The start of a revolution for LOMAC??

[Vekkinho]

Yeah, I though that once you convert .3ds to .lom no further editing is possible. So distribution of those subs in .lom should be legal ;). Alfa, I'd like to have such subs active and functional in my LO/FC. Great targets or allies, don't you think?!

 

And since there are over 40 naval vessels coded (inherited from Flanker) and present in LO & FC it'd be great to activate them again. Alfa also made Navy Supermods that unlock such models so he should know how to unlock them manually and how to have them present in MeInit and Bazar\world\shapes folder. Once they are activated, they can easily be converted to something else by renaming their .lom files.

 

Like I said before, I'd like to unlock and edit Russian (Soviet) battleship Pyotr Veliki and turn it into a Clemencau or some other French Aircraft Carrier. They're similar in size so collision model should do fine.

 

- To make Clemancau (ex Pyotr Veliki) plane friendly so the planes can take-off and land I'd simply copy/paste CLSID from Carl Winson. (Kuz has a ramp and it might be a physics problem so I'd rather stick to CW).

- To make Clemencau fully operational I'd like to know how to ''steal'' Pyotr and MiG-29K slot from Russian side and drop it to France. MiG-29K could be replaced with Rafale.lom (renaming Rafale.lom to MiG-29K.lom) This way we'd have operational Rafale taking off and landing on Clemencau. This ''Stealing slots'' operation is present in Poland Mod (adds Poland to the list of countries and takes 4 MiG-29A and few Su-22 slots from Russian side).

- Knell's Mirage F1 can also steal away one Su-22 slot from Russia and provide F1 to France (both planes are made for one purpose - Fast movers , same in size but Fitter's variable wing geometry might mess up F1 model)

- F-111 is no longer being used except in RAAF. Americans only use stand-off jammer in form of EF-111. So we can use F-111 slot and take it from USA to France to be used as Mirage IV (again they are similar, both fast bombers but again there's geometry thing with F-111).

So ED could provide us with some info (intel) on:

1) Unlocking hidden models that are present in lomac.exe

2) Moving slots (from one country to another)

3) Possible problems with different animations for different models (wing geometry thing)

4) CLSID and MeInit codes for doing something that's mentioned above

 

 

Poland and Supermod are available here:

http://www.lockonfiles.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=124#cat

 

Check this thread, it's about enabling planes to T/O from a carrier:

http://www.lockonfiles.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=883

 

 

And there was this thread on MiG-21 model. The author was already into animating gear but we haven't heard from him since and I lost a link to this topic.

[DPS]

I can feel a competition coming on.

 

I have neither the time nor patience to get a good result from 3D modelling – and I wouldn’t dream of asking anyone to build me a top notch Harrier (conventional T/O, VTOL not required) or Jaguar. What would be a reasonable prize in exchange for someone spending dozens of hours hunched over a hot PC building a Buccaneer or suchlike?

[ALDEGA]

Figure it out yourself - we did......that's what "modding" is all about ;) .

It would be more productive if we had some documentation.

 

Playing around may be fun for a while, but in the end you're spending time which could be put to better use.

 

I welcome any initiatives to create structured documentation. (the 3dsmax LomUtil and all of its options, how to work with the arguments etc.)

 

Some information can already be found on page X of thread Y in forum Z.

Not exactly handy.

 

If you want to share any tutorials (txt, pdf, video, etc.) just PM me and I will upload it to LockonSkins.

[knellknell]

It would be more productive if we had some documentation.

 

Playing around may be fun for a while, but in the end you're spending time which could be put to better use.

 

I welcome any initiatives to create structured documentation. (the 3dsmax LomUtil and all of its options, how to work with the arguments etc.)

 

Some information can already be found on page X of thread Y in forum Z.

Not exactly handy.

 

If you want to share any tutorials (txt, pdf, video, etc.) just PM me and I will upload it to LockonSkins.

 

That s exactelly why i have make www.lockon-models.com.

I think the best solution is to put answer and request about MODELLING ans TWEAKING the game ( and only, the Textures rooms of this forum is designed only for the new 3D models ) on this website.

