Macser

Some people are just suited to it. Some develop the skill. Some appear to have an innate ability. Watching videos is no guarantee it will be absorbed and be something you can use creatively. I know people who are very intelligent, yet can't get much further than drawing stick figures. Videos also very in terms of the information presented. Often you'll find folks who aren't much further along than you are, doing "tutorials". It's handy for a bit of trouble-shooting. But maybe not so good with something like art. If you want to learn about art, learn from artists. The same techniques apply to creating textures for games. Even more so for a diffuse only title. I'm not trying to put you off though. I think you can get far with some study. That's the skill part of the equation. That's the thing most people can do something about. Innate ability on the other hand is likely genetic. Mainly stubbornness I think.

That's just a rig to reduce some of the tedium involved in posing/ interacting with other objects. Especially the hands. Alwarren's export suite could be considered a "plugin". I'm not going to sing Blender's praises. You either use it or you don't. But there are other people getting stuff done with it, as and when it's required. And then going back to what they're used to. What you've done yourself works. But it might be frustrating if you needed to do a set of them. Think of binarising as an optimisation process. Which may help performance, besides reducing the overall weight of a project. I assume making a file awkward to open for the average user, was secondary.

Reloads are something I haven't played around with. If you post the config section relating to the animation perhaps someone will spot the issue. Often the rtms are not the root of a problem.

You can switch off the childof constraint for the weapon, located in the bone constraints tab. Just click on the little eye icon. Although if you've already animated the position of the right hand, it may jump out of the position you've keyed. So maybe set the cursor onto it's current starting point. So when you switch off the childof constraint you should be able to get it back into the same location. That's done using Shift-S with the item selected. You can key elements of the constraints too if necessary.Like the On/off switch, or the influence value. Sometimes useful to hand control to another bone or object. Or to switch back at some point. Just hover the mouse over the UI element and hit I. You'll see it change colour to indicate it's been key-framed. Switching the elements on/off or changing values is not keyed by default. Which is the purpose of using the I key (Insert key frame).

The tools people use have changed slightly. But things like photoshop or Gimp are still very popular. If you're not into using more complex programs like Max, or Blender, O2PE can still have it's uses. Out of all the things you could learn, reskins are probably the easiest to start with. People are often modding for a variety of reasons. Like a challenge, or as a gateway to something professional. Or just to pass time and share the end result with the community. If things don't get ported, or created it's simply because the interest isn't there to do it. As newer titles arrive people migrate too. As I've mentioned in another thread, the single best way to get something you want, is to do it yourself. Even with A3 or what ever may follow, simply asking for something to be done isn't going to make it happen. You might get lucky. But in my experience it's rare. I'm sure if you go back through any of these types of threads, you'll notice that few requests for new content are granted.

Well, besides the fact his post is from 2009, I doubt he wanted to get the files so he could breathe heavily. Or maybe he did....But in 2009.

If it goes over most people's heads, regarding how difficult it is, or has been, it's because you need to actually try it to get some idea. There's a good reason the subject isn't well developed, despite the benefits. One thing is certain. What ever scripting your colleague has created probably shaved off at least a year of pulling your hair out.

I'm not going to bother pointing out things you already know about. The essence of the motions is there. Even at this stage it's a good demo. The size of the pack is no surprise either, as it's basically a copy of existing animations. Yes it's huge, but without some kind of procedural morphing system, it's the only way to get it done.

I haven't played it through in a long time. So I wouldn't have that. But if you tell us what mission is giving you trouble we could help you out. Have you tried the walkthrough page on the wiki? Just be aware it has spoilers.

Great to see it's taking shape. But it's a relatively new option. There's bound to be some slip-ups as you get familiar with it. I wish I'd known about the importer sooner. While I like animating, it takes far longer to replicate actual human motion, by hand, than it does to use mocap. It's actually a handy tool for a character modder using Blender too. It's a decent representation of what a model will look like in motion. It beats the usual method of swinging the arms and legs around in silly poses to check the deformation.

Welcome to the forums. Until someone else replies, maybe I'll get the ball rolling. You're obviously off to a good start if your portfolio is anything to go by. So you shouldn't have too many issues with generating assets. I don't think there's any comprehensive tutorials covering character creation. Which seems to be your interest. Have you tried the wiki? It's probably not much to go on. But it's as good a starting place as any I think.

