New Vehicle Icons

[CAS_ual_TY]

[...]What is the point of the current and proposed asset classifications?

server rules>asset classes[current/proposed]>vehicles

v1.4.17 public server vehicle claiming rules: "Transport, Mech Inf/APC, Tank/Armour/SPG, CAS"

Unless a new, simplified classification system matches the server rules, I think there will still exist an unnecessary layer of confusion regarding asset classes.

*server rules>asset classes[matches server rules]>vehicles

[...]

I have written the rules of DPRC and A94. I know what problems the icons are in terms of rules. The current proposed system will allow servers to base of their claiming rules on icons from now on, without any complication or rule changing. Literally only basing the rules of of icons is whats needed. New systems will also be possible.

[...]Can we assign every vehicle an individual asset name and icon?

*server rules>asset names[individual vehicles]>vehicles

It is possible. But I wont create icons for every single vehicle and I doubt anyone else will do it. It would also take even more sprite space, while making everything way more complicated as well, and harder to learn.

[Rhino]

Nice work Casualty, looking really good! Loving the new Heavy ADV (Air Defence Vehicle, ie, AAV but AAV also means Amphib Assult Vehicle ), field gun, UAV and other tweaks!

Have you managed to test the idea of semi-transparent parts ingame for the Harrier GR3 and Dagger icons? Would be nice to see how they turn out as if they work well, we could possibly apply them to other icons to for not so important details etc like seats, windscreens etc

A few small tweaks that I think would help however

Firstly your open-top jeeps could have better seats, as well as all jeeps having a windscreen marked, and also for the centre closed top jeep having an ATGM on it rather than a MG as a quick POC of that idea


For the Anti-Ship (Super Etendard) icon, I think making it slightly wider like this might work better


Also worth doing all the missile loadouts like you have for the others btw

Also still think the Sampan boat could use a bit of work still, making it more the shape it should be, being thinner etc and with a more obvious front and back (more square back, with engine and possibly with the propeller rod sticking out?) and possibly an MG on the front of it too?

Other than that, think the others are perfect!

Keep up[ the excellent work!

Give this young fella some R-CON tags already

Haha lollllll Good one!

Ivancic I don't know if your aware of this but every R- Dev, Con etc has come from the community, by doing work in these forums just like this, including myself and we often still promote people, only a few weeks ago w0lf3k for his work on the CG.

Also speaking frankly about Casualty here, at this point unless any of the team has a serious objection, the only thing that would stop him from getting R-CON tags is if he didn't want to do any future work for PR and this is just a one-off thing but we will be speaking soon to him about soon this since the quality of this work and how he has taken onboard feedback etc is exactly what we look for in team members.

Finally, I shouldn't have to do this but just to prove the fact this is the case, I, in fact, made a topic about Casualty a couple of weeks ago about the possibility of making an R-CON for his work here:

...

Please don't spam questions if you don't get an immediate response. No one is going to take you seriously if you do and you will just end up with infractions if you continue. Thanks.

[HOLLYWOODY]

CAS_ual_TY,
Unless it was just less work in beginning for Chuc or whoever, I still don't understand the need for the current asset classification system. You said the proposed system will allow servers to have claiming rules based on icons. Let me break the problem down further by your two server examples:

1. DPRC

5. Assets and Claiming
5.1. Squads named, “Mortar”, “APC”, “Tank”, “Trans” or “CAS” claim specific assets. The name has to be clear (not “C@$” etc.)!
5.2. Claiming asset squads can only claim 1 type of assets at once!
5.3. The squadleader of claiming asset squads has full controll over the assets. Do not steal any assets and do not take them if the squadleader does not tell you to do so.
5.4. All available assets must be used immediately on spawn if the situation does not lead to an instant death of the asset after leaving main base (1 jet vs. 4 jets etc.).
5.5. “Mortar” claims all mortar emplacements.
5.6. “APC” claims all armored personnel carriers (APCs) and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs).
5.7. “Tank” claims all tanks (MBTs). “Armour” does not claim anything!
5.8. “Trans” claims all transportation helicopters and planes. May be locked with 3 players.
5.9. “CAS” claims all jets and helicopters which give the pilot and/or the co-pilot the ability to fire any type of weapon.
5.10. Do not dublicate a claiming asset squad that already exists.
5.11. Do not take assets if you don’t know how to use them.
5.12. If the asset is not claimable or it has not yet been claimed the player who comes first gets controll over the asset. Leaving the asset means you also lose controll over it.
5.13. Do not waste any assets.
5.14. All assets have to be used properly (taking AAV just for roadkilling etc.).
5.15. Anti-air vehicles (AAVs) and anti-tank missile mounted vehicles (ATMs) are not claimable and considered heavy.

