MikeyPI

In Object mode (where it's one solid object) select the object you want to clone; Create<Copy. Once a copy has been created of the thing you then want to use modify>Mirror on the front view of the vehicle on the X axis only (this will flip the model so that it is the opposite way, then use the modify>flip function to re-orient the polygon faces to face the proper way out. Align the two halves and merge them together using modify>Attach, attach the vertices of the two halves together.

Dont worry about it facing the wrong way (yet) since you opted to build it facing the opposite way isnt a big deal. Often times when I build things the pictures I use will face different ways so they end up the same way. What I do is build them as I started them, then once it is done I will typically go into the top-down view of the vehicle and simply rotate it 180 degrees on X and Y I think it is, you can do the same earlier but imo and my experience it isnt worth worrying about until it's done since you're literally only rotating it around in orientation instead of flipping or mirroring it, it won't hurt the vehicle any in doing it later. Orientation is something like scaling that you worry about at the end of the project, not so much at the beginning of it.

Reinforcing what Itch already said, you want to cut the fat from the model now before you shape it out.. It's alot easier to shape a model if its got less verts to jumble together, esp if most of them will end up removed in the end. Because this game doesnt use a draw distance type of deal it means pieces while attached to the model base do not have to be made of one solid object. The game won't "clip" away pieces which "float" over the body, so things like equipment, lights in particular, antennas, mirrors etc don't have to be modeled into the core body of the vehicle. They can instead float into the body saving a ton of polygons and effort in shaping those areas where they would attach. Door lines do not have to exist in this game, and really should not exist because it's a ton of waste polygons. Instead expect to texture that seam line on since it can still look good but won't waste weight in doing it that way. The curvature on the cab and the bumper both have way too many polygons.. If it's a relatively "flat" shape don't put in too many polys, save the polygons for where they have to be used. Takes a good while of practice and trial and error to figure it out but given time you'll get it. Some things have to be more detailed than others, but often times you can get away with skimping and it still will look fine in the game. I attached an example of what itch and I have spoken about to help you understand it, hopefull it helps give you an idea of what we were talking about. http://www.emergency-planet.com/uploads/monthly_2016_06/ex.png.fab873a5451435339cb7f6dbdf4deda0.png

1). Press and hold CTRL and use the RMB to de-select things... If selection mode is on sometimes it interferes with actions so you may have to disable SEL mode to deselect some things. Annoying but a thing that does happen. 2).Not a very clear question but i'm guessing what you're saying is you built the part but it's faces are facing the opposite direction. In poly edit mode select the polys in question, make sure selected mode is on and use the Modify>Flip function. This will flip the faces to face the opposite direction. If you mean it's physically built in the wrong side/place, that is done by using the mirror function to invert the object (very similar to how you clone half and use mirror to flip it's component so it's facing the opposite way) Once it is mirrored it still has to have the flip function applied since it will appear inside-out.

There is not really a "defined" limit for the game, it more is a compounding issue. If every vehicle on the map has 5,000 polygons and there are 10 vehicles that's 50,000 polygons rendered at that time. As such keeping the models as light as possible helps keep the performance load reduced greatly compared to building things that are really detailed but also very heavy. For un-common (unique) vehicles which will only have 1 or 2 instances called of them on the map you can have a higher limit, but for things which are quite often used in multiples (like police cars) keeping them light really matters. Remember everything is loaded on the map, from buildings, to scenery, to traffic, and your units themselves so keeping them light where possible is what matters. Most of mine average in around 5,000 polygons all-in (equipment on the thing, wheels etc) but if it can be done lighter it's all the better since it takes less resources to load a lighter model. Doing models with 15k+ polygons is generally a bad idea since when they're all in use it will cause a serious performance hit. The original vehicles were around 1200 polygons to 1500 polygons so in comparison 5k is a very large jump. EM does not use a "draw distance" like many other games do (like gta) which lets them have much higher polygonal limits since they're only rendering a short distance away from you, not to mention you're also right up on top of the vehicle when playing that game. In EM4 since its a "bird's eye" game you're not on top of the vehicles and unfortunately it does not use draw distance so everything is rendered even if it isnt visible in your viewport. A poor design choice but it's how it was done, as such you don't want to make the mistake of trying to create things which are really over the top on detail and instead focus on making them look good while being as lightweight as possible. Due to how the game handles things performance takes a hit pretty fast if you overdo things. Be it lighting or models, anything rendered consumes resources so being as "tight" with the things you do as possible saves performance for actual gameplay and lowers the risk of people CTD'ing for lack of resources which thanks to this game's memory bleed is a real issue.

