A Pak43 on a 4 wheel trolley,... etc... Variety is the "spice of life".
Mike, you mean like this?
Attachments
Upvote
0
3D & Animation Pak40
- Thread starter TT33
- Start date
Mike, you mean like this?
Upvote
0
I'll not speak for Teufel on the code reuse but one thing you absolutely must do is give him credit for developing all of that specialized code. Secondly, knowing that it is customized, asking permission would go a long way as well. Our concept was never to monopolize model making but to establish a common baseline for code and implementation. That would include sharing the code, to an extent. But realize that there is a lot of work in there and it is NOT finalized. We plan to release that package in the coming days, by March 16th if possible.
I personally have strong feelings about custom content development. While I support guys making their own models and such, I can't say that I think a lot of varients of the same model are a good thing. There are many pitfalls out there like having extra files for every variant. Version control, community arguments over which model/code is better blah blah blah. People love to be critical. In the end, the best thing for any community, in my opinion, is a standardized approach and a limitation of variants when they are essentially the same. Skins, armor, gun, and other specific settings can all be altered via mutator and should be when possible without issuing competing code. The other thing to keep in mind is the /system .u files.
My final comment would be to ask you to open a dialog with Teufel via PMs and discuss the code issue etc. You obviously have a lot of talent and that could be put to good use for the community. But realize as an example that you release the code you used from AHz, it is still bugged. But you don't know that. It is not 'cleaned up', you don't know that. We are releasing a final version soon, you don't know that. You would certainly benefit from working with us so please do so. If you would like to discuss anything via PM, feel free to contact myself or Teufel.
I personally have strong feelings about custom content development. While I support guys making their own models and such, I can't say that I think a lot of varients of the same model are a good thing. There are many pitfalls out there like having extra files for every variant. Version control, community arguments over which model/code is better blah blah blah. People love to be critical. In the end, the best thing for any community, in my opinion, is a standardized approach and a limitation of variants when they are essentially the same. Skins, armor, gun, and other specific settings can all be altered via mutator and should be when possible without issuing competing code. The other thing to keep in mind is the /system .u files.
My final comment would be to ask you to open a dialog with Teufel via PMs and discuss the code issue etc. You obviously have a lot of talent and that could be put to good use for the community. But realize as an example that you release the code you used from AHz, it is still bugged. But you don't know that. It is not 'cleaned up', you don't know that. We are releasing a final version soon, you don't know that. You would certainly benefit from working with us so please do so. If you would like to discuss anything via PM, feel free to contact myself or Teufel.
Upvote
0
It would be the considerate thing to do.
If fact, I'll help you with any questions you might have. I'm sure you may wonder why I did some of the things in there. I am by far not the expert in UnReal code, but maybe I can help. I would have to ask that you do not change any of the code in ROGun (I'm assuming you decompiled the u file, if not my bad). Instead, if you want to change any of the functionality you should extend from ROGun. Though you may have simply changed some things in the base uc files (M1937ATGun.uc) also. Anyway, neither here nor there.Drop me a pm and I can help you as needed. We've shared the code with a MOD for one of their project's and we'll do the same for you. My advice, like Slyk's, is not to have two of the same. It will quickly lead to problems and confusion. But, that's up to you ultimately.
Variant of an AT-Gun? Ok, I guess, whatever. Maybe a pak40 on a HT or something like that (Oops, did I say that). Oh well, cat's out of the bag. That's part of the reason we're holding back on the pak40. With it you get a two 'fer one deal. We just need to do some extra work with the mount.
Honestly, I have a model idea that would simply be kick-a$$ but Slyk and Lex will not give me the time of day on it. Buggers....
