gammadust

I was looking at the sun from 1st person. Previously the sun's light disk was discernible from the surrounding bloom, while i like the increased blinding effect i found it more realistic in this regard (the previous look).

waitUntil{!isNull (<uninitilized type>)} // or !isNil instead of isNull depending on type

Variable1=false; FNC_Test = [color="#FF0000"]Call[/color] Compile PreProcessFile "FNC_Test.sqf"; // remove Call here [Variable1] Spawn FNC_Test; // since you're spawning here

Big players always trying to segment the market of course. Could linux (RedHat in this case) make the required push to bring Nvidia and AMD in the same bag? Nvidia is there, AMD is pushing it's own approach. Prospect is not very hopeful right now, we end-users will benefit nothing while they keep this game (unhealthy competition).

Open-source alternative: Open Broadcaster (directed at live streaming but allows x264 recording to disk), fps impact negligeable on a K3770+NV560.

Does Alpha exist by the time the spawn is triggered in init? try put a short sleep before the spawns in init.

ignore that...

If things haven't changed and i haven't jumped into conclusions at the time i did some tests, 0.5 overcast is suficient to let it rain. (then i was looking to trigger the rainbow not the rain)

Have a look at Community Modding Bible you'll find there very good stuff for all levels. Some links might be old references but generally still useful.

That is just whishful thinking right now: (Thracks - Enthusiast Graphics Marketing Manager - AMD) here GCN Architecture is latest AMD's exclusive.

That at best means it is not impossible for an alive and free modding scene to exist side to side with a paying one. You're assuming that is granted... I would agree if certain, still unkown, conditions are met.

Great news! SITREP #00028

Yes, i may tend to believe that the risk is lower due to my belief in this community to coordinate the efforts and finding acceptable compromises. Despite accepting the valid scepticism i am trying to keep a positive prospect based on mitigating solutions we as a community may conceive. Can totaly agree, then those mods would become "patches" instead. Not addons adding features/functionality/content. This is still a nebulous discussion, this would represent defining what criteria makes an addon "eligible". Which relates with the supposition of Pufu (as i interpreted it), that of doubting Bohemia would "allow monetisation of any sort of content anyhow". With the side issue of who actually defines that criteria, presumably Bohemia, and if alone or with the contribution of the Community. This leads me to one base conclusion: The more advancing the goal is towards modders being directly compensated for their creations the more curation becomes a necessary requirement. Curation can be very powerful in addressing many issues (ie. Quality, IP, Creativity, Standards, etc), but has the unwelcome ability also of excluding those disagreeing with the underlying criteria. Drawback which i could only see mitigated if Bohemia would cooperate closely with the Community at large. Curation which in my opinion is inexistent or already very lacking in regards to Steam Workshop, as far as it affects missions only, while this entire goal would extend the issue to broader mod types. In a way we are already involved with the issue, disregarding any future monetization. With the exception of terrains and config addons or models, which can't currently be shared through SW and are safeguarded that way, mission and SQF code can in the current state be quite abused. I see opportunities here to improve that status. While i was and am sceptical of current SW implementation serving as a "registering base" which barely prevents impostors to hijack authors IPs, monetization could impose the required push on the part of Steam to be more serious in this regard. Of course, the obnoxious all encompassing SW license issue stands. It's relatively recent update shows some overture of Steam to compromise. If Steam concerns leading to its catch-all phrasing can be secured / approached, perhaps it also becomes more acceptable for them in allowing a better moral and monetary deal to adhering modders. Personally i would see a modders increased responsability compromise better rewarded that way than the current state allows. Some may wonder why i am giving myself so much trouble, why i am being so verbose, why i am apparently taking such a pro stance, why am i pushing so much the agenda. Here are the reasons: Bluntly, as a modder i could use some incentive, yet experience makes be disbelieve in donations in it's current state. Additionaly, and very relevant, some may had noticed my scepticism towards SteamWorks licensing issues and distrust of Steam proper care for SW contributing and non-contributing authors which may fall victim of IP abuse, present issues which I still stand by. Ultimately, and not too appreaciative of Bohemia's favour, i fear Bohemia may be too inclined to materialize this idea. I very much share many of the concerns already shared in this forum. In this way i am very, very sceptical, given so many risks which much be considered and appropriately addressed by Bohemia. Personaly and anyone individually will ultimately support or disaprove the actual implementation of "paid user-made content" when it's details become public. We must choose between passively letting Bohemia (primarily a business) be reasonable enough to consider all the risks by themselves and hope for the better when the time comes. Or we can early on, actively engage Bohemia in an organized fashion in an attempt to focus on the risks that affect us most and how different parts of our community are stressed and/or may benefit. These include Players, Modders and Wider Community - excluding here Bohemia and Steam since their coordination, interests and risk taking are implied. I believe we are better off pushing this effort, much beyond than straight-of-the-bat support or disapproval, we should let our concerns be known, define our conditioning and eventually compromises (which implies eventual compromises from Bohemia/Steam? too). But mostly i believe this Community should be up to the challenge ahead. Since i consider myself a sceptical optimist, with all my bias disguised as objectivity, here's another contribution:

