trooper226
-
Content Count
236 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by trooper226
-
-
13 hours ago, Varanon said:Have you tried "in game", i.e. previewing the mission ? I had similar problems on other maps in Eden, it sometimes seems to not synchronize ambient light with overcast settings.
The way I first discovered it was on Dynamic Recon Ops, and for whatever reason it kept setting Takistan to overcast. But for scientific purposes, I exported a simple mission file from Eden into singleplayer, completely taking Eden out of the equation.
The results were the same: http://imgur.com/a/mhVOW
More images: http://imgur.com/a/3lesI
I examined the differences in the average amount of lighting, both from direct light and ambient light on the characters and the environment, on Altis and Takistan with different units. It looks like the ambient lighting on the character is too dark, or the ambient lighting for the map is too bright. However, the images with the AOR unit by the road are interesting. In these images, the road seems to be affected more so than the dirt surrounding it, again creating odd looking lighting. To be clear, I don't know how the lighting engine works in Arma 3, so pardon my ignorance on the subject.
I put together some comparison images to illustrate my point: http://imgur.com/a/JhZSw
You can see that on Altis, the NATO unit matches the environment almost perfectly under both conditions (OCP being designed for that sort of environment). But on Takistan, the contrast in the shadows is extreme. This could be due to OCP not being designed for bright desert environments, but even if we use a camouflage like AOR, the shadow contrast is still extreme (even though the direct lighting between the the map and the character has minimal difference).
I also created two images (crudely done in Photoshop, mind you) that brighten up the character's ambient lighting or darken the map's ambient lighting: http://imgur.com/a/v0gjr
I wonder if this is a problem with the entire map or the sand texture, because different textures are reacting independently on Takistan whereas on Altis things have a more uniform change in lighting. It should be noted that the lighting issue is still present during daytime, albeit less noticeable, but still present. -
Hey guys, I noticed a small issue when playing on Takistan (and some similar maps in CUP).
If overcast weather is present, the lighting on characters does not match the lighting on the map itself. Characters appear almost black against a brighter Takistan background, making enemies super easy to see and breaking gameplay. When recreating the same conditions on Altis and even Chernarus, the lighting issue was not present. It looks like Takistan, Takistain Mountains, Shapur, and Zargabad all suffer from this issue when I test it. But other desert type maps like Desert and Proving Grounds react beautifully and realistically to overcast weather, similar to Altis and Chernarus. Not all maps have been tested, though. In short, it's only a select few maps in the pack that have the issue, and not all desert maps have the issue.
I apologize if this issue has been discussed in the past, I went through many pages on this thread and didn't find anything related to it. If it's necessary that I go report this on your feedback tracker let me know, figured I'd discuss it here first and make sure it's not something on my end that needs fixing.To be clear, this was tested both with my mod set enabled and with CUP (and CBA) isolated by themselves; no difference in results.
Here's a few images that show what I'm talking about. How day/overcast on Altis looks compared to Takistan: http://imgur.com/a/E4v2i
-
3
-
-
It wouldnt be BEINBlEHDE insane, since it doesnt have any pintle mounted weapons, but the UNSC would need these heavy weapons against the more better armed Insrrectionists, as the Grizzly was used to take out Innie Scorpions and roll into bases, providing cover. Also the Rhino (firing conventional rounds, the D model was the plasma variant) would be the heavy artillery. I would also use the one gun concept grizzly rather than the twin gun version, unless the devs prefer that one.I agree. And I'd prefer the 1 gun version as well, most of the concept art looks better than the actual in-game assets. They have too much of that RTS look in-game as opposed to the concept art which looks more believable.
-
New Cinematic ShowcaseSpread the word and share it with your friends.
Great trailer. I don't see how anyone can't shit themselves at the sight of a frigate and a dozen dropships.
-
A progress report on the M247. I've finished the high poly model for the main part of the weapon.I hope soon to recreate the fight for Omaha Beach with UNSC units.
-
Got any examples, I've never heard of this before.Pretty sure he just meant certain areas of the BA.
