krzychuzokecia

PR Mod and WW4Ext have almost nothing in common, apart from the fact that both use WW4 as their basis (so do other mods) and that I was involved to some extent with both. Total replacement is a type of mod which replaces vanilla units/models with it's own content. WW4 and WW4Ext are not total replacement mods, however if you'd like to see @kenoxite vision of what total replacement should be, please check out Extended Effects (ExtFX). @barccy I haven't forgot about you! I'm still investigating the rucksack issue, I'm just kinda busy with real life, so sorry for taking so long!

I think this is it @hitman1987

Since this refers to the pre-Resistance campaign, using pre-Resistance addons, the root of the problem may be lack of RequiredAddons=[] dependancy in config. For some reason, after releasing Resistance, it was quite common to encounter false missing addon errors (especially when playing pre-Resistance stuff), and to counter that BIS added addon dependancy in config (and IIRC addon preloading). I know it happened to me a lot when using some ancient stuff (like first Kegetys' addons). Another bad practice of the time was introducing several CfgPatches sections in one config/pbo - after Resistance addonmakers abandoned this habit. Somebody haven't read the FAQ! (Avon Lady's description makes XMP campaign look less than interesting though...)

Anno 1602 is up for grabs on Uplay. Giveaway ends on 23rd December.

Well, it can't be more open then it already is. Maybe you will enlighten us? From my experience the only thing affecting trajectory (or should I say - perceived trajectory) is projectile initSpeed and zoomMin/Max. Am I wrong? I know... but I won't tell ya! OK, then this whole discussion doesn't make any sense. Well zeroed scopes are not an issue - of course if addonmaker would invest some time in drawing his own reticle textures. That's how BI made the BDC work on both M21 and SVD (and WGL also had working BDC reticles). Naturally, when someone (like @anuj in this thread) changes weapon/ammo values and expects them to work flawlessly with pre-existing sight textures, he's in for a bad news. What I'm interested in is ability to change the way projectile behaves, to simulate different weights of bullets. I can't see any way to do that, while you say it is possible via adding one config value, however you don't want to spread the knowledge about that value. OK then, I'm waiting for your monumental addon to be released, so that all of us could learn about that secret formula.

I've searched the forums, but I don't have satisfactory answer... Short version: how are ballistics and terminal ballistics calculated in OFP? What does the "hit" value and "(min/mid/max)Range" (CfgAmmo), and initSpeed, maxSpeed (CfgWeapons), and are there any links between them? Long version: I'm making config for Silent War mod weapons pack, and I've looked into JAM3 values. What hit me was that JAM's 9x19 NATO, and 9x18 Makarov have the same hit value: 6.5 (JAM_Pistol_Bullet). That's kind of surprising because terminal ballistics of Makarov cartridge are more similiar to the .380 ACP, not 9mm Luger. Then, in CfgWeapons section, initSpeed for 9mm is set to 457, while Makarov value is 323. I learned that initSpeed in OFP affects only bullet trajectory. But what with "Range" values set for bullet? Again JAM's Luger and Mak use the same JAM_Pistol_Bullet class. And in real life ballistics of both cartridges are more-less identical (difference is only when it comes to terminal ballistics). So, that makes me think that initSpeed value can also have effect on the damage the bullet makes... Or maybe JAM guys were only wrong? I've got basic data for both cartridges (projectile weight, speed at muzzle, energy at muzzle, effective range etc.) - how I can "compute" them into "OFP-friendly" values? Also: how is rate of fire calculated? What I can see in game config looks nowhere near the real data. Thanks in advance!

Rabbit Hunt Mission by Krzychuzokecia A simple mission utilizing ideas from CSJ's original Rabbit Season. Your task is to hunt as much rabbits as You can, but You'll fail if You won't get at least 15 of them. Be warned: rabbits are fast runners, so take Your time and don't waste ammo! Credits: CSJ - original idea and rabbits' movement script Kzo - mission. Requirements: - Sanctuary's WW4 Modpack 2.5 + updates - Kenoxite's WW4 Extended 1.0 - Kenoxite's WW4 Extended - Cold War 1.0 - Kenoxite's WW4 Extended - Arctic 1.2 + requirements (Kegety's Winter Nogojev 1.1) - CSJ Rabbit addon. Link to download: v 1.01. Older versions: 1.0 (requires JAM3).

You're a little bit late You mean already existing config value? Or are you daydreaming? There's airFriction in Arma 1 CfgAmmo used, however for OFP there's no equivalent that I know of (only sideAirFriction for guided missiles). Once again - I wrote about it in previous post. Since there will be no updates for CWA (1.99 was rather a happy incident - from my understanding BI guys simply had no 1.96 master and thus we got an update), we have to work withing existing constraints.

