krzychuzokecia

Excuse my ignorance, I searched, but couldn't find an answer - is Arma .lip format the same as one used in OFP?

I did that yesterday already, but no dice :( As for the model, it's BIS one, so I'd prefer not debinarising it for obvious reasons. But I'm also pretty sure that messing with alpha sorting on the model itself, won't really change it's problems with other models in game enviroment. That's my previous experience, and well - if it was THAT simple, we wouldn't have the famous car glass bug in first place :D But I'll try anyway.

I think you don't understand me. I don't have problem with image size, rather with creating (to put it in simplest terms) RGB channels that contain something, yet are still transparent. To be specific, I'm having issue with BIS texture o.pbo/misc/pletivo_rez.paa. At the moment I managed to make two identical for eye versions, which have different RGB channel values. That's how it looks: As you can see, the two textures have contrasting RGB channels, even though they look the same to the eye. Unfortunately, in game there's no difference - texture still makes some objects behind it disappear, no matter what variant is used (original has even different RGB channels).

Since this topic interests me greatly, could you elaborate a bit on that? I wasn't able to "specify zones" of alpha channel in a way they are present in your Targa file, and copying layers from mine textures onto yours resulted only in loss of colours.

Looks great, good luck!

And why that is? Modding is not constrained by Arma product life, and JAM wasn't made just after OFP release either. Matter of fact it's final version, and vehicle extension (CAVS), were released a few months before A1. I'm sorry to say, because RHS is wonderfully amazing mod, but it's also a poster boy in terms of lacking standarization between content. Now, RHS values may as well be the most accurate/realistic (and I bet they are), but then why not making sort-of-JAM out from it? Not even as a mod, but maybe simple database of values, and (in terms of armor) guidelines on making applicable LODs. That's a moot point IMO, and it was moot even in case of JAM - many addon-makers were sure that they knew better, and were not concerned with any compatibility. Would it come as surprise to anyone though, that the most popular addons (in no particular order: Laser, SJB, RHS, ORCS, BAS, WW4) were using JAM? IIRC the only big mod that was not JAM compatible was WGL, but even then I'm not sure if their values weren't identical to JAM, just with different magazine classnames. And it's criminally underused. CBA3 uses magazine well system for their compatibility solution (named, quite fittingly... JAM), and CUP uses CBA3 including JAM. However I can't recall any other mod really taking use of that - even GlobMob team, when asked to introduce magazine wells for their guns, declined. Thanks for the link, and I'll try it out, but... for a single dude like me, no matter how hard I'd work on such a thing (new JAM), no one would care. Actually, I remember at least two people trying to do that in A3, and failing (will try to dig up their threads, can't remember the names now). Why? Because without some Big Mod™ such project is deemed to failure. Thousand of people would whine why it's not working with Big Mod™? make compatibility patch for Big Mod™! - no matter if mine solution would be better (more accurate etc.). That was the power of JAM, that it was made by devs of Big Mods™ and by sheer popularity of those mods it gained immediate following, which kind of forced others do adopt it as well. In Arma 3 lone wolf like me can only focus on making addons the way he wants, and then (if he cares) making compatibility patches for one of 3-5 Big Mods™. Quite obviously ACE ballistic rework would fit the bill, but since mod's scope is much bigger, and it has more features (many, let's say... controversial), it kind of disqualified itself as a potential new JAM - JAM power also came from the fact that it was three small .pbos, with just config and sounds, and it could be easily introduced into any new mod. Anyway PuFu, you can safely ignore this whole rambling, because your/RHS stance is perfectly known to me, and I'm the last person to have any influence on your decisions :) A man got's to know his limitations and making friends and influencing people is mine! However, I'm throwing it out into the air, maybe someday something will come out of this talk. Or not. It's not like it's hurting anyone.

Yay! Another veteran comes back! I still use your OFP weapon pack every day, so good luck in A3!

Remember JAM? I remember... I don't know why, but in good 'ole OFP times it was easier for addon-makers to rise above various differences, and egos saying I'm the bestest! and do something together. And OFP surely had it's share of I'm the bestest! Nobody is so great as me! people! GlobMob devs says that's not entirely true, and that 7.62x51 damage/penetration values are (quote) massively nerfed. So, which is which?

He's too old for rock'n'roll, and too young to die. sorry I'm not helpful, but I couldn't resist the pun!

So in missions it works okay? I'm shooting blanks here, but maybe it's related to this particular unit, or Desert Island. Also, maybe the materials are an issue, since this is only thing that can affect performance - try disabling them.

S O V R E M E N N Y Y R A Z G O V O R Addons: CUP, POLPOX's Artwork Supporter. Inspiration: Afgan: The Soviet Experience - 1989 documentary by Jeff B. Harmon, with it's a e s t h e t h i c use of Modern Talking music.

