Macser

Adding user values to your models will increase the section count dramatically. I never used the user value system for any of my more recent models. So I didn't notice anything odd about it. Anything I'd done prior to that would've been mostly O2light with Blender. Or just O2light. Recently I decided to put in some user values, to get a model showing damage. Namely the hull, tracks, turret and gun. The model started out with 4 sections. That's three textures and the unmapped proxies. Which is expected. But after thowing in the user values, the section count shot up to 52. So I tried resetting the values for the entire mesh to 0 and the section count went back to 4. I did this a few times, with a few different models. It's consistent. So it's worth bearing in mind. For me it's not worth it, just to make the model brown and black. Section count can have an affect on performance , especially when it gets that high. And becomes apparent when you start adding more of that particular model to a mission. I thought this might be a good place to mention it.

The only place I knew of that still had a copy was OFPinfo. I don't know whether the utilities were archived in the recent torrent of the site. If you don't find a copy it's possible to do a similar job in O2PE. Or Blender if you're feeling adventurous.

Hey folks. I hope your all in good shape. I have a general question for everyone. After all these years, is there something you'd still like to see in 'ol flash? Something that either hasn't been done. Or hadn't been done quite as well as you'd hoped. Taking into consideration the limitations of the engine. Although this isn't an offer to fulfill specific requests, I'd be open to collaborating if the opportunity arose. Once I square away some stuff on the worktop. Especially if there was something that could appeal to most of the folks here. I'm a sci-fi fan as you can probably guess. But I got into this series because of the military simulation aspect. So I'd be just as interested in that area. I always wanted to attempt the ghost recon 1 campaign. Or at least do a decent approximation of the missions that made it up. Complete with standard characters/specialists. I know. It's the typical US vs Russia theme. I suppose at this point it's familiar territory. But that's a personal choice for me. So how about you?

Ok. I'll add that to the heap. I used to be a stickler for economising . For years. So I suppose I've gotten tired of holding back. Although having said that, I still don't like to go bananas. I generally don't go above 4 or 5 k in faces unless I feel it's warranted. These days the stuff I'm doing is somewhere between OFP and Armed assault. So nothing too extravagant. But enough maybe to catch the light and take the flatness or "boxiness" out of the models.

Closest I got to that style of play would be the rainbow six series. At first the planning was a bit unwieldy. But once you got used to it, it became very useful. Instead of a run n gun approach. Which seemed to be a good prep for the Arma series. I think the only thing that might hold you back would be the AI stumbling around indoors. But you know that only too well. Multiplayer could be the perfect environment for that. NPCs could be AI driven at least. Leaving small human teams to deal with the combat. You just provide the setting and the basic mechanics, if there are any, and they take what ever approach they want from there.

GR and OFP were the ones that got me into this genre. And before that there were a few others I dabbled with too. I think at this point I'm not really into the idea of recycling stuff. I know it saves a lot of time. But I prefer to make a go of it myself and do as much as possible from scratch. Mission building is not something I have a flair for though. Which is one of the reasons I haven't tried to recreate the GR campaign. The missions are the thing that make it enjoyable for me. I don't know if I'd make a mess of it. The modeling and textures I could handle. Oddly enough I do have an old model of a tiger 1. The "late" version. With the sliding commander's hatch. It's a raw model in .blend form. I could try to finish it up a bit if you like. But it's unlikely to be as "economical" as you prefer. 4K or so for the 1st Res lod. Not as bad as it sounds these days. Even for an older engine. I tend to go for fewer sections combined with at least 4 res lods.

The addons and other content on OFPr.info are no longer accessible. So as much as possible has been put into a torrent for people to download/share.

Nice to see them return. I think they're a potentially good way of sharing info between like-minded people. If the feature stays around long enough.

There's a thread for the toolbox. Al wouldn't have a problem with you asking questions that relate directly to the addon. And don't forget to read the manual. Anyway. Have you associated the mesh with the toolbox? With the object selected click on "Arma object properties".

Another link to the triple version of the rig.

Exporting from what though? Could you provide a little more information on what it is you're doing? The T-pose, or rest pose, is never gone. It's the base pose present in the model. If all animations are removed the model will always return to the rest pose. Unless something went wrong with the mesh, or bones.

There's some mirrors on Armaholic too.

