[REQ] AR-15/M-16 mesh/texture

[einherjrar]

Great work! Though you are right about weapons like the barret having high demand (my humble request for it is the most popular request topic in this entire sub forum -- 22 pages, and counting) I am very glad you are putting effort into a weapon like this. Dont let the haters get you down saying its done way too much. The M4/M16 are very popular rifles despite all the gamers getting sick of their appearance. Kudos to you.

 

However. That texture. I know you are likely going for the 200+ year old look. But holy god i dont think a bullet would make it through the barrel without grinding to a spark flying halt with that much rust and dirt on the entire model. It might just be an early v.01 texture i know. Maybe one thing you can do if you cant or dont intend on doing anything better is posting the UV's publicly so others May release retextures of it. Im quite sure thats whats gonna happen with the Barret, and since this is a MODDING community, i think that all custom weapons for this game really should have the UV's publicly posted.

 

Great work on the whole thing so far. I hope to see its completion. :thumbsup:

 

 

 

*Edit* I took a closer look at the texture to make sure. I think it looks more like desert camo in one of the pictures. If it is camo then disregard my comments concerning the texture itself. :sweat:

 

 

The gun has no image file applied to it's texture. What you are seeing on the gun is what happens when you leave a texture file blank on an object. The texture will change ingame like a chameleon based on your characters' (cameras') perspective. The still image screenshots don't reflect this I know, but if it were a short video you'd really see the textures flickering when I move/the camera moves.

 

 

pic#1 - from 1st person point of view, the texture is being borrowed from the armor I'm wearing.

Pic#2 - the texture is borrowed from the rubble/stones from outside Washington monument based on line of perspective.

Pic#3 - the 'desert camo' texture is actually being borrowed from a dirty wall in the citadel. it looks pretty convincing for being a mismatched texture.

 

I mention this in the 3rd post. I don't really expect people to read those enormous posts of mine entirely (I tend to fill it with jargon), especially after I add some eye candy to the post.

 

While I would like to see more material made public (you mentioned UV's), I understand why people want to keep their material private. I've seen at least one thread at nexus complaining that someone just copied and uploaded someone else's mod under a different name and attempted to take full credit (the one I saw was an AK-47 mod for FO3). Which I thought was despicable. That persons effort on producing the artistic and intellectual materials, and the liability of uploading online (because it can always be taken and used for purposes not intended) was undermined rather cruelly.

 

On the other hand, I myself am having one goddamned muddled hell of a time contacting the modders, modelers, and graphic artists that have released a lot of usable material, but have dropped off the face of the earth years ago, or now exist under a new alias, are on a different board, ect. ect. I swear, I almost need something like a talent agent to track these people down. I want to move a few numbers and internal references to take existing 3d gun models and import them into FO3. Not be a private detective.

 

BTW - there are often as many or more than 10 people involved in CS mods, which is what I'm trying to work with. First, I have to get permission of the packager who released the mod so I can decompile his mod, then I have to seek permission of the modeler(s) who made the mesh, the artist(s) who produced the texture to fit the mesh, I won't be using the sounds, animations, ect, but I may still have to have their approval (groupware). If any one of them says 'no', that shuts the whole thing down and I've got to hunt down the credited and wait for approval.

 

C'est le vie.

 

:closedeyes: But many thanks for your enthusiasm and support. :closedeyes:

 

Also I don't know if it's too late to point this out but the ejection port is on the wrong side. It should be on the right side of the gun such that the shells don't fly into the user's face. It's not all that important though. It's just something I notice a lot in video games in general.

 

It's not too late to mention, but I am already aware of this and made note of this in my signature incredibly long posts. I'm also happy to say that it is a very easy thing to fix. (this was mentioned under EDIT: of my update which had the first screenshots.)

 

:closedeyes: Many thanks for your critique and interest. :closedeyes:

 

UPDATE and PostScript - I am still hunting for freely released 3d gun models for the M16/AR15, or awaiting contact with a few of the main modders on other sites. More than anything else, not having a model I can release to the community will kill this thing for release, which is depressing when I think of how much easier it is now than it was when I first started. If you help put me in direct contact with anyone sympathetic to our cause (ie; an american assault rifle), I'd be willing to write you into the credits as 'legman', 'talent agent', or any another desired title of appropriate acknowledgment for services rendered.

