AlexVestin

I must also correct myself. Jogging with your rifle raised but not pointing down range and pressing RMB will not raise your rifle automatically. Pressing LMB will however raise your sights up seamlessly. (dev-build)

Will it not cause any other weird results? If not, then I don't see why this hasn't found it's way into the game already :p Does it work with switching from rifle to pistol too? I do see your point of players getting confused (the moment they first try it). But as an Ofp/ArmA player I would be more than happy to have this. Not a big concern I'd think for the A3 titles main crowd :) Let's say it is implemented and you're standing there in a low-ready position: Right-clicking will still bring up your sights. Just as before. Left-clicking will raise your rifle for a few seconds (that's the only extra part). Left-clicking again after will fire your rifle. And there's always the option to stay in combat-pace with your rifle always shouldered. It's a little like the change of keys to have you throw grenades on "G". It was horrible at the beginning since all (ArmA) players were used to "G" as an inventory button, but now once everybody have gotten used to it, it is much more efficient. It would (in theory): solve some issues of accidentally firing on friendlies, having to raise the weapon all the looong way from the waist, give you 20% more of your screen, go well with real-life ways of handling a rifle. It already works like this in A3. But not while standing still or walking. If you're jogging with your rifle raised, but not pointing it down-range, the rifle will get raised to your shoulders for about 3 seconds if you try to shoot. After I've gone through the animations that are currently in use, it seems to be 4 types of animations missing from the set. 2 for idle stances, 2 for walking stances. So that'd be about 32 in total counting all the different movement directions needed. I'd gladly test something like this on the dev-build someday in the far away future.

Not here to de-rail with stuff from my thread. Just asking about the third frame in these pictures. http://imageshack.com/a/img838/7406/2f4o.png http://imageshack.com/a/img842/3064/7khz.png http://imageshack.com/a/img835/3784/6jsj.png Would it be a viable low-ready stances? If animations were like this, then you'd always be in low-ready (third frame) by default. Pressing the assigned combat-pace button would bring the rifle up into your view pointing down-range (fourth frame), but not make you aim down your sights. Not sure if you'd still be able to go straight from low-ready (third frame) into your sights, but I think pressing the RMB would bring you into your sights view. Once sighted, pressing RMB again will get you back to your low-ready stance (third frame). Then there would also be the option to be in low-ready (third frame) and enable combat-pace and have your rifle shouldered and pointing down-range (fourth frame). Pressing RMB after that would get you into your sights, and pressing RMB once again would bring you back into the combat-pace stance with the rifle shouldered pointing down-range (fourth frame).

@Smookie No, not an issue. Just a thought/suggestion that expands on what is already working 100% in the game. The jog/run movements with a rifle utilize all of the animations correctly. I do not know how the whole process goes, but you are doing the mocap, correct? :) Like you said here. Currently there is only the 'badass' walk-animation for all directions of movement. But there are other walk-animations available (V2,V3) that needs the full set of directions to be complete. Those extra walk-animations (if completed) could be made working perfectly with the way you can raise your rifle, go into combat pace etc. Just like the current jogging animations work right now. I'll make a ticket about it :) /edit This is also the solution to the "Low-Ready" discussion, and the ones about players always pointing their guns at eachother. Here's a ticket about it: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16827

A test version of Low-Ready for walking is in-game, but has currently not got more than just the forward walking animation:

I've got a suggestion. Probably still quite simple, but I think it could give some good results? Here's some facts that are true: Bullet velocity does decrease over distance traveled in air. Bullets lose velocity after penetrating objects. Character damage is affected by the type of bullet and its velocity. My suggestion would be to have each model of a vest have its own fire-geometry that represents ballistic protection. In theory, it'd work as on vehicles. You'd give the vest, as an example, a rectangled object in its fire-geometry to represent a ballistically protected area. Just like a vehicle can lose hitpoints on its engine, a vest can lose hitpoints on its proteced areas and become less efficient/non-efficient on that specific area. There must be different kinds of ballistic protection. The ballistically protected areas should be made from different materials with different values. Density value. Density decides how much velocity a bullet might lose on hit. Depending on bullet type. example: armor-penetrating rounds wont lose as much velocity compared to a normal round. Stopping value. Stopping decides how high the bullets velocity must be to penetrate fully. Depending on bullet velocity after being reduced by density. example: If bullet velocity still is high enough after reduced velocity, it will penetrate doing damage accordingly to its type and after-penetration velocity. Material value. Material decides how much damage being inflicted to the ballistic protection. Depending on bullet/schrapnel velocity. Damage type? example: A low value could represent a ceramic plate that will degrade quickly with each hit compared to a steel plate. Damaging gear will reduce density and stopping values. Shock value. How much damage inflicted to the person when ballistic protection is hit. Depending on bullets velocity after being reduced by density. example: If no penetrating shot, the force absorbed will still damage the wearer of the protective gear to some extent.

