Arma ]|[ Development Tools

[ProfTournesol]

Sure, making MLODs available for studying would make it even easier for the thieving bastards, but this would not hinder the legit mod makers' ability to learn.
I'm probably missing something here, but the way things stand, BI needs to and does chase after thieves anyway. Letting mod makers have easy access to learning material in the process would be a huge benefit in my opinion.

Exactly. And releasing a limited amount of typical sample models was already done and it wasn't the end of the world.

[[APS]Gnat]

A few people a missing the point expressed by several here;
The sample models don't have to be high quality 3d meshs!
Just something of low to average OFP quality ......
..... no ones going to be worried about rips then.

[Messiah]

A few people a missing the point expressed by several here;
The sample models don't have to be high quality 3d meshs!
Just something of low to average OFP quality ......
..... no ones going to be worried about rips then.

Precisely, people seem to be missing my and other people's point. An example MLOD can quite simply be a 6 sided box with a few things bolted on to demonstrate how things are put together, the correct selections, the correct memory points, animations, etc. No one needs the complete ingame model to understand the mechanics of the new features. Gnat's list is also a good idea, an example low poly, low quality, technically useless MLOD for each type of vehicle, person, weapon, that demonstrates every possible (within reason I guess) combination of features.

[jagheterjan]

Doesn't even have to have OFP-quality meshes, just some placeholder geometry and a set of thoroughly annotated configs.

[Slatts]

Doesn't even have to have OFP-quality meshes, just some placeholder geometry and a set of thoroughly annotated configs.

I'd be happy with this

BTW your avatar scared the crap outta me

[NodUnit]

What I find funny is that it's not fairly difficult to rip the model out and use it in a different game (as we can already see by the thieving bastards using ArmA2 content in other games and similar idiots bringing other game models into ArmA2), but the same process is useless to legit mod makers who wish to learn as they cannot retrieve any useful information regarding selections and whatnot.

Sure, making MLODs available for studying would make it even easier for the thieving bastards, but this would not hinder the legit mod makers' ability to learn.
I'm probably missing something here, but the way things stand, BI needs to and does chase after thieves anyway. Letting mod makers have easy access to learning material in the process would be a huge benefit in my opinion.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm all for the idea of them releasing something, if the game does indeed thrive greatly on it's modding capabilities then it doesn't seem sensible to hold that back. As others have said, I'd be happy with something very basic, hell a simply box object with a few parts to identify what you're looking at would be great, since everyone here agrees that it's not the model, or texture that WE want as much as the understanding of how it works and what can be done.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the verdict is.

[Sniperwolf572]

... As others have said, I'd be happy with something very basic, hell a simply box object with a few parts to identify what you're looking at would be great, since everyone here agrees that it's not the model, or texture that WE want as much as the understanding of how it works and what can be done...

Yup, that's the point I missed/failed to address in my earlier post.

[PuFu]

+1 on all the points above. Meshes, most here can do. settings those up to work properly in the game is the harder part

[da12thMonkey]

What would You need to know? There is a plenty of devs around reading every post on the forum

As everybody else seems to be saying; I don't think we really mind if example models are blocky, low-res or have all their UV data deleted to stop them being a viable target for exploitation outside of ArmA 3. It's really looking how the selection names and memory points relate to the config.cpp and model.cfg that is important (the latter are tremendously useful - Ideally I'd like to have a virtually complete model.cfg library even if there aren't models to accompany them). Working out how to do new things like the moving quadrant sight zeroing for EGLMs and the interplay of model.cfg and .rtm anims for reloading (moving the magazine, charging handle etc in relation to the unit's hand) will probably be more challenging to figure out without at least a few new model.cfg examples.

Speaking of .rtms though - an unbinarised handanim and reload anim might also be useful, since the character stances have finally changed since ArmA 1, and 'Anims\characters\data\anim\sdr\idl\erc\stp\ras\rf l\aidlpercmstpsraswrfldnon01.rtm' probably wont be that good a place to use as a jumping-off point for custom anims; and we've never had to make reload anims before.

'Written' data from access to config.cpp, model.cfg, selection names inside a .p3d and .rvmats really was far more educational than polygons and textures in the conversion from ArmA 1 modding to ArmA 2 modding.

Given that a lot of the content is fictitious or otherwise 'futurised' I can't see there being the same scramble to get MLODs for the purpose of changing minor details like textures and armaments in order to make 'X' version of a vehicle for 'Y' country anyway - which it seems is generally what people legitimately want ArmA 2 MLODs for. The only ArmA 3 models I can see as being really desirable for addon makers in a nearly complete format, would be something like the left and centre character models in the pic below:



From my admittedly limited experience of trying to make character models for ArmA; a great deal of time was spend stripping back the load-bearing vests, armour etc to build my own stuff on top of a base uniform at the right scale. In light of the new character customisation options in ArmA 3; one or both of those generic 'bare' models could be very useful for scaling and fleshing out user-made equipment to go over the top, understanding any new proxy and memory point positions, and as an example for painting the weight distributions for user-made characters and personal equipment in ArmA 3.

[Double Doppler]

It would be nice if the config.cpp and model.cfg templates had good commenting to show what the perimeters really meant. For some reason not all lines were commented on the A2 sample configs.

It would be nice to see a MLOD pack containing: A wheeled vehicle, A tracked vehicle, helicopter, plane, boat, and character models. Maybe somehting like this could be packed into the tool installer and is auto installed into the P: drive? Even a standalone DL of it would be extremely helpful. I also wish that a pic or video of the new tools would be released, get to see what most of the devs can look foward to using!

Agreed.

A well documented, easy to understand manual would be nice, also.

IMO there should be somewhat more professional support for SDK developers, with a more warming approach to people wanting to learn how the tools work and how to use them.

I would like if there was full documentation released at the same time as the tools without the community having to work things out themselves like some cluedo puzzle. The documentation could be more improved, similar to the ones on tools like 3DS Max and Blender - they even have an example manual telling you how to use the features and what they do. Well written documentation is a must.