So good luck, have fun, happy St. Patricks day and all that.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
this AT-gun is a bit of a stepping stone/learning experience for me Im not sure if I want to release it since it would be a double and it could be converted into other useful things
Well thanx and happy St. Patty's day
didnt the 1944 ba-64 have a 12mm(or something similar) gun on it?
very small thing/mod Im working on:
SS tank commander hat:
http://www.german-helmets.com/VETERANS/tank-commander-ss.jpg
yeah thats what I did
Well thanx and happy St. Patty's day
didnt the 1944 ba-64 have a 12mm(or something similar) gun on it?
very small thing/mod Im working on:
SS tank commander hat:
Attachments
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Now that's something we need! I've been waiting for a Schirmmutze!
Though that's really a "crusher" cap, they're still cool. I personally prefer the rigid framed caps, but still cool nonetheless.
Though that's really a "crusher" cap, they're still cool. I personally prefer the rigid framed caps, but still cool nonetheless.
Upvote
0
I tell you what we need more then anything is german armoured cars.
Any of the models would be good. I wish we could get all the guys together in this community and coordinate the RO additions better.
If TW could step up to the plate and we could submit the stuff to them only to include in updates and add or take away any touches.
That would be the best for all.
Any of the models would be good. I wish we could get all the guys together in this community and coordinate the RO additions better.
If TW could step up to the plate and we could submit the stuff to them only to include in updates and add or take away any touches.
That would be the best for all.
Upvote
0
I'm still of the belief that there should be no armored cars or reconnaissance vehicles because in RO that not is and will never be their purpose. They're just taxis.
Upvote
0
I am starting a campaign up where the BA-64 will be used as it was suppose to be, the maps are generated fornightly and objectives are not determined by the standard idea of RO.
The maps are terrain based and will be fairly simple designed with a copy and paste approached the building dioramas and other elements.
http://z6.invisionfree.com/The_Mighty_Third/index.php?act=SC&c=6 But being in australia is made mainly for us.
But maybe later I release all the maps to the community and who knows maybe they will use them in something similar.
Got to look outside the square to RO or how it is currently used.
The maps are terrain based and will be fairly simple designed with a copy and paste approached the building dioramas and other elements.
http://z6.invisionfree.com/The_Mighty_Third/index.php?act=SC&c=6 But being in australia is made mainly for us.
But maybe later I release all the maps to the community and who knows maybe they will use them in something similar.
Got to look outside the square to RO or how it is currently used.
Upvote
0
Yes Sir!! That's the ticket!!
That's a nice looking goodie!And.... without a doubt; "Variety IS the Spice of Life!!"
Besides, having your eggs all in one basket is never a good idea.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Absolutely, more APCs and such would be great. I wish we could get a BA-10 done for the Russians.
As for coordinating, that only makes sense. The community is small and the talent pool is shallow on a few key areas and the most experienced guys are committed to mods etc. The AHz team has no intention of dominating the development of anything, but the goal, as I pointed out in another thread around here, is to establish a common code base and some standards that the community can use to move forward together. Not many guys have figured out the coding and Teufel has HUNDREDS of hours in his AT gun work. None of us are thrilled at the methods used to get at it, but that is another story.
The bottom line is that sound development should have a standard. If folks want to develop their own code from scratch/RO stock base, go for it, but don't take on others and potentially cause conflicts because you don't know what you are doing. It is very important to mod properly, not just change code to fit the one instance. Modding the RO_Guns file improperly could hose us all. Please talk with Teufel, no matter who you are and let him explain how best to expand the class, or develop your own class from scratch...but that sort of defeats the purpose.
Mike, "spice" might be nice, but in this case, no. What is being done for models that already exist, should be done through a mutator or other file that alters the skin or model characteristics. Especially if it uses the same code or .u files. The game components are accessible like no other but the AHz team WILL work with anyone to help them move their models forward. We always have, since the CoD days.
Just reach out and ask. Let's keep things organized, maximize everyone's time and create better, more stable content.
Upvote
0
Helping guys achieve their goals is great.... nothing wrong with that premise.
I still believe "Variety is the Spice of life". Spice is always nice!