-Who gets rec_?

2. A94

6. Assets and Claiming
6.1. Squads named "Mortar", "APC", "Tank", "Trans" or "CAS" claim specific assets and are considered as asset squads. The name has to be clear!
6.2. "Mortar" claims all mortar emplacements.
6.3. "APC" claims all infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) and armored personnel carriers (APCs) that require 2 crewman kits to be operated.
6.4. "Tank" claims all tanks (MBTs).
6.5. "Trans" claims all transportation helicopters and planes. May be locked with 3 players.
6.6. "CAS" claims all jets and attack helicopters.
6.7. Asset squads can only claim 1 type of assets at once!
6.8. Do not lock asset squads with less people than required to properly man all available assets except when allowed to do so.
6.9. The squadleader of asset squads has full controll over the assets. Do not steal any assets and do not take them if the squadleader does not tell you to do so.
6.10. All available assets must be used immediately on spawn if the situation does not lead to an immediate death of the asset after leaving main base (1 jet vs. 4 jets etc.).
6.11. Do not duplicate an asset squad that already exists.
6.12. Do not take assets if you don't know how to use them.
6.13. If the asset is not claimable or it has not yet been claimed the player who comes first gets controll over the asset until he leaves it.
6.14. All assets have to be used properly (not taking AAV just for roadkilling etc.).

-Who gets rec_?
-Who gets aav_?
-Who gets atm_?

On top of these rule problems, the proposed system has at least 3 sub-classification icons for all major vehicle classifications. This appears to be complicated and in need of rule changes unlike you claim.

Putting it overly simple, we could create one icon each for all Tanks, APCs, CAS, and Trans because that's what most servers recognize. If everyone is against this because it's too basic, then we should give every vehicle its own icon instead of symbols of their class. You said this is possible. If you won't create icons for every vehicle then I will if that's what needs to be done. I don't know what you mean by more sprite space or harder to learn. I agree that custom icons will be a little bit more complicated to implement than the proposed system but the final product will be superior because of individual vehicle distinction. The proposed changes shouldn't be considered like Tbob fixing the game-font resolution. That makes the alphabet look better, the alphabet is fine how it works. The proposed system is trying to accomplish the same kind of visual improvement for vehicle icons but our "vehicle alphabet" is the actual problem I'm trying to address which the changes don't seem to be solving when they can too. All I'm saying is if we want better icons, the best icons would obviously be those for every individual vehicle. The easy fix is basic asset icons to match generic server asset classification. Your proposed system still requires rule changes, sub-asset-classification translation and uses the same icons for similar but different vehicles. The longer fix is custom vehicle icons that can all be differentiated to look as close to what they actually are and will allow servers to list the specific vehicles each squad can claim.


Rhino,
I will try not to but I respectfully disagree. The original post author and a developer both initially passed up my valid question. How am I supposed to know whether or not anyone sees a post unless someone responds to it specifically? If I don't respond to someone by accident, I hope they would have the courage to get my attention without the fear of receiving infractions; especially it they are trying to help. I'm actually trying to be constructive like you while others are actually diluting the thread. Also, for your information, I have exercised patience here before with no result. I still haven't received responses from any PR team members that I sent basic private messages to only once which is separately frustrating.

Anyway, do you have thoughts on the issues I presented?

[CAS_ual_TY]

I dont see a single point. You took the DPRC Squad rules btw. And our question of "who claims x" is simple: No one, just like now. Just because I make it possible, doesnt mean everything has to be claimable.

So, up to this point, not a single problem.

And now your main "point": "This system making it overly complicated": It doesnt. This is simpler than having a custom icon for every vehicle. And if youd give the same icon to all APCs, then you have the same icon for:

BTR-60PB, MT-LB, MT-LB 6MA, Boragh on Muttrah. 4 vehicles sharing the same icon.

Really like, I dont see a valid point here, at all

[HOLLYWOODY]

My mistake with the wrong DPRC rules, I should've double checked when I thought something seemed off but I didn't know they had a squad server also. The rec_ vehicles are still in question regarding their PR rule set.

