that would be totally worth the effort of porting. and i disagree to give us the models instead because this should be about what the base game offers and not what mods maybe could be made that you will probably never use on a public server. to me recycling is only bad when it comes to copy pasting turrets between opposing vehicles for example. other than that i see no reason why well crafted models shouldn't be integrated in the latest iteration of the platform. makes no sense to create everything again or limit oneself to new creations and ending up with a small amount of content in the process. -
i don't see why it wouldn't be synced. it's basically a normal vehicle animation. the idea is to either have 180 view and being able to switch to the "other" 180 using a button or something or getting 360 from the start and making the legs follow dynamically (basically just making hte feet follow like when standing on terrain). maybe even have them drag behind. one could do lots of nice detailed things with this, if you accompany it with some nice character animations. EDIT: it would be ideal if what Smookie said would actually work. being that both anim masks "aiming" and "aimingbody" would be both recognized by and also work exactly like normal with the cargoturret system. so far it seems like "aimingbody" is ignored.
-
ok so i tried if i can animate the proxy itself and it works. the problem is though that the camera and crosshair/aim in general don't react to that. so i tried pretty much everything now. seems like we really need the ability to make the feet follow added by you guys (devs). if you have more insight on how this might be achieved with mods, i'm all ears. until then i will keep asking for more control via config :p here's a video showing what happens when you animate the proxy:
-
hm. too bad that it can't be enabled then, or can it? not really a problem either way. deleting the bullet is obviously only needed because you guys deactivated the collision :p i'm well aware that it would be done differently/way more simple on the engine side. can you guys please PLEASE! add a parameter to turn it on? this limitation is killing me. i'm not talking about you changing the vision you had for the feature. just let me use it for my own purpose. i would be sooo grateful. just a simple boolean would be enough. while i kind of get your argument about the visual side, that is exactly why i need it. there are many situations like especially on the loading area of trucks and for example the offroad (not to mention the small boat where everyone would have 360 but instead everything is limited by fancy cargo anims) where this limitation makes no sense since the room you take up is pretty much square in size. so rotating wouldn't even cause severe clipping. and while i also get that you guys seem to be stuck on the idea of having a specific static pose i simply want the opportunity to make it so you can actually move since that is simply what you could do in real life too. not to mention that the poses that are used on the offroad are not really shooting poses. i'll just make a video i guess. that was kind of my point. so in a scenario with 360 full rotation they would then actually shoot at targets through their own vehicle, which is not desired ofc. would be interesting what happens with shooting of your own vehicle enabled :D
-
it would really make much more sense to find a solution for what happens if you shoot your own vehicle. i tested this to see why you guys would limit stuff just because of it and the bullets just go through the vehicle. my solution so far was simply deleting the projectile when there is intersection happening with your own vehicle checked using the weapon vector using a fired even handler. i don't see how this would not be possible on an engine level. what is the problem here? do AI shoot through their own vehicles with free rotation enabled? would be a real shame if that was the reason players are so limited too. i would also like to know if it is possible to animate the proxy in a way that the lower body rotates with the aim horizontally (only!). that would be great since it would mean that we could essentially mod out all the limitations. then all this would be not a problem at all.
-
Scripting Discussion (dev branch)
bad benson replied to Dwarden's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
i second that request. it seems to me that this data should already be there anyways. it would allow so many things with relatively low impact and also more accurate and faster than the suggested known workaround. another addition the intersect commands really need is being able to shoot the ray onto the geo lod or even any lod. the view geo lod is currently what is used, which severly limits this command. there's also a limitation when it comes to detecting characters. when i was looking for info on this some time ago i found that people suggested using "intersect". but that was in arma 1 and i couldn't get that to work. maybe someone has an example or confirmation that it indeed isn't working. would be much appreciated. -
that is exactly why i suggested slighty changing the way the lower body behaves or at least adding more control parameters to change it. that will help the devs too to give each individual seat the needed love. right now it seems that anything that goes beyond the littlebird bench seats in terms of FOV will be limited by exactly that FOV which is 180°. Smookie didn't sound like what he had in mind might really happen. so i'd rather push for a small change, that allows endless modding, at this early stage while this is still on the list of things being worked on. i will show a demo video of exactly what the problem is soon. no offense but BI have a history of just implementing things and never touching them again. and in addition making things not modular enough. this could become yet another case of huge waste of potential. i'm not trying to sound ungrateful since it's the best new feature since ages. i just think that now is the time for being vocal. who knows? maybe someone at BI will say "fuck these guys, we're gonna show them" and push this further, if we are annoying enough.
-
not stupid at all. this is exactly what is needed. the animation itself is not the crucial part here. that can be changed via config and also on the fly via scripting. the crucial part is the rotation of the whole body. this would essentially open up endless possibilities. try it yourself in the editor. go into one of the offroad's cargo shooting positions. press ESC and type this in the debug console: player switchMove "" this will switch to the default rifle standing animation. you will notice that, while advanced stances don't work, that you can even go crouch and prone. this would be an amazing possibility if it wasn't for how the lower body is behaving. you could essentially as a modder make your own little action set for each cargo seat of your own or a vanilla vehicle. meaning. instead of what you get when you do what i said in the editor you could have custom anims for crouch stand and prone that fit the cargo position you are in. so instead of going prone and clipping through the vehicle you could duck really low appropriately for where you are in the vehicle. this is much more intuitive than having to unlock certain angles via WASD. you simply would be have like outside of a evhcile minus moving around. we simply need more control over the aiming masks via config parameters. there needs to be a switch for the lower body being set in place. so that it can stay how it is for the littlebird but can be changed for other vehicles.