Macser

Yeah you're right.I must've been experimenting and didn't bother putting the variables it into the SetPos array.And to be honest I don't really need setvelocity in that script either.I seem to recall setvelocity not working on building type classes.Which is why I assume Bn880 went with the car class for his tracer. :) As for the missile idea.I already tried it.It has it's own limitations.One of which seems to be particular to the plane class.

Hey Rellikki. I do know Bn880's tracer rounds have their orientation changed when they're fired. Although it doesn't account for roll.Only the angle of dive/climb(Pitch?). Making them part of the vehicle might be a work-around for a "beam" type effect. But on this occasion the tracer look is the one I'm after.

I'm aware of the limitations you face.Especially with AI and indoor environments. But regardless the work you've done so far looks fantastic. :)

@Arma3goodCPUlowFPS Even if there is a slant towards a certain selection of units/vehicles/aircraft, people are creating what they want to create.It's their time and effort.Only they can determine how it's used. The same applies to monetising the content.Although many people would feel it goes against the general spirit of this kind of community,it's a decision entirely for the creator of that content.From what I've seen most people seem to adopt a donation approach.Which I think is very fair. If you get a lot of use out of a mod or addon,and can afford it,then it's a tangible way to show appreciation for the time spent producing it. We have only two choices with regard to content we'd like to see. Wait until someone creates it.Or,as has been suggested,create it ourselves. :)

I'm not getting any redirection.The download link takes me to a 10.95MB file named "Ghost recon missions.rar".

Hey Vektor. I'd agree in general the chopper's movement will make the gunner's job almost impossible. Heli pilots always have the tendency to dip the nose every so often.Especially if they're aware of enemy troops. But provided you keep the chopper at a reasonable distance and set the the pilot to careless, you can get them to fly level enough to have the gunner offer support to dropped troops. It's not perfect.But it seemed to work well the few times I tried it.It worked better with an m134 I bolted on,than the default M2.Probably because of the higher dispersion.

Icewindo did a small modification that cuts out a lot of the chatter. Not all of it.But enough to free up the AI to respond more quickly. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?183825-Less-Voice-Mod-(Radio)

If you want to learn how to create your own,there are tutorials on the subject here on these forums.Have a look around. :) As for the programs people use.There's Blender,3ds max,wings 3d and more.And of course O2 light.

:D Ok.This is definitely my last post.... I've created content for people myself over the years.I still do.It probably goes unnoticed. But that's fine.It's usually something small.Nonetheless I put effort into everything I do. Even when it's free. If the work was something I genuinely cared about I'd provide clear terms of use.When an individual decides to ignore those terms,then I'll go after them. On the other hand.If I didn't provide terms in another work,and permission was at least sought, I wouldn't be bothered about it.As long as a thread existed here showing it's progress. So I can jump in at any time and voice my concerns.Or ask for it to be removed,if I thought it was warranted. I'm not as tolerant as I might sound.I just don't see the need for aggressive tactics in every situation.

I'm not sure how to respond to that.I tried to be non specific.I didn't quote any sources that I can remember.So in that regard the general tone was "loose".I'm not well versed in legal jargon,so maybe there were inaccuracies.I think I can live with that. I agree.Although you and I can't presume to know what people in general think. I'll leave it at that for myself.I don't want to get into a situation where it becomes personal. I may not agree with you on everything relating to this subject.That doesn't mean however that I'm without a conscience.Even if it is only a hobby,based on a video game.

You're welcome.And good luck.If it gets a bit tedious then take a break and come back to it. But keep going.It's a great thing to see your own work in action.And even more so to have other people get enjoyment out of using it. :)

Thanks for the clarification.Although I'm more interested in the attitudes we have to the situation. Not so much the legal detail.I was trying to reference trademarks/IP in a loose sense. RKSL-Rock you do commercial work outside of this site.So you've obviously had to deal with issues regarding IP laws.Or at least,would have to be aware of them,so as not to fall foul of them. A person's living is not being destroyed by someone editing a 3-4 year old addon with no terms of use and an iffy paint job.Especially if the edited material is removed on request.And where the original content still exists on the server from which it was downloaded. Could we not interpret that example as "fair use" while monitoring it,without invoking threats of legal action?