Not all video cards support alt-tabbing out of certain games, when attempted they will either not do it or crash. If your video card supports the method it's the best option and generally works for most systems regardless of operating system. It's usually a software limitation and/or hardware limitation that prevents alt-tab from working.

The server sometimes has to do maint. other times it's simply overwhelmed. Generally when it's going thru a maint. it will be unavailable, when there is too much traffic going down you'll notice the EX## error on the forum, basically meaning the DB is being overwhelmed. It can be restarted manually when it is overwhelmed but generally we avoid doing that unless it's taking a long time to reset it's self. Maint on the other hand unfort has to be run and not much can be done about that, especially with an "international" website where people will be accessing it from various different timezones.

Well, at least try to provide (to your best ability) an english translation below your native tongue. Most people who visit here speak english so it's the primary language.

You have to be more specific as to what it's doing, like is it loading and crashing to desktop or what? Also it's a good idea to include the DX diagnosis of the computer having the problem along with the logfile.txt found in the root directory of the game.

Are you running the editor as an administrator? It seems extremely unusual that you cannot create the new mod in the editor... Creating a new mod makes the "basic" package for you, what you're doing basically is to create the folder but in order to have the required files I'm guessing you've sourced them from an existing package? Do yourself a favor and try this: Download another mod (not LA and not your custom mod of it). Install said mod, try to load it in the editor and verify that one loads properly and correctly. If it does then chances are unfortunately you probably replaced the files in your tgt mod with the original files somehow (most likely thanks to having identical structures in the original LA and your custom mod of it). If that's the case hopefully you have a backup elsewhere rather than just the modification as you're working on it in the game folders... Always remember to keep at least 2 copies of a mod you're tinkering with, one which you're screwing with, and at least one other one in a package (rar/zip) whatever stowed elsewhere just in case you have a massive disaster. If you happen to have a backup for the mod somewhere if I were you I'd trash both the LA mod and the custom mod you've made on it, delete them completely out of your game folder; Once this is completed use the backup copy and install only the modified custom mod from the backup you have previously created. If that custom mod loads fine and works fine then you've lost a bit of work but not the whole thing at least. From there you can reinstall the original la mod back in and ensure they don't cross one another again but since idk what caused it I can't say for sure it won't re-occur.

