FHQ M4 for Arma 3 (Prerelease)

[Alwarren 2767]

Alwarren, I offer this as feedback, not as a demand or an insult to your great work. Hopefully you won't take offense (and I'll attempt a better delivery than the previous poster)...

I don't take offense, also not from the previous post. However, simply saying "XXX is not authentic" doesn't really mean anything; I have compared the front post with the M4A1 picture from Wikipedia and didn't see any difference other than that I saved a few polies on a part of the weapon that is barely seen. Your description makes complete sense, and I'll check into it; you have pointed out what you see as an issue, and I am more than willing to work on that, if I know what the actual criticism is.

Hopefully that made sense

A lot of sense, thanks for the detailed explanation.

---------- Post added at 01:19 ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 ----------

Release frontpaged on the Armaholic homepage.

http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/news_download_a3_3.png

[ALPHA] FHQ M4 pack v1.1

Thanks a lot, Foxhound :)

Could you create a CompM4 Aimpoint for it ?

I could probably convert the one I did for Arma 2. I was hoping, though, that someone would come up with a contemporary attachment pack, I seem to remember Slatts was working on that.

I'll see what I can do. So far, I have no idea how the attachments work, resp. how the colimator would be made to work, that might take a bit of fiddling around. Definitely will have to wait until after the GL versions are done :)

[SqueekyMidget 1]

Alwarren I was thinking of if you can have the IR laser Pointer on top of the barrel instead of it being in the side like this:

[chortles 263]

"Side rails only" may be an engine limitation due to how the proxies are defined.

[fluttershy 2]

"Side rails only" may be an engine limitation due to how the proxies are defined.

AFAIK you could potentially put the "side rail" Proxy on top, but you would need to flip it correctly and align it so it doesnt touch the Top Rail proxy. Plus if you equip the Flashlight, which will use the same proxy - it looks silly.

[Alwarren 2767]

AFAIK you could potentially put the "side rail" Proxy on top, but you would need to flip it correctly and align it so it doesnt touch the Top Rail proxy. Plus if you equip the Flashlight, which will use the same proxy - it looks silly.

Yes, it is possible, but as you pointed out, it looks silly and there is the additional problem of visibility blocking. The ACOÄs are pretty low, so the laser or flashlight would very likely be in front of it.

[austina1986 14]

Perhaps for the weapon with the Side proxy being on top, you specify that it can only then use the IR Pointer. Likewise with the Flashlight, putting the Side proxy on the bottom rail and specifying only the Flashlight accessory.

Looking forward to what you decide and what you come up with.

Austin.

[fluttershy 2]

Perhaps for the weapon with the Side proxy being on top, you specify that it can only then use the IR Pointer. Likewise with the Flashlight, putting the Side proxy on the bottom rail and specifying only the Flashlight accessory.

Looking forward to what you decide and what you come up with.

Austin.

I am not sure if one is able to create a secondary proxy for just one single attachment. After all the Proxy needs to be supported by the game or the object will simply not react to the proxy given. The definition of Proxys is embedded into the p3d model but the attachments and there possible placement proxys are not located there but rather on the attachment. So changing that would potentially only allow self-created attachments on said position. That might be a bit much considering what we still have to do with it and about the fact that it's rather a preferance thing that is visual different but actually has little to no effect on the gameplay with the weapon.

[Alwarren 2767]

Perhaps for the weapon with the Side proxy being on top, you specify that it can only then use the IR Pointer. Likewise with the Flashlight, putting the Side proxy on the bottom rail and specifying only the Flashlight accessory

You cannot do that selectively, there is only one proxy and every accessory goes to that slot. So there is no way to put it on top, it will just block vision.

[massi 772]

Great work ...really enjoying your M4s ;) !!!

cheers

massi

[Alwarren 2767]

Great work ...really enjoying your M4s ;) !!!i

Thanks. Glad you like them :)

[Sandy* 10]

Recoil seems to be toned down from the original 6.5mm settings as well now, real nice! :)

Edit: With a sound suppressor the guns seem to use the vanilla 6.5mm recoil.

Edited March 19, 2013 by SandyBandy

[Alwarren 2767]

Recoil seems to be toned down from the original 6.5mm settings as well now, real nice! :)

Edit: With a sound suppressor the guns seem to use the vanilla 6.5mm recoil.

Weird, I thought the suppressor would only tone it down even more. I'll check it. Thanks for the feedback.

