krzychuzokecia

I guess this would require ownership/knowledge of Arma 2?

You don't know that. You're speaking about your experience, and maybe experience of your friends, but still you're only a small fraction of "general Arma community". The fact that BIS released two sequels to ArmA (and three sequels to OFP), each having set the technological bar higher, and these sequels are profitable is already telling that you're wrong. Otherwise BIS would be bankrupt long time ago. Not to mention other game companies (I don't see them having any problems to sell modern AAA games). You see - I love OFP for what it is, and it being a 17 year old game, it is expected for it to have flaws. People are probably a little bit spoiled by some companies buying out/resurrecting old titles and re-releasing them after "HD" treatment. But then compare the price of these games to the price of A:CWA. Also note the fact that CWA is still available for sale, doesn't make customers (us) entitled to get any updates on such an old software. It's only a sign of BIS good will - afterall they could do nothing, and leave OFP an abandonware it was for a few years. What you also seem to not notice is that BIS is not really good at... actively supporting their products. Look at Arma 3 example - their flagship product. The game still have lots of problems, and it is currently clear that most of these problems will be unsolved when BI will stop supporting Arma 3 with updates (which will happen soon). It's not the first time they've done that - look at all their previous games like ArmA 1 and 2. So you think anybody from BIS will be concerned by your "demands", and dust off the code of 17 year old game? Hell, look at the quality difference between OFP:CWC and OFP:Res content - Resistance models (civilians, guns, vehicles) look so good in comparison to old stuff, that they stand out of place. BIS never bothered to rectify these issues, instead they were focused on developing (failed) sequels to OFP like Independence Lost and OFP2 (both required a huge amount of work in 2D/3D art department, so why similiar effort wasn't given to already existing product?). It seems that "leaving bugs all around" is something which runs deep in their blood. As Macser noted here and elsewhere - OFP is a great place for modders to experiment with, and it doesn't require as much of a focus on eye-candy like newer titles. Still, new Armas provide for modding tools (like new scripting commands) which are beyond OFP abilities, and that's what piques my interest in these newer titles. I'm not opposed to these new games like some "hard-liners", and I don't dream about new features trickling down to old games. It never happend before, and it's simply a price of progress - you either can live within boundaries of the old game, or you have to move. For me, OFP is still enough, and way more, for my modding skills (even if features of newer titles get my attention). I'd be grateful to see any meaningful update for this old game, but I'm not holding my breath. Publicly demanding changes is nonsense, is rude, and won't get you anywhere. If you are bothered by lack of creative freedom in vanilla A:CWA, you can use community solutions (FWatch comes to mind), or upgrade to newer game. That's the reality. Also, I can't agree on this point of yours: Again, that's just, like, your opinion, man. 17 years after OFP premiere there are several active web communities focused on this very game. That's hardly dead. I mean - if OFP is dead, then what to say about similiar games from the era ("realistic" war FPSes) like Medal of Honor: Allied Assault or Battlefield 1942? These games were way bigger hits than OFP, and what's left from them now? OFP (and all the Armas too) was always a niche kind of game, and such games can have a longer lifetime than typical ones. OFP is a proof of that.

Your prayers have been answered! Several times, actually... It only depends on your diplomatic skills! Yeah, I know, I'm cheeky bastard. But these threads (especially worded like that) make no sense. BIS is a company, working for money, and there's investing in such an old (and niche!) game gives not enough return. In fact, as I've noted, sequels bring the exact features you're asking for (note that there's no easy/cheap way to bring this stuff to CWA), and from BIS point of view, these newer games are the answer. Your best hope for modern Cold War-era game lies in the community. Go @slatts, go!

Possibly because of asbestos? Though that's not the best way to deal with the problem...

It's 45 years since homo sapiens left that lump of rock orbiting our planet and called Moon. On this occasion we can listen to this real-time recording of communications beween Apollo 17 and Mission Control Center. I hope you guys will find it as interesting as I do. You can click on yellow T-Minus 1M button to hear what happened at the mission launch (December 7, 1972), or click Now button and hear what happened exactly 45 years ago (at the time of writing this post, crew is currently sleeping on the 4th day of the mission). Have fun! As a bonus: similiar presentation of Apollo 11 lunar descend. Gene Kranz, Fligh Director during Apollo 11 landing phase, is the same guy who was Flight Director during Apollo 13 mission when spacecraft suffered damage. He was played by Ed Harris in 1995 movie Apollo 13.

Guy certainly have mad pencil skills!

Ah, the old anims done by @smookie and famously used in Silent War mod trailer (few years ago there was a YT copy of the trailer but now it's gone apparently). As one can see Smookie made climbing anims for various heights of fences, and a vaulting anim (several types IIRC) for lower obstacles. These anims were included in 2006 SW beta, but apart from playMove there was no way to activate them. But in trailer it was really impressive! I wonder if it'd be possible to make a script which would allow to dynamically change climbing animation to a variant proper for nearest obstacle height. @kenoxite did a function for calculating nearest object height, so half of the job is done - what's left is forcing player character to play proper anim, instead of one defined in config for WW4 anim jump (may be possible with animChanged EH?).

