Crosshair Outline

Here I am trying to add an outline to my crosshair. I've tried adding the code myself. Didnt work. I've even used somebodies clientsceme which is only edited with that "outline" "1"
It still doesnt work. I've had it work before but now I cant do it.

Crosshairs
{
"1"
{
"name" "HalfLife2"
"tall" "40"
"weight" "0"
"antialias" "0"
"additive" "1"
"custom" "1"
"yres" "1 10000"
"outline" "1"
}
}
Of course, the actual code and format of it wont show up. But really, why would this not work? I've extracted the clean clientscheme, and made sure it was read only. It still wont work! D:

Change additive to zero
"additive" "0"

Thank you.

Can some one tell me which file this is in?

Clientscheme.res found in \hl2mp\resource

Thanks I had forgot where it was.

TiGGy wrote:Here I am trying to add an outline to my crosshair. I've tried adding the code myself. Didnt work. I've even used somebodies clientsceme which is only edited with that "outline" "1"
It still doesnt work. I've had it work before but now I cant do it.

Crosshairs
{
"1"
{
"name" "HalfLife2"
"tall" "40"
"weight" "0"
"antialias" "0"
"additive" "1"
"custom" "1"
"yres" "1 10000"
"outline" "1"
}
}
Of course, the actual code and format of it wont show up. But really, why would this not work? I've extracted the clean clientscheme, and made sure it was read only. It still wont work! D:

*yawn* its already been covered by me so use 1 of mine and see if it doesnt help
http://www.hl2dm-university.com/crossha ... UDs_v2.zip

*yawn* its already been covered by me
http://www.hl2dm-university.com/crossha ... UDs_v2.zip i think the crosshairs section needs more hype if this is still coming to attention though its been posted in several different forums

As I just said on another thread, I think this site is filled with tutorials by different users or important information, like making sprays, changing your flashlight sprite, modifying the hud, the crosshair, and so on, but it's all scattered on the forums. I'd say sticky those threads or make little articles for the main site so it is easier to find...

yeah i jumped ahead all i read was the title and then i skimmed over it so my response was out of haste sorry for the quick to bash just been gone a long time and when i finally come back to read about something that I did every possible version that i could think of at the time to be posted about having issues with something that i made simple so ppl who had no technical experience could easily change on whim got me miffed

Definitely the first one.

nah i figured it out about six posts ago guys lol.

Ya I changed the parameter in the clientscheme file and it works great. Thanks.

is that still working? tried it in different ways and with different crosshairs but no chance...
a friend of mine told me its not possible anymore, but if someone has an idea i would really appreciate it!

skom wrote:is that still working? tried it in different ways and with different crosshairs but no chance...
a friend of mine told me its not possible anymore, but if someone has an idea i would really appreciate it!

the only chance of having an outline only works on non pure servers using sprite files which you can also edit to different crosshairs for each wep adrenalinegamer 2 has several in 1 of there UI's and if you play sub-zero's mod you can enable an outline there but for valves new engine of shit you cant

all hail to valve and touching a running system...

Neolinkster wrote:yeah i jumped ahead all i read was the title and then i skimmed over it so my response was out of haste sorry for the quick to bash just been gone a long time and when i finally come back to read about something that I did every possible version that i could think of at the time to be posted about having issues with something that i made simple so ppl who had no technical experience could easily change on whim got me miffed

Holy fucking shit. Please, learn to use those punctuation keys on your keyboard.

Constipator wrote:

Neolinkster wrote:yeah i jumped ahead all i read was the title and then i skimmed over it so my response was out of haste sorry for the quick to bash just been gone a long time and when i finally come back to read about something that I did every possible version that i could think of at the time to be posted about having issues with something that i made simple so ppl who had no technical experience could easily change on whim got me miffed

Holy fucking shit. Please, learn to use those punctuation keys on your keyboard.

in da inturnets spulling and gramatikal wurkings dnt mad-er if yor only n ay 4um so now i wil hnt dwn a long article and remve all pnkchuashins nd post it jst 4 u grammatik aryanites

by dr roy spencer

there was a very clever paper published in science this past week by lacis schmidt rind and ruedy that uses the giss climate model modele in an attempt to prove that carbon dioxide is the main driver of the climate system

this paper admits that its goal is to counter the oftquoted claim that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas in our atmosphere they provide a 1991 lindzen reference as an example of that claim

through a series of computations and arguments the authors claim that is actually the co2 not water vapor that sustains the warmth of our climate system


i suspect this paper will result in as many opinions in the skeptic community as there are skeptics giving opinions but unless one is very careful in reading this paper and knows exactly what the authors are talking about it is easy to get distracted by superfluous details and miss the main point

for instance their table comparing the atmospheres of the earth venus and mars does nothing to refute the importance of water vapor to the earths average temperature while they show that the atmosphere of mars is very thin they fail to point out the martian atmosphere actually has more co2 than our atmosphere does

i do not have a problem with the authors calculations or their climate model experiment per se there is not much new here and their model run produces about what i would expect it is an interesting exercise that has value by itself

it is instead their line of reasoning i object to what they claim their model results mean in terms of causation– in their obvious attempt to relegate the role of water vapor in the atmosphere to that of a passive component that merely responds to the warming effect of co2…the real driver they claim of the climate system

