3p0x1 74 Posted September 20, 2014 Wow snipe, probably should've modeled, textured and wrote the configs yourself, then you could've enjoyed it without comin off as ungrateful for doing the work you aren't doing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nsnipe 10 Posted September 21, 2014 In fact i have modeled and textured. Even did some configs, but i'm just too lazy to finish stuff :D Sry if that sounded ungrateful - had no such intentions. Anyway it is long waited update, and its getting harder and harder by each day... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roberthammer 582 Posted September 21, 2014 Robert, I hope you're waiting for spartan's ballistic data and/or polishing textures and models... Otherwise I cant understand why its taking so long to release. I was waiting for SR25's for 3 months now... Well blame spartan for that and i still dont have that data - in the meantime doing fixing , testing and added Hk416s That gun aint SR25/M110 - i will give you another hint , it is a small ar15 that people requested many times here /if you dont get it this time then i dont know lol/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SSgt Decker 4 Posted September 21, 2014 Well blame spartan for that and i still dont have that data - in the meantime doing fixing , testing and added Hk416sThat gun aint SR25/M110 - i will give you another hint , it is a small ar15 that people requested many times here /if you dont get it this time then i dont know lol/ Definitely a Mk18 then! Right!? If so, even more excited now, hope it has M203 versions as well! :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ratnl 27 Posted September 21, 2014 do i also see some new scopes on that picture? the right one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roberthammer 582 Posted September 21, 2014 No Mk18 :p do i also see some new scopes on that picture? the right one? yes there are some new scopes (not the HAMR one) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SSgt Decker 4 Posted September 21, 2014 No Mk18 :p yes there are some new scopes (not the HAMR one) It looks just like a HK 416. The only other thing I can think of is the SCAR? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roberthammer 582 Posted September 21, 2014 Neither Scar - hk416 is close enough heh http://i.imgur.com/GBvMPpt.jpg Now it should be clear what it is Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SSgt Decker 4 Posted September 21, 2014 I've never seen a stock like that on an AR15. Is that a P416? http://www.imfdb.org/images/0/0e/POF_P416_7.25_inch.jpg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
m1n1d0u 29 Posted September 21, 2014 HK 416 C ? http://www.sgairsoft.biz/dublin/images/stories/virtuemart/product/vfc-hk416c_02.jpg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sorken 19 Posted September 21, 2014 Surefire 60rnd magazine? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Honcho 10 Posted September 21, 2014 It looks just like a HK 416. The only other thing I can think of is the SCAR? I think Jake might hurt himself if we don't find out soon :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
13islucky 10 Posted September 21, 2014 Looks like the HK 416C variant, as well as a line of what looks like IARs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roberthammer 582 Posted September 21, 2014 Yes , finally the Hk416C and yes M27 IAR has the Surefire 60rnd magazine just for a change if arma 3 had the magazine proxy then i could add alot magazine types incl cmag etc Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ratnl 27 Posted September 21, 2014 Nice, looking forward to play with them Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mordeaniischaos 3 Posted September 21, 2014 You do know that RH doesn't scratch build the various optics/attachments and base weapon models in these packs though right? So model+texture quality is determined by whatever the original author makes available to him (check the big list of credits in the readme and on the first page of the release threads)This is the only G33 available on gamebanana, where the models are generally sourced before RH modifies them for use in Arma: http://gamebanana.com/models/467 I am fully aware of that. I fail to see how that changes the fact that there's no harm in introducing a higher quality asset than is currently available for ArmA 3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
da12thMonkey 1943 Posted September 21, 2014 I fail to see how that changes the fact that there's no harm in introducing a higher quality asset than is currently available for ArmA 3. It doesn't harm anything. I'm just saying the ability to introduce "higher quality" depends on whether something of higher quality already exists or not - one might only have something of lesser quality available to port. Requesting something better without providing an example of where something better is available for him to use, is pretty futile. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BeenJammin 10 Posted September 21, 2014 In the sunset picture, for a second, I thought I was looking at the SCAR/AK combo from your ArmA 2 pack. Any chance that makes a return in ArmA 3? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