Whether it's intentional or not your example illustrates what I'm talking about. You made a model without asking permission,not because you want to misuse the IP. Not out of malice or intent to deceive. But if the owner of the IP sees this creation and asks for it to be removed you do it. No need for a court case,or public humiliation. It's not a simple thing to get involved in legal proceedings.And it's not always appropriate.A community can band together and highlight genuine misuse,by showing it up. I just think there's too much emphasis on legality for a hobby/past-time. I didn't write that anywhere and I'd appreciate you not misquoting me. We don't agree on certain points.But I respect your opinion.

Archive has been updated to include a can of beans and loaf of bread.It's a small file so I didn't see the point in posting the models separately.

friendlyIntentions I'll whip up a can o beans and a loaf of bread later today. :)

Hello Arctor. For me the "skeleton" is the armature/rig used to animate.The relevant parts of the model are "named selections".Each bone in the "skeleton" corresponds to a "named selection" in your model. The model.cfg lists these named selections and their hierarchical structure.As I understand it,most people here seem to refer to,this,or the named selections as the skeleton.Which is fine.Just a bit odd for me. I don't have any examples in A2 to demonstrate.I'm still working on the old RV1 engine(Cold war assault).Anyway.The process isn't much different.For that engine I've already created non human entities.And characters with very different proportions and scaling to a default human. I don't know what the limit is for A2 bone wise,but it's 64 or so for CWA.I imagine it's considerably higher for A2,given the hands and such. Obviously if you decided to go a non-standard route,then you're out on your own.Meaning you'll need to create all the necessary animations for the entity yourself. If you were to config the entity as a man class,then you could feasibly use a default Cfgmoves and simply redirect to your new animations. One other thing.The following applies to OFP/CWA.I assume it still applies for the newer titles. The selections in your model can be manipulated by the engine in real-time,despite a key-framed animation being run at the same instant.This is how your character can look up and down while in your custom pose.The engine knows what selections are the head,chest,arms etc. If you deviate from the default naming convention this real-time process might be affected. Of course,depending on what you're creating that may not be an issue.

Bad news indeed.Hopefully the damage isn't too extensive. FriendlyIntentions is this the kind of thing you meant?It might be a start.

Is he not allowed to make a choice or express an opinion contrary to yours? Assuming it's to do with what you suggest,it's his information and his money.

Anything you or I create could be referred to as intellectual property. The circumstances in that example were fairly specific. It's become more common now to have some terms of use because awareness about it has been raised.Which is good.I believe including some form of license with your work should continue to be encouraged.And it stops other people from acting on the author's behalf. I think genuine misuse should be highlighted by communities though,rather than employing legal means. My references to trademarks and logos weren't an analogy.I don't see anything wrong about discussing our attitudes to the subject with that as a reference point. Even if I don't agree with everything you and others have said,I understand the motivation. To take the current approach might protect someone's work from being abused,here. But it also may consign it to the proverbial trash heap.Which for me is as much of a shame as the content being misused. In case there's any misunderstanding,I have no interest in using other peoples work. I'm capable of creating pretty much anything I need.Not everyone has those skills though. However.If I did wish to use or edit another's content,I would get permission.Or failing that just do without it.But I only speak on my own behalf. I don't think an opposing point of view is harmful.It can remind people of the original motivation behind a campaign.Which could possibly get lost and end up becoming a kind of dogma.Which for me at least,would be inappropriate for this kind of environment.

Hello Fennek. :) You used a car analogy not long ago.About getting into it and driving around without permission. More than one example of using a legal technicality has been cited as a means of circumventing copyright.And let's be honest.That's what it is. Changing a few letters in a recognised brand name for instance.Or removing trademarks and logos. That's essentially changing the paint job and switching the number plates,so you can drive around without permission. Technically it may be legal.But isn't it a little devious?Or is it acceptable when it's a "faceless" corporation? This community and others have been engaging in that practice for years.I'd say 90% of this community,including myself,has done this at some point. I'm not suggesting we all get religion and ask for forgiveness.Or that it should be viewed as a hanging offence.But I still wouldn't like to see this community operating under a type of hypocrisy. Here's a hypothethical scenario: I create an addon which is geometrically pretty accurate.But my textures aren't really much good. But I decide to release it anyway.At the time I didn't bother to include any terms of use.Maybe I didn't think anyone would bother with it.After a few years sitting on the shelf it gets spotted by a newcomer.This person isn't a great modeller,but they are a decent texture artist. So they decide to go looking for me to ask permission.But I'm nowhere to be found.They try a few different avenues but to no avail.They've made it obvious they have an interest on the relevant forum.So it's a matter of public record.If misuse is intended it should be spotted fairly quickly. Of course,the unchanged original addon still exists. So they go ahead and update the textures and release it.Making it clear who the author is. And also making it clear that I have veto over it's continued existence.So should I resurface at some point and say,"take that down immediately!",they do so. Is this the same as taking credit for my work?Or profiting from it financially?Or refusing to remove it when evidence of wrong doing is shown? Do you think I should hound that person out of the community for being a thief? Are they any more or less devious than the rest of us?