The most memmorable knowledge is the one you conquer by your own means. When i don't know something, regarding scripting / engine, be it anything else, the path one takes of small discoveries even if it ends in a no solution stage, is so impacting that one hardly forgets it. When the effort of discovery is shared in the forum it gets even better. Informal scripting challenges are just great to drown some boredom on! Edit: the guy above is unbeatable! :P

As long as no affected licensing is not violated, nothing is limiting a modder to create an addon under such conditions and beyhond allowing donations, requesting a payment, ie. usually modellers are tied to Bohemia tools which disallows the latter, yet out of those umbrellas there is no such restriction. Also if Bohemia intents to implement this idea, it would be a requirement for them to lax the terms of such licensing to fullfil the goal.

IP issues are definitely to be uphold to the highest consideration. As you put it appears the issue will be only about increasing the efforts that bit above keeping "blatant rips of copyright material at bay", and extended to a wider range of source material. The secret here will be the licensing terms of the material wich one includes, what they allow or not allow. Speaking for myself and in regards to eventual paid mods i could release, i would be extremely careful in what way the fact that such mod would be commercialized could be violating any source material. For any serious modder it would first of all be his own reputation at risk, other liabilities are not cleared either. With such a development in the scene there would be higher requirements of responsability, it would be up to the modder to opt-in or not to that increased load. Those who had their cake and ate it too, would face higher exposure to trouble too, this by itself could actually serve to disuade already ocurring foul play. Current wrong plus eventual future wrong don't make it a right. Ignore for a moment about "paid user-made addons". Would you welcome at the current state of things for this community to adopt a IP dispute procedure? Ultimately i think the community would have nothing to loose in addressing in a more serious manner IP violations. Your argument apparently is only concerned with the increase of possible incidences on violations. Which is has bad no matter how the community actually moves forward.

^^ You ALWAYS HAVE and HAD that RIGHT, to the extent that is deamed reasonable. "Rights are best exercised instead of claimed" But you say "utopian" even considering that currently exercising the above right is or may be in many cases impratical?

@Bad Benson Another important side of things... no doubt. How many of the current modders would keep to provide their mods for free just out of their love for modding and altruism? How many would keep modding just for fun of learning and sharing? Not that anyone such modder would be supposedly forced to sell their mods. Not that anyone choosing to sell their mods would necessarily be forced to adopt a different attitude towards it's dedication, as far as love for modding goes. This will be, of course, all on a voluntary basis. Those modders ambitioning more than simple self-gratification, already condition their current dedication to current available gratifications, the change of scenario would mostly address these. I don't actually see the big risk of those remaining changing their attitute (that is if they are trully in love with modding) just because of this idea being implemented. Than again it would be a shame if they would vanish. Examples from FSX modding comunity: - World of AI (collective effort) - Freelly providing both AI airplanes models + skins (reduced lod) plus airline schedules as a traffic database for a demanding pilot which wants full skys and properly simulate ATC contacts and approach procedures. Absolute MUST in FSX. - The TileProxy Project (by cbuchner) - Freelly provides realtime texture generation based on real satellite maps up to 30cm/pixel resolution. Another absolute MUST if nothing else for bush flying less directed at Heavy pilots. - VATSIM Supported software for Pilots and Controllers (FSInn/Squakbox) - Freely providing a full network for ATC simulation. These are REAL up-to-date flight procedures followed to the minimal detail. - Assorted freelly provided navigation maps/aids/databases / realtime/visual representation of weather / etc mods. You go into this and you simply can't miss the "magic".