Ok. Bear something in mind. The arma games are "simulators" in essence. But objects can't act exactly as they do in real life. It's too processor intensive. And also, for a game it would be very annoying for players to get stopped by smaller details that don't really add to the experience. Taking your bridge as an example. Both of these, as collision meshes, will function almost exactly the same. One may be slightly more detailed. But the purpose is to prevent characters and vehicles from passing through. Which both will do. You or any other player isn't going to notice the difference. Making it more complex is unlikely to fix any issues you're currently having, if that's what you're thinking. In fact it's more likely to create issues. You cannot create anything other than the resolution and view lods in sketchup. Geometry, Fire geometry, memory and the other types are best done in Object builder. Because they have special properties that the engine requires.

Yes. Technically there's a way for a modder to do that. But for the reasons mentioned above , it's hard to find people who actually want to invest time in the workload. Each new "form" would require a full set of animations specific to them. It could be done via Blender and some suitable scripting. But that's outside my area of knowledge. (EDIT: Of course, if you don't change the skeletal proportions, you can just edit the model. No need to touch animations unless it's really necessary.) There is one other possible problem. Too many units using custom animations may actually cause intermittent crashing. That's not something I've tested extensively, and not in A3. But I'm pretty sure it's animation related from personal experience. Some games do offer something similar to morph targets for character customisation. But for now, the Arma series is bound to using keyframed animations exclusively. Now back to the manly facial hair....

The links are ok for me. Could be something regional. https://www.sendspace.com/file/xj3306 Try that. Blue "download" button, middle of the page.

I think I may have given people the wrong impression with some earlier posts, regarding scale. Just to correct myself. The toolbox does indeed export scale to the resulting rtm. It's possible by scaling in pose mode. Not tested in game though. But it makes it to O2. Not a massive revelation. But if you wanted to do a character without retargetting and the proportions were the same,just uniformly scaled up or down, it's possible.

There's nothing actually stopping you from making an lod complex. The issue you face is whether or not it's worth doing. Keeping the Geo as simple as possible cuts some of the load on your CPU,as far as I'm aware. Someone with more technical knowledge could clarify that. But the engine has to keep track of it and it's interactions with the other objects in the environment. Plus everything else going on in a frame. The more complex it is, presumably the more data has to be processed. You're also less likely to get unusual behaviour when it's kept simple. Adding complexity is redundant when it's simply acting as a barrier. Is there a specific reason you're keen to make it detailed?

If I was to do an object like yours, I'd make the Geometry (collision mesh) in the same way Whitefame showed above. Adding complexity wouldn't make it function any differently. If you need rounds to pass through the rails you can add simple cuboids in the right shape. But that goes into the Fire Geometry LOD. Keep the Geometry LOD as simple as you can. It's simply there to prevent things passing through your mesh and to add mass. It's not something you'll ever see in game.

Blender's projection painting is pretty useful. But you'd need a selection of photos from various angles to composite them into the final texture. Front. Back. Left and right. Top. Etc. Ideally with minimal shadows and a decent resolution. But you can get decent results even with just two images and a low res model.

An M2A2 isn't going to stand up to an M1 or any other modern MBT. Even with a bigger gun. 2 or 3 using both the launchers and the guns could cause some harm though. But the M1 is going to return fire. I'd say 2 out of 3 of the M2A2s will be destroyed in any dust-up. But that's consistent with the fluff for the games. It was never meant to engage MBTs directly. Not one on one. Numbers and combined arms. And maybe some sneaky tactics could make up the difference. They will do very well against infantry and lighter vehicles. The way I have it is similar to a BMP 3 turret. A main gun. A 25mm gun. A launcher. And a coaxial 7.62mm MG.

If you can't write in English, even an attempt with google translate can be useful. Si no puedes escribir en inglés, incluso un intento con google translate puede ser útil. There is a lot of information on these boards and around the net that apply to your question. But as it's in English, that may not be of use. Youtube might be a better choice for something in your native language. Hay mucha información sobre estas juntas y alrededor de la red que se aplican a su pregunta. Pero como está en inglés, que no puede ser de utilidad. Youtube podría ser una mejor opción para algo en su idioma nativo.

Great to see the project released. And pretty quickly too.

Shit happens as the saying goes. I'll get over it. Good luck with the project. I'll be around to offer advice. But that's about it for now.

I admire your enthusiasm, but there's plenty of situations where doing exactly what you've done had zero effect. I'm glad it worked out for you though. It may have just been a simple alpha sorting issue.

You can just do the reverse. Move to bottom. But that's not necessarily going to help. No harm in trying though. Does it happen with other "military" units? Or just pilots?