M4A1 RO979

[[5thSFG]Mitchell]

I perfectly understand it Lethal Dosage, but I was just hoping that adding (back) the old visible laser wouldn't have represented a huge problem, because no new models/gear is meant to created (the AN/PEQ-2 already exists), the laser can be recovered from the 1.4 and I hope it's code as well.
Sure, a complete "new" production would be better, but since we have a lack of qualified people, I was hoping that those tips could be usefull. If they are not, too bad, I'll stick with the NVG then.

 

[Carpetsmoker]

Mitchell, attachments can't be added to an existing weapon without remodelling, skinning, animating and coding it. INF isn't like R6:V where there's a host of generic attachments which can be applied to any weapon, and only requiring a fair degree of coding, and i don't think the UT99 engine would be able to handle a system like that.

Actually, that's not completly true, let's say you have a M4 with a M203 and you want to remove the M203:
o Put the weapon down
o Store the amount of ammo in the clip
o Summon a new M4 without M203
o Add ammo to this new M4
o Destory old M4 with M203
o Select new M4 and put it up

So "removable" attachments would be possible ... Just not animated

 

[chuckus]

I'm not sure that' what he meant.

He meant when you wish to add a new attachment to the game at all. Like if I made a cheese grater for the m4, I would need to model the cheese grater, then I 'd need the m4, the flashlight model, the m203 model, the handle model, and animate all possible attachment combinations that involve the cheese grater. This would make a dozen or so combinations.

In R6, he's implying that as a modder, I simply model the cheese grater, put it into R6 and code within the given "attachment engine" or code structure, and the game will automatically know where the cheese grater should go. So I don't need to reanimate and code for a dozen combinations. Just make one thing and the game will plug it in for you with less work.

 

[Snakeye]

So "removable" attachments would be possible ... Just not animated

Would you please stop any blasphemy in my thead! Removing attachments - especially supressors or sights - is not acceptable Inf behavior. I'll have to get an excorcist and some blessed water fast..

 

[[5thSFG]Mitchell]

It would take a hell of a work to add a removable item. Sure, it would be nice, but unless Snakeye instantly becomes the best addon maker in the world in one second, I would bet that he's not gonna add anything like that.
BTW, how did we end speaking about removable M203 and suppressors?

 

[Lethal Dosage]

We got onto removable attachments from Carpet misunderstanding me, but at least Chuckus nailed it right on the head. IN my modding for R6: Vegas, i've been able to add a reflex sight to a PSG-1 for instance, simply by telling the game it can go on that weapon, then modifying the XYZ setting to get it to line up with the correct place on the reciever, as well as modifying the ReflexRecoilAnimation settings so that the attachment recoils properly with the weapon. In that game the attachments don't really go on the weapon but more float next to it and recoil, etc along with it.

I'm 85% sure the M4 didn't have any kind of laser, but rather it was the M16a4 which had it, and while it would be possible to bring it back, it wouldn't serve much of a purpose as it would be too difficult to see on most day maps or at range, not to mention how difficult to aim from the hip and fire full auto at anything over 5m. It would merely be a cosmetic luxury which most people wouldn't use. I believe the IMT changed it around the release of their night vision goggles and their starlight scope for the M16a4, where it would get used more often as not all situations are ideal for using that scope, and so hipping it with NVG's on where the dot glows quite brightly would help in CQB situations.

While i don't have anything against you wanting the visible laser back, i found it rather useless, and it showed everyone else wher eyou were aiming... not necessarily a good thing. If it's any consolation, the SG551 ingame has a visible laser, which combined with it's ACOG might be a decent substitute for you.

 

[Snakeye]

It would take a hell of a work to add a removable item. Sure, it would be nice, but unless Snakeye instantly becomes the best addon maker in the world in one second, I would bet that he's not gonna add anything like that.
BTW, how did we end speaking about removable M203 and suppressors?

Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough: I was raised on these boards back in the dark ages where even the mention of removeable addons was punishable by week-long torture by the witch-hunters followed by cleansing the soul of the person who wanted a removeable supressor/sight/whatever with the help of a big bonfire with said person in the middle. As such it is my strong faith that such mechanisms are a tool of evil and I will not EVER even consider finding ways to allow the darkness to enter Inf.

Call me a religious fanatic..

In any case I'd kindly ask you to move a removeable attachments discussion to a separate thread, thanks in advance.

 

[Kueltag]

Removable would mean removable while in the game running around? Doesn't the bipod on the M60 work a bit similar way? Would people really use this possibility?

 

[[5thSFG]Mitchell]

Removable would mean removable while in the game running around? Doesn't the bipod on the M60 work a bit similar way?

Not exactly... it's like removing and tossing away a part of your weapon, like the GL or the scope. Good when you run out of nades and you want to remove some bulk too.

Would people really use this possibility?

I think yes.

 

[Snakeye]

at the risc of sounding like a broken MP3:

discuss.. removeable.. attachments.. in.. separate.. thread.. please..

 

[EGM<NL>E]

Not exactly... it's like removing and tossing away a part of your weapon, like the GL or the scope. Good when you run out of nades and you want to remove some bulk too.