 

Still playing around with combining texture files. I've found there's usually 3-6 pieces of a CS mesh, but it's difficult to import that many pieces into NifSkope (or impossible since I'm not gonna play with HEXCODE!!!). I've got to combine the mesh into one solid block file, and the textures will have to combine into a single file too. If NifSkope wasn't messed up I could almost certainly do it with multiple pieces. But it is, so I can't.

 

I've also got what I think is the beginning of the flu or possibly strep throat. I can barely swallow and it's about 24 degree Fahrens' outside. I rent a century old house and there are icicles on the inside of my window. Illness is sapping my drive and strength to pound this project out.

 

More screenies, taken from same batch as yesterdays.

 

Screenshot #1 - Notice how the texture of the rifle is suspiciously similar to the stone building behind it?

Screenshot #2 - rifle is blending smoothly into the rocky background of debris. VERY hard to see the rifle.

Screenshot #3 - Same standing position as the 'desert camo' pic. Here we see the texture being chameleoned from a dark wood beam. It looks really black in the picture, but it's more brown in game.

[Wreckless1]

Ya know there is a way to make weapons burst so the M-16 doesn't have to be full auto.

The M16-A2 which is standard issue in the US army has no full-auto.

The M4 which isn't standard issue does have a full-auto.

 

 

 

The A2 is a 3 round burst, as such it falls into the ATF's definition of 'automatic' in that it fires 2 or more shots with a single pull of the trigger.

 

The M4 uses the same 3 round burst trigger group as the M16A2, the M4A1 uses the safe/semi/full group

[vashts1985]

useless facts yay!

 

m16: full auto, 3 round, semi

m16a1: added forward assist

m16a2: 3 round, semi/attachable m203

m16a3: full auto, 3 round, semi

m16a4: 3 round, semi/ added picatinny rails

m4 carbine: 3 round, semi. used to replace the M3A1 in 1996 that either speaks highly of the M3 or badly about the military

m4a1: full, 3 round, semi/ added picatinny rails

[Bean0]

Thanks for the clarification. I got the M4 mixed up with the CAR 15 which I'm pretty sure does have a full-auto.

[einherjrar]

useless facts yay!

 

m16: full auto, 3 round, semi

m16a1: added forward assist

m16a2: 3 round, semi/attachable m203

m16a3: full auto, 3 round, semi

m16a4: 3 round, semi/ added picatinny rails

m4 carbine: 3 round, semi. used to replace the M3A1 in 1996 that either speaks highly of the M3 or badly about the military

m4a1: full, 3 round, semi/ added picatinny rails

 

Ohhh, I loves me the gun talk trivia.

 

It should be mentioned that in fact the M3a1 (sub machine pistol/gun; nicknamed: Grease Gun) that the M4 passed trials to replace was not an early version of the Armalite rifle platform. The M3a1 grease gun saw most of its' service life being issued to tank crews, armored personnel carriers, and (to a lesser extent) pilots of some aircraft. it resembled heavily the schmeisser MP-38 of the German national army during WWII, and was a rival for the thompson as a favorite weapon of mafia's and gangland turf wars of the 1950's and 60's.

 

The Carbine ARmalite series of rifle systems didn't begin with those trials however. Even though there had been an existing CAR-15 program (Carbine ARmalite model 15) for over a decade and a half, the M4 system is just a more updated version of those early programs, the only real difference between an M16 is the carbine length barrel and shorter gas stroke system (reducing long range effectiveness, but increasing refire rate).

 

There are further cosmetic differences to the M16/M4 'a' version models than you might think. I for instance know that AR15a3 (as well as M16a3) had a very distinguishable removable rear sight block (which I swapped for a picatinny riser intended for a scope until I got a mount for the rear sight block for optics).