war_lord 934 Posted September 21, 2014 I am fully aware of that. I fail to see how that changes the fact that there's no harm in introducing a higher quality asset than is currently available for ArmA 3. Someone actually has to create said asset and make it freely available to modders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricJ 757 Posted September 21, 2014 (edited) You have to understand that modelers who spend a week working on a SCAR model for example, charge fairly (more often) for their time and effort, and quite frankly I sympathize. But another angle on the issue is that you buy said model right? We'll use the SCAR for an example as one really detailed model is like $359 on Turbo Squid. Sure you can get it (after removing a lot of shit due to poly count) in the game, but you're releasing it for free? No, sorry there's a point in doing good work and there's a point in getting a return on the investment. So I assume that RH isn't doing "higher poly models" due to availability and due to cost. Trust me man I don't go on 3D sites and want to pay that much money in that example (plus what da12thmonkey pointed out) so I can add it to a mod. RH has his own plans just like any other modder and quite frankly think he's done a great job so far model-wise. Besides not JUST cost, its also about permissions to use as well. Some don't mind (like giving proper credits) but some do, and that's another issue as well as it seems easy but there are complications to the whole thing that non-modders need to understand. So RH is of course making an effort, but he can only do so much. Edited September 21, 2014 by EricJ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miketim 20 Posted September 21, 2014 RHs stuff is higher quality then pretty much any other mod I know... not sure why anyone has a problem with his quality, also yeah as EricJ said, just because it exists doesn't me he can use it or easily attain that level of "quality". But really not sure why anyone is questioning the quality of RHs work... its always been top stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
war_lord 934 Posted September 21, 2014 I'd say that while RH stuff often looks "off" compared to BIS Arma III stuff, it's still the highest quality weapon mod series I've seen, made even more impressive by the variety involved. It's one man working with the limited resources provided to him by the generosity of strangers who are willing to let him use their work for free, and I think the guy who lets another modder use his okay looking M4 model for free, is a far better modder then some guy demanding 300 bucks for a SCAR model that can't actually be implemented in any modern game. I don't feel you can criticise the quality of the work unless you have a constructive solution. It's easy to say "that doesn't look good enough" but what's needed is a solution. I'm not saying that you can't criticise the work, only that the criticism needs to offer some solution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spartan0536 189 Posted September 21, 2014 Again IT IS MY FAULT that RH's pack is not out yet, I do sincerely appreciate his patience and your patience as well. I have been working about 36 hours a week for the past 2 weeks, I have my 3 day break coming up in a few days and right now I am working on the ballistics. The 7.62x51mm NATO ballistics are a serious pain in the ass, you would think there would be tremendous documentation on the rounds I selected but in many cases this is sadly not so, and the next MIL "geek" I talk to about "ballistics being classified" I will publicly drag though the mud (this is nothing to do with ArmA or these forums, its in RL when I ask on MIL forums and I get those responses, its infuriating). I have put in more time into these 7.62x51mm values than I even put in my 5.56x45mm NATO and Pistol calibers combined, it is really thorough and should be spot on with performances. RH's pack to my knowledge will feature these calibers.... 9x19mm Parabellum 5.56x45mm NATO 6.8x43mm SPC 7.62x35mm AAC 7.62x51mm NATO Many of these are covring 3 or 4 different barrel lengths just to get performances correct, now if only BIS could write that wonderful magazine coefficient that would be a great big help to ballistics and to modders like RH! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
war_lord 934 Posted September 21, 2014 Mil geeks like to claim everything is classified, I've long suspected they say that just because they're loath to admit they don't know something. It's not like 7.62x51mm NATO is some sort of crazy space age Pentagon round, it's glorified .308. Don't let em get to you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
