Macser

http://ofpr.info.paradoxstudio.uk/9816-stgn-s-sopmod-m4a1-pack-v-0-98.html That's one of the last places where you'll find OFP addons and mods. I recommend bookmarking it.

Hey Mr.H. Nothing wrong with questions. That's how we find answers. It's by no means a perfectly constructed rig. But you can switch off the childof constraints at any time. And can even key-frame the constraint itself. If you've not key-framed the weapon bone, then it will return to the default position in game. Which appears to be the case in your image. If you've actually switched off the child constraints, then the hands should not be following the weapon bone at all. Does it look very different in the Blender viewport? I'm open to correction on this of course, but I don't believe there's a dedicated bone for handguns. There's a proxy. But without an actual bone it's not possible to animate handguns as a separate object, in the way you would launchers and rifles.There's no selections in the example files I used to construct the rig.Nothing relating to handguns.

I got that too. But I decided to do something I don't usually. Use a cheat. It'd be nice to get a fix, but you never know when the author will pop back up. Press down the left shift key and the minus key onthe numpad, at the same time. Then release. After which you enter "endmission". If nothing else it'll allow you to progress. Although I seem to remember it happening again later.

@d4rkchocolate Try in here: http://ofpr.info.paradoxstudio.uk/addons/weapons.html?start=30

Ok. I'm posting this here, as most of you have some experience. So at least I know it's more likely you'd have the skills needed . And it's relative to OFP. I'm still converting animations from A2 to be used in OFP for a couple of projects. But it's fairly time consuming identifying which ones are suitable equivalents. Then finding the move values. Making "corrections" and finally exporting. My time is being divided between this and creating assets. So it's going very slowly. If anyone feels like lending a hand, just identifying the relevant class names would make a difference. For example, the classname for combat walk or throw grenade, in OFP and the equivalent classname in A2. That kind of thing. I'll be continuing anyway. But it would help. Thanks..

In case anyone is interested, I've progressed this project with help from Nerv. He'd already ported many of the A2 anims and made them compatible with OFP. I've made a lot of tweaks and even added some of my own animations. And thanks to Faguss too. His coding skills made a particular part of the work go much faster. Long story short, it's sorted.

If you want the faces to randomly select from the default range, then the face texture should be xicht_a.paa. I think xicht_2a.paa will also work. The head and hands using these textures should be part of the "osobnost" selection. The entire head should also be part of the "Mireni" selection for the first Res lod. Otherwise you'll see the inside of the character's head while in a vehicle. Counter-intuitively, the engine uses the first res lod while in vehicles, rather than view pilot. Also make sure your model has an entry for CfgModels. That's obviously the non-scripted version. But there are addons out there like facetex that have their own scripting built in. But would require you to modify your character to accommodate a custom head model.

I've tried out the sheduler, and it runs just as advertised. Downloaded and installed the necessary files to get me sorted out. It's also very easy to use. Excellent work sir. 👍

If you increase initspeed, then the bullet trajectory should be flatter over shorter distances. But you will still get bullet drop. I don't think it's possible to get a completely flat/straight line trajectory just using config values.

It might seem an odd question to some. But I've replied to a couple of questions from people who mistakenly posted in the wrong section. And not too many people are getting into modding OFP at this point. I would've suggested the OFP editing section. But to be honest, a lot of the links to tutorials and other resources would be broken. If you like I can let you know what to expect, and what kind of limitations the engine will force on you. We can do that via PM here on the boards. Or Discord if you use that. I can get you started at least.

Ok. Just to be sure. Are you asking about OFP/CWA? Or Arma 3? People occasionally post in here thinking it's for A3.

@andy1 Have you considered using zip versions of blender, instead of the installers? Most people have fairly big hard drives these days. A couple of versions wouldn't hurt. Over the years I've used addons and scripts that eventually the authors stopped updating. Grabbing a copy of a compatible version of blender in zip form, allows me to continue using them. No worries about installing/uninstalling. If you find a suitable replacement, or the author decides to update for a newer version of blender you can just delete the folder.

You either don't want to do it yourself, or don't feel you have the skills necessary. Which is why I assume you created the thread in the first place. That's not intended to sound insulting, in case that's the impression I'm giving. It's a conclusion based on what you've posted. I was referring specifically to models and textures, as that's what the thread is about. Scripting's a very valuable skill. But it won't help with asset creation. And seeing as there aren't a lot of modders interested in the idea, learning some new skills might get you closer to making it happen.

It's not obvious. I know people who are very capable of learning, but would rather have someone else do the work, instead of attempting it themselves. Which is fair enough. You don't have to be interested in modding to enjoy the product of it. It's not for everybody. I don't think your interest in seeing more content is going to just go away because you understand what I or others have said. You've been around the boards a while now. So you're obviously still interested in the game. I'm suggesting you learn a bit about modding, so you could potentally contribute to a project. Even if you don't feel like you're especially talented or skilled. These days OFP players are in the minority. And OFP modders are even rarer. Even more so on these boards. Some of what I said was for other people too. I know there's a few people still getting into the game, even now. Believe or not.