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120514230231/halo/images/9/9d/HR_Campagin-Exodus_ODSTGroup.jpg
So there you can see the BDU underneath the armor has a camo pattern, the ones in Halo 3 have camo patterns on parts of their armor: http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071102184124/halo/images/f/f9/Engaged_in_Combat.jpg
Here you can see the Rookie has some camo on his thigh plates, but not much anywhere else: http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100413124735/halo/images/2/27/The_Rookie.jpg
Really can't wait for the ODST overhaul. They already look great, but you guys are going to swap out for the Halo: Reach look right?
-
That is out of our control, you'll just have to hope PW6 guys are quick to push the update.They have been in the past, normally only a couple hours behind. I doubt it'll push past a day, it hasn't before.
-
Very eager for the release this Friday, can't wait to see the new additions.
-
and are they working on the navy frigateNot to be rude, but please try to articulate any questions you have in a clear and concise manner so it is easy for the developers to answer them.
As for WIP assets, please refer to their reddit page and find the "UPLINK" post. There they post what's currently in the works every week.
-
Early WIP of DMRAwesome work, i really can't wait until this weapon is implemented. I'm eager for the time where we won't have vanilla placeholder weapons in our unit loadouts.
Teribus Island is just loads of fun in a Warthog. From the center of an island, you can go pretty much any direction and get some great air. Observe.I don't know if the developers realize how "Halo" that map actually looks. All I can think about while watching that is "The Silent Cartographer" or "Death Island". Maybe even a little "The Covenant" from Halo 3. I'm seriously pumped to try this map.
-
I can see you were talking about camo weapons, as i am following this thread as the Halo Universe does interest me after playing Halo. I also have my own Halo Addon in a WIP stage called Project Orion or should I say ORION Project ;).But previously you have drifted from the thread topic far too often, please try to stay on topic.
Judging by the name, it will probably be a pretty damn cool mod. It would be cool to see it hand in hand with OPTRE.
The mod won't be cluttered with duplicates of the same weapon, it just doesn't make sense to use up all the space. Like I said, feel free to make your own skin mod that uses OpTreb assets. No one is stopping you.Kinda relieved about it actually. I think it sort of goes along with custom ODST units. You can skin your own, along with your weapons, and then you have your own customized units. You guys have to remember that while there are people who paint their rifles, there are a ton more who don't, and we never see it in the Halo universe aside from the Halo 4 multiplayer.
-
As a dev myself, i do like the idea of terrain specific gun camos (woodland spraypainted MA5 imo would look cool) but i am also against it at the moment as we are taking focus on the needs before the wantsBut then when would we ever see the normal guns? You're going to almost always be in a woodland, snow, or desert environment. The only time the default camo would make sense is in an urban deployment, and what percentage of maps are mostly urban? The New Mombassa map will be, sure, but only seeing the normal guns on one map would be a tad disappointing.
http://www.defense.gov/dodcmsshare/newsphoto/2008-03/hires_080306-M-8774P-051.jpg
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/poptun-patrol.jpg
Not sure if all of those photos are real, but I'm pretty sure more often than not soldiers don't paint their guns.
Now here's an idea for you, how about instead of completely changing the guns appearance for the environment, why not make them look like they've been affected by that environment?
For instance, the desert troops would have some slight sand buildup in the crevices of their guns, snow troops would have some frost on their guns, woodland soldiers might have mud buildup on their guns, urban soldiers would have relatively clean guns, etc.
This way, we see the normal guns always, but it matches its environment still. Obviously if you deploy snow troops in the jungle it's going to look weird, but I don't think people will be doing that anyway.
-
To be honest, gun camos are kind of a turn off for me. To me it just resonates with CoD, and it's one thing I didn't like about Halo 4. And we never actually see customized weaponry in any of the campaigns, so it seems a bit out of place if you ask me. Yes, it's in the multiplayer, and I'm not sure if what goes on there is canon, but it's still off-putting. I guess if you made the weapons not standard and you have to specifically give them to a unit in a loadout, then I don't see an issue. But if we're painting everyone's AR green it's going to be a little ridiculous.
I'd honestly rather the devs not invest their time into this if they can be investing it in better things. I'm still waiting to see the progress on the MA3, can't wait.