 

Further improvements (many are just changes, not really improvements) have been made to each major upgrade of the system. Below are the changes I'm aware of: (additionally, with each successive model version having very minor changes in the receiver with intention of prolonging service life, producing a product that is more durable/problem free/idiot proof).

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

M16a1 - barrel twist (rifling) is 1/7", plastic handguards (heatshield) are flimsy and could fall off or melt from the gun from sustained fire. First version of the armalite system to receive a forward assist (you didn't see them on AR-10's and early AR-15's). Also purportedly had barrel MFG'd in such a way to have the bullet keyhole in flight (tumble end over end) to produce more dramatic wounds.

3 position selector - safe, fire, fullauto

_______________________________________________________________________________

M16a2 - barrel twist (rifling) is 1/9", plastic handguards (heatshield upgraded to a more resistant bead filled polymer. New rifling does not encourage 'keyhole' or 'tumbling' projectile flight. I'm told it was not unheard of for certain special combat units to swap the lower receiver with an M16a1 or just the full auto FCG), and keep the M16a2 upper receiver. Giving more accurate projectile fire, with fully automatic fire instead of burst fire. (which was an attempt to prevent malfunctions by reducing the relative rate of fire). Also first version to have M203 grenade launcher integration.

3 position selector - safe, semi, burst

_______________________________________________________________________________

M16a3 - 1/9" RH twist, just like a2, same glass filled polymer for handguard as a2.

Removable rear sight block. Washington digs head out of ass, gives american soldiers full auto capability again (with more improvements to the receiver design to more fully support the wear and tear of fully automatic fire without malfunction.)

3 position selector - safe, semi, fullauto

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

Further suggested improvements to the ARmalite/AR/M16/M4 system that I'm aware of are:

#1 Direct gas impingement (instead of venting hot gas into the action, gas actuation should be performed near the gas port (tap) via an actuated piston rod under/behind the front sight block: this helps to keep the bolt cool and prevent dirty gas entering the receiver)

#2 removal/relocation of the rear spring assembly (instead of storing the spring which the action uses to recycle itself from a rearward position in the buttstock, a different spring and location are necessary so that AR's and M's can have a folding stock or transition to bullpup system more readily)

 

I don't keep up with the M4carbine versions, I leave that to the next generation to follow it's progress. Kind of disappointed that US military decided to shorten barrel length for MOUT combat/operations. I also do not like the shorter gas tap. Id've wanted a bullpup for room to room fighting. But thems' personal preferences, and I check those at the door.

 

Civilian (AR) versions of this military (M) rifle follow pretty closely the progress of their military brothers, with exception of only ever having a 2 position selector switch (safe, semi) and chambered for civilian market caliber .223.

 

Civilian owned machineguns (M) in the US are (almost) direct ports from military mfg'd sale rifles (lacking military proof marks, some other superfluous alterations) but will be chambered for the civilian .223 and not military 5.56x45mm.

 

whoops, this is going to turn into another signature super long post, so I'm wrapping it up below with an announcement.

 

=============================================================

=============================================================

ANNOUNCEMENT: Due to continued discussion of which specific model should be used in the M16 mod, I am announcing that I intend to release the mod as a pack where you can choose to use the version of rifle that suits your taste, they will all share the same 3dmodel, but will function differently. I guess it was unrealistic of me to rely on the individual to make changes in the GECK to the gun data which would take less than minute. SO BE IT.

 

I know many of you hopeful probably have a specific M16/M4 model on your wish list, but I intend to use the full sized model (full length barrel, no collapsible stock). I'd like to avoid the m4 'carbine' models :down: (preference I guess). full 30 round magazine. Also, iron sights.

 

AR15 (blanket 'a' model version) - fires once each trigger pull

M16aX(" " " " " " " " " ) - fires in fullauto

M16aX(" " " " " " " " " ) - fires in burst

 

Also pretty sure I could also produce the mod in such a way where I could make the rifle fire as an automatic or burst in realtime, but only once in VATS to simulate marksman precision :ninja: (default is fullauto in realtime with 3 round burst in VATS).