None taken, i tend to be expansive when writing so that my ideas remain well connected to anyone reading. People tend to read "diagonaly" too, but it is there for anyone to read back if doubts arise. It appeared to me that was your underlying concern. There being money involved. Sory the misunderstanding. "Madness" is a very loose and loaded word to describe this. I think you'r taking such possibilities for absolute certainties. Let's see: Concerns: - Decrease in documentation availability (by option of competing modders) - Increased risk of modders spliting into different knowledge levels (already happens) Corresponding Condition would be: Not letting documentation decrease and/or improve the current stratification of modders expertise. Mitigating Solutions: 1. Make sure such paid mods remain open-source 2. Full DLC / Lite DLC, one closed the other open 3. Provide much needed official organized/cohese documentation on the engine 4. Making public well tested modding workflows (for each different type of mod) 5. Can you imagine another? Again such possibilities being taken for absolute certainties. Concerns: - Risk of licensing issues and IP disputes increasing/exacerbating - Risk of loosing friendly atmosphere and cooperation This is a very good point! But note that the distinguishing factor between the current state and the eventual future state is all but related with the enforcement of licensing already used by modders. What i mean is that friendship is hardly at stake mostly because a modder might as well not care of having it's licensing respected, since there is nothing to gain but the "moral" benefit of authorship. Could you consider that this value for some modders might be more important than the monetary one? Could you consider that right now this is an existing problem for those modders? Please don't allow to classify as "friendly" a relation only tolerated and accepted because there is no means to enforce the legitimate will of one element on that relationship (the modder will on the license misuser). Condition being: As long as licensing and its enforcement is clarified. Mitigating Solutions: 1. Passively enforce Licensing (basically as it is, mods are used by the community, this self-screening allows to identify abuses to an extent) 2. Actively enforce Licensing (Paid addons being reported for license abuses - Steam allows for this despite to a suboptimal extent) 3. Definition of an IP dispute resolution process (it also serves to dissuade abusers, and lays some mind rest to a fearing modder) 3. Recommend/Require modders of paid addons to opt for known/"safe" licensing models (ie. Creative Commons) Which make clear what is considered abuse from friendly usage. 4. Recommend/Require modders of paid addons to opt for open-source to maintain the cooperation alive 5. Closing the source of key parts of code to remove the possibility of abuse, or drastically diminish it 6. Can you imagine another? Note how the some solutions might address multiple concerns by themselves. I actually think there is even the oportunity to improve the current state of affairs, specially given the approaching Steamworks dealings, if such type of measures (clarifying licensing and IP issues) are to be implemented. Consider that IP (moral authorship) issues already on the table, regardless of material/monetary issues which may arise. Who's to say what is more important to the affected modder/mission creator? "Nunca foi um bom amigo quem por pouco quebrou a amizade" (Never your true friend was he who brakes friendship for so little)

@ Pac Man I can't guess those reasons you now mention before you actually do it: "How about we'd have to pay for any good addon or mod released?" Substitute "good" for "quality" and still there is nothing allowing us to conclude that at this point in time. "And by the time a person has Arma3 modded how they like the average joe without deep pockets, will have spent too much money." Again assuming the funding will undoubtfully be laid on the player. "They may aswell be playing a VBS title if they don't mind shelling out money for so many DLCs." Again assuming this goal will turn Arma 3 into a VBS clone in regards to the money involved. All of the above are valid Concerns and Fears that translate to: "Acceptable only under the Condition that addons remain free to the player" Mitigating Solutions* for the above: 1. Paid DLC / Free "Lite" DLC versions (tested). 2. Bohemia sponsors paid mods (tested) 3. Bohemia hosts a contest, modders receive prizes (untested in this context) 4. Community "kickstarts" the mod (untested) 5. Can you imagine another one? "Also, Official DLCs are different, as there wont be 9000 of them. There will be an official DLC once in a blue moon." Again assuming there would be "9000 of them" otherwise. Again a valid Concern / Fear that translates to: "Acceptable only under the Condition that paid addons won't increase to unreasonable quantities" Mitigating Solutions* for the above: 1. Pre-screening (curating) mods to be paid for approval (untested) 2. Community selection process (untested) 3. Mods released in Mod Packs (untested) 4. Can you imagine another one? *Solutions should be seen as compromises considering the condition originating from concerns, instead of all or nothing approaches. Of course valid concerns, you'll find many more in this thread. These specifically are already there. I think we should put our effort not in bashing the idea from the get go. If Bohemia is testing the waters of such an idea is because it intends to implement it, i believe we'll do them and ourselves a better service laying out our concerns > conditions > possible solutions in order for Bohemia better design it's implementation plan. Anything else is just noise to Bohemia and may well signify opportunities lost for everyone.