[Stealth_HR]

I made a mod long ago importing it back into Lock-on. It works very well as AI-entry, but the main snag at the time was the low detail level of the MiG-29K model from Flanker - with the release of the plug-in for 3DS Max there is a host of new possibilities ;)

 

Yes, it is, but in the end, it's going to remain just another pseudo-flyable model with no wing folding, hook and Flanker's FM (yes, it handles like a Flanker, not the least bit as maneuverable as a Fulcrum) - something that would make an otherwise perfect upgrade to the MiGs in LOMAC just another HumanCockpit="yes" plane, which really doesn't do the plane justice. :noexpression:

 

The only accident involving a MiG-29K prototype(# 311) was due to something entirely different(and stupid) ;) - namely that the test pilot accidently raised the gear while the aircraft was on the deck of the carrier.....causing the aircraft to fall flat on its belly and damage the gear in the process. But, as you can see from the above photo link, it was repaired :) .

 

Something that always baffled me - why the hell isn't there something in the plane to prevent that? I remember the first time I sat in the Super Frog and accidentally brushed my fingers across the "G" key - whoops, down you go along with the gear. Seriously, what's with that? :huh:

 

a). the helicopter in question for Black Shark is the Ka-50 single-seater version.

Now that's just mean and nitpicky. :P Not to mention a slight fault on ED's side as a feature that was ripped out from FC - tandem plane piloting. I remember the F-15D and Su-30 mods that existed and worked just fine. So if we're going to get a Ka-50 in the game, why not have the ability to simulate a tandem-flight Ka-50 or any other twinseater? Seriously, it's not like there's THAT many people who wouldn't want to trade the piloting seat to man the electonics - you'd get both co-op and multiplayer at the same time!

 

b). how in gods name do the development of helicopter flight dynamics/flight controls relate to VSTOL fighters?

Think about it. In a sense, a helicopter works similar to thurst vector control - not completely, but in a sense. Translate the behavior of a Ka-50 onto a jet and you might get an effect akin to VTOL - one way or the other you'd get at least part of the behavior of a Harrier or Yak-38.

 

c). unlike the MiG-29K, the development of the Yak-141 never reached anyway near production stage - the development was suspended during early flight testing and never resumed. The Yak-38 has long since been retired from service(late eighties IIRC), so none of those two entities would qualify for your earlier in-service or time-frame arguments.

As far as I know, there's about 4 Yak-141s still operational. While they may not be in active service (i.e. being used as testbeds), why would that stop the modding community from adding them? I mean, if we want to go by the way of what's active and what's not, the F-4 should be in the US inventory of LO, yet it isn't - the thing's only been retired from USAF for five years!

 

There is no specific time frame in Lock-on, but to the extend you could derrive one, it would be mid- to late nineties.....apart from the fact that countries like Georgia, Ukraine and Russia didn't exist as independant entities prior to 1991, there are several units in Lock-on that didn't exist prior to that either.

Come, now, if there were late nineties the models in there could've been more modern. Or at the very least we wouldn't get loads of people yelling at someone online for firing an R-77 off a Su-27. :P

 

You *cannot* add new aircraft entries - whatever your mod, you need to use existing entries for it. Only static objects can be added. "new slots" as you call it for active units would mean having to code FMs for them - it is not something you can just "add" :) . Static objects do not require any "behaviour" code, which is why you can add new ones of those.

 

Figure it out yourself - we did......that's what "modding" is all about ;).

 

Well, if that's the case, can we please get some sort of more solid guidance in the matter? The explanation to some of the CLSIDs in MEinit.xml? A list of what belongs where? I'm pretty sure at least somebody compiled a list of it. As much as I appreciate your work specifically (I've been a Navy Supermod player for a while now), just saying "figure it out yourself" borders on bad manners. Especially in a place that wants to kickstart modding, but without a manual. :noexpression:

[Vekkinho]

Vekkinho.....that is just complete nonsense! :D .

 

No MiG-29K prototype has ever "fallen apart while snaggin' the wire" - there were only two MiG-29K prototypes ever(bort # 311 and # 312) and both of them are still around

 

Here's the article I found:

 

...''The Russians have had some success in adapting several fighters and attack aircraft for carrier service. Carrier tests were made by modified MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, and by trainer versions of the Su-25; the naval MiG-29K was cancelled, but the Su-33 (based on the Su-27K) and Su-25UTG have entered service. A report of an early MiG-29K being torn in half on its first attempt at a tailhook arrest gives a hint of the difficulties involved...''