I wasn't being specific regarding companies.Which is why I didn't mention any names. I was simply trying to make a point. Laws regarding IP can be flexible under certain circumstances.It may be legal to represent something in 3d/2d as long as you remove trademarks,brands and such.But isn't that simply a workaround? So a person can do what they want without fear of legal repercussions. In principle,that IP is still being exploited to someone's benefit.For example,there are certain weapons that most people here could easily identify.Even when the markings are removed.The design is recognisable.Someone created it.It is their IP.Do all modders,out of courtesy,ask for permission to reproduce it?No.We take advantage of legalities.And continue on without giving it much thought. As has been stated this isn't usually pursued.If there was a concerted effort to do so,communities like this wouldn't exist.And possibly the games they're based on.Not to mention the impact on those trying to make a living out of 3d/2d reproduction. If companies or legislators can do this,when it's obvious there's no intent to deceive or profit, it's also possible for a community of hobbyists to follow suit.If they want to.That's all I'm trying to say. By the way.I'm not referring to recent material with clearly defined terms of use.That's a different situation.

I haven't missed anything.And I think you're misunderstanding me. If you don't want others to use your work,I'd have no hesitation in supporting you on that. As to your example.The drawing/model may belong to the author.But it's likely the intellectual property upon which it's based,does not.Modders have come to expect a certain amount of leniency and discretion in that regard. If such strict,high contrast rules are to be applied,regarding IP,should they not also apply to the people advocating them? Or could judgements be made based on the context of the situation? Not everybody intends misuse or harm. :)

A very nice model. :) You don't have to use Blender or anything else.I know people who use Sketch-up for all their modelling. Then switch to 3dsmax for unwrapping and go from there.Obviously if you start from Blender/Max it will shave some time off your work.And leave you with less clean-up. If you are interested in Blender,then Blendercookie is a great place to find quality tutorials.

Keeway.This probably isn't the best place to be airing private disputes. My definition of overzealous is the same as the dictionary definitions. I was trying to say that the A3life debacle was a positive example of people looking out for each other. I don't understand why you're telling me that.I haven't advocated stealing from anyone.Commercial or otherwise.I don't earn money from modelling but I also release content for nothing.How does that relate to the opinions I've expressed? The way you worded that last sentence it seems you think I've infringed on another's rights. Is that the case? I'm simply trying to provide a little balance.Calling people thieves or criminals out of hand,isn't the best approach.And some individuals choose to do that.This is a hobby.A creative outlet.It has elements of art to it.Art is sometimes about reproduction.Reinvention.If we apply the kind of broad sweeping judgements that some people might suggest,then a large portion of the people on these boards could be considered thieves. How many people have recreated weapons,vehicles and aircraft from a variety of manufacturers without seeking permission to use their designs?Most of those products are easily identifiable merchandise created by recognised brand names.But we and the companies who make them,choose to use some discretion,because the intent is not to profit,or take undue credit.And of course,If those same manufacturers tell us to remove reproductions of their products,I and most of the people here would do so.Which is the right thing to do.Regardless of opinion. Perhaps the same discretion could be applied in other situations?

Unfortunately there's no easy fix for that situation.It's best to set a budget before you start modelling. You could try running it through the decimator modifier when you get it into Blender.Although it might require breaking it down into smaller objects to get a less aggressive reduction.Then re-combine before export. But with such a high resolution the end result may not be what you'd hoped for. 3ds max and Blender have tools specifically designed for use with the arma series.As painful as it might sound,you should consider trying them out. There's nothing inherently wrong with sketch-up or how it functions.But getting the end product out of it in a workable form can be problematic.Especially for game formats. :)