FHQ M4 for Arma 3 (Prerelease)

[Alwarren 2767]

O.o

Guess I need to switch to dev build to check how that looks...

[ronin_987 1]

Alwarren you doing a great jub! This mod is my favorite one, keep it up. Just wanted to say that :D

[sickemx 1]

Thank you for all your work with this pack! I was just wondering if you have any future plans to also bring the Remington pack into ArmA 3 ?

[Alwarren 2767]

Thank you for all your work with this pack! I was just wondering if you have any future plans to also bring the Remington pack into ArmA 3 ?

I am looking at the Remingtons as well. However, I am not very happy anymore with the XM2010 and MSR and might remodel them. The RSASS I will probably do a new unwrap and texturing, and I also made a new Magpul angled foregrip that I want o use in one variant of the ACR.

[Alwarren 2767]

Currently working on the next version of the pack, among other things, now with some extra attachments:

(click to enlarge; units are USMC retex by Sabre)

There will be an extra Accessory pack that will work with the Remingtons as well once I release them. The pack currently contains:

• Trijicon ACOG
  
• Aimpoint Comp M4
  
• Eotech Holo + G33 Scope
  
• GSCi TWS-3050 Thermal scope
  
• AN/PEQ-15 Infrared Laser
  
• LLM-01 as Laser and Flashlight
  

ETA as usual (i.e. "when it's done")

[spectrersg 9]

Cant wait for those optics!

[pundra 8]

• Eotech Holo + G33 Scope
  

Looks fantastic. Does the scope actually flip down when you switch optic modes?

[Alwarren 2767]

Looks fantastic. Does the scope actually flip down when you switch optic modes?

No, unfortunately we don't seem to have an anim source for that yet. I made an entry in the issue tracker here for this

Basically, what is needed is an animation source for the optics mode/currently active optic in order to animate this.

[HorbeySpector 164]

Looks good! I'd love to see this M4 in AOR1&2 variant. :)

[Alwarren 2767]

Looks good! I'd love to see this M4 in AOR1&2 variant. :)

I'll have a talk with Fluttershy ;)

[Blister 10]

Is there going to be a magnifier option for the Aimpoint as well? They look great, btw. I'm excited.

[Alwarren 2767]

Is there going to be a magnifier option for the Aimpoint as well? They look great, btw. I'm excited.

Hm,good idea I could add that. Prior to Arma 3, with the Remington pack, adding another optics option would add 8 models to the fray... now it is only one, so there is definitely more room for accessory options. It's too bad the magnifier cannot be an extra accessory (same with e.g. a night vision addon to the ACOG), but things have already vastly improved... Which reminds me I could also do different camo versions of the optics.

(Note to self: no feature creep)

[gatordev 219]

In the interest of feature creep (oops)...

Any thought to having the ACOG with NV, like you mentioned? Even though you can't add it as an additional accessory, I think (correct me if I'm wrong), you could still have it installed and have the ability to turn the night vision on and off (for day or night).

Regardless, looking great.

[Alwarren 2767]

In the interest of feature creep (oops)...

Any thought to having the ACOG with NV, like you mentioned? Even though you can't add it as an additional accessory, I think (correct me if I'm wrong), you could still have it installed and have the ability to turn the night vision on and off (for day or night).

Regardless, looking great.

I made an AN/PVS-29 for the MSR and XM2010, I suppose that could be adapted but it will be very large and will be difficult to fit on the rails. It will work on the M4 with the NV part on the front top rail, but it might have trouble on some other weapons, especially the bullpup weapons.

I am currently working on the M203 version's hand positioning, which is a pain in the ass due to the new side stepping shoulder change stretching the arm at an impossible angle. Depending on the time I have I might add an NV scope or a clip-on for the ACOG. I also want to make a correct reticle for the ACOG (it currently still uses the ARCO one), and maybe the magnifier for the aimpoint.

So, we'll see :)

[gatordev 219]

Finally got a chance to mess with these in-game for more than a few seconds. Really nice looking. I just wish BIS would have a better suppressed sound. Hopefully in time...they've got nothing on LordJarhead's.