You're missing the point... while paid user-made content never existed, many paid DLCs have been released. I am trying to show that the act of paying for content (which most skeptics seem to be concerned with) has successful precedents regardles of it's author origin (Bohemia or community modders). But it is also important to note that we have no details about the implementation of the goal and the question "Who actually is paying for paid mods? Bohemia itself or players?" stands. I wouldn't speculate around this until Bohemia presents the idea and its details. In other words, if the issue is solely about paying for extended content made by community modders, the formulation would be: "I only accept that under the condition that the funding of such paid content is not left over to the player" (Do note the slight unwarranted entitlement though, benefiting of someone's work but not willing to contribute in it's compensation, even considering the present state of affairs - modders freely spoiling us players) You're just jumping into conclusions in regards to my stance here, the sole 2 suggestions i made elsewhere are at odds with your assertion, and it is a stretch concluding that from what i said in this thread. Then you assume any possible implementation of the goal will undoubtfully destroy "what we had for ~13 years" presenting not even one reason to conclude that. It looks to me that you have already made up your mind, while making no effort to allow us in understanding why is that so.

@ Icewindo you're saying "madness unfold" but paid DLC would not be a new thing to the series. You also don't advance any reason for your skeptical stance. While i agree that current state is far from bad in this regard (we do have very dedicated modding teams and all that), i think the whole goal would be in upping the stakes in the modding scene, evolve it somehow to a higher stage. An easier access to incentives by general modders could certainly energize the scene: higher quality mods, higher drive to learn modding, higher commitment by modders, etc. If the question is how much more a player would have to pay to access this "upper stage", it is as much how would the general quality of unpaid mods be increased, since there would likely be more modders walking the path to reach for higher standards (paying worthy standards), due to eventual incentives down the line. I see this possibility, of course, very dependent on actual implementation, with the potential in providing an upwards pressure on many pillars of the community. I don't think we can fairly look at "paid user-made content" per se as a negative goal (if this was true by principle no business would actually exist). It is ultimately the implementation of the idea that may actually destroy the goal (and mind you, already existing positives with it - there is associated risk), or on the other hand, serve well all interested parties to a better off reality. The only way to facilitate success in achieving the goal is by naming the parties and collecting input from each on how the goal may be beneficial to each, and also what are the conditions under which it may at worse case remain neutral. To allow for this to happen, prejudices and/or real negative experiences towards the main goal must inform the discussion instead of killing the goal itself straight off the bat. I tried to collect some of this more general input here (check Synthesis at bottom of OP), you may see there are many different concerns, but i would risk that none of them can't be addressed consequently. I also tried to enumerate the parties involved: Player and end-users / Authors / Clans and groups / Server Admins / Community Websites / Bohemia / Steam. We should not fear but rationaly take the challenge head-on towards finding the best compromise between these complex relationships. Re the OP of this thread itself: the technical side of enabling FSX level modding (FSX which i know well despite dusting a bit by now), while the RV4 engine not being as specialized towards Flight Simming, is already quite versatile in regards to the usual FSX Gadgets (Terrains - check* / Standalone Monitors/HUDS - check / External interfacing for weather/traffic/etc applications - check / Virtual cockpits as detailed interiors - check / etc). *check means finalized mods or proofs of concept exist or engine hooks/technology is there. I do think there would still be a long way before we could reach FSX modding standards, we are indeed missing incentives to facilitate that.

Great read, many thanks for sharing. I am sure it explains a good deal of the current OpenGL state. Those times are actually very familiar to me but mostly from the mainstream consumer point of view, the decisions regarding graphics card in upgrades... My dear S3Virge and then Matrox Mystique used with 3D Studio for DOS, custom driver and all. All that backstage shenanigans explain the direction it would ultimately take. Too sad that so called OpenGL "Architectural Review Board" dropped the ball on that one at the expense of all the members, developers and end-consumers... Just too sad. yes! hopefully we'll see other oportunities for OpenGL to supercede DX. Small factor computing could give a nice push.

While i will not say that setOvercast is without issues. setOvercast absolutely influences cloud coverage, not just strenght of sunlight. There is a ticket for the mistery here. The issue is assigned. If you setOvercast and wait suficient time you will notice the cloud coverage over the player change accordingly. I just tested this with TimeXleration (video 3:36 mins in). What i believe is happening is:The weather is regenerated according to the new parameters but since it is supposed to be dynamic/but deterministic (clouds won't appear immediatly on top of you), they will be generated in some point of origin away from the player, i even suspect away from the island's limits, and than acording to wind will slowly get nearer to the player. The reason i raise this hipothesis, is that when using TimeXleration and moving the time backwards i generaly get a clearsky after some time independently of overcast settings. Basically the clouds are being regenerated (i believe 30-90 in-game minutes is their cycle time - due to regular coinciding frame drops) but never giving enough time to reach the player after this regeneration. If moving forward the effect is relatively natural and totally observable (keeping the dialog up will also show current actual overcast for comparison). I had seen your thread but did not chime in with these points since you are in a context of MP which may simply invalidate my conclusions.