Well, I know for a fact you can have duplicate versions of a mod on the same computer in the same game; I've done it before when modifying or tweaking an existing mod package for testing purposes. In those instances I edited the xml to display a diff name in the game and gave the root folder a diff name... Chances are users experiencing problems confuse the two (the original mod which they tend to keep) and the clone of it, since both folders would have identical structures, folder names, and in some cases files it is rather easy to make such a mistake. The advice itchboy is providing is the most prudent if you're creating a mod, even if you intend to use content from another mod within it, the logic behind it being that you would transfer only what you require for the functions/assets you need while leaving behind all the things you don't. The time lost in doing this is more than made up later for a number of reasons which I'll explain further down. It will cost you a bit of time in re-creating the package yourself but it will ensure that what you have in that package is exactly what you need minus things that might conflict or cause confusion later. Not to mention the fact you'll also be able to test each component you add piece by piece instead of potentially having 20 different items which have problems and being unable to sort which ones are causing the problems (seen many mods die because of catastrophic CTD bugs because they added too much junk at once and didnt know what was causing the problem). The benefits of creating a new package and setting it up yourself: You control the file structure for the mod since you're setting it up - Means you can make a more "logical" structure for you to understand where your assets are instead of relying on other people's sometimes confusing structures. You can go through and sort out any potential bugs/conflicts when doing this because you can (and should) add each component piece by piece testing them in between of adding more functions/features to the new package. - This game is very sensitive; as such adding tons of stuff at once usually results in at least one fatal flaw existing and if you add too much at once it's nearly impossible to hunt down the cause (especially if there is more than one cause). Always go slow and add piece by piece, it might be slower but it'll save you tons of headaches later if you do encounter a crash since you *know* from previous tests that everything else before the latest thing worked fine and stable. You can eliminate excessive/un-required files from the modification, thus improving performance (load times in particular) and mod file size. - When people create "sub-mods" they often times leave behind tons of files from the original mods which they don't use, particularly when they just merge pieces from several mods they tend to have massive mod sizes which in turn hurts the performance of the game/mod. The more crap the game has to load the more resources are being chugged for things that it won't even use, coupled with the longer load time and mod filesize it just isnt a good practice. Far better to make your own pack to ensure there are not such files cluttering the thing up. You don't have to go through later on and "clean" the modification up, since you setup the structure and added only what you needed, in theory adding things in as described above will save you tons of time/effort since every file you have is required and every file is neatly stored in the same structure; Also you won't have to remove un-required files later which takes a ton of time to do later (which is why many sub-mods never do it and still in their latest releases continue to have the "core" files from the original mod). - Having everything neatly structured means less effort when it comes to modding the scripts, finding files, etc; You know where you put fire stuff for ex, so it's simply finding that one folder instead of possibly 4-5 of them and figuring out what is where. This fact also means you're less likely to encounter errors in said scripts because of invalid/incorrect paths since the directories used would be universal and logical for each grouping of assets. Problem solving with a "clean" logical structure is much much easier since you know everything you've added, and if you add them piece-by-piece you're ensured that you can say "well it worked yesterday before I added XYZ" so you know where you should look for the problem, and could remove the offending item(s) to verify that they were the problem. This alone would save tons of time for you in development of a mod. Even if you make a new structure with a new package it would still be a sub-mod if you're using a good chunk of another mod within your package, so it should still be considered/treated as the sub-mod it still is. The good thing is though, as you progress if you continue to make it more it's own mod, and give it custom content unique to it and it alone you'll already have the structure in place and all the "core" work sorted out so as you "phase" out the sub-mod content and become your own mod, you won't have to go through doing all that later. That in of it's self saves a massive bit of time. Just my advice and the reason I think this way, it's up to you if you wish to invest the time in doing it. From my experience the invested time in the short-term is more than made up for in the long-term from not having to do it later when the mod tends to get more complex and has far more assets to have to manage. Knocking the "tedious" stuff out early just tends to make more sense when it comes to development in general as opposed to after you've made a ton of content in various places and have a really complicated mod to try to "Clean" and sort. Goodluck to you.

try a different version of your video card driver. It's an intel card but there should be quite a few versions available, unfortunately for this game it's a ton of trial and error. the current logfile provides no direct clue as to why it's crashing unfort.

?VVideoTexture::InitTextureRenderer(): could not find output pin [80040216] ?VVideoTexture::InitTextureRenderer(): could not find output pin [80040216] ?VVideoTexture::InitTextureRenderer(): could not find output pin [80040216] Usually you see that from codecs interfering with the game, try uninstalling some of the codec packages you have installed, or from your driver version being incorrect. Try changing the videocard driver you're using or removing some of the codec packs you have installed. Certain ones interfere with this game (not sure why).

I was able to tamper with the system and sort out a few things for the site: Firstly, the polling system is configured now, due to how the software changed I had to enable a setting which lets someone change their vote, but now users/posters should have the ability to not only edit existing polls, create new polls (in existing topics or new ones) and know that all users may re-vote upon editing the poll. I advise the poll creator to reset the vote count to 0 when they edit the polls, since the count on the votes would remain, even though the question posed is different. This is the best solution I was able to come up with to this problem, but it should suffice to make polling possible again. The hyperlinking issue: You can link to outside sites/sources perfectly fine, I have tested this with http:// www. in many different facets, the link tool works fine for external linking, pictures also post perfectly fine from my testing (so long as the external source site permits it). Some images will not display but it seems to be because they are embedded into a page instead of a picture by it's self; if you use the direct-link to the picture it seems to work fine from my random testing (googling images and posting them). Internal linking: Trying to link from the forum to another place in the forum, such as your signature and/or links as text faults out: This is due to a change in the software where it wants to show a "preview" of the topic in question: (see below): Because of the above feature and it trying to "load" the preview, it unfortunately makes it to where the link as-text does not want to work, instead it turns it into plain-text.. I've yet to find a resolution to this particular problem and have no clue why it does this, nor can I find a setting to disable this function. In essence, so long as the system does this preview of an internal link like it has above, I don't think it will permit link-as-text for internal locations.. A feature which might be great for smartphones/tablets, but limits PC users greatly, I will continue to try to find a way to tamper with this, but have a feeling it's embedded in the software. Image Linking: As mentioned above I tried image linking and seemed to have problems with embedded images (where they load on a page) but did not encounter such issues with direct-linking the image, as a rule of thumb from my testing it's best to paste it as text in the post. www.picture.com/mypicture.jpg for ex, if it shows the picture in the post preview, it'll show in the post. The alternative of the "Insert other media" and "Image from URL" worked as well, but did not always provide the preview in testing.. It seems that so long as images are not embedded to a page and are direct-linked they seem to load fine to me. This is where the site is at, sorry I cannot resolve ALL the issues, but in the update many settings were removed which were extremely useful, so it's more trying to work around the missing functions than anything else. The cost of updating to a forum which is more mobile-friendly is that the PC end has to take a hit. -Mike