Shadow volumes are the normal way. (Wierdly enough) Each model put into any ArmA game always consists of multiple layers with information. A few for level of detail from different distances, where to attach gear, hitpoints etc. The normal way of doing shadows for ArmA is with the ShadowVolume layers. It's basically a model that is used to cast shadows, instead of the one you're looking at in-game. It's usually of a much lower quality and it has an impact on your CPU resources instead of the GPU. The shadow generated by ShadowVolumes are sharp and often ugly and can clip through your model where it should not, ending up looking really weird in places. The other way is by using Shadow Buffer. It uses GPU resources. It can completely ignore the layers you've created to use as a shadow, and instead create a soft shadow generated from the model you are looking at in-game. Basically like any game-engine can that has dynamic lightning effects. It's what should've been used on almost all hings in ArmA, but isn't because I suppose it's not a 100% developed feature.

Smookie, could the same method used for jogging and combat jog pace be usable for walking animations? There are currently only one walking animation, even if the combat jog is toggled. This is how jogging currently works: This is how walking currently works: Evidently, there is currently a lack of animations for the slower, walking animations when compared to jogging animations as shown above. It makes it really hard to keep track of if you're still in combat pace or not after having your rifle lowered for some time. If the walk anim changed depending on that, it'd be more visually apealing to most and probably a lot easier to keep track of what mode the character is in. Could walking in theory be made something like this? I tried to type this out as simple as possible, but it is rather complicated to describe exactly what I mean. Correct me if I'm wrong on anything here. I also sense that these animations might already be made for something like this since they are there to begin with :D

I'm really interested in these methods. From what I've read by you guys on the last pages and the links given, these options below are the working methods(?) I have not had time to go through it all on my main comp, but I tried to put it here as simple as possible for later testing. 1. SHADOW BUFFER (SOFT SHADOWS ONLY) (NO SHADOW LODS REQUIRED) Accordingly to http://tactical.nekromantix.com/wiki/doku.php?id=arma:modeling:shadows -This version above can only render shadows from LODs with 1k polys or less. I have not tested that theory. And this one below wich I am very unsure about. Don't rely on this information. 2. HYBRID SHADOW (SOFT SHADOWS) (CAN BE CHANGED TO STENCIL SHADOWS WITH GAME OPTIONS) Accordingly to http://tactical.nekromantix.com/wiki/doku.php?id=arma:modeling:shadows -The softer "shadow buffer" shadows are cast on all models and terrain except the model itself wich still use stencil shadows.

I know it can occur if the .pbo file isn't binirized properly.

About the shadow technique. Would you mind posting what each of your geo LOD properties are? I'm interested.

The animations you've been able to come up with do seem promising.

Already answered for the time being.

Black can also be the detail textures not working. Stage 2 in the RVMAT.

I am fairly sure that some of the things that aren't even supposed to be visible in the editor are. Including some of the riflemen that are just basic unifrom templates. No harm in it, it just spams the editor. It is fixed till the next version. I myself will wait with it. I'm focusing on the infantry since it was quite a lot of new stuff when it came to vehicles.

They're not all in on the current released version I believe. I can't even keep track of all the small changes I've made so far. What you see there is some kind of basic setup of units I am trying to polish.

There are lots of bugs. Many on weapons. Not sure why the box would not work, though. I wouldn't call it news just yet. But I have not stopped working on this even if I'm awfully quiet here in the thread. I have re-worked much content and configs wich also lead to a pile of error pop-ups. I want all of them sorted. I've gotten great help from others wich I really appreciate, and also gone through weapon configs, animations and really started to learn how RVMATs for textures work. Also found lots of content from A2:OA that really is of interest to me. Both gear and weapons. I'm however not just trying to port content. I want to have it feel and behave like new content completely. Takes a lot of work and time. Good for me I enjoy doing it so much :)

Big, big request. Should go under requests also :)

If I understood correcly - it's simplified like this: This is the tan color I want. R 204 G 191 B 163 These RGB values are then divided by 255: R 204 / 255 = 0.8 G 191 / 255 = 0.74 B 163 / 255 = 0.63 Final code: fogColor[] = {[color="#FF0000"]0.8[/color],[color="#00FF00"]0.74[/color],[color="#0000FF"]0.63[/color]}; Makes a lot of sense in my head now :)

I've more or less tried to get my fog looking something like this through out the 24 hours of a day:

Doing stuff whenever there's time. Thanks to the people in this thread I've got the texture for the sticker re-constructed and readable. (not that readable in this low-res preview, but it's there to read when you're bored in-game)

I know what you mean. I did try a very fast mockup like that. If it could be made, it would be one step closer to the real thing I believe. Normal view: http://imageshack.us/a/img196/8523/qcyy.jpg After going into tracking view: http://imageshack.us/a/img13/603/iz3o.jpg

This sounds interesting :D

Sort of planned that way. IndUs needs an update just to clear some bugs. Whenever that happens is unsure, but the Javelin could get some testing that way :) You're helping greatly :) Here's the very basic procedure I could make out of it. Pictures are from the video, not ArmA. First, here's the normal view and the narrow (zoomed) view: Here's the sight when tracking is initiated: Here's when the sight have something tracked, and then locked on: After firing it seems to go back to normal or narrow view.

The pictures linked in the thread are great. I'll look through this when I've got some time again. Will surely help a lot. Thank you :) I do believe I've got the damage and splash damage sorted. Atleast better. Not the actual lock mechanics, though.