It doesn't work for me either. If @zulu1 doesn't have it, then we're screwed because my HDD died early in 2017.

The rucksack itself is a weapon IIRC. I'll check it all out in the next two weeks, sorry, I'm kinda busy

Obviously it wasn't I who made the rucksack scripts, and it's been more than a year since I've lost my EXT data/notes/buglists etc. but I seem to recall that there indeed was an issue with AI and rucksacks in general. I'm not a scripter like @kenoxite but I'll at least look into this, and confirm if it's indeed a bug.

distanceZoomMax and distanceZoomMin. However I'm not sure if the number is in meters or not - I remember having few discrepancies here and there. But basic system works. Nevertheless, don't expect to have working reticles, especially M21 - it's set to work at exact magnification. Unless you plan to draw them by hand, but I doubt it. The biggest issue of proper ballistics (and thus working realistic reticles) is that every bullet uses the same ballistic coefficent (there's only sideAirFriction for guided missiles). So they slow down at the same pace, which sucks when you have different weights of bullest (light and fast 5.56/5.45 and heavier, slower 7.62x39). So you got to mess with initSpeed and zero ranges to have a believable trajectory.

I've listed some of the tutorials here. Brsseb and Fab tutorials are a must read f you want to use Oxygen (BI proprietary 3D modelling software).

Wait until you'll install FWatch - your antivirus software will go crayzee!

I wholeheartedly agree with first post - Captchas on BIF are often a nuisance, and they do nothing to combat the ever-growing wave of spambots.

Weird issues with Forums today, for at least 4 users (in various countries). Happened on Opera, Firefox and Chrome. 1. Website layout is completely broken, however it is possible to post new replies (even though WYSIWYG editor is absent). Looks like this: https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/959721121959562166/C75839555997C818428FB9FE901C925F689EDC03/ For most users layout comes back after using Ctrl+F5, but it leads to either problem 2 or 3. 2. Website seems normal, but "Post new reply" WYSYWIS applet doesn't show when clicking on the text field. It is impossible to write new reply. 3. Website seems normal, and WYSYWIG applet appears (and works - can write and post), however the icons in the WYSIWYG applet are invisible (only grey background and separators are visible). Looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/xHMBeC3.png Somebody forgot to feed the hamsters...

Opens up fine and dandy for me. Looks like you've got some weird encoding error. In which case, I don't really now what to do, and honestly this isn't a time and place to troubleshoot your Windows issues. Surely it's not the fault of ExtFX.

All effects are initialized by init EH scripts which can be found in EXT_scripts.pbo - the ones you're interested in are eh_land.sqs and eh_air.sqs. Naturally, after modifying these files don't expect MP compability with users of non-modified ExtFX.

@EliasComando Standing reload anims by @stgn are available in ExtFX mod by @kenoxite - you just need to extract them from anim.pbo.

To be honest, I never saw T-64 in vanilla OFP either*. But what do I know, I only play OFP every single day... @slatts and everyone involved in this project - keep up the great work! *There was a third-party T-64 addon by RHS, which never went further than beta (and it refused to work with updated RHS addons).

I may be wrong, but I remember that since version 1.96 DirectPlay (or at least DirectPlay unique features, including VoN/VoIP) was disabled. Probably due to infamous exploding HDD bug.

Intro is the internal name (class name) of Desert Island. Probably because it's main purpose in the game is to show introductory cut scene in the menu, but I may be wrong... Exporting missions via in-game mission editor will omit all the additional files, like briefing.htm. Get yourself some kind of a .pbo packer (Amalfi's MakePBO, or Kegetys' cpbo - the last one was made for Arma 2 but works great in OFP), and then go to your user missions folder, find the mission folder, pack it into .pbo and then copy that .pbo to game Missions folder. Don't forget to also add overview.htm file.

