cp702

Apple hardware can indeed run Windows, and has been able to for quite a while (this is useful for, among others, people who prefer Macs but need to run Windows-only software for work, or who need to run both Mac-only and Windows-only software for work). That said, iMacs have a lot of the constraints of laptop hardware, since that's generally how all-in-one PCs are built (laptop hardware is easy to cram into any form factor; desktop hardware tends to work well when given a big box with lots of space, but doesn't like the constraints coming with an all-in-one). That said, I currently have a laptop with an NVS 5400M, which is quite a bit worse for gaming than a GTX 775M (the NVS series is designed for business/CAD work, not for gaming), and I can run GTA IV just fine (albeit generally without high-poly car mods or ELS, no ENB, and paying attention to how many scripts I use). If you aren't going for high-poly car mods or ENB, you should be fine with the Mac. Also: Presumably you use your computer for many things besides GTA; if you really like OS X and want to use it as your main OS, and are willing to pay the premium, I'd definitely get a Mac. You can set it up to dual-boot Windows, which carries no performance penalty (it's not emulating; it's actually running Windows exactly like any other computer does), and you can launch into OS X for normal use.

Does the API support that sort of fine-grainedness? Having a suspect who had already evaded visual? To go with "officer in trouble", maybe add "attack on an EMT"? I'd also advise having a look through the 1.0 audio files; it's always nicest if you can have audio corresponding to your callout.

Do none of the vehicles in GTA have bars like those? You might be able to lift them from an ingame pickup.

Now that the API is released, we don't expect many mods like Policing in the future to have their own callout managers. With the API, someone coding a callout could either work out their own manager and make people choose between their own implementation and LCPDFR, and fully integrating, getting access to the LCPDFR manager, making it possible for people to seamlessly use their mod without worrying about turning off LCPDFR's callouts, play *audio* to help with the callout, etc. At this point, there is little reason to *not* at least use the API to some extent; it can allow things like auto-backup, setting suspects as wanted, creating and controlling pursuit instances, etc. - a highway patrol callout involving a bad driver could be substantially enhanced by using LCPDFR's criminal AI and pursuit system. If someone's already integrating with the API, there's little reason to make their own callout manager. Is there a reason just declining non-highway patrol callouts wouldn't work? Alternatively, you could suggest making an INI option to disable default callouts; that'd probably be more likely to happen. However, with the API, a separate callout manager goes from "necessary kludge" to "only put it in if you really want to, because it's easier to integrate with LCPDFR".

Again: What you're suggesting is that someone code something from scratch, replicating all of LCPDFR, and with the only difference being the callouts. That is very, very, very unlikely to happen. If someone does make additional callouts, now that 1.0 has an API they're much more likely to integrate them into LCPDFR's callout manager. Which means your best bet would be to run LCPDFR and just not attend non-highway callouts.

@OP: LCPDFR cannot be edited by end users, or anyone except the development team. No one's going to create an entirely new mod containing all the features of LCPDFR with that small tweak. However, you have 2 options: 1) If/when new callout mods are released by the community containing highway patrol-esque functions, use them, and just choose not to handle any non-highway-patrol callouts. 2) If someone were to implement additional highway callouts NOT using the API (or using it but supplying their own callout manager instead of inheriting from Callout), you could use that and just set LCPDFR to busy to disable default callouts. Option 1 is likelier to work.

You might have the model from Custo's old New Cops mod installed. That mod provided the white cop by replacing the model with the TLaD prison guard, who only had long sleeves and leather jacket, not raincoat or short sleeves (the newer versions instead add the white cop head directly to the IV model).

Murphy, you're already a special cop. Everyone knows you can't be a Judge and a Robocop at the same time.

Is it just me, or is that a bit boxy and unwieldly for a rifle? Keep in mind that firearm design is based in decent part on comfort and ease of holding, and that doesn't change very quickly. Thin slit-like trigger guards will never be very useful.

Which two?

You was not "you Cj24"; it was "you generic second-person". I wasn't accusing you Cj24 of breaking the rules, since you seem to generally *not* engage in public accusations and are doing exactly what you should: asking for rule changes. Sorry for any confusion.