The first concept I'm proposing is that whatever is claimable should be very obvious without any asset classification translation. For example, if any vehicle has a basic APC icon, it would be claimed by the APC squad. The generic icons may be too basic but this concept would be the easiest to grasp for anyone new to the game. This is the point. For your Muttrah example, presumably, the Boragh wouldn't have the same APC icon as the other 3 on A94 since it only needs one crewman and is unclaimable. The proposed system would show 4 different but very similar icons, one of which is not claimable.

Custom icons may be a little bit more work but we would definitely get a better final product, right? Besides the extra work, which we can all help with, you haven't provided a good reason why we shouldn't give every vehicle its own icon. I feel like with all the different sub-classifications we might as well just give every vehicle its own icon and get rid of the classifications altogether. If icon continuity on different maps matters then the proposed system should just move towards the more generic icons approach otherwise we need to fully commit to custom icons.

I just don't see why the new system should continue to make us settle somewhere between easy comprehension and maximum detail. We shouldn't have to go to an external website to see which squad claims which types of vehicles then figure out which specific vehicles fall into those type categories. If we do have to follow guidelines somewhere, they should list the specific vehicles every squad claims and every vehicle should get its own icon for aesthetic purposes. Does this make any sense?

[CAS_ual_TY]

About the first point: Please look at the Shitbox/APC/IFV icons again. All use the same base. But you can easily see the difference between Shitboxes (single-pixel turrets), APCs (round, blanc turret), IFVs (squared turret, hatch, ATGM carrier, small coax barrel). A94 can easily make their rules depend on icons. Open 1-crewman APCs use the light shitbox icon (left of the Shitbox row), including Boragh, M113, Fuchs, VAB etc. I made that icon purposely have a bit more difference than other icons having that rule in mind. So for the rules I add all 3 IFV, all 3 APC, but only medium and heavy shitbox icon. Done.

I have given a reason. Another reason is that you simply can not make that many icons while making them look good as well. Try making all these different helicopters with different loadouts and you will see, 80% will look shit, or all will look the same.

But right now you have to go to an external website to see claiming rules? And why is it less complicated to list every single asset than just saying: "APC claims these 5 icons X X X X X", "CAS claims these icons: X X X X X X X" etc.

[Ivancic1941]

Rhino;2174979']




Ivancic I don't know if your aware of this but every R- Dev, Con etc has come from the community, by doing work in these forums just like this, including myself and we often still promote people, only a few weeks ago w0lf3k for his work on the CG.

Also speaking frankly about Casualty here, at this point unless any of the team has a serious objection, the only thing that would stop him from getting R-CON tags is if he didn't want to do any future work for PR and this is just a one-off thing but we will be speaking soon to him about soon this since the quality of this work and how he has taken onboard feedback etc is exactly what we look for in team members.

Finally, I shouldn't have to do this but just to prove the fact this is the case, I, in fact, made a topic about Casualty a couple of weeks ago about the possibility of making an R-CON for his work here:




Please don't spam questions if you don't get an immediate response. No one is going to take you seriously if you do and you will just end up with infractions if you continue. Thanks.

Upps, I REALLY REALLY didnt taugh that about Casual,actually Im folowing his work from begining and wanted to ask FH2 devs if they have someone to do same for FH2 icons.
I somehow taught that Vista refered to Hollywood because hes annoyingly spaming thread, but.... Just forget it.

Casual sry for that. If this gets ingame, my eyes wont go red anymore of looking icons on minimap .

Also can minimap can be upgraded to HD somehow? Looking at Rhinos post with old version of your icons ingame, they look like they bounce of the minimap.

[CAS_ual_TY]

Okay. To start this off: I still recommend using the AAV/ATM icons I proposed, even for things like the SPG and the AA truck, as well as the TOW HMMWV. Simply because these vehicles all have the same "style" and base, and when it comes to them, their threat is more important than their "type". I also suggest using the jeep icons for the techie.

However, I made alternatives anyways. AA truck, TOW jeep, ammo/50/spg/rocket techie now have their own icons. If you wanna use them, go ahead. I still, however, do not recomment it.