Unfortunately, there are no plans to update WW4Ext at this moment, however regarding to these: First and last are connected to WW4 anims. Leaning problem is known since 2005 and Locke's first leaning mod - it's actually an engine issue (lack of native support for leaning and rolling), fix for which was introduced by Bohemia Interactive in their 2006 game Armed Assault. Warped waists happen on models which are not based on Sanctuary's base model (which in turn is based on Hyakushiki model). That includes all BIS OFP:R civilians, and various other 3rd party units. WW4Ext itself doesn't change anims (they come from WW4). Second issue is again an engine bug, and can happen to every unit, vanilla or 3rd party. Nothing wrong on our side. If time allows, I'll update existing documentation with latest classes of units, vehicles and weapons. Cheers!

So is there anything that actually needs updating/fixing? From what I know all the features that Kenoxite planned are already in, and working A-OK. The only thing which was left do to, was updating WW4Ext so it would use ExtFX as a base mod. However that's out of the scope of ExtFX itself. Truth be told, I don't think there will be any updates to ExtFX and WW4Ext in forseeable future. Kenoxite, from my last talk with him, left the modding scene and focused on job/family. On my side, I'm complete noob in advanced scripting which is what ExtFX really is. I probably could make some small changes to WW4Ext, but then again: I don't have enough of free time currently for such a big project, and I don't really feel like messing with Kenoxite's legacy. The only thing related to Ext, that I'm planning to do is updating documentation with latest class-names of units, vehicles and weapons. Otherwise, I wouldn't hold my breath for any other changes.

I've never used CivPopulate and Nikiller's scripts together, so I can't comment on any problems with them. However, in my opinion, just giving the civilians their own groups and waypoints (as in, every civ. with his own waypoints, as opposed to them being in group), and creative work with synchronisation and animations (for example let's sync two civ's waypoints and add some anims so we could pretend that they are talking on the street), could do wonders. Though it's a little tedious to make, as opposed to automated solutions. However, as for civilian presence in Patrol I have no problems really. Well, maybe one thing:

Very nice, short and sweet mission. A more elaborate review below (possible SPOILERS AHEAD!). What I liked: What I didn't liked: What else could be added: Even though lists above are rather long, I really had fun with this mission! It is good, though a little basic in terms of additional stuff like world building and such. But level design is good, enemy may surprise player, objectives are clear and realistic, and it's got a good pacing. So good job! I'm waiting for more!

JdB's link was leading to ofpr.info FTP server. Site is still alive, but FTP is not. You can find a backup of that data here (JdB himself is also sharing a torrent of that data).

Honestly, that would be rather pointless since 997 requires Offtime's WP Soldiers and these require Llauma faces anyway. I'll repeat myself, but this addon is nothing more than a plugin to OFPL addons, an additional, civilian-themed prop I need for my OFPL-centric mission. Currently this mission is taking most of my modding time, so I'm not sure if I'll make some non-Llauma version in the near future (even then, I guess, most people would prefer a nationally neutral Nogovan Policie theme). However, if you, or somebody else, is up for a challenge, I would happily provide source files (infantry MLODs and .xcf files for textures). In fact, Offtime's Jon Doe infantry kit should be available somewhere here in it's original form (it was using first version of Llauma's heads, which I've changed to newer type). The only thing that's not in public are layered source files of UAZ textures, which I had to recreate. If you would like to get any of that - let me know.

A blast from the past of tutorials: Colonel_Klink's tutorials on modelling in Oxygen and WrpTool Fab's faboulus website with several tutorials (still alive after all these years!) A collection of tutorials on PMC Wiki, including Brsseb's legendary Oxygen modelling school, and Ebud's gizmo mapping tutorial OFP Preprocessor Explained by Faguss (a little different thing, but understanding this stuff really helps with making more efficient configs) Fab's and Brsseb's stuff can be also found on OFPEC.

What Macser said! Actually, the optics are all the time "under" NV effect (or rather NV is rendered in the foreground). The change of appearence you see is related only to the shining properity, and as I've learned the hard way - changing user value from 0 to 1 makes game ignore shining settings. In fact, if you'll look closely, you'll notice that even with shining red dot, you can see a change of appearence when switching NV on and off. However, since it is shining, it emits a red light of sorts, and so it doesn't get all green. The only way in OFP/CWA engine to modify something on model in-game is to either use hiddenSelections (hide/show model parts) or setobjecttexture (change the texture of some small parts - IIRC there's limit for a texture size in OFP). However, from my experience, it doesn't work on weapon/optic models (and even if it'd work, you'd still need a script to achieve your desired effect).