As for the PVS, I thought you had a model already. I didn't realize you'd have to start from scratch, so I understand why that's not a priority. What made me ask is there's one in ACE which is a nice addition when all you have is an ACOG and it's at night. Obviously it's not modular like in A3. But like you said, it would still have it's limitations in A3 due to how they did attachments.

[Alwarren 2767]

Yeah I have an AN/PVS-29, I am just a bit worried it might be too big. I'll have to see.

[fidai 12]

Big thx sharing this with us and want add that this how the M4 sounds actually in open areas like Arma 3 .

[Alwarren 2767]

I know the sounds are not optima, I have used the default sounds that come with Arma 3 (the TAR-21's sounds). I need to add some custom sounds, but those are hard to find.

[fidai 12]

I know the sounds are not optima, I have used the default sounds that come with Arma 3 (the TAR-21's sounds). I need to add some custom sounds, but those are hard to find.

Lot of high quality real M4 sounds on Youtube, just make sure you pick the the ones in open areas. Indoor ones sounds totally different.

[scarecrow398 43]

Yeah I have an AN/PVS-29, I am just a bit worried it might be too big. I'll have to see.

I think the PVS 29 would look a little ridiculous and probably wouldn't even work IRL.

I was going to suggest that PVS14's in tandem seem to be popular, but upon further research it seems they're actually quite terrible when it comes to image quality with an optic and isn't practical other than with EOTechs and aimpoints.

Something i did find though was this:

http://stickman.rainierarms.com/galleries/KAC/KNIGHT%20VISION%20Stick.gif

An image intensifier made by KAC, the KAC UNS-SR

http://stickman.rainierarms.com/galleries/KAC/0O2P8849-A-1028-Stick.jpg

It seems to be a pretty straight forward design, aesthetically and is designed to work with both ACOGs, Aimpoints and scopes in mind with acceptable image quality.

[Alwarren 2767]

Lot of high quality real M4 sounds on Youtube, just make sure you pick the the ones in open areas. Indoor ones sounds totally different.

Yeah, the issue is copyright. I don't want to open a can of worms by using a sound that someone else claims copyright on.

I think the PVS 29 would look a little ridiculous and probably wouldn't even work IRL.

I guess it can be made to work, but the result would look a tad bit weird, yes.

It seems to be a pretty straight forward design, aesthetically and is designed to work with both ACOGs, Aimpoints and scopes in mind with acceptable image quality.

Looks good. Should be easy to do, since it isn't much more than a tube :) I'll have a look.

[akm74 1]

It's not the M4 pack that's at fault, but the VAS.

Addon makers use prefixes for their class names, to avoid conflicts. FHQ's prefix is registered as "FHQ_", all our addons use this prefix in all public names.

Therefore, the M4 pack's weapons and items all begin with FHQ_. VAS assumes a certain name scheme for the silencers, which is plainly a bug. It would have to check the config entry to see whether the addon can be added to the muzzle slot or not.

Eidt: Geez, ninja'd by my own brother :D

May I Suggest "bisDefaultPrefixName_FHQ_customName" ?

[Alwarren 2767]

May I Suggest "bisDefaultPrefixName_FHQ_customName" ?

This can still lead to issues/collisions with BIS addons. A modder with prefix "EOT" might run into problems with the BIS Eotech sights. The only other option would be to put the name in the back by default (_optic_ACOG_FHQ), but I still do not see it as a pressing issue, since if you want to have the full list of supported addons for a weapon, you can simply read its config entry, which is much better than relying on a naming scheme that might or might not be applicable.

But so far, putting the name in front is the agreed-upon method, and I don't think it is a good idea to change that without actually issuing mandatory naming guidelines.

[Varanon 892]

May I Suggest "bisDefaultPrefixName_FHQ_customName" ?

Why ? It's a bug in VAS if it assumes that classes with a certain prefix are attachments. It needs to check the type of attachment in the config file, which it has to iterate over anyway to find the appropriate attachments in the first place.

[koffeinflummi 96]

Why ? It's a bug in VAS if it assumes that classes with a certain prefix are attachments. It needs to check the type of attachment in the config file, which it has to iterate over anyway to find the appropriate attachments in the first place.

It would also create a giant mess with some authors doing that, and some not. Apart from that, if you look at the silencer classname: muzzle_snds_[x], I could easily imagine that some classnames would consist parts that are some peoples' prefixes.