[austina1986 14]

No, I don't mean selectively, I mean disallowing specific attachments via the config line on specifically classed weapons (the weapon models with the differently positioned proxy).

So for instance, you configure one weapon to be allowed to equip the IR Pointer accessory but no other accessory (there's a config line that specifies which attachments can and cannot be added to a given weapon). I don't mean a secondary Side proxy etc, I mean using one proxy for the weapons, moving it from the side, to the top or bottom (depending on the attachment type) and then disallowing the incorrect accessory. Is this making any sense yet? I know I've seen a line on the config where you specify the accessory that a given weapon class can equip, so I dare say it would be possible, if not out of the scope of your project.

Regards,

Austin.

[fluttershy 2]

No, I don't mean selectively, I mean disallowing specific attachments via the config line on specifically classed weapons (the weapon models with the differently positioned proxy).

So for instance, you configure one weapon to be allowed to equip the IR Pointer accessory but no other accessory (there's a config line that specifies which attachments can and cannot be added to a given weapon). I don't mean a secondary Side proxy etc, I mean using one proxy for the weapons, moving it from the side, to the top or bottom (depending on the attachment type) and then disallowing the incorrect accessory. Is this making any sense yet? I know I've seen a line on the config where you specify the accessory that a given weapon class can equip, so I dare say it would be possible, if not out of the scope of your project.

Regards,

Austin.

It does make sense Austin. But: As far as i am aware Soldiers equip there Lasersights on top of the rifle to counter muzzleclimb as well as getting the weight center upon the rifle instead of having a slight sideway drag. Since A3 is currently not considering such indepth adjustments it would be for cosmeticle reasons only, on which i dont know if the ammount of work is equivilant to the result.

[Blace 10]

Hi, they are looking great and working fine for me, however i find the clipping thumb to be a little distracting. Is it possible to make the character hold the forward grip fully? I know it's possible since i'm also using the RH PDW custom weapon and it's working there. Maybe i'm nitpicking so other than that great work! I'm sure the other bugs will be fixed sooner or later.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

You can just position the PEQ-15 with a bit of an offset from the usual orientation of laser attachments (inside the PEQ-15 .p3d I mean), so that when it loads onto the side proxy it actually appears on the top rail, where all the official attachments (flashlight, DBAL etc.) remain on the side rail.

Obviously the offset would be specific to the M4's rails, so loading the same PEQ-15 attachment class on another weapon model wouldn't look correct, but that depends on whether Al intends to make his custom weapon attachment classes universal to all of his weapon addons.

Edited March 19, 2013 by da12thMonkey

[fluttershy 2]

Hi, they are looking great and working fine for me, however i find the clipping thumb to be a little distracting. Is it possible to make the character hold the forward grip fully? I know it's possible since i'm also using the RH PDW custom weapon and it's working there. Maybe i'm nitpicking so other than that great work! I'm sure the other bugs will be fixed sooner or later.

The Animations are currently work in progress. We are testing the Mk 14 EBR hand-anim and maybee have to consult about a custom hand-anim in order to remove the clipping effect.

[Alwarren 2767]

Hi, they are looking great and working fine for me, however i find the clipping thumb to be a little distracting. Is it possible to make the character hold the forward grip fully? I know it's possible since i'm also using the RH PDW custom weapon and it's working there. Maybe i'm nitpicking so other than that great work! I'm sure the other bugs will be fixed sooner or later.

No worries, I was planning to either pick a different hand anim or make one myself. I will have to do that anyway for the M320. Like I said earlier, my main priority was to get an update out so that the crash bugs were gone.

You can just position the PEQ-15 with a bit of an offset from the usual orientation of laser attachments (inside the PEQ-15 .p3d I mean), so that when it loads onto the side proxy it actually appears on the top rail, where all the official attachments (flashlight, DBAL etc.) remain on the side rail.

Obviously the offset would be specific to the M4's rails, so loading the same PEQ-15 attachment class on another weapon model wouldn't look correct, but that depends on whether Al intends to make his custom weapon attachment classes universal to all of his weapon addons.

Yeah that would be a possibility, but I am still skeptical this is feasible. The collimator sights, as they are now, are already covered up by the front post. I will probably try to put a riser rail under them, but I doubt they will get high enough. The same applies to the iron sight, a PEQ-15 would probably cover it up completely.