-
Maybe at some point I'll put my '56 Buick in the mod haha, to go with the '56 Hog. I don't think you'll need to take screens of the golden Hog, I'm sure Stirls could easily retexture the current Warthog to be clean like the Genet, and then give it a civilian paint scheme (100% gloss clear coat).Brush up on the lore dude, the '56 Buick was around AFTER the Insurrection era. It's non-canon.
Pretty excited for the Golden Hog though. It's pretty much in the game, just the retexture is needed like you said.
-
I love the golden hog, but this? It's a travesty. It's like the Hummer H3 all over again.I don't see what's wrong with it, do you not like 343i's body design?
-
Dear God... what have you done to my beloved hog? That thing's hideous. Like Jake from State Farm hideous.You dare speak ill of the golden Hog? The Guardians will have your head!
-
I've been gone a day and you guys filled 5 pages, yikes.
Not sure if it's been discussed, but will we be seeing the M6? And I don't mean the pistol, I mean it's big brother: http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/M6_Grindell/Galilean_Nonlinear_Rifle
-
Yet the D varriant saw limited use in 2526? How is there a D Varriant that early and no C?More Assault Rifle babble
Meaning that if the MA5D was seeing limited deployment during 2526. The MA5C had been seeing deployment, though not a common sight, decades before that
So sense it was uncommon. You can give the MA5Cs to the ODSTs
"The MA5D Individual Combat Weapon System is the United Nations Space Command standard-issue assault rifle after the Human-Covenant war." http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/MA5D_Individual_Combat_Weapon_System
If you're citing Halopedia, the information is in reference to Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn, which is full of continuity errors (such as the MA5D instead of the MA5D). No where has 343i officially stated that the MA5D has made an appearance before the Human-Covenant war, while most of it's media indicates that the MA5C was standard issue and was in the process of being replaced during the Human-Covenant war with the MA5D.
Not only that, but why would Misriah Armory release the MA5, B, C, and D variants all within one time period and have them all in service for decades for them to slowly be replaced one after another? The UNSC would have picked the MA5D for full service right off the bat if that were the case.
http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Halo_4:_Forward_Unto_Dawn
"The cadets use the MA5D Assault Rifle instead of the then standard issue MA5B."
"Interestingly and unusually, the cadets wear the UNSC Marine helmet from the Post-war era."
"In Episode 5 Spartan-087 and Spartan-104 wear the Air Assault armor and Mark V armor respectively. This is an error since the two armor models were not in production at the time."
"In Episode 4 when Lasky asked John-117 who he was, he answered "Call me Master Chief", but at the time he was just a Petty Officer Third Class. This could be so that people would recognize him by his familiar title."
Absolutely full of continuity errors, and it was likely due to ease of production. So referencing Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn isn't really a good idea. Yes, it's canon, but there are still errors, included the MA5D's appearance among other things.
As for 888Zero, what do you mean?
Theronnett, because of you I've been on the Halo wiki pages way too much and I know a whole lot more than when I started on this thread, and I imagine the same goes for you.
-
Reread your facts. Quote MA37 (Army Varriant) form halo waypoint itself for 343I owns halo nowhttps://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/universe/weapons/assault-rifle
It was also stated when Bungie introduced the MA5C with 32 rounds and it reinstated in halo Glasslands the reasons why the MA5B was replaced was cause
1) stuffing the magazines with 60 rounds caused the magazine springs to become weak and would lead to jams
2) Marines had the tendency to dump all 60 rounds in full auto and with its faster firing rates, caused the recoil spring and firing pen to weaken, leading to more jamming and low accuracy. Leading to the infamous inaccuracy that the MA5B is famous for
The biggest difference between the MA5C and the MA37 is that the MA37 has a Slower rate of fire and decreased damage per round between halo 3 and reach. But the damage doesn't need to be messed with. But the slower fire rate should be noted
Yeah, the MA37 was used by the Army and the MA5 was used by the Marines, two different names for the same rifle. You haven't proven anything I've said wrong.