I will leave this one as-is and if you wish to create a new topic you have permission to do so, likewise you may run that topic however you desire to do so (however you want to do the contest/rules etc). I also changed some settings on polling so it *should* be possible for users to change their votes/change the polls now. So at least that should be fixed I hope.

Also realize that different modifications have different resource requirements, some mods out there are lighter and thereby less likely to bleed your resources, while others are very heavy and unfortunately even on good machines can tend to have performance problems. The original core framework of the game had some problems in it, which tend to get worse with modifications added into the mix. Mods with excessive complex lighting tends to push the GPU of machines, while mods with scripts that run constant checks tends to gnaw at the CPU, the more content in the mod the more ram it'll chew and so-on. Not all the mods were "optimized" that were created (in fact, many were not) so as more mods use others as bases it becomes far more frequent that you'll encounter performance problems if the author(s) don't clean them up before they release them. You could (with a bit of work) try to clean up the mods yourself by removing excessive lights from the vehicles, removing un-required files from the mods, and through your game settings help lessen the load they present. Your machine being a "gaming" rig often times has little to do with how this game's mods will perform, often times it's the way the mods were built that tends to lend more towards the performance (or lack thereof).

The odds are fairly long that someone would make a model for you. That being said though, if you want to increase the odds someone would be inclined to do it you should at least provide a few images of the thing so they know what it is you're looking for. If it's similar to something someone already is developing they may take the time to modify it to be more "generic" but most apparatus tend to be fairly custom so simply naming a "type" of a vehicle alone does not help to give people an idea of what exactly you want. Best of luck getting a modeler that wants to build it for you, but I do advise at least providing some hints to what you want/need to increase the odds of finding one.

We have been aware of this issue and as of this moment have not gotten a response with a fix from the people who created the forum software as to why this happens. When we upgraded our forum to the latest forum it caused quite a few problems, most likely because we had a much older version and went to this latest version we probably were missing components which were there in previous updates that did not come with the new bundle... That's just a wild guess but to me makes the most sense. We submitted a ticket for this issue you're describing along with about 20 others but as of this moment I've not heard of any suggested solutions from the developers of the software, perhaps they have to make a patch or something and that's the cause for the delay. For now I'm sorry but we locally can not find a band-aid for the problem, we just kind of have to wait for the developers to either release a patch or come up with a workaround to the problems that we've found and know about. Though I'm sure there are probably some more lurking that we've yet to encounter.

The user who ran this topic requested his profile be removed so if anyone wishes to "take over" this particular topic/contest state so and someone will assign it to them. Otherwise we'll just leave it open as-is for people to use as it is.

I think it registered your ID#, but as random said tell us what you wish it to be, and we will change it for you to the name you wanted/intended. Oftentimes FB registers as the display-name, which users generally don't want so it's not a big deal to change them for you.