 

So perhaps there was #310 that we didn't know about because it's been kept aside because of this failure...

 

Another thing with ''what modding is all about''...

 

I've spent more time exploring MEInit that playing Lock On and I haven't any conclusions on how to enable hidden but coded objects. Some input from ED might be helpful giving us more time to focus on our objective better than discovering what's hidden where?

[Swisstiger]

LockOn-Models.ch

 

Hi all

 

http://www.lockon-models.ch is online !

 

This Homepage ist a German LockOn Models Portal !

 

 

Tiger

[Alfa]

It would be more productive if we had some documentation.

 

I was refering to modding in general - i.e. editing in the Meinit....

 

Playing around may be fun for a while, but in the end you're spending time which could be put to better use.

 

You are wrong Aldega :) - "playing around" is how you figure out how the game is configured, come up with ideas for mods and find out how to get them to work......there is no manual :) .

 

I welcome any initiatives to create structured documentation. (the 3dsmax LomUtil and all of its options, how to work with the arguments etc

 

Some information can already be found on page X of thread Y in forum Z.

Not exactly handy.

 

If you want to share any tutorials (txt, pdf, video, etc.) just PM me and I will upload it to LockonSkins.

 

Like Knell said - this is what he created his Lockon-models.com site for ;)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Vekkinho]

The Su-27 version in Lock-on(V1.1) is the Su-27S - "Su-27SK" is the export designation for it, and therefore it is all but identical to what we have now.

 

Except the fact that Su-27S can carry R-77 and has a limited A2G capability that's not featured in LO1.0 - FC1.12a...So I wouldn't be so sure about S or SK designation.

 

Another thing that's mismodelled is lack of R-27T from Rus/Ukr Fulcrum-A payload. Remember how German Fulcrums (MiG-29G) have them and they have same ''basic'' Fulcrum A (9-12) models. The only difference between them is metric / imperial conversion and.......camo!

So, is it now possible to replace the MiG-29K & F-111 with more modern 3d models in the game?

 

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. MiG-29K can become Rafale once Rafale is finished and F-111 can turn into Mirage IV. Renaming lines in MeInit should rename display of that aircraft within game and F2/F3 views...

 

This way we can edit our installation of Black Shark anyway we want, replace what we think might be obsolete with more modern 3D objects. But it's only a visual mod. We cannot rescript it's avionics, behaviour or flight model.

[GGTharos]

Where did you find this fact? :)

[Alfa]

Yes, it is, but in the end, it's going to remain just another pseudo-flyable model with no wing folding, hook and Flanker's FM (yes, it handles like a Flanker, not the least bit as maneuverable as a Fulcrum) - something that would make an otherwise perfect upgrade to the MiGs in LOMAC just another HumanCockpit="yes" plane, which really doesn't do the plane justice. :noexpression:

 

So what is it that you expect - that ED releases the source code so we can fiddle with FMs and the like?. My approach to this, as a modder( ;) ), is to take what ever oppotunity I come across - whether it be as a result of digging around in game files and discovering possibilities or whether it comes in the form of tools released by ED - to make the mod as good as I can......instead of just sitting back and say that it isn't worth the while or waiting for someone to come along and present me with a manual on how to do things :) .

 

Something that always baffled me - why the hell isn't there something in the plane to prevent that? I remember the first time I sat in the Super Frog and accidentally brushed my fingers across the "G" key - whoops, down you go along with the gear. Seriously, what's with that? :huh:

 

It is per design - apparently Russian aircraft designers considered this risk to be the lesser of two evils - i.e. that a device to prevent it could cause the gear to get stuck in the down position after take-off, which in turn would be more dangerous than raising it by accident while on the ground....that's the explanation anyway :hmm: .

 

Now that's just mean and nitpicky. :P

 

Hardly....the Ka-52 is quite different from the Ka-50 :)

 

Think about it. In a sense, a helicopter works similar to thurst vector control - not completely, but in a sense. Translate the behavior of a Ka-50 onto a jet and you might get an effect akin to VTOL - one way or the other you'd get at least part of the behavior of a Harrier or Yak-38.

 

I know what he meant, but it is a little far fetched to say that helicopter dynamics should be used for the development of VSTOL fighters.

