RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[somesangheili 111]

@SomeSangheili

I don't work on the decals, so somebody else may have a better answer. To disable decals you can put the following piece of code in the init.sqf of a mission.

Thanks! It works but unfortunately it also affects every other vehicle I have in that mission...

Edited May 27, 2015 by SomeSangheili

[bakerman 247]

Yeah, unfortunately I'm not sure if you can disable the decals on one specific unit. :confused: IMHO it's something reasonable that you should be able to do. I will investigate this, if it turns out you cannot disable the decals for a single unit then I will personally add the option to do so.

[soul_assassin 1750]

you can assign a empty decal for that vehicle.

[somesangheili 111]

Care to tell what you must type in the vehicle's init? It's hard to find this kind of stuff out with the doc website offline

[soul_assassin 1750]

[_tank,[["Label", [3], "ArmyPlt_Abrams_D"],["Label", [4], "BarrelArt_Abrams_D", 0]]] execVM "\rhsusf\addons\RHSUSF_Decals\Scripts\init.sqf";

this will leave the chevron and remove the barrel art. Mind that _D suffix has to change to _WD if woodland tanks are involved.

[x3kj 1247]

I'm sorry but however good RHS may be, most users who run it do so with in conjunction with other mods. So if every mod ignores common conventions then its hardly surprisingly that incompatibilities will arise frequently. CBA may not be perfect but its long been a standard used by most other mods

Only if you need it... If you dont need it, dont use it. There's a reason why planes dont have numberplates and boats dont have roadwheels.

Or do you need the CBA sticker just so you feel better, for an illusion of carefree compatability? I'm sure someone could make a mod to include a sticker for you...

Edited May 27, 2015 by Fennek

[alganthe 74]

Sorry fennek but hardcoding features because of "standalone" reasons is simply stupid.

Problems are bound to arise if they keep the mentality they have right now.

[lordprimate 159]

Hello RHS and everyone else. My team mates have been ranting about how great this mod is. So, I am trying to get it running on our dedicated server..

We already have a mod set we use, So im trying to add this in, Our server launches with this mod set.

@allinarmaterrainpacklite;@ascz_a2_map_fixes;@cba_a3;@ace3;@acre2;@AliveServer;@ALiVE;@asr_ai3;@tpwcas;@mcc_sandbox

Everything works fine with that mod set. When i add both RHS mods (usaf/afrf) the server launches, however, I cannot connect to it.

I have narrowed it down to being a problem with RHS and ACE3..

Has anyone else had this problem with ACE3 and this RHS mod?

I would like to add this to the dedicated however at this moment i am not able to. any advice is appreciated..

What i have done so far:

1) tested and know that this is a compatibility issue with ACE3

2) added the ace_compatibility.... files for RHS... and still cannot connect.

3) i can connect with ACE3 NOT running however, thats not an option...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

edit:::

ok so I have done some more testing and results are:

If anyone is having this issue this is how i resolved it....

I simply moved ";@ace3" in my launch paramaters, to a pos after ;@rhsafrf;@rhsusaf.. so my launch params look like this now and i can connect to my server...

;@allinarmaterrainpacklite;@ascz_a2_map_fixes;@cba_a3;@AliveServer;@ALiVE;@rhsafrf;@rhsusaf;@ace3;@acre2;@asr_ai3;@tpwcas_a3;@mcc_sandbox_a3

Edited May 27, 2015 by Lordprimate

[zeealex 2029]

what RHS chooses to do or not to do is up to them, if they don't think they need to implement CBA, they won't.

end of story.

[soul_assassin 1750]

We now also released the tool we made to generate our class documentation for anyone to use for their own projects. DocForge is ready for first release: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?192138-DocForge-class-documentation-generation

[PuFu 4600]

Considering how many things in RHS fall outside the common sense compatibility/standards,

Like?

I don't find it surprising.

Neither do i find about you posting for the sake of posting

All in the name of "standalone" which, let's be honest, doesn't exist in this community and in reality never did from the moment we rode pink ponies in WWII settings on our Wanzers.

Can you use only RHS, without other mods? If YES, then it is standalone.

Your content will be used with other content. Considerations and compromise for that have to be made for an enjoyable experience.