Yes indeed, and Hitman said so. I think he's just looking for a nicer one, and there doesn't seem to be much choice of early M2s (M2A1 from CBT! is closest).

No problems on Win7, with FWatch. How it works with just WW4 (without Ext)? WW4Ext doesn't change anything in terms of animations (WW4 alone provides them), so either it should also happen on WW4, or for some weird reason Win10 doesn't like Ext. Edit: have you had any Ext specific features (rucksacks or effects) enabled?

@seminara ...or, instead of buying A:CWA on Steam, you can download this version, which will work with your original CWC license/CD-key.

Continuing the off-topic a bit (though it is some form of feedback, even if non-technical one) Old Man always seemed a little bit like a red-headed step-child. I may be wrong, but the first time I heard about it was around free Malden DLC (so around 2017), and it looked like an answer to community cry for proper SP playable content. It took devs two years to release Old Man beta on Workshop, and then few more months for a final version (however, if I'm being honest, I don't see much difference between the two). Around the time Old Man beta was released, we also heard that A3 development is generally being stopped, with only small team left on that project to fix the most annoying bugs. So, yeah it does kinda feel as if it was off-loaded to the game like a hot potato. How is it true? I dunno, but that brings me to the issue of community-devs relations. As @mmm said, I'd also love to hear what was the outcome of Old Man experiment, what are the lessons from it, what it can bring to Arma series in the future? Even if scenario itself is unplayable, it would be great to know that the whole effort was not in vain. Unfortunately, when I'm skimming through official news like COMRADs, it seems that only good comrades are those who post tacticool Gucci screenshots on Twitter (with no offense to the screenshotters!). I figured, I just mentioned it, because from casual observer point of view it does reinforce the feeling of oh crap! Arma 3 is dead, all hands on deck for the *secret project* (totally not Arma 4! ) BTW: good luck engine programmers, we're counting on you! Fixed!

It's not newest version (there's 1.41), and it still doesn't have 1981-1985 spec M2 Bradley (earliest in CBT! pack is 1986 M2A1).

I think Hitman is asking for "the original" first version M2 Bradley - just M2, not M2Ax. Which I think I haven't seen anywhere in Arma series. Wasn't @Macser making a custom M2 Bradley?

"They" just did! At this moment Old Man is simply unplayable beyond first few missions - though it's a bit of a dice roll whether player gets first kick in a butt from performance issues, or quest bugs. But it seems that 'Hemia is not interested in fixing this for reasons we can only speculate*. Question is if they ever were, because several issues mentioned on the first page of this thread are still present in the Old Man. Bohemia has a history of abandoning their games suddenly (Take on Mars being the most offending example), but it's definitely "first" in Arma series. In previous Arma titles, even though they still have issues, you can play official missions and campaigns from start to end without encountering huge problems. With Old Man it's impossible. *There's interesting activity on the feedback tracker - some tickets are apparently abandoned (devs are unassigning), while others (especially ones related to basic engine features) are added to a "Restricted project".

There's a ticket for this issue on feedback tracker.

...and that water puddle under the fridge. Talk about attention to detail!

Oh noes... Now my OFP textures will have the same suffixes as Arma textures. How I'll recognize which is which!?

Looks amazing! And like Jon above, I love that "lived in" feeling. Last screenshot gives me "Laws of War" vibes, which IMHO is best campaign in whole Arma series.

Looks cool! For high furniture, like the cabinet in third pic, it might be a good idea to make them appear knocked over. However I'm not sure how hard would that be.

In OFP it was done by manually editing your UserInfo.cfg file. Which specific settings? I don't remember, VisualQuality is one of them, but you need to change some other too - I was never a real PvP/CTF player, and never bothered with that. In A2 there's no UserInfo.cfg, but settings are saved in {yourusername}.ArmA2OAProfile file. Quick look into it tells me that VisualQuality tag is not used, probably replaced by SceneComplexity.

A little suggestion regarding "Target E" object (classnames: TargetE, cwa_TargetE, TargetE_EP1). Currently this will be destroyed after a large number of hits (around 35), and when "dead" it falls to it's side. I don't remember how they behaved in Arma 1 and Arma 2, but current behaviour is inconsistent with both Arma 3 targets (which are indestructible, and fall back after one shot to pop up few seconds later - with exception of Simple Target which seems to be just indestructible) and A:CWA/OFP TargetE (which "dies" and falls back after 3 shots). Having them work like either A3 targets, or CWA target would make them quite useful for various drills/training missions. Also another variant of this object (TargetTraining classname) seems to have wrong destrType, as it produces a small explosion when "dead".