"The MA37 (more formally Individual Combat Weapon System, Caliber 7.62 mm, MA37) is an air-cooled, gas-operated rifle firing 7.62x51mm ammunition. It is magazine-fed and is capable of fully automatic fire. The MA37 (MA5 for Marines and Navy) first entered service with the UNSC in 2437, it has remained the primary service rifle of all branches of the UNSC ever since." -Bungie
And I know the reasons why they replaced the MA5B, but it wasn't replaced until later on. During this time period, the MA5C wasn't invented yet, so it's either they used the MA5 or the MA5B, and having both the Marines and Army using the same rifle seems boring, so equipping the Marines with the MA5B and the Army with the MA37 seemed like a good option.
-
There will be all 3. MA5B and C for Marines, MA37 for Army. While the C and 37 are almost identical in function, the MA37 is an Army exclusive. If you're wondering why not MA37 first, someone else is working on that, so I have no control over when it will get in game. We're going to start diverging the equipment between Army and Marines slowly over time as we introduce gear that allows us to do so, just like how Innies and UNSC won't have exactly identical weapon options and how the US Army and Marines don't have exactly the same weapons.The MA5 in game already has a flashlight attachment available so long as there's no grenade launcher.
I can't answer to that as someone else is working with the optics side of things for the AR. In the future, I or others may introduce 26th century non-ammo counter optics that take the considerations I had to make for the AC into effect, but that's at the absolute bottom of my priority list.
My take on the Assault Rifles:
Actually, it hasn't been officially stated anywhere that it was an Army exclusive rifle. On Bungie's page for the weapon, it states that it was the standard service rifle for all branches of the UNSC military: http://halo.bungie.net/projects/reach/article.aspx?ucc=ordnance&cid=24580 (kinda weird seeing a Halo page involved with Bungie anymore). It should also be noted that the MA37 (or MA5) was replaced by the MA5B, so it makes sense now that the Marines are equipped with the higher grade weaponry.
However, for fitting the role of a 32 round rifle, the MA5 would make the most sense lore-wise and would be less confusing seeing two different models of the same rifle from different eras. And as mentioned, the MA5K and MA2B have the possibilities to fill that standard 32 round role if the MA5 doesn't. Why would this be a good option? Well for one, saving you the time of modeling a separate MA5B. You can take the model that stands now, make any minor changes as necessary, and make it appear as the CEA version of the MA5B. Then you can slap a 60 round mag in, and voila, the MA5B is born. The MA5C would be removed, and it's role would instead be filled by the MA5K, the MA2B, or the MA5 (MA37).
However, I feel as if the MA5B should be the standard issue rifle for the UNSCMC, as the lore states, instead of the MA5. This would mean that filling the MA5C's role wouldn't be necessary for standard units, and the MA5/MA37 can stay with the Army to prevent confusion while the Marines wield the MA5B.
Standard UNSCMC units wield the MA5B, marksmen wield the BR55, spec ops units wield the MA5K and M7S
Standard UNSCA units wield the MA37, marksmen wield the M392, spec ops units wield the MA37 and M6J
And of course, other units like machinegunners, anti-armor, and snipers would wield the same weaponry since there isn't much diversity there. However, this method brings up the question of the role of the MA2B. It's combat history isn't stated much other than it's use by SPARTANs, however some kind of role in a spec ops unit would make sense.
But don't let any of this come off as demands or even requests, just ideas. If you want the truth, I'm fine with having both the MA5C and MA5B in the game at the same time and I'm sure everyone else is, too. Just giving the lore-friendlier option with possible solutions.
I did not know about the flashlight, I'll have to go try it out. As for the optics, I would also consider it low priority. Only the optics on long range weapons should be the ones under refinement.
-
Arctic, it's a conflict in our mod with the new CBA release. We (Scorch) have found the problem and will be fixing it soon. In the mean time, the previous version of CBA works.Regarding MA5B and C. In order to get ammo counters working, I can't have the MA5 using multiple types of ammo. Sucks, I know, but it will be worth it. In order to rectify this, next update will have both contemporary versions of the MA5. It would be confusing to have the B and C look the same like in H:CEA, so The B will have 60 rounds and be more carbine length like in old Halo:CE, while the C will be the one you know now with a 32 round mag, tighter dispersion, and GL compatibility. Unfortunately, non Ammo Counter optics will be gone as well. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it's the only way to get it working. There may even be a few M6 variants on the way too if I have the time.