Remaster examples: modern re-releases of classic games such as Alien versus Predator or Turok. Remasters usually bring following features: higher texture resolution and support for modern screen resolutions (incl. widescreens). Some titles also include modern post-processing effects (Turok). Remasters don't require much work from art team (the whole idea is to use old art anyway), and new engine features often use 3rd-party-provided backends (SMAA anyone?). Many of these remasters were made by current IP owners as a bonus addition to new game in the franchise (AvP or Sid Meier's Pirates!). Once again, remaster is not something which community can make (unless game source files were released by developer as an open source). So what we have in OFP world? Retextures: @SILESIAN work is best example. New textures are created using the same 3D model and the same mapping. It still requires a lot of work, by talented 2D artist. Personally, I once attempted to make a retextured variants of BIS M16 model. Naturally, I'm not a 2D artist, and can't make a nice looking texture at all, but even my effort was hindered by mistakes done by BI in the past - prime example being overlapping mapping. Re-maps/re-wraps: truth be told, there's only one in existence that I know of. Macser's AH-64 model for Command & Conquer mod. Same model as BI, and even same 2D art. However it used new mapping/wrapping which actually make sense. With something like that you could then make a beautiful texture for an old model. Custom art in addons: the big question. If you're talented, and have enough of free time, why waste that time on making retextures of BI models, when you can make a high-quality model of particular piece of equipment? We've already have enough of custom content, to replace every vanilla model - US infantry and weapons by HYK, LSR, SJB, STGN etc., Soviet infantry and weapons by RHS and ORCS, vehicles such as Combat! Bradleys and HMMWVs, several Abrams addons, Soviet armour by RHS, ORCS and many others. The list goes on and on. Granted - when used in one model replacement pack (FFUR anyone?), they lack cohesiveness. But this cohesiveness went out through windown anyway, when Resistance was released in 2003 with it's high-quality art (compare Resistance models and textures with CWC ones - the difference is clear). At this point, either someone takes up on this idea (and that someone ain't me, sorry!), or this thread will die like many similiar (identical?) threads in the past. Because, well, you're not the first to came up with this.

Just when I thought I was out... They pull me back in! Well, for one I don't think anyone assumes that you're a modeller. Even more - it's pretty clear that you don't have a good grasp of what you're asking for. I mean - taking original textures and upscaling them just like that? That's not how this works! However, because this is indeed a task for modeller/texture artist, and you seem to be quite excited by the idea, the only answer you can get on these forums is: great idea! Go get 'em tiger! These days nobody's going to do it for you (and for anybody else really). Why? @zulu1 said it - everyone have it's own projects. It's just lucky coincidence that everyone here is nice and kind for you - somewhere else you'd be labeled a good idea fairy and bluntly told to go have a sexual intercourse with yourself. Once again: a visual remake/model replacement of original OFP content? Great idea! So great, that several teams have tried to do just that during last 17 years. Have they achieved their goals? Probably. Am I personally satisfied with their work? Well, to some extent. Would I take up this task once again, to achieve what I think is important? Possibly, somewhere during next 20 years. Will I do it now? No way, you silly! Maybe these answers are not exactly what you hoped for, but I bet you won't get different ones here... 256x256 for objects (vehicles etc.) and 512x512 for land.

First off let's start with some definitions, because words have meanings afterall. Remaster - remastering is a process of taking a source material of pre-existing work of art, and combining this source material in a way different from previous, original release. Examples are remastered music albums, or movies. In video games it usually refers to re-releases of old titles by either original developers, or new owners of intellectual property. This can only be done when developers still have acces to original source files, for example hi-resolution textures, which were downsized in original release due to technical limitations of old hardware. Without these source materials there can't be no remaster - afterall simply upscaling original textures won't change their look on the models at all, and will result in higher memory usage. Then there's recreation which may, or may not, require an extensive work by 2D/3D artists. There's also a varying degree of how much new artists will follow the original art direction. For example: @-Snafu- mentioned retextures done by @SILESIAN which closely followed BIS style, and even adopted original models and mapping (which are not that good to put it nicely). Then there are hi-quality model replacement packs which required a lot of involvement from many artists. These usually have a way different appearance when compared to BI models, but still fit into the 1980 Cold War theme (and in most cases this custom work fixes many of BI mistakes like original AKS-74U which doesn't look at all like the real thing). So, since BI are the only one who can make a graphically remastered OFP, and there's abundance of custom content already, is there a real need for such an effort? I don't think so. Problem with OFP original appearance is not restricted to just simple texture resolution. Whole OFP art is terribly dated, even when compared to Resistance models made just two years later - there's a lightyears difference in art quality between vanilla and expansion pack content. There is some salvageable stuff there - as already mentioned, some objects used in Armas 1/2/3 are evidently based on the same source material used in OFP (like specific burned down tenement house). But even in those cases, BI decided to make models, mapping and textures from scratch - they used the same reference photos/data (probably even the ones collected during OFP development), but it is evident that OFP source files (textures of various resolution, 3D models) were of no use. And even if we'd all agree that we are OK with all the problems with original game art, just bring us higher resolution, please, the community is the last person who would provide such a remastered release because of the lack of source material. Again - we can only recreate, and this takes a hell lot of a time, even if we'd do just retextures. Now I agree that some simple visual-only replacement mod would be very nice to have, but with current state of community (which @zulu1 described) I'm not crossing my fingers. And in fact, if there is no mod/replacement pack made during last 17 years, which would satisfy your requirements or sense of aesthetics, then there's a high probability that it will never be made. And now I log off for another year to take care of things which are unfortunately really important...