The concern isn't swapping the gun for the taser. The concern is that if the taser doesn't work, the officer doesn't have time to drop the taser, unholster the pistol, and fire. As a general rule, less-lethal weaponry is more likely to be used if a backup officer is present to supply *lethal* force if it turns out to be needed; with no backup, a cop has to be much more careful. Also, I don't think police habitually train rapidly holstering a firearm, since there are few circumstances where it's needed. You're much more likely to need to draw a gun quickly than put it away, especially if you're a uniformed officer who doesn't have to worry about being confused with a criminal.

Cj: If content doesn't break the rules, we won't take action, but a report still gives us the information in case it's useful in the future (e.g. if the file is uploaded). However, we have rules against public theft accusations. If you don't like them, you are free to criticize them, suggest alternatives, ask that they be changed, etc. But until they're changed, they're the rules. One thing we've seen a lot of is people deciding that it's most important that people know something is ripped, and so they're free to post in public if staff won't do anything. That's not the case. Much of our frustration is that people respond to rules they don't like by first breaking them repeatedly, then getting extremely angry when we act based on the rulebreaking. The people who do this seem to feel that if they think the rules are bad, they should be able to break them without consequence. When they do that, it makes them lose credibility when arguing for rule changes - habitually ignoring rules you dislike makes it seem less likely that you'll be willing to work with us and compromise on anything.

By less heavy, we mean less resource-heavy. Since ELS cars generally go for realism more, most ELS cars are attempts to replicate a real vehicle. Non-ELS vehicles are more likely to be based off the cars already in IV (reducing poly count considerably), and also, because many people who use non-ELS do so for performance reasons, modders who make them are more likely to pay attention to poly count. In addition, ELS itself puts a decently big load on your system. GTA IV is poorly optimized for PC; since it's the same game whether or not it's on Steam, the retail version and Steam version are equally poorly optimized. The memory error when you exit GTA is a result of how LCPDFR loads the taser into the game; however, since it happens only when you quit the game, crashes don't really affect your playing experience (or as I like to phrase it: "Oh no, the program had an issue and has to close, and just when I was about to close it!") If you are unsure about lag, try each of them. However, know that 0.95 is no longer supported; all future development will be progressing from 1.0.

What do you mean by "can't use"? If the vision issue means you can't join a police force, many other jobs are more likely to hire a college graduate. It obviously depends on the price of school if it's worth it, but "can't use" is sort of an odd concept.

Too bad, that's what you get when he's your citizen :P

Almost everyone is offered bail. It'd be extremely unusual if he WEREN'T, since he's not much of a flight risk or much of a serious danger to the community (that applies to violent criminals, not drag racers). Pretty much anyone arrested for DUI would be out on bail.

