Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Shizweak

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    50

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Shizweak

  4. Posted

    TWEAK: Reduced movement volume

    Awesome stuff LordJarhead, the above was my only gripe - so can't wait to give it a shot tonight!

    One other thing I've also noticed (and you may have fixed it), is when moving , if you take a small step and stop, the sound continues to play for what appears to be ~500ms after stopping. Not a big deal, but maybe something to take note of :)

  5. Posted

    Same issue and after weeks of pointless emails with there tech support I am still no closer to getting a game in!

    Please make sure one more time that you have your camera shake disabled:

    go to Configure -> Game ->Difficulty -> and disable Camera Shake

    Please note that on some servers this could be forced by the server settings.

    Also seen this issue on our Wasteland server.

    We ended up putting `enableCamShake false;` in our client init, and it's gone - so definitely cam shake related.

  6. Posted

    Everyone is welcome to join us in our Twitch, today Mr. Gurdy is giving a masterclass on how to model a M240B from scratch.

    We will also answer questions about the mod, and even about the real weapon ( thanks to the USMC expert Andeusmc / Wilco ).

    Watching quietly while tapping away at work!

    And thanks for broadcasting guys - as someone who's been playing around in the modelling waters for a few months, it's good to see how to do things right :)

  10. Posted

    There is a much easier way to deal with people breaking EULA, just block them with Battleye. Bohemia is hiring them, they can use them. They can use the same in DayZ when people abuse admin powers on public servers.

    Then they'll probably just disable battleye on the server, not much of a big deal when you have a closed/white-listed community.

    For all those supporting A3L and their viewpoint THIS is the real damage done here. How you fail to see the effect this will cause for Arma modding in the future is beyond me...

    Exactly, hit the nail on the head.

    I can't even fathom that anyone would even support A3L after 'Caiden' ends his final comment here with telling someone to go kill themselves. Absolutely atrocious.

  12. Posted

    Great stuff, all starting to come together by the looks of it!

    One little thing that I keep seeing is the dent/crease on the models right ermm... boob - doesn't look right (at least from the perspective in the screenshots ), I guess most of the time it will be covered by a vest anywho.

  15. Posted

    Post-Packing config

    http://pastebin.com/qGrMRLdV

    Thanks for the help!

    I can't really see any issues with what you've posted - so hopefully one of the more experienced folk can see what the problem is. One thing to possibly check is your local arma rpt file - that might contain a hint as to any errors they may be getting suppressed. Otherwise I'll be finalising my own heightmap this weekend, and producing a config - so you may be able to use that as a reference if all goes well on my side.

  16. Posted

    After removal and redoing it all by pboProject, it finishes the binarizing. Yet i still not see clutter ingame :/

    I can't see anything glaringly obvious, I assume the ground texture does appear, just not the clutter?

    You could perhaps lower the probability and see if that helps, as 1.0 would assume complete coverage from my understanding.

  18. Posted

    I think the issue may be related to the nested "clutter" class, for example in your main config you have:

    class Clutter{
                                            #include "cfgClutter.hpp"
                                            };

    Which then includes the clutter config:

    class clutter  
{


       class Metsa : DefaultClutter{
   model = "a3\plants_f\Clutter\c_Grass_Tall_Dead.p3d";
   affectedByWind = 0.6;
   swLighting = "true";
   scaleMin = 0.7;
   scaleMax = 1.0;
  };

};

    So after the clutter config is "included" you get:

    class Clutter{
class clutter  
{


       class Metsa : DefaultClutter{
   model = "a3\plants_f\Clutter\c_Grass_Tall_Dead.p3d";
   affectedByWind = 0.6;
   swLighting = "true";
   scaleMin = 0.7;
   scaleMax = 1.0;
  };

};
                                            };

    I'd say remove one of the clutter class definitions and you may well resolve the issue.

    In regards to L3DT, I don't think it's possible to make it smaller - you can adjust the "strength" though, which might make it a bit easier.

  20. Posted · Edited by Shizweak

    I may be wrong since there are quite a number of quirks in the Arma engine that I haven't grasped yet, but the reason I see nested if's as a better option is because if the first condition is false, then the entire statement is skipped. But from what I understand about lazy evaluation from other languages I've used, all conditions are checked whether previous conditions are true or false.

    So without knowing if the Arma engine efficiently handles lazy evaluations, I saw nesting as the best option.

    I think you are correct, that is, if the wiki is correct:

    "You may expect the engine to stop reading the condition after the group has no knowledge about the object but that's false. The engine will continue evaluating the condition until the end even if any of the previous conditions evaluated false." - source

    Not to mention, if you have multiple statements that require the "alive player" condition, the nested approach would likely be slightly quicker (with, or without lazy evaluation).

    EDIT: OK, I see they do support lazy evaluation - same source as above (wrapping in {} as per brians example) - latter statement probably still holds some value though.

  23. Posted

    ahh many thanks , tough one as my terrain is all made up so cannot get actual Sat.

    So making my sat bigger would not help then?

    Looks like ill have to get better at Photoshop :)

    A bigger sat might help it look a little better - however even if your terrain is `made up`, you can copy features from satellite imagery and merge them in - but as you mention this requires a little bit of finesse with Photoshop.

  24. Posted

    I was referring to the crappy texture look on the mountains at distance it just looks very crap :(

    would using surface mask 5 + normal work bet ?

    Also have to remember that L3DT produces a satellite texture based on simple blended tiled textures (not of the highest quality) - where as an actual satellite texture produced from satellite imagery has a lot more variance in details/colour - which will likely look better when blended with your ground textures.

    Using surface mask 5 + normal means you will also need to provide a normal map/texture for the terrain (should add extra dimension of depth), I believe L3DT produces one during it's generation pipeline - however I don't think this will make the the ground texture/satellite texture at distance look any better.

    Perhaps also take a look at this thread here from Bad Benson, it may help - http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?150645-midrange-terrain-texture-replacement

×