 

As far as I know, there's about 4 Yak-141s still operational. While they may not be in active service (i.e. being used as testbeds)

 

IIRC there were only two prototypes + two static testbed airframes used for engine tests while being suspended in a test rig(i.e. not "real" aircraft). AFAIK the two airframes that actually flew spend their time as static display items at museums :) .

 

...why would that stop the modding community from adding them?. I mean, if we want to go by the way of what's active and what's not, the F-4 should be in the US inventory of LO, yet it isn't - the thing's only been retired from USAF for five years!

 

It wouldn't. Please read Vekkinho's post again - he was the one saying that the MiG-29K wouldn't be a good item for modding into Lock-on because it isn't in service.....then went straight on to suggest:

 

...they should introduce a Harrier or a Yak-38/141 in some future addon..

 

....I was merely replying that if the "in-service" aspect is an important factor for him then the Yak-38 or Yak-141 certainly aren't better options than the MiG-29K.....quite the contrary :) .

 

Come, now, if there were late nineties the models in there could've been more modern. Or at the very least we wouldn't get loads of people yelling at someone online for firing an R-77 off a Su-27. :P

 

Gee - let's see:

 

a). can you have a realistic environment with entities that haven't yet been developed flown by countries that don't yet exist.

 

b). can you have a realistic environment without entities that have been developed and not being flown by the countries that would otherwise operate them.

 

I can easily imagine a scenario in which the USAF is involved without using its F-15Es.....just to take an example :) . But I have a hard time imagining a "mid-80´ies" scenario in which a country calld "Ukraine"(then an integrated part of the Soviet Union) is operating aircraft types that weren't developed until 10 years later :) .

 

Just my opinion of course :) .

 

Well, if that's the case, can we please get some sort of more solid guidance in the matter? The explanation to some of the CLSIDs in MEinit.xml? A list of what belongs where? I'm pretty sure at least somebody compiled a list of it. As much as I appreciate your work specifically (I've been a Navy Supermod player for a while now), just saying "figure it out yourself" borders on bad manners.

 

I think it "borders to bad manners" to say that you cannot be bothered to figure out how to make mods by yourself and instead expect someone else(whether it be other modders or ED) to come along and present you with a "manual" on how to do it :).

 

Especially in a place that wants to kickstart modding, but without a manual. :noexpression:

 

Do you think I had some sort of manual for making my mods?.... :D . There is no "manual" - figuring out what can and cannot be done is a lot of work and what modding is all about. I think it is a great idea for the community to exchange ideas and experiences on modding and that's what the "Mods" section of the forum is for - but if you don't do your own research, you can never do anything that hasn't been done before by someone else......and to expect ED to come along and present you with some sort of "mod manual" to end the need for this is just... :idiot:

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[ALDEGA]

You are wrong Aldega :) - "playing around" is how you figure out how the game is configured, come up with ideas for mods and find out how to get them to work......there is no manual :) .

 

 

 

Like Knell said - this is what he created his Lockon-models.com site for ;)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

For those who don't want to reinvent the wheel, I've uploaded StrikeMax's video for implementing the "arguments" in 3DsMax.

[Vekkinho]

Here:

http://www.aviapedia.com/video/su-27-in-combat-action-video

 

there:

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g234/Vekkinho/scan0001_cr.jpg

 

and from Su-27 ''manual'' in Russian, straight from KNAAPO. ;)

[GGTharos]

I don't see any R-77's there ... as for A2G capability, 1.1's flanker has it, though the multiple release racks aren't there (nor are ripple settings).

[ALDEGA]

Except the fact that Su-27S can carry R-77 and has a limited A2G capability that's not featured in LO1.0 - FC1.12a...So I wouldn't be so sure about S or SK designation.

 

Here:

http://www.aviapedia.com/video/su-27-in-combat-action-video

 

there:

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g234/Vekkinho/scan0001_cr.jpg

 

and from Su-27 ''manual'' in Russian, straight from KNAAPO. ;)

Hmm, since Lockon 1.1, the Su-27 *can* carry some AG ordnance, including the 5 x S-13 rocket launcher shown in that picture...

[Vekkinho]

It wouldn't. Please read Vekkinho's post again - he was the one saying that the MiG-29K wouldn't be a good item for modding into Lock-on because it isn't in service.....then went straight on to suggest:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vekkinho:

...they should introduce a Harrier or a Yak-38/141 in some future addon..