If I'm being honest, I really couldn't care less for optic support. The ammo counter is a lot cooler and more immersive than random optics on the weapon.
However if I may say, is it really necessary to have both versions of the AR? The MA37 pretty much fills the same role as the MA5C, so having the MA5B with 60 round mags and the MA37 with 32 round mags seems like it would make more sense. Not to mention, with weapons like the MA5K and MA2B on the way, would we need so many weapons to fill one role? Pulling the MA5C from the mod and swapping it in with the MA5B would make sense lore-wise and wouldn't affect gameplay with the introduction of the MA37, MA5K, and MA2B (not that you're restricted to lore, but it's always a plus when it works with it). Just my thoughts on the matter.
Sort of related, but will we be seeing the flashlight attachment for the MA5B and it's counterparts? That little green button having a function would be pretty neat, since it wouldn't sport a grenade launcher.
I don't want to say I like that picture since I love the UNSC, but that's a pretty damn cool screenshot.
-
IDK. I sometimes enjoy the random chatter, If I don't post anything random from time to time, these forums are kinda quite dead. No offense, but it really does compared to how TEI forums were. Need more random joes here lol.I don't think it's the lack of random chatter, but the lack of updates and interaction from the devs. It would be nice to get at least one post a day from any of the devs talking about what they're working on, or post WIP screens. Even though the rocket launcher post caused a bit of a stir, it was nice to see progress being made. Even something as insignificant as "Today I'm working on the trigger on the DMR model," or, "This afternoon I've been working extensively on patching this particular bug". Seeing at least one thing a day or getting a detailed post from one of the devs on whatever they're currently working on would be really neat and would keep the thread alive and well.
You're right, though, without this slightly on/off topic chatter the thread is pretty quiet.
-
I guess you are right about firing while attached to something. The force would be transferred, through your body, to the object you are attached to. Also part of the force would be absorbed by muscles. Note that it dosent need to be thousand tigers force, even a tiny bit is enough to get you moving in space as there is pretty much nothing to stop you. One very important thing about physics: energy is never lost, it is just transferred around.This vaguely on-topic talk was brought to you by Schitz und Gigglezâ„¢ and yours truly. Consider it to be closed now, it was just random talk.
Babble
There's no need to be condescending about physics talk, we understand how it works. Firing a gun isn't going to launch you into space at a thousand miles per hour like you were originally implying. None of us said you would remain stationary if you were floating in space and then fired a weapon. I'm an AP physics student (and Kerbal Space Program veteran), I know what I'm talking about.
Let's please keep things on topic, I was guilty of straying off yesterday with the MA5B talk and we should do our best to keep this thread from getting cluttered.
Any news from the devs? What are you guys currently working on?
-
Man, its a good thing we aren't actually constricted to the lore, though.I agree, but I'm glad you guys are sticking close enough to where it makes sense. It gives the mod a layer of authenticity.
Yeah I guess if you don't have a single muscle in your body and all your joints are well lubricated... the same would apply on Earth in that case because gravity is only affected vertically, and not horizontally. If you were anchored with magnetic boots to the hull of a starship or station, you could very easily fire a gun standing up. Unless of course you're saying atmospheric pressure is the reason why people don't fall over and smack their heads on the ground here on Earth, then that's just preposterous.Thank you, I was about to post this. Guns don't put the force of a thousand tigers into your shoulder when you fire them, if you were stuck to the floor you wouldn't wobble around and smack your head on the ground like one of those inflatable arm-flailing tube men. Your muscles would react to the applied force and compensate to keep you standing upright.
Plus the MJOLNIR suits have had small thrusters on them for stability purposes. Whether or not the ODST suits have them, I do not know. This topic seems pointless though, I don't know why it was brought up in the first place.
Community Upgrade Project - CUP Terrains
in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
Posted
Done! All CUP maps were retested with the CUP Terrains - Core, CUP Terrains - Maps, and CBA enabled, just to be sure. This retest shows more maps are affected than previously thought and in various ways.
A full report has been written in the ticket. If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. I hope the information provided is valuable in helping you resolve the issue.
Link to ticket: http://dev.cup-arma3.org/T1853