our assumptions determine our conclusions

from what i can tell reading the paper their claim is that since our primary greenhouse gas water vapor and clouds which constitute a portion of the greenhouse effect respond quickly to temperature change vapor and clouds should only be considered feedbacks upon temperature change not forcings that cause the average surface temperature of the atmosphere to be what it is in the first place

though not obvious this claim is central to the tenet of the paper and is an example of the causeversuseffect issue i repeatedly refer to in the past when discussing some of the most fundamental errors made in the scientific consensus on climate change

it is a subtle attempt to remove water vapor from the discussion of control over the climate system by definition only those of us who know enough of the details of forcingfeedback theory within the context of climate change theory will likely realize this through

just because water vapor responds quickly to temperature change does not mean that there are no longterm water vapor changes or cloud changes not due to temperature that cause climate change asserting so is a non sequitur and just leads to circular reasoning

i am not claiming the authors are being deceptive i think i understand why so many scientists go down this path of reasoning they view the climate system as a selfcontained selfcontrolled complex of physically intertwined processes that would forever remain unchanged until some external influence forcing enters the picture and alters the rules by which the climate system operates

of course increasing co2 is the currently fashionable forcing in this climatological worldview

but i cannot overemphasize the central important of this paradigm or construct of climate change theory to the eventual conclusions the climate researcher will inevitably make

if one assumes from the outset that the climate system can only vary through changes imposed external to the normal operation of the climate system one then removes natural internal climate cycles from the list of potential causes of global warming and natural changes in water vapor or more likely clouds are one potential source of internallydriven change there are influences on cloud and water vapor other than temperature which in turn help to determine the average temperature state of the climate system

after assuming clouds and water vapor are no more than feedbacks upon temperature the lacis et al paper then uses a climate model experiment to prove their paradigm that co2 drives climate by forcing the model with a co2 change resulting in a large temperature response

well duH if they had forced the model with a water vapor change it would have done the same thing or a cloud change but they had already assumed water vapor and clouds cannot be climate drivers

specifically they ran a climate model experiment in which they instantaneously removed all of the atmospheric greenhouse gases except water vapor and they got rapid cooling plunging the climate into an icebound earth state the result after 7 years of model integration time is shown in the next image



such a result is not unexpected for the giss model but while this is indeed an interesting theoretical exercise we must be very careful about what we deduce from it about the central question we are ultimately interested in: How much will the climate system warm from humanity adding carbon dioxide to it we cant lose sight of why we are discussing all of this in the first place

as i have already pointed out the authors have predetermined what they would find they assert water vapor as well as cloud cover is a passive follower of a climate system driven by co2 they run a model experiment that then proves what they already assumed at the outset

but we also need to recognize that their experiment is misleading in other ways too

first the instantaneous removal of 100% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere except for water vapor causes about 8 times the radiative forcing over 30 watts per sq meter as does a 100% increase in co2 2xco2 causing less than 4 watts per sq meter something that will not occur until late this century if ever

this is the socalled logarithmic effect adding more and more co2 has a progressively weaker radiative forcing response

currently we are about 40% of the way to that doubling thus their experiment involves 20 times the radiative forcing we are now experiencing theoretically at least from over a century of carbon dioxide emissions

so are we to assume that this dramatic theoretical example should influence our views of the causes and future path of global warming when their noco2 experiment involves ~20 times the radiative forcing of what has occurred to date from adding more co2 to the atmosphere

furthermore the cloud feedbacks in their climate model are positive which further amplifies the models temperature response to forcing as readers here are aware our research suggests that cloud feedbacks in the real climate system might be so strongly negative that they could more than negate any positive water vapor feedback

in fact this is where the authors have made a logical stumble everyone agrees that the net effect of clouds is to cool the climate system on average but the climate models suggest that the cloud feedback response to the addition of co2 to our current climate system will be just the opposite with cloud changes acting to amplify the warming

what the authors didnt realize is that when they decided to relegate the role of clouds in the average state of the climate system to one of feedback their models positive cloud feedback actually contradicts the known negative feedback effect of clouds on the climates normal state

oops

in retrospect i suppose they could claim that cloud feedbacks switched from negative at the low temperatures of an icebound earth to being positive at the higher temperatures of the real climate system but that might mess up jim Hansens claim of strongly positive feedbacks during the ice ages

conclusion
taken together the series of computations and claims made by lacis et al might lead the casual reader to think wow carbon dioxide really does have a strong effect on the earths climate system and in my view it does but the paper really tells us nothing new about 1 how much warming we can expect from adding more co2 to the atmosphere or 2 how much of recent warming was caused by co2

the paper implies that it presents new understanding but all it does is get more explicit about the conceptual hoops one must jump through in order to claim that co2 is the main driver of the climate system from that standpoint alone i find the paper quite revealing

unfortunately what i present here is just a blog posting it would take another peerreviewed paper that follows an alternative path to effectively counter the lacis paper and show that it merely concludes what it assumes at the outset i am only outlining here what i see as the main issues

of course the chance of editors at science allowing such a response paper to get published is virtually zero the editors at science choose which scientists will be asked to provide peer review and they already know who they can count on to reject a skeptics paper

many of us have already been there done that