 

 

Now, what I meant is: Introducing MiG-29K as an operational fighter would be a nonsense because it's not operational. #311 and #312 are used for window shopping, airshowing off and teasing India and China to spend some Rubles but not used in any Russian regiment. Alfa said that Indian airforce plans on introducing MiG-29K but at present they are still being made.

 

Introducion of Yak-38: Sure! Why not?! It first flew in early '60s

, Black Sea trials on 'Kiev' class carrier were held during 1975, deployed to Afganistan in 80/81 and reports that Yak-38 has been retired or permanently withdrawn from deck operations are premature since another of the Kiev class carriers (Gorshkov, formerly Baku) remains in service. They were expecting Yak-141 but since it's just a testbed thay stick to what they've got. So if there's F-14, F-15C, Su-24, MiG-25, Su-22, Su-25 that date from same period why should Yak-38 be an issue?

 

Harrier: Come On!!! In service with RAF since 1981 (HMS Hermes, No. 800 Sqn) and still in use with both RAF and USAF/USMC...operational enough!

[Vekkinho]

I don't see any R-77's there ... as for A2G capability, 1.1's flanker has it, though the multiple release racks aren't there (nor are ripple settings).

 

You can't see R-77s in that video because video shows Su-27P model. (Apparently the very same model that we have in LO 1.1). That's why I'm sure that there's no Su-27S (SK) within the game.

 

Besides we can choose color schemes for Su-33 that belong to the very first prototypes (T-10K-1; T-10K-2) that take as back to August 17th, 1987.

 

I'd rather stick to my opinion that we're still stuck in 1980s.

[Vekkinho]

Here's the picture of Su-27S or SK:

 

 

Can we refuel with Su-27S/SK?!

 

No we can't! Because we have Su-27P...

 

Another one, same aircraft - Su-27 S/SK:

 

 

How many MFDs can You see here and How many in LO?

 

So do we really fly Su-27 S/SK with Lomac/FC!

[GGTharos]

According tot he manual I have, um, yes. Are you sure that's the S/SK you have there? Perhaps it is an upgrade version?

The SM/SMK perhaps?

[Trident]

It's not even a Su-27Sanything, it's a Su-34. Nice try :D

[Vekkinho]

It's not even a Su-27Sanything, it's a Su-34. Nice try :D

Su-34 has a tandem cockpit but if you take a closer look to pic 1 you'll see a single canopy!

 

Here's the video:

http://www.aviapedia.com/video/su-27sk-video

 

So did anyone refuel with Su-27 in LOMAC?!

[Trident]

Yes, but the cockpit shot is STILL a Su-34.

 

And no, Russian Su-27S' do not have a refueling probe, this is an option for export customers (I'm sure the package could be installed on Russian Flankers aswell, but in reality it has not been done sofar).

[ALDEGA]

Here's the picture of Su-27S or SK:

Another one, same aircraft - Su-27 S/SK:

 

 

How many MFDs can You see here and How many in LO?

 

So do we really fly Su-27 S/SK with Lomac/FC!

It's a picture of Su-34/32-FN/32 (pick one) cockpit.

[Pilotasso]

You can see one leg of the pilot of the left pit.

[Stealth_HR]

So what is it that you expect - that ED releases the source code so we can fiddle with FMs and the like?. My approach to this, as a modder( ;) ), is to take what ever oppotunity I come across - whether it be as a result of digging around in game files and discovering possibilities or whether it comes in the form of tools released by ED - to make the mod as good as I can......instead of just sitting back and say that it isn't worth the while or waiting for someone to come along and present me with a manual on how to do things :) .

Why thank you for the assumption. :P I'm not all talk - I've been doing some work myself, the only difference being I haven't found a solution to some of the problems in the game I've been researching. For instance, the FMs are clearly hardcoded, and they could just as well have been external, recodable files, without forcing us to decompile the EXE (something that's illegal, as well). So far, my work included solving the mystery of not having Croatian symbols in the game (which I've linked to the fact a font bitmap's used instead of a regular TTF font), and trying to translate some of MEinit's parts into cyrillic Russian (since the original russian MEinit isn't easy to find for us non-RU speakers). The irony is that it worked under LO 1.02, while it won't work with FC 1.12 (verified by several other translators).

 

Besides, why not the release code? Other developers have done it, despite publishers attempting to pull their strings and lay claim on it. The LOMAC series is trumpeted as ending with LOBS - so why not?

