Leaderboard

Yes, but the documentation is wrong. rasterType is just the first three bits of the 8bit unsigned char value. 0 - normal 1 - zbuf 2 - camera 4 - texture 5 - camera texture Values 3, 6 and 7 are invalid. I have correct documentation of the D3D9 native texture binary stream format in my OneNote documents. I could export it if there is real demand.

I've not invested much time into SP modding, but I recall having streaming issues with locally replaced models. But I suppose with Fastman92's limit adjuster it would perform just fine in SP. An acceptable upper limit for triangles would be ~15k and I would go no higher than 25k for very rare models that aren't loaded a whole lot, e.g Batman or a cutscene model that's by nature hard to optimize. 15k triangles is really just an edge case but usually you would want to keep it as low as possible. Vehicle models tend to be harder to optimize while retaining good topology which is important for its shading and UV. I would say 7-10k is okay but of course if you can go lower that will help. Skin models can usually be brought down to 3-5k without too many issues. That is because they're small scale, and thousands of triangles doesn't necessarily add more detail due to the way they're shaded in the game. Often skins are just flat and it can be hard to tell the difference in a 30k and 8k mesh ingame. Objects can go a lot lower. As objects use Vertex colors for shading/lighting, they don't rely on Normals to show the amount of detail in them, making it easier to fake curved/round objects. I like to keep my textures at 512x and lower, and in very rare cases I may have to use 1024x to push out the detail that I need. Bloated collision models can easily cause performance issues. Due to the way GTA physics work, it's not required to have 15k triangles in a building collision mesh. GTA collisions can have primitive spheres and boxes which helps filling in straight walls and the like.

Not true You are a huge cheater on forks, and a couple months ago came to official MTA with the intention to cheat there as well, when the forks cheat publisher purportedly released a working Lua injector hack for MTA (not forks). We gave all of the forks cheaters engaged in that a permanent ban, and nearly all of them were already huge forks cheaters, so no one would miss them, and we are doing the forks a huge favour by enabling the usual protection against evading bans, on those forks cheaters as well. But obviously you're not used to no longer be able to change serial & continue playing after a cheating ban, as on forks (without a ban from our side) that's easy. So, you get upset. Not our problem.. you decided to be the gamehacker, no one likes them, so we have no sympathy and will continue to help forks by keeping people like you out. Ban appeal denied, forever.

Yesterday you got the source code of a hackdriver (used in gamehacks for read/write memory) and manually built it. Today, you started up the hackdriver and launched MTA, causing the hackdriver to be running while MTA was opened. This caused you to be banned. It's obvious why this is a violation. Most people that get banned for building their own hacking :~ would say "yeah but I wanted to cheat in a different game, not MTA, this was by accident" but that doesn't hold, because hackdrivers like this (if not detected) can pose a security threat to any game. Therefore, AC has no way to know whether or not you were actually testing if this hackdriver works with MTA. Furthermore, such testing is often carried out under the flag of another game title, so that they can dodge responsibility if it doesn't work, but that if it does work, they can just change some code to make it target MTA instead. Then still, they often just change the game process to target while upholding the rest of titling to try and keep up the illusion it still targets that other game. First of all @Allerek, don't be a gamecheater, no matter in which game; no one like cheaters. Second of all, now you can understand why MTA doesn't distinguish such activities and treats it to the category of offense. Your activities are broadly part of cheat development, and these tactics I just described have in the past been employed by various cheat devs that target MTA. That, again, is why AC cannot treat you any differently. So now.. you got frustrated over a ban. This was a result of your own actions. However, because you got frustrated, you made a suggestion to change the global bans policy on the basis of it being A) injust or B) too long. Neither of these cases apply, for A) i explained why AC is forced to issue bans to scenario's like this and B) has been cleared up by explaining why this category is of a more severe one (carrying bans with durations such as this). Therefore, you are now making a suggestion for issues that don't exist. The current banning system is sufficient, and as you can see once again (here) every specific ban duration has a motivation. It's not like our system can revolve around you (and your frustrations). Suggestion denied Because of the faith in you we believe you can fully understand this, so ban has been reduced (by exception) to 1 day @Allerek - only you know your true intentions with your game cheat development activities, so just don't repeat such activities in the future and you should be fine.

Main page Animation Homepage