 

I also don't plan to change the rifle damage (though it doesn't make sense to me that a .223 or .308 round will do less damage than a handgun, but whatever). It's easier (balance wise) to just use the existing gun data from the vanilla assault rifle. I'll leave realistic damage mods to others.

=============================================================

=============================================================

 

I'm going to take my flu addled head and apply it to a pillow now. :sick:

[Wreckless1]

useless facts yay!

 

m16: full auto, 3 round, semi

m16a1: added forward assist

m16a2: 3 round, semi/attachable m203

m16a3: full auto, 3 round, semi

m16a4: 3 round, semi/ added picatinny rails

m4 carbine: 3 round, semi. used to replace the M3A1 in 1996 that either speaks highly of the M3 or badly about the military

m4a1: full, 3 round, semi/ added picatinny rails

 

Vash, you're close but 3rnd burst groups were never installed on XM16, 16, A1, A3, or the M4A1 - they are all safe/semi/full only in military issue. Only the M16A2, M16A4, and M4 had the safe/semi/3 rnd burst trigger groups.

I've never seen or heard of a 4-position safe/semi/full/3rnd trigger group being issued but from what I understand they are available for special purpose units that desire them for some reason.

 

 

Ein, while I applaud your attention to detail, you've got a lot of things very wrong.

 

For one, the M16A1 had the same 1 in 12in rifling twist rate of the M16 - that was not corrected until the A2 variant debuted along with the 62grn M193 ammo. The A2, A3, and A4 as well as the M4 family all have 1 in 7 in twist rates which is optimized for the 62 grn ammo. 1 in 9 twist rates are usually only seen in civilian AR15's as it allows some cross compatibility between the 55grn M855 and the 62grn M193 ammo.

All of the legends and myths of the projectile's destabilization being an engineered feature of the M16/M16A1 firing 55grn ammo is absolutely utter myth, perpetuated by too many stories of Vietnam veterans with amazing tales of bullets 'keyholing' and causing fantastic wounding effects. While a keyholing bullet does create a wider wound channel, (the SS192 version of the 5.7x28mm ammo fired by the FN P90 and 5-7 was actually engineered to tumble to 90* after impact for that exact purpose) the keyholing effect from destabilized M855 projectiles was pure accident. No arms maker worth their weight in manure would ever design a weapon to have a problem that causes such massive losses in accuracy. The SS192's projectile was specifically balanced and designed to stay stable in flight and only tumble *AFTER* impact.

 

Also, field modifications to M16's are generally permitted so long as it does not change the weapon's designation. Since changing the fire control group to a safe/semi/full config would reclassify an A2 as an A3, that is generally not allowed and is seldom seen because it generally requires an XO's explicit approval which let me stress is VERY RARE.

As such, A2's that are issued generally stay A2's. Honestly, throughout my duties in US Army I always have and always will keep the selector on semi. The majority of fellow troops deployed seem to do the same, aside from the guys with M249's and M240B's or course. It is generally much more effective to keep most rifles on semiauto and take more careful aimed shots, particularly with the abundance of ACOG's, ELCAN's and EOTech's on US military rifles these days.

Furthermore, the whole purpose behind regulating it to a 3 round burst had nothing to do with enhancing reliability - it was intended purely to prevent panic full-auto firing over walls and such that led to so many soldiers in Vietnam simply leaving their M16's set on 'full' and spraying whole magazines at everything.

 

The M16A3 is also almost never seen in the US Army ranks, we're still issued the A2 in almost all cases along with a smattering of M4's. From what I understand the A3 is almost exclusively issued to US Navy and Coast Guard units, with exceptions for 'special' units that want them, of course.

 

There is also a pittance of difference between the civilian .223 Remington and NATO 5.56 specifications, and frankly in any case involving any post-1960 AR-15 variant it would make damn near literally no difference.

This has been rehashed at length on this board in some prior posts of mine and I'd invite you to further explore the differences in detail as well as explore the methods by which those chamber pressures are being measured between the SAAMI .223 remington specifications and the NATO methodology when measuring the 5.56. Having personally fired thousands of rounds of both .223 Remington and milspec 5.56 NATO over the years from my own personal CAR-15 and countless other AR variants, I can attest 100% that it makes no difference in any modern AR-15, and also makes no difference with the huge majority of all weapons chambered for either .223 or 5.56 NATO.