I think yes.

your government will truly like you if you throw away stuff that is still working not to mention the tax payer

 

[[5thSFG]Mitchell]

your government will truly like you if you throw away stuff that is still working not to mention the tax payer

I lolled at your message
BTW, if I survive, I can still recover it later, unless aliens come and steal it.

 

[Snakeye]

Please keep this thread On Topic.

In case you don't know how to start a new topic:
-Go to the appropriate subforum (i.e. Off Topic, General Infiltration Discussion..)
-Klick the "new thread" button located in the upper left part of the screen
-Enter the appropriate title for the thread
-Enter a text detailing your thoughts
-Klick the submit button
-Wait for people hijacking your thread..

 

[[5thSFG]Mitchell]

-Wait for people hijacking your thread..

that's the easiest part!

 

[Lethal Dosage]

I'm with Snakeye here, removeable attachments is THE DEVIL! And such discussion doesn't belong here. Off Topic might be a bit more welcoming, but i think Michael Jacksons house would be your best bet, just remember your little school boy outfit.

Now back on topic... someone care to remind me where that was?

 

[Snakeye]

Time to get this a bit back on topic:

After having let the RO979 rest for quite a while I've now come back to it for more experimentation work - in case you didn't notice so far I try most "dangerous" features on this one first.

Changes include the position changes as in the M4Improvements plus the 40mm HE and WS trajectory improvements. The major other change is probably best shown in a picture, so it's attached..

It's all not in a completely finished state so it might take still a while - but it already mostly works offline; online tests are pending.

PS: Perhaps I even get to include a little surprise for you guys - though that's really unsure..

 

[[5thSFG]Mitchell]

as for me, just remember to fix the name, ok?

 

[Snakeye]

as for me, just remember to fix the name, ok?

While I did consider this I'll leave it as it is for two reasons:
-It's a pain in the ass to do since it puts the entire classname wrong (and I'm NOT, repeat NOT going to change the entire package and class names).
-It's technically possible (I assume) to take a US Army standard issue M4A1 and put in the 3rd burst trigger group instead of the auto one. Since from an optical point of view the weapon remains a M4A1 SOPMOD I think it's better to leave it at M4A1 - a M4 (US Army designation) would usually have a different look, so I guess people would come and compain the model is all wrong. Just think of it as a nuts custom weapon job.

EDIT: Hmmm, apparently the US Army M4s only had no flattop in the very first deliveries, so I guess the model wouldn't bee too wrong; I'll have to think about it; I already know who gets cursed in the next release..

 

[Corporal_Lib [BR]]

So...the surprise is that it can fire over to 7 forty-mike grenades types? And yeah, I was going to suggest changing the name to M4 flatop (thou Brazilian SpecOps uses the old M4 with fixed carry handle...)

It´s going to have MagCheck function embebed isn´t it?

 

[Snakeye]

So...the surprise is that it can fire over to 7 forty-mike grenades types?

Awwwww You make it sound like it was easy to do - ask Yurch (who's going to have a BIG part in the Credits section under "unknowingly contibuted") how easy it was. But no, that was the obvious feature - the surprise is not even sure to make it in (that's why I used the term "perhaps".

It´s going to have MagCheck function embebed isn´t it?

Affirmative, though only for the 5.56x45 ammo - I figured if you need MagCheck for the M203 you're probably better of dead anyway. *imagines a dummy getting ripped apart by Skaarj while he desperately tries to check ammo on the M203*

And yeah, I was going to suggest changing the name to M4 flatop (thou Brazilian SpecOps uses the old M4 with fixed carry handle...)

Yeah, the name problem doesn't get any better the more I try to research (which is why you should always research BEFORE you start doing mutators..). From what I was able to find out it's something like this:
-The early M4 (Colt Model RO920) had no flattop, the later ones (still same model number) have.
-The M4A1 (Colt Model RO921) only seems to have a different trigger group.
-The M4A1 SOPMOD (Colt Model RO921HB) is a M4A1 with heavy barrel and different front grip.
-The M4 models currently available at Colts Military homepage list the RO977 and RO979 as flattop models with Auto and Burst trigger group, respectively - note that M4 in this case seems to be the Colt Model designation and not the official US Army designation (otherwise the RO977 should be called M4A1 I suppose).

Since the basis for the weapon depicted in the mutator is a RO921HB (M4A1 SOPMOD) the correct designations would be either M4 RO920HB or RO979HB, both of which do not actually exist per se - note that this asumes the heavy barrel was correctly modeled and the difference is actually visible. In addition I'm not sure what the differences between the RO920 and the RO979 are - from pictures it appears the rear stock is different, but I'm not sure about that.

Playing it safe would mean renaming it to M4 (RO920), though that would probably cause me to rename at least the package and perhaps even the classes. In addition this would have the (undesireable) effect of having two different mutators that could run at the same time doing basically the same.

The lazy approach would be to say it's wrong either way I do it, so let's keep it originally wrong .

I guess I'll probably rename just the weapon ingame to M4 (RO979) and call it a day - that way the perceived designation is "more correct" than now and if anyone asks why the package is called M4A1 I'll stll be able to tell him I was drunk when I wrote it