Macser

Looks like we were furiously typing away at the same time. :)

I think the Cfgmimics class is still being used. I saw a reference to it in the wiki. Although there's no actual entry for it. Cfgmimics is where the autonomous expressions are defined. The ones the AI use depending on the situation. Happy, sad, angry etc. Each expression has entries for selections in the head and the values that move them. They never relied on rtms as far as I know, being procedurally generated from the config. I doubt that's changed. I'm not sure how they're handled in A3 though. Unless there are specific memory points for them to use as axes, they most likely still translate from their rest positions instead of rotating. So your current selections and weighting might work as is. You'll know soon enough I suppose. :)

Lookin good. Although I don't usually do this kind of thing, I did a quick overlay to point out some suggestions about the facial structure. From what I know of you, you're open to constructive comments. Which is the only reason I even considered making the post. I made the chin area a little wider. The bridge of the nose too. Slightly reduced the width of the mouth. And lifted the cheeks a bit. Not in an attempt to beautify. More about proportions. It's only personal opinion, of course. Not instructional. :) Obviously I worked over a mesh that was animated. So maybe the things i pointed out were in some part due to deformation and weighting. Take that into consideration. And keep up the great work.

The last post was 8 years ago. So it's likely the OP has moved onto other things. You're best bet is to ask about it in the request thread. There's a good chance Zulu might still have it in his vast archives. :)

Sorry for labouring the point. Just so I'm clear. I don't mod for A3. But.. A lot has changed over the years with the configuration of animations. But the actual rtm files haven't. I know some modders like OFP2 who have ported characters and animations straight out of OFP/CWA into A3. This wouldn't be possible unless the rtm format had remained unchanged. With that in mind, if you simply scale up the mesh, and continue to use the default animations your character will be mangled beyond recognition. As far as I'm aware the A3 engine doesn't have any automatic way of adjusting the rtms to account for your custom mesh. So it rotates the "bones" according the positions contained within the rtm file. These positions are specific to whatever character they were created for. In the case of default content, the basic human male. Here's a small illustration to show you what I mean: The stick figure represents the joint locations/bones in a default rtm. The larger mesh if using that rtm will have it's selections rotate at the red points. Not where you expect, or want them to. You have a little room for maneuver with scaling your character, true. But past a certain point the joint locations and your custom mesh diverge. The more you scale, the bigger the offset. I'm not saying any of this to put you off. As I love to see people going "outside the box", so to speak. But I think it's worth being clear, so you know about potential issues early on. If I'm wrong, and there's some quick and easy method to achieve what you want, I'm sure someone will correct me. And hopefully outline it. :)

I don't know whether you've already tried it. But If you make the model larger, you'll need to adjust the animations to suit it. Otherwise it'll get pulled apart by distortions. Either scaling them up, or creating new ones are the only options I know of. You might be able to do the scaling via Object builder. In either case, it'll be a fair amount of work.

six_ten is not misunderstanding you. And he's right. It's highly unlikely there are specific "classes" you can take as part of your college tuition that will teach you the skills you need to use either terrain builder or object builder. If your college has any kind of class/course that teaches a foundation in 3d modeling that's the closest you'll get. You have 2 options then. Join that class/course, if it exists, or do some research on your own. Much like the vast majority of people here. Outside of that, your only other option involves a paid course, either generic or specific to a particular application. Besides all that no-one here has any idea what classes are actually available to you. So how can advice be given in that regard? Learning something like Object builder will not transfer to other programs as readily as learning something like 3ds max, Maya, Blender etc. Learning how to use applications like those will actually be more beneficial in the long term. Object builder certainly won't prepare you for something like ZBrush, Max, Maya etc. These are industry standard applications. And are the type of programs most professional 3d artists are familiar with. OB may have a familiar ring to it. But it's still quite specific to the Arma series. :)

ASAP means "as soon as possible". As in, "as soon as it is possible for me to do so". Not super extra fast. :)

I won't say much about the tools mentioned in the title because I don't use them myself. But if you use decide to use Blender for model production, you won't need to rely on object builder for much. Obviously you would have to use Alwarren's toolbox to accomplish that, but it's very easy to get used to. The major hurdle most new users have with Blender is the UI. There's an expectation for it to emulate more established programs like Max or Maya. But if you put that aside it's no more difficult than getting to grips with either of those. I don't think there's any need to study it on an academic level unless you intend to teach it. Most of the resources are online to help you get started. Sites like Blender cookie are a great source of good quality tutorials, covering everything from novice to advanced subjects. For modern game projects people often combine Blender with programs like Zbrush and Xnormal. But that's not necessarily aimed at terrain generation. In any case, if your intent is modding, then pouring study time into it might be better spent elsewhere. Most of what you need to learn, regardless of the program, can be found on your own time. If people are unwilling to offer direct help, it's not necessarily out of mean-spiritedness. It's generally a hobbyist environment. So people will work alone or in small groups depending on the project, and whether or not it interests them. As in every other aspect of society, there's people who won't help you no matter what. And may even go so far as to make smart alec comments. But they aren't generally representative of the whole scene. :)