Note that the first M16's issued were all marked "Colt AR-15 Model of the Army M-16" The 'civilian' versions were called the Colt SP1. Somehow through all the chaos of those early years the many makers that started making copycats, the "AR-15" term came to refer to a semiauto only civilian model, but I've heard dozens of different stories as to why that is.

 

As for the suggested improvements to the AR15/M16 family, the concept of replacing the ljungman-style direct impingment system with a gas piston have also been discussed at length to a painful degree of detail and also implemented in various models from makers like HK and POF. The problems are well documented, from the propellant residue building up in the receiver as well as the premature cycling issues causing case-head seperations particularly in shorter barreled variants. I've actually gone into painful, exacting detail of that particular problem in another M4/M16 request thread.

 

Your #2 issue, frankly, is likely never to be resolved. Olympic arms has made variants that use a much shorter spring & bolt carrier combo starting with the OA93 pistol and some other models of theirs, but the sacrifices and modifications made to make that happen create more problems than they solve and a true folding stock, while nice in some cases, isn't worth the overcomplicated changes it brings with it - particularly so since no manufacturer I know of has tried or been able to implement a gas-piston operation system in tandem with the shorter bolt carrier/spring design of the OA93 style weapons.

[vashts1985]

its alright, i will openly admit i just scanned wiki for that info and may have been mislead and or mistaken.

 

the AR family, rifles in general, are not my forte' :closedeyes:

[einherjrar]

I'll admit, large portions of my info are over a decade old, and there are more than a few things I would consider to be rumor or speculation in what I said (ask 5 vets from 5 different eras about their equipment, you can expect 5 different answers). I still hear every now and again people chanting vietnam era rhetoric about the 'junky, jam prone M16s'. To hear some tell it, the M16 was doomed from the outset, and the military has been backing a lame duck for years. I totally admit there was information I provided that was based on testimonial from vets and active personell (as well as opinions from discovery, TLC, history channel, and other documentaries).

 

Looking back, I should have said 'to the best of my understanding' in regards to this subject. I have a great deal of information on the topic, but sources of information disagree, and there are still developments being made to the system.

 

So, to the best of my understanding; Based on testimony from a state armorer, reloaders, and competitive shooting community: Below are the reasons I understand why not to use milspec ammo in civvie receivers, and civvie ammo in milspec receivers.

 

My advice may be circa pre 1970's era, but I discourage use of 5.56 in .223 and vice versa. More corrosive primer and propellant gases in 5.56, longer neck length in .223 cal. The 5.56 can cause damage to the bolt and will advance corrosion of the gas system in a .223, and the neck of the .223 casing (when fired) can expand past the appropriate distance in the chamber in a 5.56, causing the shell to become lodged at the neck and unable to eject.

 

Strong enough parts, proper care and maintenance, and if you run enough of the ammunition through the gun however, it can become 'used to it'.

 

It might be okay, but I've also spoken to at least one Oregon guard armorer involved in CMP (civilian marksmanship program), and... ( can't remember the name of the other group. CIS? CSP?) He also did not recommend use of 5.56 NATO in .223. and vice versa (though I think his concerns were more with preserving peak accuracy and proper headspacing). this was maybe 4 years ago.

He was also a pretty 'old salt', I'm sure you know how old timers get set in their ways.

 

I must admit this information may no longer be correct or not matter as much with modern firearm mfg'd standards.

 

I don't use rifles for military BTW, just sport and competitive shooting.

Also, all my reloading literature are well over a decade old.

 

PS - drop me a link (PM?) to some of those other threads you mentioned if you don't mind. I'd like to have a look. Always seeking new bits of information about the Armalite rifle system. Most of the family owns at least one. Grandfather knew whole lot more than me, but he's been gone some 5-6 years now.

[Thelionheart]

:wallbash: Why the rail covers WHY!

[Bean0]

Can we have an optional version with just the grips and no rails on them?