In fact, it leads to variety and competition in the creation of various models. Such an environment can only enhance the quality of everything concerned and eliminate the possiblity of boring redundancy. Modelers who wish to have their "own" personally created and designed weapons, apparel, etc., should not be discouraged from "creating their own goodies from scratch". Creativity, ingenuity and individualism coupled with teamwork are indeed the ingredients that ensure a positive, solid future for any endeavor. Putting everything under one "hat" tends to lead to centers of control and dictates that are untenable. Therefore, the justification for variety. After all, it guarantees independence and creativity. Setting basic "standards" for all to freely use is indeed valuable as long as they always remain fully and freely available to all. Unfortunately, human nature does not always work that way.Modelers not only should but they must remain creative and build goodies from scratch, independent of controls introduced by anyone if this platform is to grow and prosper. Its worked well so far - why fix what isn't broken.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The main problem if you do not coordinate may be that you'd have different classes with the same name (let's say someone simply modifys RO_Guns and releases their version) that can cause problems.
So I guess what Slyk means is that you can use it, but then the correct-not-breaking-other-stuff way.
And I'm sure that if someone steps in and says that something in RO_Guns should be changed because it is cleverer to do it this or that way that it won't be a problem to discuss about it (but never jump the gun on realising modified versions), or worst you'd have a RO_Guns2 with the more experienced way of doing it.
So I guess what Slyk means is that you can use it, but then the correct-not-breaking-other-stuff way.
And I'm sure that if someone steps in and says that something in RO_Guns should be changed because it is cleverer to do it this or that way that it won't be a problem to discuss about it (but never jump the gun on realising modified versions), or worst you'd have a RO_Guns2 with the more experienced way of doing it.
Upvote
0
That's a screenie from my upcoming Altdamm map
And the 88 I made is not "real" in the sense that AHZ created their 45mm gun. Mine is based on triggers and effects actors. It does create destruction though, but it's all scripted. The model is mine.
Upvote
0
Thank you, Mats. You get the point.
I don't know any other way to approach this, so I'll just go at it.
1. No one has permission to alter the M1937 files, code, model, any of it.
2. ANY tinkering with the RO_Guns file and re-release of it will corrupt EVERYONE's file system.
3. If it was so easy to develop this stuff, do you not think others would have done so in the 10 or so months the tools have been available?? We are NOT trying to dictate anything to anyone. The point is to standardize for EVERYONE's benefit, a way to create and issue custom content.
4. The RO_Guns class creates a wide-open arena for modders to create countless weapons. BUT there are things to know about it and diving in may or may not work out depending on a person's knowledge. We continue to offer assistance and are open to taking feedback that does something better. If someone wants to do something on their own, they should develop and release their own class structure.
5. While some may want more 'spice', there is a price to pay for it. Once models are out there, it is far more sensible to add your 'spice' with mutators that add new skins, armorments factors, etc. If you are adding new functionality, like riders on tanks, then you have to develop new models and code then extend existing code. But the 'spice' here is about HOW it is done. Not about WHY or by WHO.
Sorry to sound like a rant, but I have very strong feelings about this. TT33, I would personally love to talk with you about helping you get more models into the game. Sure, I wasn't thrilled with your method, but I am impressed with your skills and think you can contribute a great deal. Make what you want but keep in mind how you are going to get it to work. That isn't even geared to you specifically, but the whole community. Many of us work outside of official mod groups. That puts a lot of our work in direct competition. That is healthy, no doubt, because it spurs guys on to finish their work and make it as sound as possible. The problem comes when you risk compromising the work of others.
This AT gun is a good test case. The RO_Guns class is very powerful for creativity. But it should not be altered, not saying TT did. If anyone wants more functionality, then develop a new class, as Mats noted. But use something like: RO_Guns_Username. Naming conventions are very helpful to server admins and users alike. Perhaps we should have named our class RO_Guns_AHz but we were not trying to make it propriatary, just protect it from conflicts and being in the IT business, we work to establish and work within existing standards.