Yes and? Compromise for the X number of mods already available? You are aware that is not possible. Besides, supporting other people's addons is desired, but not a priority. Just like other addon makers cannot support other's people work...

I'm sure if MANW was not a thing, common sense in regards to such things would be much more readily available.

why so certain?

While I understand and respect their reasoning,

from the above you don't seem to

I liked RHS more when it was a focused content mod (because the content is awesome) rather than a forced standalone mod which in reality is almost never used standalone. :)

sorry to disappoint then...but our A2 content is still available for free...

I'm just advocating that common libraries are there for everyones benefit, the word used is irrelevant. Pretending they don't exist, aren't run alongside your mod 99% of the time and proceeding to reinvent the wheel, in my eyes isn't exactly best practice. But your reasoning is your own and as I said, I understand it, you don't need to explain or justify it.

What are those common libraries? CBA, fair enough. Can you use it alongside RHS? Yes you can. Does RHS needs it? I can tell you it doesn't...So then why are you posting about CBA in this thread?

There's no need to whip out your dick and shove it in my face, I'm already amongst those 200k who silently appreciates it on a daily basis.

You sure you didn't deserve some RHS's dick shoved?

Quite, especially if you run a quick check on Armaholic and discover that CBA has been the most downloaded mod in all categories for the last 2 versions of Arma:

CBA for A3: 307,011 times in 2 years

CBA for A2: 438,866 times in 5 years

In comparison

RHS Escalation = 36,783 in 6 months

RHS: USAF = 6,435 in 6 months

RHS: AFRF = 9,248 in 6 months

Of course, Armaholic is by no means the only means of downloading mods for Arma, but I think that it provides a fair indicator.

Nonetheless download numbers from other sites would help provide a more complete picture...

Still with the dick measuring contest? Besides the numbers are off, since we provide alternative delta patching updates for RHS ourselves, so alex is right, it's over 200k on our combined mirrors and updater, and yes, that is 6 month timeframe if you really need a dick ruler...

And the point is that more mods are dependent on CBA, ACE included. Good, RHS isn't for a good reason - it doesn't need to

---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:15 ----------

I am really confused by RHS's reluctance to use CBA as a dependency. It is a standard that has been around for over half a decade and I guarantee you that a huge majority of communities that use RHS's content are already using it due to ACE, ACRE, or TFR, all of which require it. Making RHS have a dependency on it seems like a no brainier in terms of the functionality it adds and reduced complexity in RHS's own configs having to have a hacky workaround for XEH (which we have no guarantee that it will stay the same in the way it is implemented in RHS).

No offense Nou, but i still don't get it? Why would RHS use CBA as dependency? Or as a matter of fact, why would RHS prefer any sort of dependency at all, especially when it is outside RHS control?

sounds both condescending and arrogant.

internet princess, nice to meet you...

I'm sorry but however good RHS may be, most users who run it do so with in conjunction with other mods.

Yes and?

So if every mod ignores common conventions then its hardly surprisingly that incompatibilities will arise frequently.

What are those common conventions? Geneva?

CBA may not be perfect but its long been a standard used by most other mods.

for the Nth time, CBA can be run alongside RHS without problems from my own experience

So please for the good of your mod and the community consider integrating common building blocks, however imperfect they may be.

We haven't require CBA so far, even after MANW contest where the rules were specific about other people's work dependency, we don't seem to need it now either. Why waste our free time, create a dependency we don't need? Why do YOU want RHS dependent on CBA?

Edited May 27, 2015 by PuFu

[mistyronin 1181]

To simplify:

Nothing is required to play A3 with RHS.

But you can play RHS with other mods like CBA or AGM if you choose to, getting its extra features. :)

[alganthe 74]

We haven't require CBA so far, even after MANW contest where the rules were specific about other people's work dependency, we don't seem to need it now either. Why waste our free time, create a dependency we don't need? Why do YOU want RHS dependent on CBA?

Could you please not hardcode your scripts into your vehicle configs then ? pretty please ? :cheesy:

[Brawler 15]

It is always best that mods is not demendent on other mods. reason is what if the mod maker(s) on that depended mod just quit and leave? it will probaly not happend with cba, but who knows? and second, why should RHS waste time on making their mod compitable with other mods, when they can use time on creating their own stuff?