Let me ask a question of you prototype1479. Have you seriously considered learning how to model, or texture? I think I already know what you're first response will be. But most, if not all the people you'd consider decent modders are not professionals. And would never claim to be particularly talented. I'm certainly not. We learned the hard way. As I said earlier. If you want something, the best way to get it is to make it. You don't need a diploma or art classes. There's plenty of resources still available that deal with modding OFP. And I'd certainly have no problem sharing what I know. If you're interested. And that applies to anyone else reading this thread and pondering the same question. Like the old saying goes. Give a man some food, and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

This is the OFP section of the boards mate.

I don't know to be honest. But I doubt it. Not that I'd want to use it anyway. For general usage you wouldn't really see the benefit. The highest I'd go is 2048x2048 for a single addon. But I often just use a set of 1024s. You're not losing anything, and neither is anyone else. The replies are just pointing out the fact it's not likely to happen, and why. There's nothing wrong with throwing ideas around. But people generally respond better to something backed up with an attempt from the thread author. Otherwise it's basically an addon/mod request. I'm sure some people thought about "re-mastering" the game assets over the years. And the various replacement mods are essentially an attempt to do that. But they were often done by people more interested in a modern setting. Apart from making it yourself, the only other option, is to wait around for somebody else to create the exact thing you had in mind. But that's unlikely to happen.

If you take the average armored vehicle, as JDB mentioned, you'll find they're comprised of many different textures. Sometimes numbering in the 100s. With 256x256 seeming to be the most common. I can see why they might've taken that route at the time. Speed. It's far easier to just planar map a texture onto a surface than take the time to properly unwrap it. But it does lead to a hell of a lot of draw calls and split verts. Or what BI call sections. Sections don't just apply to textures though. They also include other properties. Proxies or other unmapped objects count as 1 section. A texture assignment counts as one section. Also "materials" used in hit detection for displaying damage. And alpha ordering. Move top, move bottom etc. On top of that, if you've done any copy pasting that will also potentially add sections. None of which will show up in O2light. If you bring the model into O2PE for example you should see a match between the proxies/textures and the section count. But sometimes they don't. And it won't tell you why. Even after sorting there can still be a mismatch. Sorting can break alpha ordering by the way. So you'll have to redo those. High section counts will affect performance especially without res lods. So fewer, larger textures should offset that. To be honest, when you consolidate the textures in some of the models they can actually add up to 2- 4 1024x1024 maps. Only it's done with far more drawcalls potentially. I think if you keep the section counts as low as possible you can up the resolution and the geometrical complexity, without a significant impact. At the very least it won't be any worse than the defaults. A few 1024s would seem to be the best option. It's easier to manage for edits.And I believe the mac port may have problems displaying 2048x2048 textures.I'd remove the damage materials personally, and consider replacing the vehicle with a destroyed model, when killed. Using less geometry and a low res texture.I always thought it was gimmicky and just a neat little cosmetic touch. It's not the kind of feedback you'd have in a real situation. And maybe use a very small texture for the lowest res lod. No point in having anything over 256x256 for what's essentially a blob of colour at a distance. That's a fair bit of tinkering, and applies to just one model. I sometimes haven't even followed those guidelines myself in the past. It's a lot to remember.

I can only speak for myself, but I didn't assume you were. Otherwise you would've put something up to give people an idea of what you had in mind for this thread. People make assumptions all the time. But I couldn't tell you why.

As Krzy said, the original models are an "acquired" taste. If you want the textures to look as good as possible it would definitely mean a new unwrap for each of them. But more than likely that would show up the models for how rough they really are. And that would just be the vehicles. Which would be the best place to start. I don't mind collaborating with people, once I know they're serious enough about getting something done. Getting them interested in the first place is the hard part. I wouldn't bother with something like that on my own. I've been down that road before......

@prototype1479 The main thing stopping a project like that would be as Zulu mentioned. Getting enough people on board. I know from personal experience how hard that is. First off they need the skills. Then they need to have an interest in that era. Fighting with the original models is tricky, given the fact they weren't unwrapped in the way most people approach it these days. Almost all of them were planar mapped. Which is quick enough for the original author. But it's a nightmare for anyone that has to deal with it later. Largely because of all the overlap.

A lot of folks will probably ask, "why bother?". There's any number of mods and addons out there to fulfill that role. But you could counter that by saying they aren't cohesive when cobbled together as a replacement package. The question is, are you prepared to have a go at it yourself? If you're going to do it, you might as well go from the ground up. But it's quite a lot of work.

Could be you have more than one version of the editor update installed. I've tried it with most of the street lights and it works.

It's right there in my post Drake. Copy/paste it exactly as you see it: This inflame true Unfortunately this will give you a flickering light source. But using "switchlight" can give you an odd position depending on the light you use it on.

Yes. Use any text editor to create the config and pack that into a pbo. That will be your addon. There's no problem with permissions and all that stuff, as long as you're just using the original PBO as a dependency. Which is not the same as editing them. If you need a little assistance setting it up you can feel free to send me a PM.