I think you might have more of a chance posting in this thread: https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/186068-arma-3-addon-request-thread/ :)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd rather have an undocumented version than not have anything. If it works then that's what matters.. :)

Because I don't use 1.96. It's just force of habit. When I did use 1.96 I always put that version number in. Revan, just set the RequiredVersion entry to 1.9 or 1.96. There's no commands being used from 1.99 in the addons. They're compatible with any version as far as I'm aware.

I always think I could do better. But it can be difficult in a diffuse only engine, with simple lighting. Thanks for the kind words.

I was making assumptions about auto-timing. In reality it was an error on my part. But in any case that had no bearing on the issue I was posting about. The exporter takes the transforms and rotations as they are. But the Arma engines expect the animations to be "zeroed" out. No movement on the root/center bone. I was using O2pe, Object builder's predecessor, to do this. Now I don't bother with it. I take care of it myself inside Blender and go direct to game. Frame ordering problems, as far as I'm aware, have never been an issue. Thanks for posting your findings and work around. It might come in handy if the issue pops up for myself or anybody else using the toolbox. :)

I can only talk about my own experience. I've never had any issues with frame ordering. So far I've probably done close to 300 rtms. Any problems I've had were usually of my own creation. :)

You're doing some great work. Just take it slowly. The animation side of things can wait until you have some game ready models. It's hard enough to do that without the added pressure. Even though there aren't all that many examples of what you want to do, it's still something you can achieve. So good luck with the project. :)

You're welcome. :) I'm just glad to see another modder getting some use out of it.

Don't get me wrong. I welcome questions. It's just at the moment a video made more sense. :) If you don't watch the video, I'll mention one thing. The meshes are there for reference only. Moving them around is not advised, as it will likely give you a false impression of where they'll be in the RTM. Only use the bones when animating. That's why I switched out the ability to select them. That and the fact it can be fiddly trying to select a bone. Sometimes the meshes get selected unintentionally. Of course make sure you parent your mesh to the weapon bone. Check the first post regarding naming of the weapon bone, if you're working with A3.

Hello andy, I've been asked the same question a few times now. But I'm not really in the mood to do a big post with images. So I'll record a small video describing the process. I'll put the link into the first post. :)

Don't forget your CfgModels section.

Nice work. Sanc's WW4 humvee would be a good candidate too. I'm sure he'd have no problem with you using it. Ye know I never noticed it before now. But I can't find any images that resemble the BI version of the HMMWV. In particular the bonnet (Hood) section. :)

You just need to approach it like a papercraft model in reverse. Making cuts (seams) where necessary to allow you to unfold the uv mesh. The objective is to flatten everything out as much as is possible with the minimum of distortion. If the mesh is very complex, then consider using the seams to completely separate it into different sections. Unless you're going to spend time stitching faces back together, avoid using smart uv unwrap in Blender. I can't comment on Object builder techniques. But I wouldn't bother trying to unwrap something complex with it. It's hard to point to tutorials that will suit your specific needs. So you'll need to get acquainted with the app you intend to use, before you start trying anything complex. Learn as you work. Get a good grounding with the tools. There's some interesting techniques used in this example, using shape keys: http://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/40157/what-would-be-the-easiest-way-to-uv-map-a-complex-object

I don't know of any software that would do that kind of thing automatically, if that's what you mean. There's just too many things to consider, besides the model. The only way I know of to add a weapon to a vehicle that doesn't have one is to edit it yourself. Using the available modeling software and some config work. :)

It's really great to see something so different. One or two people tried science fiction projects for OFP, and without much fanfare. Personally I think anything that ventures beyond the norm should be applauded. The engines may be considered military simulators, but I believe that ignores the potential they have. :)

Thanks. I've seen Karrillion's name crop up. But I wasn't entirely sure. As you said, the credits were either non-existent or very scant. Although I think he may end up being as illusive as Acacyn. :) If anyone still left out there can replicate the scripts used in these addons that'd also be a big help. Specifically the auto-takeoff and land features. In the meantime I'll do some digging. EDIT: I decided I'd have a go myself and see what I come up with for takeoff. I like the results so far. It's not perfect, but it gets the job done and fairly tidily. Although a publicly available addon with a set of these "sci-fi" style scripts would still be nice. In case anyone is interested in the script,it'll be part of my snowspeeder addon.