I actually think there's a lot less disagreement here than it seems like there is. We all agree that people shouldn't be able to upload mods to the database without permission from the people who created them. I think we pretty much all agree that modders should get to control whether or not someone is allowed to edit and redistribute their work. The disagreement on the rules end seems to be 3 points: 1) If someone's *not* redistributing a model, is it OK for them to rip and edit? When it's for personal use only, do modders get to control whether or not they edit it? Note that the meaning of "redistributing" is point 2. Point 1 only applies to when you feel they're genuinely only doing it for personal use - for example, everyone could probably agree that if they don't tell anyone about ripping, don't share pictures or videos of the car, and don't upload it anywhere, it's only for personal use. 2) At what point is something no longer for personal use only? Obviously, uploading a model means it's no longer for personal use. What about taking pictures of it and uploading them? Does it depend on the type of picture (e.g. some pictures are primarily to show a cool scene, possibly with a story; others are to show off a car; others, it could be either depending on interpretation). 3) Depending on the answers to (1) and (2), to what degree should the community team try to enforce them? How should that process work? What recourse does a modder have if they think something shouldn't be allowed, but we don't think it falls within our scope to enforce? Part of the issue is that at this point, there are two 'sides' which have elements which are automatically hostile to each other. That taints the whole argument. But I don't see why we can't have a reasoned discussion on points 1, 2, and 3. Much of this topic has been a discussion about those. FWIW, my answers to the three points: 1) No one else gets any say in what I do on my personal computer. If someone is ripping models and not sharing them (for whatever definition you choose of "sharing"; for example, for Cj24, this would not apply if they are uploading pictures of the models). 2) Uploading the model is certainly sharing. Using it on your own computer without uploading pics or videos is not sharing. I'd actually be partial to a system where the only time it's being shared is when it's uploaded anywhere; in that system, if you accuse someone of ripping the model in an image, it'd be fine to say "Yeah, so? I'm not giving it to anyone else, not even privately. Why's that an issue for you?" 3) For uploaded models, it's easy - we have the model, and if it's someone else's and they say they didn't give permission, then the file goes down, and we deal with the uploader. In addition, there's one more question, not directly tied to rules: What do you mean by "modders should have control of their work?" If a mod is released to the public, but is locked and comes with the condition "no editing without permission", what interests are being protected by that? Why do you want to restrict editing? I should note that there are a decent number of good reasons for wanting to do so; the thing is, the reason matters. If your goal is to prevent people from taking credit for the work, then it means that someone who edits it but credits you hasn't caused that issue. If the goal is to get decent use out of the model by keeping first dibs on any configuration (if you release unlocked, it can mean that other people make different setups before you can: for example, if Kevin released the Bearcat unlocked at first, then someone else could have stuck the Arjent on it before him, so the other person would get the praise and downloads that Kevin should have had). There are plenty of other reasons as well. So what are you actually trying to protect when you lock a model?

Eluding police is a lot more serious than street racing (it's generally a felony, and will likely result in automatic license revocation). Just because someone breaks the law in one way, doesn't mean they have no respect for the law and will break it in any way needed.

You probably don't want to use the built-in ones, as they're specific to the built-in callouts - they aren't general in any way. Just do something like string.Format("We have reports of a crime in {0}.", Functions.GetAreaStringFromPosition(this.spawnPosition)); The built-in strings are done the way they are to support translation into other languages - by putting them in a resources file, we can just change that file to change all user-visible text. You don't need to worry about it for your own mods.

It's free for students at students.autodesk.com (it is very, very expensive for professional use, but students get it free).

Ped models are generally done using 3ds max with openFormats (there's a plugin to 3ds max that can deal with openFormats's .odd and .otd files, and OpenIV can import/export .otds and .odds to .wtds and .wdds).

I think it actually would change things. Skins don't have nearly the same degree of fighting over mod theft that models do. Probably part of that is that it's harder to rip a model, and you have to know that you're doing something the original modeler didn't want. With skins, there's nothing like that - editing a skin whose creator doesn't want it edited is no different from editing a skin released with "you can mess with this as much as you want to, just credit me". Permissions also seem to flow more easily with skins, because again, it's just words stopping people from doing things - there's no technical discouragement. If I wanted to make something using one of your locked models, you'd have to send me the unlocked model first before I could even start. When you send me the unlocked model, you're running the risk that I'll then send it on to other people, who will assume that it's OK for them to use it. Meanwhile, you'd have a hard time stopping me from making whatever mods I wanted with it, instead of just one. That's because you rely on a technical feature to try to keep models restricted. If, in contrast, I wanted to edit your *skins*, you could easily say "Yeah, this particular thing seems OK, but ask me again if you want to make a different skin." I can't transfer your permission to other people - when receiving an unlocked model, people assume it's OK to use, but no one would accept "I got permission for this skin, and you have it too now." I may have already edited the skin, and you won't be shocked that I did so - it's not like I intentionally defeated technical measures to edit it. Essentially, I think that if Zmodeler didn't have the feature to lock a model, people would be less obsessive about mod theft. No one would try to pretend that they could stop people editing it for personal use, and asking for permission to edit and release wouldn't be a high-trust activity (like getting an unlocked model is). It's true that the people who don't want anyone editing their models, who won't accept the risk associated with unlocked models, wouldn't make models. But I think a lot of people who release everything/most things locked would be willing to release unlocked if it were the only option. If they wouldn't be willing to, I'd have to ask why they mod, and why they release models.