Now the changes:
- Changed all jeep icons
- Changed light AAV icon
- Changed Super Etendard (I suggest simply using the attack version (no missiles shown) as the AS version)
- Changed sampan
- Added already mentioned alternatives (1st picture)

[Rhino]

Awesome, loving the jeep icons! Your TOW Jeep is much better than mine hehe

I know what you mean in terms of them having the same sort of attack power of an ATGM carrier (other than only having one launcher opposed to multiple ones so longer time delay between fire), but the main difference is in manoeuvrability and armour, where a TOW HMMWV is a lot easier to kill than say a WZ550 etc and feel it is worth showing that

If others feel as you do then ye, can have them all using the ATGM carrier icon but think it is worth showing it

On the Anti-Ship Sup Et, while in r/l it didn't carry any AA missiles into battle, it could of and to make it more versatile I am planning on giving it tow R.550 Magic SRAAMs. As such, we could maybe do this to show it is carrying an Exocet? I know it isn't symmetrical and is unbalanced but don't think it is best not to show the drop tank as that will just confuse things more and sticks out more if you only show the Exocet



I've also made the cockpit a tiny bit bigger, think it looks better myself

BTW decent ref with Exocet it if you want to improve: https://i.imgur.com/v6nFSWO.jpg


Sampan updates are good but I think it is worth making it smaller and thinner, as right now it is pretty much the same size as a Swiftboat where they are on the whole, much smaller than even a RPB


Keep up the excellent work!

Also can minimap can be upgraded to HD somehow? Looking at Rhinos post with old version of your icons ingame, they look like they bounce of the minimap.

You mean the actual minimap image? Yes we can make them higher rez but doing so eats up a hell of a lot of memory, far more than just upping the rez of the icons for not that much return.

[HOLLYWOODY]

I can see the differences between the icons. I don't understand why you don't think we can make good custom icons when you noted the distinct detail that's capable.

1. Muttrah problem: "APC" claims APCs/IFVs/etc.

-What is considered an APC? What is considered an IFV?

2a. Proposed system solution: "APC" claims icons C (rec_ icon), E/F (box_ icons), G/I (apc_ icons)

-Icon 'D' looks like 'E/F' + different faction vehicles share icons

2b. Basic system solution: "APC" claims APCs(one apc_ icon) or APCs(one apc_ icon)/IFVs(one ifv_ icon)

-One or two emcompassing icons + different vehicles share icons + different faction vehicles share icons

2c. Detailed system solution: "APC" claims MT-LB, MT-LB 6M, MT-LB 6MA, BTR-60PB, FV101 Scorpion, etc. (custom icons)

-All vehicles have unique icons

I'm trying to think big picture and pretending to be new to the game. We should be able to easily tell which vehicles are apart of which squad, the detail is mostly irrelvant. I shouldn't have to know which vehicles fall into which asset classes. I shouldn't have to study hieroglyphs to figure out exactly which vehicles I can use. If we want more detail and differentiation then let's make custom icons because squads will be able to claim assets by name, not by asset classification or symbol; unless the classification and/or symbol are generic.

[Rhino]

I can see the differences between the icons. I don't understand why you don't think we can make good custom icons when you noted the distinct detail that's capable.

At a quick calculation, there are around 300 unique vehicles in PR (oh and BTW, that doesn't include things like stationary weapons etc), some of them also have a bunch of different versions of the same vehicle, like the Chinese Type 92 APC/IFV, for example, having an MG, 25mm gun, 30mm gun and 30mm gun with ATGM variations.

If you want to go and try and make 300 unique icons you can, but I very much doubt with even 32px icons, you can truly make each one that unique so you can easily tell apart similarly shaped vehicles (hard enough just making enough difference between different vehicle roles), and also truly justify the memory usage for each vehicle having their own icon. This is also not forgetting someone has to go through every vehicles .tweak file and change the vehicle's icon for each seat in that vehicle too. BTW just at a quick search, there is over 1k .tweak files in the vehicles folder alone:


BTW it isn't so hard to do general icon updates for multiple vehicles .tweak files as you can select a bunch of vehicles and do a mass find and replace for them, but you can't do that if every single vehicle has a unique icon, you have to go through each vehicle and edit it by hand.



As for the whole "Squad Assets Claiming" thing, the ingame assets list at the top of the squad menu above the map tells you all the assets on that map/layer, what type of asset they are and shows you what icon if for what vehicle so if anyone is confused, they should look at that and if still confused, ask a server admin since, at the end of the days, it is their rules about asset claiming, not PRs.

Rhino,
I will try not to but I respectfully disagree. The original post author and a developer both initially passed up my valid question.

And yet CAS posted twice in response to you on the last page before he responded to my post. At the very least, you can wait longer and then you can ask for a response to your post if no one does after a few days instead of reposting it in its full.