A solution would be to have two of them, one for side and one for top rail, but I am a bit doubtful as to whether that is a desirable solution. A solution nonetheless, tough, one that I might consider.

Personally, while I really like the system as it is now, would have preferred a less in-mission system and more of an out-of-mission configuration where only certain aspects like the silencer could be exchanged during the mission, but the weapon itself could be more customized, a bit like what

for Ground Branch, with the option of putting stuff on all rails, including a GL or front grip. That would, of course, also require different activation keys for the rail accessories. Maybe we'll see it in the first expansion pack :)

[nouty 10]

Nice Alwarren!

[Max255 59]

Yeah that would be a possibility, but I am still skeptical this is feasible. The collimator sights, as they are now, are already covered up by the front post. I will probably try to put a riser rail under them, but I doubt they will get high enough. The same applies to the iron sight, a PEQ-15 would probably cover it up completely..

I run my PEQ-15 on top rail along with either SpecterDR or EOTech 553 and also tried it with iron sights. PEQ does not block the view in any case though it can limit lower part of FOV, especially when using open sights. Still usable, just needs some time to get used to...

[Alwarren 2767]

;2346940']I run my PEQ-15 on top rail along with either SpecterDR or EOTech 553 and also tried it with iron sights. PEQ does not block the view in any case though it can limit lower part of FOV' date=' especially when using open sights. Still usable, just needs some time to get used to...[/quote']

I just tired it, yeah it would work with the iron sights and the scopes/eotech but not the ACO. I'll have to see how high I can get the ACO with a riser rail, but then, all of the scopes will use a riser; alternatively, I could try and make the ACO's incompatible... The ACO's are the big issue in either case, though.

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:50 ----------

Nice Alwarren!

Thanks :)

[fluttershy 2]

Well if you would remodel the M4 to be the new Colt Advanced Piston Carbine you have flip up sights that should not obsturct your vision even with a PEQ on top.

But then again - would not be an m4 anymore.

http://i577.photobucket.com/albums/ss216/art1stu/DSCF5719.jpg

or maybee the PEQ-15 is to big in the model. It should be possible to use the ironsights, but obstruction would be there.

[scarecrow398 43]

Well if you would remodel the M4 to be the new Colt Advanced Piston Carbine you have flip up sights that should not obsturct your vision even with a PEQ on top.

But then again - would not be an m4 anymore.

http://i577.photobucket.com/albums/ss216/art1stu/DSCF5719.jpg

or maybee the PEQ-15 is to big in the model. It should be possible to use the ironsights, but obstruction would be there.

But it would fit into the future setting a little more than the M4A1 :P

Alternatively you could remove the M4's current sights and use Magpul BUISs

http://www.magpul.com/assets/images/blogImages/MAG248_PDE_03.jpg

My two criticisms about the current M4 release would be the iron sights look a bit like a syringe, they need to be a little flared and a little thicker, see:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_59GYpEVAu0U/TM5k0neiAHI/AAAAAAAAAgY/X8zQzmktqbU/s1600/ar-15-sight.jpg

and the other thing is its a little too accurate, while there shouldn't be a massive amount, there should be just the slightest amount of vertical recoil so you can get a 50mm grouping at 300m :p

If you take the current version and use 'this setunitrecoilcoefficent 4' in a unit and fire it, i think that's a alright amount of recoil.

[chortles 263]

The Animations are currently work in progress. We are testing the Mk 14 EBR hand-anim and maybee have to consult about a custom hand-anim in order to remove the clipping effect.

Wait, two things:

#1: How would this substantively (enough to in my mind justify the effort) differ from the existing EBR besides caliber?

#2: Don't tell me that you're sticking the MK 14 EBR into the FHQ M4 pack too? :( I already held that against RH's MK 18 pack for OA/CO!

[jetset22a 7]

Wait, two things:

#1: How would this substantively (enough to in my mind justify the effort) differ from the existing EBR besides caliber?

#2: Don't tell me that you're sticking the MK 14 EBR into the FHQ M4 pack too? :( I already held that against RH's MK 18 pack for OA/CO!

In regards to your #2, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was referring to applying the existing EBR's animations onto the M4, not putting a brand new EBR into the game. On another note, +1 to scarecrow398's comment, the rifle definitely needs more recoil, not too much, but at least something comparable to the current mx 6.8 just ever so slightly reduced. After all, you did such a great job on this and I do so love the M4, I would hate to get so used to the nonexistent recoil from playing with it so often!