 

It is per design - apparently Russian aircraft designers considered this risk to be the lesser of two evils - i.e. that a device to prevent it could cause the gear to get stuck in the down position after take-off, which in turn would be more dangerous than raising it by accident while on the ground....that's the explanation anyway :hmm: .

Russian way of doing things, I guess. :dunno:

 

Hardly....the Ka-52 is quite different from the Ka-50 :)

Let's see... same Vikhr, same ejection seat mechanism, same GPS map... true, it has datalink capability, but Even that's been simulated with the MiG and Su variants.

 

I know what he meant, but it is a little far fetched to say that helicopter dynamics should be used for the development of VSTOL fighters.

Did you try it? Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

 

IIRC there were only two prototypes + two static testbed airframes used for engine tests while being suspended in a test rig(i.e. not "real" aircraft). AFAIK the two airframes that actually flew spend their time as static display items at museums. :)

Doesn't the same apply for the Ka-50 which was, if you're suggesting a 1990s timeframe, which was still in trial? Remember, you said it's the 90s timeframe, and yet we have a Ka-50 AND a Ka-52 in FC as a non-flyable, which shouldn't even be there! For that matter, what's with the Su-34 (-27IB, -32FN... take your pick)? The first pair had been delivered to the VVS a mere few months ago!

 

It wouldn't. Please read Vekkinho's post again - he was the one saying that the MiG-29K wouldn't be a good item for modding into Lock-on because it isn't in service.....then went straight on to suggest:

 

....I was merely replying that if the "in-service" aspect is an important factor for him then the Yak-38 or Yak-141 certainly aren't better options than the MiG-29K.....quite the contrary :) .

Partly, you have a point, however, having the ability to add both in-service and out-of-service planes would be a great boost. Although the Yak-38 is a valid option because the Kiev-borne Yak-38 fleet continued ops until the late 90s.

 

Gee - let's see:

 

a). can you have a realistic environment with entities that haven't yet been developed flown by countries that don't yet exist.

 

b). can you have a realistic environment without entities that have been developed and not being flown by the countries that would otherwise operate them.

 

I can easily imagine a scenario in which the USAF is involved without using its F-15Es.....just to take an example :) . But I have a hard time imagining a "mid-80´ies" scenario in which a country calld "Ukraine"(then an integrated part of the Soviet Union) is operating aircraft types that weren't developed until 10 years later :) .

 

Just my opinion of course :) .

 

All valid points and an acceptable opinion. But if we're in the mid-90s, where are the more modern variants that fit into the timeframe? For that matter, why wouldn't we have Ukraine as a country? Ukraine was always Ukraine, nobody ever called it Russia. USSR, yes, but not Russia. For the missions we've been given as stock ones we've got rebellions on a local basis - they could just as well be depicting pre-dissolution issues.

 

I think it "borders to bad manners" to say that you cannot be bothered to figure out how to make mods by yourself and instead expect someone else(whether it be other modders or ED) to come along and present you with a "manual" on how to do it :).

Thank you for putting words my mouth and spray-painting them with your own meanings. :P Seriously, though, it's obvious people have made progress far beyond "regular modding" through LOPE, skinmaking and basic XML editing - why wouldn't people just assemble small TXT files, explain the basic principles, slap on examples and let it out into the wild blue yonder? :smilewink: I've done it before - not for LO, but I've done it.

 

Do you think I had some sort of manual for making my mods?.... :D . There is no "manual" - figuring out what can and cannot be done is a lot of work and what modding is all about. I think it is a great idea for the community to exchange ideas and experiences on modding and that's what the "Mods" section of the forum is for - but if you don't do your own research, you can never do anything that hasn't been done before by someone else......and to expect ED to come along and present you with some sort of "mod manual" to end the need for this is just... :idiot:

 

I'm pretty sure you at least have mental notes, and my telepathy's a bit rusty as of late, so I can't probe around. :music_whistling:If it's a great idea to exchange ideas, well, show us how it's done. The end effect is visible to all people. But if you show how it's done, that's what modding's all about. :sly:

 

Unless you're bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement, in which case you could just say so and I'd drop the matter. Or ask Chizh or somebody higher on the food chain where to sign up as a "post-production" modder.

 

Cheers.