This as I said, is new territory. It goes beyond a regular map, skin pack, etc. and when you deal with "class" type components, you have to be more careful.
Another looming pitfall of numberous versions/variants is the prolifiration of files. The 45mm zip file is over 3 megs. Imagine in a few months that there are a half dozen pak40s, a few M1937s, a couple pak43s and on and on. All looking virtually identical. All doing nearly the same exact thing. That begins to add up to a lot of bandwidth, storage space, and piles of crap to deal with. Not to mention as each duplicate comes into being, the odds for conflicts grow. Hoping that no one else compromises a file like RO_Guns is only the start. That alone is enough reason for the AHz team to establish a standard or base code for AT guns. Does it really matter if you did your rivets with polys and we did our with textures? Is that worth a duplicate?
Maybe someone wants to make a mortar (on our list but pretty low because the CC team is doing one so why replicate). They may want to use RO_Guns or they may create a new class RO_Mortar and extend that class to enable all sorts of mortar weapons, portable and otherwise. Great! Not necessary, but fine. It would make sense thereafter for others to use or contribute to an improved version of the file. The trouble comes with distribution of such a file...one server gets it-you get it. The next server doesn't have it-you get a file mis-match. Therefore, you either live with the original file or create you own class file.
So, to conclude. AHz is not trying to dictate anything. If people want to free wheel it and hack apart anyone's code, let them. But don't come crying to that guy when his files start corrupting others. The wagon may not be broken yet but in time it may be.
AHz is not opposed to helping anyone with their models. We are doing that now with 'Darkest Hour' and I expect the pak43 will only be one of many models we help with (It is very cool in action, by the way). Just ask.
I don't know any other way to approach this, so I'll just go at it.
1. No one has permission to alter the M1937 files, code, model, any of it.
2. ANY tinkering with the RO_Guns file and re-release of it will corrupt EVERYONE's file system.
3. If it was so easy to develop this stuff, do you not think others would have done so in the 10 or so months the tools have been available?? We are NOT trying to dictate anything to anyone. The point is to standardize for EVERYONE's benefit, a way to create and issue custom content.
4. The RO_Guns class creates a wide-open arena for modders to create countless weapons. BUT there are things to know about it and diving in may or may not work out depending on a person's knowledge. We continue to offer assistance and are open to taking feedback that does something better. If someone wants to do something on their own, they should develop and release their own class structure.
5. While some may want more 'spice', there is a price to pay for it. Once models are out there, it is far more sensible to add your 'spice' with mutators that add new skins, armorments factors, etc. If you are adding new functionality, like riders on tanks, then you have to develop new models and code then extend existing code. But the 'spice' here is about HOW it is done. Not about WHY or by WHO.
Sorry to sound like a rant, but I have very strong feelings about this. TT33, I would personally love to talk with you about helping you get more models into the game. Sure, I wasn't thrilled with your method, but I am impressed with your skills and think you can contribute a great deal. Make what you want but keep in mind how you are going to get it to work. That isn't even geared to you specifically, but the whole community. Many of us work outside of official mod groups. That puts a lot of our work in direct competition. That is healthy, no doubt, because it spurs guys on to finish their work and make it as sound as possible. The problem comes when you risk compromising the work of others.
This AT gun is a good test case. The RO_Guns class is very powerful for creativity. But it should not be altered, not saying TT did. If anyone wants more functionality, then develop a new class, as Mats noted. But use something like: RO_Guns_Username. Naming conventions are very helpful to server admins and users alike. Perhaps we should have named our class RO_Guns_AHz but we were not trying to make it propriatary, just protect it from conflicts and being in the IT business, we work to establish and work within existing standards.
This as I said, is new territory. It goes beyond a regular map, skin pack, etc. and when you deal with "class" type components, you have to be more careful.