Really nothing you can do. Animations and/or setobjecttexture tricks are impossible on weapon optics in OFP/CWA. Hell - every single animated slide on pistols in OFP is not really animated, but cleverly used "zasleh" selection. Since you're using FWatch to detect NV goggles being on (at least that's what I remember from the "NV scopes" thread), you may write a script that would replace the gun in your hands to the one with green dot on the model when you're aiming with NV on. Naturally it would need a "sort of database" with all the guns specified (so it wouldn't be plug and play with 3rd party addons). Now, what may be worth experimenting, is ditching the vanilla NV post-processing, and using FWatch to somehow control external renderer/post-effect hook to achieve NV effect. IIRC @the_noob experimented with NV and "fake thermal" (more like "white NV") in Sweet FX.

Just like ProfT said - it's one of highest quality models in OFP. You and Macser are in my opinion the most talented 2D/3D artists in the whole OFP community - including legends of the past like Marfy, COMBAT!, BAS team and so on. Whatever you two are making (be it Star Wars, System Shock, Warhammer etc.) it always is a high quality stuff that's really pleasant to look at and play with, even though I don't particularly care for most sci-fi settings. So two thumbs up firmly for you!

My guess (and that's just a blind shot) is that they've used some kind of trick to check if addon is run on OFP or on VBS. CWA uses several VBS features/functions so NIM Weather scripts may detect game as a VBS version. IIRC the simplest way was to use isServer command (OFP had no such command, VBS and CWA have it). But I may be wrong.

In my experience not. I'm using XVI32, maybe try with that one? (From Addon Request thread I understand that you're using HexEdit - should be really the same but who knows?) Never had any problems with hex-edited models, but then I've never done it to infantry...

You do it in config of your unit. class mycoolunit: SoldierGB { wounds[]={"pathtoregulartexture1.paa","pathtowoundedtexture1.paa","pathtoregulartexture2.paa","pathtowoundedtexture2.paa"}; }; However you need to add paths to all vanilla face textures, otherwise they won't work as expected. wounds[]={"xicht_a.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_b.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_c.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_d.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_e.paa","xicht_e_zranen","xicht_f.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_g.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_h.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_i.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_j.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_k.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_l.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_m.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_n.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_o.paa","xicht_o_zranen","xicht_p.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_q.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_r.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_s.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_t.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_u.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_v.paa","xicht_v_zranen","xicht_w.paa","xicht_w_zranen","xicht_x.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_y.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_z.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2a.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2b.paa","xicht_w_zranen","xicht_2c.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2d.paa","xicht_v_zranen","xicht_2e.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2f.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2g.paa","xicht_w_zranen","xicht_2h.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2i.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2j.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2k.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2l.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2m.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2n.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2o.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2p.paa","xicht_2p_zranen","xicht_2q.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2r.paa","xicht_e_zranen","xicht_2s.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2t.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2u.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2v.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2w.paa","xicht_w_zranen","xicht_2x.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2y.paa","xicht_a_zranen","xicht_2z.paa","xicht_a_zranen"}; Now this will be a lot of code, so best method is to create a base class for all your units that will contain wound definitions for all textures you're going to do. Otherwise you would need to repeat all that for every single unit.

Short answer: no. Both are total replacement mods and thus use their own /bin/config and /bin/resource files. FDF also uses a little bit different structure when it comes to sounds and islands. You'd need to modify FDF config to include event handlers defined in ECP config, and also include ECP settings file and additional classes in resource file.

Also if you have both integrated graphics in motherboard and dedicated graphics card, make sure that integrated one is turned off in Windows, and check your OFP/CWA properieties (Preferences tool in Start menu).

Could someone be so kind and provide other mirror? I swear this is the worst file sharing site I've ever seen! :P

So, it's not an issue already, isn't it? :P I wonder how fast it was before change. CTI John Wayne fast?

1. Honestly I never encountered it. I think it may be related to system performance and sounds - it looks like sounds are not preloaded when starting game/mission, so when you fire a weapon, game needs to load it's firing (and hitting) sounds into memory. This can cause slight lags (it is clearly visible when using Gatling-type weapons, regardless of addon/mod). 2. It takes between 15 (BMP-3) to 20 (BMP-1) seconds. While it's faster than in real life (especially in case of BMP-1 where reloading Malyutkas is PITA), it's still reasonable (IMHO) from a gameplay perspective. Heck, some CTI addons allowed BMPs and other IFVs to fire their ATGMs in a John Wayne, 0 second reload time! 3. It's like that since Sanctuary added his BTR-899 to WW4. Reason is that Car base class in OFP/CWA have many limitations. You can add a shitload of scripts to try to overcome them, or just base your APCs from APC base class and live with it. So it's rather a feature than bug. 4. Both issues are known, and destroying thing will be fixed in next patch. 5. That's also a leftover from Sanc's WW4. In fact it looks like AK-74 with shortened barrel and AKMS stock. Weird mutant, however currently we don't plan to add new weapon models. Maybe in future.