You can actually get extremely impressive performance in a mobile platform (aside from the GPU in many cases the laptops today can pace a desktop), but the sad truth in order to get it is that you'll pay far more for it. The weakness in mobility is the cooling systems since there is only so much space for the equipment there is usually not much left for the cooling which tends to cause problems on intensive games. That being said though, on a budget it's far more favorable for someone who does not require mobility to just go with the desktop. The desktop will in the end give you far more bang for your buck, particularly on a budget. The top-shelf laptops really are stupidly overpriced, coupled with the cooling issues most of them suffer it's not the ideal solution unless you really are constantly on the move and spend little to no time at home.

The problem is that most of what people pawn off as blueprints for vehicles are really either just hand-drawings or "blueprints" taken from model kits.. As such they're not very accurate to say the least. Truth is, though the vic did see some minor alterations from 1998 (first year of the last design) to the end of it's run for the most part the thing was largely unchanged except for minor cosmetic changes. The overall shape of the vehicle saw nearly no alterations during it's final run. the 1992-1997 design run saw some design alterations, some of which were pretty notable but the final gen was mostly the same aside from insert components. Basically what you see in pictures (actual photos of the vehicle) are what you can expect for it's legitimate shaping. Blueprints help for designing models, but be certain to verify they are accurate in the first place, far too often people publish them as blueprints where they really should not be; I've seen some where the "blueprint" in question was not even for the right car they claimed it was. Imo of the convert models, the crown vic shows the most promise as far as performance goes for it.. If I were to pick at portions that can use some shape alterations it would be the front and rear bumpers, and the C pillar behind the rear door could use a bit more curving. IMO though it's a decent first gen rendition to use for figuring things out, but I would probably not call it a final version if it were me. Either way, goodluck to you, hopefully some of my advice helps you out in your goals.

To sum up the legalities involved in all this crap it comes down mostly to IP protections apply when it comes to the renditions of the models.. Those apply to whomever made the thing as a 3D model (artwork). IP also applies to someone if they for example made A skin on the model, but the primary IP goes to the original author, any modifications done to it do have IP if the original author grants such rights (which most generally do). Copyright applications apply to the actual parent company that owns the vehicle, it's likeness, name, branding, and design.. The only time the parent company copyright generally would be applied is in a for-profit enterprise scenario, outside of that they usually will not attempt to pursue someone for using their vehicle's name, likeness, or branding unless you were to portray it in a negative manner, then they might care. It's a low-risk thing even though technically they do hold those rights they generally reserve but do not act upon them. The Intellectual Property aspect of it which applies to the 3D rendering of the real-life likeness applies to the original designer (whoever originally made the model) under the same premises as any other IP work of art, such as a painting or sculpture, etc. Most people (individuals) tend to be reasonably decent about these scenarios if you simply contact them and request usage permissions for the item in question along with the caveat that you include credits for their works which you use. It's a case of better to ask permission than try to ask for forgiveness later; I'm sure you'd like to be credited and recognized for what you're trying to do, so do they. It's when people take the content w/o permission and/or claim it as their own that most people get upset about it, so it's better to avoid that whole scenario and just get the permissions to use it in the first place. Aside from that I would advise against using GTA models in EM5 in the first place, I'd make new ones before I'd consider using them. Their polygonal count may make them realistic, but the game does NOT include dynamic damages like gta does, so they really don't need to be what they are to be useful to em5. In truth as they are from GTA they will just further degrade the performance of the game. It might seem like a "short-cut" but in the end it'll end up costing more time if you want to make them optimized for em5 compared to GTA. If you want these things in em5, I'd suggest making them from prints found online rather than trying to find ones to convert into the game, since few games will have models that work for the job em5 needs them to do.

I have PM'd the user who published them asking him to repair the files by either fixing the attachment, or to put them in the download center. Due to the changes to the site all older attachments were lost, so anything stored within those attachments were not physically stored as files and were subsequently lost when the DB changed to the new version.. It's unfortunate but we as the staff do not have attached files backed up, only things from within the download center. Hopefully the author will update his link, but I cannot say how long this will take him to do.

It's an IPB issue, not a local one, so until the developers of the board software can repair the problem there is not much we can do about it for now... For a band-aid solution I just created a location in off-topic to post polls related to a topic.. Hence my response above yours with how to set them up in an example. For now, just create your polls here: http://www.emergency-planet.com/forum/148-temporary-topic-polls/ and once they've ran their course just note they are completed and a staffer will delete them. Not at all an ideal solution but it's what we have to do for now until something else can be done by the devs of the board.