[HOLLYWOODY]

I think I am being misunderstood due to my brevity so I will elaborate further. I explained that I thought some of the proposed icons look too similar which some people may find confusing because some of those vehicles can be claimed while others cannot. CAS_ual_TY even said they all use the same base but thinks everyone can easily tell the difference. Then he said that you cannot make that many good looking icons because of lack of detail. These two ideas contradict. I provided two extreme solutions to illustrate the problem that could be solved. Generic icons for simplicity or custom icons because it's possible. I don't necessarily think those extremes are best solutions but I do think they are both better than the current and proposed systems.

I agree that we don't need a custom icon for every single vehicle. I agree that many vehicles will end up looking the similar. Reiterating, I think some of the current and proposed icons already do. I agree that some vehicles should share icons. That's why one solution is more generic icons. However, if we want more detail than we should definitely add more icons for certain vehicles. For example, your jet_1_strike fighter icon encompasses at least 4 different visual profiles of aircraft in that category. Why not add a few more icons for these differences? Conversely, who cares about different tank classes? Why not just one icon for all tanks? I agree that we don't need 300 custom icons. I don't think we need 75 either, which is about how many CAS_ual_TY is proposing. If we want detail then we should add some more icons for the vehicles that look different. I think a little bit extra work is worth the improvement. If we're trying to decrease the amount of work then why not just create more generic icons?

The current issue with claiming is that there is no comprehensive translation for which vehicles are apart of specific asset types let alone sub-asset types. The in-game asset list shows all the vehicles and their icons. Server rules describe what types of asset each squad can claim. How are new players supposed to know which icons represent each asset type? This is the crux of the matter.

I don't think CAS_ual_TY's proposed system effectively solves this problem. He expects that servers will change their rules to show icons instead of asset types. There will still be confusion because some vehicle icons look similar. The easy solution is to make generic icons that represent the asset types that servers already acknowledge. An improvement to the proposed system is for servers to list exactly which vehicles each squad can use. In this case, there is no need for asset classes so we can diversify the icons even more.

Honestly, I feel that the real problem is the selection of vehicles on maps. I really like having a large variety of vehicles on certain maps but there are always the questions regarding claiming. I think we need to reduce the variations of actual vehicles or vehicle icons currently present on the same map unless we start claiming vehicles by their specific names. In the latter case, I feel that unique looking vehicles deserve unique icons.

The most likely reason CAS_ual_TY finally responded to me was because he recognized that I am trying to temporarily derail this train in order to have a legitimate discussion about the direction we are heading. He ignored my initial question so I added more context and then Afterdune ignored me as well. I posted again because I feel strongly about my points and don't want CAS_ual_TY to waste any time carrying on his work without agreeing upon the best destination possible.

[Rhino]

I explained that I thought some of the proposed icons look too similar which some people may find confusing because some of those vehicles can be claimed while others cannot.

I'm sorry what icons look similar, but are of totally different classes?

You're also talking like the only way people can determine what class of vehicle is, is by their minimap icon. As I've said before, there is also the ingame assets menu and on top of that, there is visual identification before you even get in the vehicle which even if you have mistaken what type of vehicle it is by the minimap icon, you wouldn't have by the time you're next to it.

CAS_ual_TY even said they all use the same base but thinks everyone can easily tell the difference. Then he said that you cannot make that many good looking icons because of lack of detail. These two ideas contradict. I provided two extreme solutions to illustrate the problem that could be solved. Generic icons for simplicity or custom icons because it's possible. I don't necessarily think those extremes are best solutions but I do think they are both better than the current and proposed systems.

CAS was saying that if you where going to make a unique icon for every single vehicle, even 32px icons don't have enough detail to truly show the differences between everyone, where the different classes, you can see the differences, even if they are only small and not apparent at a glance and those fine differences are only to determine sub-roles of vehicles.

I don't necessarily think those extremes are best solutions but I do think they are both better than the current and proposed systems.

Then it might help if you actually try and outline and possibly even make (at least a few examples of) what you think would be best because right now, no one knows what you want when you are arguing for two extremes that you say both wouldn't work...

Conversely, who cares about different tank classes? Why not just one icon for all tanks?