Another looming pitfall of numberous versions/variants is the prolifiration of files. The 45mm zip file is over 3 megs. Imagine in a few months that there are a half dozen pak40s, a few M1937s, a couple pak43s and on and on. All looking virtually identical. All doing nearly the same exact thing. That begins to add up to a lot of bandwidth, storage space, and piles of crap to deal with. Not to mention as each duplicate comes into being, the odds for conflicts grow. Hoping that no one else compromises a file like RO_Guns is only the start. That alone is enough reason for the AHz team to establish a standard or base code for AT guns. Does it really matter if you did your rivets with polys and we did our with textures? Is that worth a duplicate?
Maybe someone wants to make a mortar (on our list but pretty low because the CC team is doing one so why replicate). They may want to use RO_Guns or they may create a new class RO_Mortar and extend that class to enable all sorts of mortar weapons, portable and otherwise. Great! Not necessary, but fine. It would make sense thereafter for others to use or contribute to an improved version of the file. The trouble comes with distribution of such a file...one server gets it-you get it. The next server doesn't have it-you get a file mis-match. Therefore, you either live with the original file or create you own class file.
So, to conclude. AHz is not trying to dictate anything. If people want to free wheel it and hack apart anyone's code, let them. But don't come crying to that guy when his files start corrupting others. The wagon may not be broken yet but in time it may be.
AHz is not opposed to helping anyone with their models. We are doing that now with 'Darkest Hour' and I expect the pak43 will only be one of many models we help with (It is very cool in action, by the way). Just ask.
Upvote
0
Mat, I value your opinion as much as anyone else's. After all is said and done, all they ever are ... opinions. As mine is/was also. Simply opinions.
A Pak43 is not a Pak 40. A Tiger is not a Panther... and on and on and on. Yet we have tanks all different to one degree or another yet all using similar basic code. I don't understand why some people are getting all wound up into "rants". I'm all for a "central information clearing/sharing database" for all modelers/mappers/scripters to use and enhance while supporting RO but I am not for any one "governing body, entity or individual" unless its Tripwire and Tripwire alone. Any entity no matter how innocent, passive or mild its presented as, still opens the door for potential abuse and/or conflict.
A Pak43 is not a Pak 40. A Tiger is not a Panther... and on and on and on. Yet we have tanks all different to one degree or another yet all using similar basic code. I don't understand why some people are getting all wound up into "rants". I'm all for a "central information clearing/sharing database" for all modelers/mappers/scripters to use and enhance while supporting RO but I am not for any one "governing body, entity or individual" unless its Tripwire and Tripwire alone. Any entity no matter how innocent, passive or mild its presented as, still opens the door for potential abuse and/or conflict.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I guess that is the false impression and not intended.
Rather look at it this way: Someone trying to save his child.
I really appreciate if someone does work on this game and hope that TT will continue doing nice models. BUT (there allways has to be a but ) it has to be done the right way.
So either extend the present classes or create your own, that is the only way to avoid problems and with problems I mean that maps could stop working on servers etc. so no personal things but practical.
If something sounded a bit harsh I'm really sorry for that as I don't want to discourage people working on games.
Edit: Hmm maybe someone livening in London could visit the Imperial War Museum, maybe they have the optics on the Pak 38 (should be the same as the Pak 40).
Rather look at it this way: Someone trying to save his child.
I really appreciate if someone does work on this game and hope that TT will continue doing nice models. BUT (there allways has to be a but
) it has to be done the right way.So either extend the present classes or create your own, that is the only way to avoid problems and with problems I mean that maps could stop working on servers etc. so no personal things but practical.
If something sounded a bit harsh I'm really sorry for that as I don't want to discourage people working on games.
Edit: Hmm maybe someone livening in London could visit the Imperial War Museum, maybe they have the optics on the Pak 38 (should be the same as the Pak 40).
Upvote
0