[Defunkt 431]

Could you please not hardcode your scripts into your vehicle configs then ? pretty please ? :cheesy:

Instead of expecting RHS to discard their own vision and become a content pack for ACE, why don't you create your own ACE-RHS compatibility addon?

[beaar 78]

Edit: Thanks for the reply. I do understand you can't be expected to adapt to every other mod.

On a different note - could the BMD2 textures from your A2 mod be included? They look great and I'd love to see them in A3.

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=9767

Edited May 28, 2015 by Beaar

[Damian90 697]

Not wanting to step on anyones toes, but would it be possible to have a compromise made, such as having eg. vehicle damage model (if I understood correctly) in a separate PBO? I assume this would allow a community to opt-out if they are experiencing compatibility issues.

It's interesting to me personally for reasons of consistency across mods as well as performance (as they appear to do their costly calculations in c++ extensions rather than sqf).

No, because it is not a script, it is physically modeled in vehicle fire geometry model. Besides this it is better than vanilla system. And you don't need to worry about performance, as I said, it is not a script, it's all handled by engine, where armor is physically modeled, hopefully Olds will be able to show documentation about how armor system is made, implemented and how it works ASAP.

If you want compatibility with vanilla stuff, use Olds and Bakerman Real Armor Mod.

[sniper pilot 36]

Instead of expecting RHS to discard their own vision and become a content pack for ACE, why don't you create your own ACE-RHS compatibility addon?

This, bolded. This is not RHS' problem. This is a spoiled consumer problem.

Did I like the direction that ArmA 3 took with their future setting? No. But that doesn't give me the right to start making demands of the free content makers that actually gave me what I wanted for free, on their free time. The "I want it, and I want it now" mentality and generation has got to stop, it will only serve to divide this community further and reduce the amount of content we end up receiving in the end. Thanks RHS team you don't have to give us a single drop of content and some people don't realize that. I am forever grateful.

[PuFu 4600]

@everyone - this is about RHS.

If you wanna talk about CBA, there is a thread.

If you want to talk about ACE there is also a thread

Thank you. Stop telling us what you think we need to do.

[zeealex 2029]

To be quite frank, I'm ashamed of the lack of respect coming from some people, some of those being developers of esteemed mods, get your acts together!

[R0adki11 3949]

Off topic posts removed, this thread is for RHS only.

If you wanna talk about CBA, there is a thread.

If you want to talk about ACE there is also a thread

Any further deviation will result in the appropriate punishment.

Edited May 28, 2015 by R0adki11

[Stagler 39]

Hi RHS Dev Team

there are several faction mismatches in the RHS Insurgents configurations

name = "$STR_RHS_GROUPS_COMPANY_HQ";
faction = "rhs_faction_insurgents";
side = 0;

should be

name = "$STR_RHS_GROUPS_COMPANY_HQ";
faction = "rhs_faction_insurgents";
side = 2;

found several incorrect entries like the above ones spread in the configurations

name = "$STR_RHS_GROUPS_SQUAD";
faction = "rhs_faction_insurgents";
side = 0;

to save you time search and correct them I have done this for you already.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1gWUNu0kwK1Z3J6R2JGYTJaU1E/view?usp=sharing

configuration files with the errors are included in the "nppBackup" folders so you can compare it with my corrected ones.

http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view.php?id=673

kind regards

maquez [Q-Net]

Cheers for the report Maquez.

This issue has been fixed in the latest build. :)

[pulstar 55]

I look forward to more info from Olds, since this feature interests me quite a lot. When I disable an Abrams TUSK with a T72 it does make me raise my eyebrows, even though I know it depends on the round being used hehe.

[Damian90 697]

I look forward to more info from Olds, since this feature interests me quite a lot. When I disable an Abrams TUSK with a T72 it does make me raise my eyebrows, even though I know it depends on the round being used hehe.

It depends where you hit. Not every surface is protected by composite armor, and not everywhere composite armor is thick enough.

In general front turret and front hull "beak" are immune to preaty much everything. Sides, rear, top are different thing.

And this is same for every other tank.

Our estimations for armor protection are based on very hard research work, tough these are still only estimations, we do not have access and do not know real protection values for vehicles armor.

[Przemro 18]

Is it possible that you can somehow force AI in tanks to use main gun vs infantry or this have to be done by AI mod?