I was trying out 0.4 a while ago and loved it. But I had a couple problems. My netbook (lol?) looses FPS when there are more HUD options enabled. With 0.2.8.x I used to just turn off everything but the FPS, Time, Rubber, and Break. I've gotten an unstable FPS of about 60+ but with 0.4 my FPS are a stable 40 and lower.
I also don't like how the rubber and break levels are displayed. I kind of prefer the lines more, it's easier to use peripheral vision to see the general rubber level than with the color changing bar.
So if the HUD menu can be re-enabled with ways to change what the gauges look like and if they are displayed or not, that would be great.
And the forbid_minimap doesn't work.
(And sorry for using Windows... haven't gotten around to putting a Unix system on here yet.)
Any chance of getting an in-cycle cockpit that looks like the vintage one in tron Legacy? Like, with the big round dial etc... and rear view mirrors? Or is that a bit too far?
I don't know how it exactly looks but it can be done, rear view mirrors are in the default incam cockpit afaik.
I think there is one in Your mom's collection* which might look about like what you want, it's the one called "incam" i think. Or try some of the other ones in there to see some cool big round dials in action
Or if you post a picture of how it looks, someone (maybe me) can try making one too
Close(ish?) but here's a screenshot anyway.
Do the images have to be in png? I kinda favour jpg for obvious reasons
Edit: Got 0.4 today, It's cool and I like the tutorials for practice, but I can't help but notice that the graphics are... tackier? IMO they don't really look that good, and FPS is way lower (down to 200<>400 ave from 1000 plus). I don't suppose there's a way to revert, say, copying the textures and whatnot...
Yeah it looks a bit like that. Seems like the makers of the movie copied Your_mom
The png format is required for handling transparency, jpg doesn't have that.
Yes, 0.4 has lower framerates probably due to the load of extra stuff in there (e.g the customizable HUD). But you still 200 fps and that's way more than needed (usually 60-100; -> vSync), should run all fine.
About how it looks, as far as I remember it looks almost the same given the same settings. Except the font/text style which you probably mean. But don't worry, you can even customize that (simplest way is to replace the font file with your favourite one's).
Jonathon - Simply because it is widely used, and is largely understood better than PNG - I notice colour issues with PNG.
vov - The font isn't really a problem for me, although it is different and I like the old one better, it's just that the colours in-game and the way it appears to be rendered just feels a bit off - a bit gaudy if you get what I mean. Maybe I'm just a sucker for classics, or maybe it's just because I run arma on my windows box, I dunno. I'll stick with 2 for the present, perhaps I'll have a look at what 4 looks like under ubuntu.
Edit: The reason I'm worried about framerate is because my graphics card doesn't seem to like being stressed. It handles things pretty nicely up to a certain point, and then this go radically downhill. I don't mean just a few frames per second, I mean when I play sumo or somewhere with a lot of tail it drops to about 40 fps, very suddenly. I can't remember if it's still overclocked, or if it's not getting enough power or something (actually, a power issue would make a lot of sense, considering my pc is built pretty much out of spare crap that I found in an old PC repair store, and despite the 1200w psu the mobo only seems to draw about 800 max) but it gets pretty annoying
PNG doesn't have color issues (whatever those issues may be). Maybe some of the software you use does. If anything PNG is stronger. It's also far from obscure, even if it isn't as ubiquitous as JPEG. Isn't it just a matter of familiarity, because your typical point-and-shoot camera creates JPEGs? Then I have good news, because you don't need to know anything about PNG to use it. Not that you knew anything about JPEG either. Software does. You will automatically reap the benefits.
That's very true, and I am aware of the disparity between the marketing concepts behind both jpeg and png. I admit, png is more advanced in some ways, perhaps more so than jpeg, but I clearly see a lack of definition in colour under windows, and windows is my everyday system. Yes, I do also have a copy of BT5 on another partition, I am not naive of the advantages of unix based systems, but I use windows simply because I like it. That being said, I seem to be gravitating towards backtrack as an OS of choice, but I sincerely doubt that it will become an everyday system for me. If the day does yet come where I use unix on a day to day basis, then most likely I will be more inclined to explore alternative formats. Being as it is, I enjoy using windows, so I use the formats that are more commonly seen around the environment.
I elect, on this occasion, to disagree with you, purely because you are correct on the assumption of familiarity. Not however, because I choose an instant camera (I still use a Kodak film camera, say what you like), but because use it more often, and on this basis it is more appealing to me.
Edit: Yes, it's also true that I don't know much about encoding and other scripting principles. Call me a nab if you like, I'm on a (late?) learning curve.
Ah, but if your source image is jpeg, you keep it jpeg. Unless you actually do manipulations like resizing (but not cropping, if you're just cropping, keep it the source format). Because PNG is also lossless, typically, and if you decode jpeg and encode it to png, you lose more data.
I try to use TIFF as my sources for that reason. So whenever i use a scanner, I always put it in TIFF. Sure, I get really huge files, but I can always go back to the source and have the highest quality PNG distributables.
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
JPEG to PNG shouldn't make a difference in practice; as PNG is equivalent to what you see on your screen, it can be equivalent to how the JPEG looks on your screen. Even if you used a different JPEG decoder, the difference would be really tiny. Significant differences should be blamed on said decoder, not PNG. If this is ruled out, the "gamma craze" has left some software less consistent, which is in no way inherent to PNG. Either that, or you're abusing indexed colors.
Besides, PNG matches the in-game representation of the textures. It gives you full control over how you decode a JPEG source, if you really want to. It's just a little larger than it could be, if your texture really consists only of a cropped/rotated/flipped JPEG source.
Yes, I'm allergic to JPEG artifacts. Especially to mindless abuse, which often causes tons of artifacts where there could be none or very few (if used properly).
Well, in the application that brought up the conversation, it looks like a screenshot from an mpeg file. If it were the first mpeg standard, then jpeg would be appropriate because the first standard was just jpegs stuck together to make an animation. Starting with mpeg-2, things changed quite a bit, so that now you're better off making your screenshot a PNG instead, because your media player has already decoded the frame and has a bitmap in memory, and PNG will do a much better job avoiding unnecessary additional loss than jpeg. Depending on your encoder, of course, but PNG encoders aren't encumbered by the patent bs that jpeg encoders deal with, so they're of consistently higher quality.
I whole-heartedly embraced PNG some time ago, but there are still fringe applications that I'll use jpeg for that are mostly due to the source image being jpeg. Even then, if you do any kind of algorithmic manipulation of the source image, or use it in a layer on a new image, you still output to PNG for distribution.
Basically, use PNG if you don't know anything about graphics encoding/decoding.
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