Actually that's true for me too. I didn't expect A2 to run well at all. But it runs comparatively better despite the fact the models, environments and textures are far more detailed. Having said that the majority of people I find using Flashpoint/CWA today are getting good results on what some would consider low-end machines. So I can see the appeal for someone who's not an avid gamer, and can't or won't justify the expense of keeping up with newer titles. Besides the extensive back catalogue of content, it's arguably more accessible to someone who just wants to tinker around with modding, and get something simple in game. Or construct a short firefight mission. The visuals don't enter into it much at this point. We all know there's lots of visually impressive games out there. And good ones too. I was going to say it was nostalgia based with me. But when I look at it, it's more about familiarity with the tools and constructing things. I never really got into the "play" side of it. I never thought it was the best game on the market. Because I've never really looked at it as just a game. Although I still think the original campaign was one of the best I've ever encountered. The people I'm meeting these days are more interested in building, rather than playing. Not that they don't like testing their creations out. But it doesn't seem to be the focus.

No problem. As long as it's solved, it doesn't matter how you got there. And it's good you let people know how you did it. Even if it's something you think was very simple, or overlooked. It's really annoying doing a lot of searching and finding threads that end with "I solved it. Never mind.". But nothing else.

I can't speak with authority on config issues, which this may well be. The red lines and grid you see in the viewport represent the ground plane in game. So the engine is simply using the information in the rtm you're giving it. The feet should be sitting right on the grid. You don't edit the first frame in the rtm. Consider it a "reserved" frame, for establishing the rest pose. What way are you generating the rtm? Object builder, Max, or something else?

I hope it's a short flight. Those two don't have to spend the entire trip looking at the back of someone's head. The second trooper from the right is regretting having all that coffee before he left. Great work Len.

Nicely done sir.

I noticed the edges once I looked at the full size image. I'm not modding for A3, so I stick to the subjects that are applicable to any of the titles in the series. Namely modeling, animation and sub sets of those. 26k sounds a little excessive just for the armour. But that's a personal opinion. Maybe wait until you get a few more replies regarding that, before making any alterations. But in the meantime you could carry on and treat it as a learning experience. I understand the desire to give it a go yourself. When you make progress you'll own it. But the offer stands.

From the looks of it, the model was either created with subdivision or sculpting. Is it very dense? That's something that would make the process very awkward. Edit: Actually after looking at the full size image it doesn't look overly complex. If you're agreeable I could apply some weights to it. I'd need a copy of the model in P3d format though. If you're interested, just send a PM.

There's nothing scary about it. It's just another skill to learn. I can't say I'm familiar with OB. Although it does share many functions with it's predecessors.The red colour is an indication of which verts are influenced by a selection. I don't think there's visual feedback on blending though. Which is why a lot of people do that kind of work externally. You should be able to see a list of the weight distributions for each selection by right clicking it in the list. If you want them to stay rigid, then a 100% weighting to a selection is fine. It's only when you need a blend between two selections it might get a bit messy.

You could probably get away with it in OB. You've got a lot of rigid plates essentially. A lot of them could be weighted to a value of 1 (100%). The default should be 100% as soon as you associate a piece to a selection. You can tweak it. But blending influences is not something the official tools were ever good at. You will come across some clipping issues. Usually at joints or areas where those plates should slide over each other. Like the abdomen. Depending on how extreme it is you may want to let some bending take place.

Besides what mt_klip12 mentioned, is there any reason to make the geo that complex? The simpler it is ,the better. It's primary purpose is to apply mass and act as collision detection. As far as I can see the same guidelines apply to A3 as they do older titles. Try constructing the geo out of unconnected simple cuboids. Then apply your mass and find the components. I'd bump up the mass a lot more too. Try something in the thousands. Otherwise it may end up flying away or skittering around when hit by explosives. The geometry must be closed too. No missing faces in any of the pieces that make it up. It may not look pretty. But then it's never going to be seen. I'm open to correction on any of that of course.

Same here. We're fighting uphill. So there's plenty of "imperfections" to be sure. But it's hard to get around certain things.

I think you'll be fine sticking to your own interpretation. It's nice being accurate. But the engine and the game style are going to get in the way at some point. At least with some kind of take off sequence, they can get going without having to have a clean flat runway. Same with chutes and ejection I suppose. Unless someone comes up with a bright idea in the meantime. And yeah. The AI do love playing chicken.

I think you'll find most people dealing with textures in any area of CG, use a combination of programs. As Pufu mentioned, substance painter and photoshop are very popular. Especially in relation to games/modding. Gimp is a very good alternative to photoshop. Blender can handle painting directly onto a model. But it's very limited in terms of features when compared to something like substance.

Yeah. It's always been an annoying "feature". One that's locked into code. It's the light source that drives me mad. But we're stuck with it unfortunately.