Because as we keep on saying, the minimap icons are far more than just about seeing what assets your squad can claim. They are about showing what capabilities a vehicle has that is coming to assist your squad. If its a Medium Tank, then you know it doesn't have that much armour and pretty poor rate of fire etc. If its an MBT with ATGMs, then you know that it can screw over an enemy MBT that might be pinning down your squad with ease. There is also the FV101 Scorpion which is technically a Light Tank with its very thin armour, 76mm cannon with high manoeuvrability & speed. Do you think that should also be using a standard Tank Icon when a LAT can destroy it and it could only annoy an MBT at best?

The current issue with claiming is that there is no comprehensive translation for which vehicles are apart of specific asset types let alone sub-asset types. The in-game asset list shows all the vehicles and their icons. Server rules describe what types of asset each squad can claim. How are new players supposed to know which icons represent each asset type? This is the crux of the matter.

Again, the icons themselves are not all about "asset claiming", in fact, they really have hardly anything to do with that. But again, there are many ways of telling what type of vehicles are what, mainly the ingame assets list, which states all the vehicles and even names the types (but only on the enemy side, possibly need to state the type on your teams too).


And if your confused about what assets you can claim, you should ask your squad leader/members, or an admin on the server to help clear things up as people have be doing to learn these things for years.

If there is still confusion, then possibly the servers need to define their rules a little better since, at the end of the day, asset claiming isn't a PR feature, it is a rule that servers have made up themselves.

The most likely reason CAS_ual_TY finally responded to me was because he recognized that I am trying to temporarily derail this train in order to have a legitimate discussion about the direction we are heading.

I suggest you make a new, dedicated topic if you want to discuss this further rather than derail someone else.

[HOLLYWOODY]

I'm sorry if there has been any confusion thus far. I was sincerely trying to address a seemingly related, underlying issue that I believe is present. I have probably overstated my concern and unfortunately I feel like we are not on the same page. Some of the feedback I received did not correspond to the messages I attempted to send. I think we may just have a semantics problem. For this reason, I do not want to respond in-depth to the last post. Overall, I agree with both of you for the most part in regard to this matter.

CAS_ual_TY, if possible, will you please add a few more icons for specific vehicles that have unique visual profiles such as certain jets? I will help you if you need it.

[HOLLYWOODY]

CAS_ual_TY, will you update your icon spreadsheet? Also, how do I share icons in posts?

[CAS_ual_TY]

I was a bit busy. Still am. If there are any more tweaks to do, let me know. Id say this is done tho :>

Google drive link containing all icons, presentation sheets and the presentation sheet template:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B55Sw ... UhYZ1NMUUE

[HOLLYWOODY]

The attached image is some brainstorming I did from when were discussing this topic. I think the longest vehicle in the game is the Chinook. Every pixel of an icon can represent 3 square meters. These are rough concepts for common US vehicles with ~ +/- 3m accuracy. Some even accurately show how many passengers the vehicle can carry. Every vehicle can potentially have it's own unique icon using this scale. If we don't want to use a standardized scale, I can also create some really beautiful unique icons utilizing all 32x32. I don't know if the actual maps can be scaled by pixel but that could be interesting.



I don't know if CAS_ual_TY's icon update proposal is being considered. Does the proposal only account for friendly vehicle icons on the map or also enemy vehicle icons created using a radio/commander? I still don't really think any update is necessary unless every vehicle gets their own icon or more basic icons are used for intuitive claiming purposes although minor changes could be nice. He is done working on this project but if a change may indeed occur I request to submit some alternative generic designs for evaluation beforehand. I would also need to know what type of standards, if any, I should maintain.

[mectus11]

With hollywood having done his best to derail this thread, what's happening with this? Is it being considered to be implemented into PR at some point?

[HOLLYWOODY]

mectus, I said “temporarily derail” and I regret using those choice words but I do not regret getting on board this thread. I thought I brought up valid rationale to assist and alter our course of this modification. I didn’t come here to shut this down, I’m only here to help improve what I deem unfit. CAS_ual_TY was a brave man for protecting this particular idea for so long but he is a goner now. I appreciate you to continuing to push this thread through the kill zone, I’ll take over where CAS_ual_TY went down.



I can make a custom icon for every vehicle in the game. I can also remake all other icons. As noted previously, I think we need to make some decisions based on scaling and asset sub-classes in some instances but I am confident I can complete it all once we determine the desired outcome. What we have now in-game is satisfactory. CAS_ual_TY made a valiant effort recognizing an area of weakness and attempting to improve upon it. I’m still here to and not going down without a fight.

[CAS_ual_TY]