RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[Vasily.B 529]

What am I not installing? Is it something I'm not running in the right order?

Again, the sound bug can happen with just rhs and no other mods running, and it affects vanilla weapons.  I had some luck with that particular config variable, but it's not consistent.

I think part of the problem is with the game/sound engine, but BIS would probably say that it's with an addon, so tough shit.

Again, I love your addons, that's why this bug is so disappointing.  Oh well, keep up the good work.

Yes, i think enough was writed here, but i repeat one last time - some of players on the server is not honest to you and is playing with some other mod/addon, or he even dont know about it. Maybe by mistake he putted some small addon in main game addons folder? In that case RHS team would look for  RPT files from ALL players from your server. Dont you think it will be faster if you try on empty server?

[DaViSFiT 21]

Eh? Just load the type and press T and the FCS will make the adjustment for you.

 

Hmm ok the FCS works this way on the 89 model? We now tried again, we need to activate laser, choose the weapon and then lase. And that everytime the distance differ. Its good way, i like it. Thx ;) But just press T wont work or im doint it wrong?

[-poet- 98]

I gues you are aware of "TF47 Launchers" mod, autor did even additional .pbo to make it work with your mod. From what I can see this additional file don`t work too good, so it makes this launchers weak and useless aginst your tanks. But this mod has few nice ideas, like "->launcher needs to be prepared (press 'reload'-button)" for M136 and there is nice animation of this. Another thing is ironsight in his M136 and yours, his ironsight have this small cover part moved so you can see more and this could be usefull in your launchers too (since now it is hard to aim on more than 100m). Also he have "M3 MAAWS" and "MK153 Mod 0 SMAW". For SMAW he also added "->Spotting Rifle for increased hit-Chance" and it is very usefull.

So for me his ideas fit what you are aiming to do with RHS (I may be wrong here but you said you aim for high quality), any plans to improve your launchers to similar standart or maybe contact autor to use or integrate his mod into RHS?

If you want a larger sight picture on the AT-4, use the alt optic ( NUM /) and it will open to a wider setting (also works on Russian LATs...which will also let you range to longer distances after enabled)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[soul_assassin 1750]

Hmm ok the FCS works this way on the 89 model? We now tried again, we need to activate laser, choose the weapon and then lase. And that everytime the distance differ. Its good way, i like it. Thx ;) But just press T wont work or im doint it wrong?

Indeed laser needs to be active for the FCS to work. After that you can switch round and press T. Sorry if I missed that step.

[Vasily.B 529]

Hey, correct me if i'm wrong but isnt the RGO grenade deleted from your mod? I remember i was using it on first version of RHS Escalation (it was 0.3.5 - if i'm not mistaken)

[officeramr 269]

Hey, correct me if i'm wrong but isnt the RGO grenade deleted from your mod? I remember i was using it on first version of RHS Escalation (it was 0.3.5 - if i'm not mistaken)

I have RGO genades, might be from Massi's Russian SF mod, i dont even know anymore lol 

[samb 15]

Hello! I've just tested Your mod, and it's stunning! Great job, I am particulary impressed with how well You handled cockpits and interiors in general! Breathtaking results! Russian helicopters are just perfect, the only issue I have are UH-60 family of helicopters. Their "LCD" display has the same problem default Arma helicopters have- it has dupllicated set of diplays for pilot and copilot. The problem is, pilot would probably want his "Artificial Horizon" to be displayed in front of him (or on the right display), while other info on his left (left side display). Here is an example from RL 

And here is what we have in Arma

 

  

. Thanks!

[sargken 286]

So will you guys have ACE 3 Compatibility added into your Configs, It doesn't cause a gap between both mods. Its not like it causes it to be a dependency just makes things work better. Hopefully you guys consider it,

[b00ce 160]

Hello! I've just tested Your mod, and it's stunning! Great job, I am particulary impressed with how well You handled cockpits and interiors in general! Breathtaking results! Russian helicopters are just perfect, the only issue I have are UH-60 family of helicopters. Their "LCD" display has the same problem default Arma helicopters have- it has dupllicated set of diplays for pilot and copilot. The problem is, pilot would probably want his "Artificial Horizon" to be displayed in front of him (or on the right display), while other info on his left (left side display).

Generally speaking, this is true. However, all of the MFDs are capable of displaying any page, so it isn't necessarily unrealistic. To me, this isn't as big of a deal as the hover attitude being wrong (And is a simple change in O2, rotate everything 3 degrees nose up) or the CG not being directly over the cargo hooks (Seems like every helo) causing the nose to pitch without any input.

[kromka 40]

Hello.
During loading of mission with RHS, my serwer shows in log:

Missing addons detected:
  RHS_US_A2_AirImport
  rhs_cti_insurgents
  rhs_c_a2port_car
  rhsusf_c_troops

http://www.rhsmods.org/

 

Are those packages complete?

[PuFu 4600]

Hello! I've just tested Your mod, and it's stunning! Great job, I am particulary impressed with how well You handled cockpits and interiors in general! Breathtaking results! Russian helicopters are just perfect, the only issue I have are UH-60 family of helicopters. Their "LCD" display has the same problem default Arma helicopters have- it has dupllicated set of diplays for pilot and copilot. The problem is, pilot would probably want his "Artificial Horizon" to be displayed in front of him (or on the right display), while other info on his left (left side display). Here is an example from RL 

Thanks!

Most helicopters in RHS are A2 ports. So most credit should go towards BI really.

 

So will you guys have ACE 3 Compatibility added into your Configs, It doesn't cause a gap between both mods. Its not like it causes it to be a dependency just makes things work better. Hopefully you guys consider it,

nope we won't, we already said why we won't. but if you want to, you can always create an external optional config if you so desire.

Generally speaking, this is true. However, all of the MFDs are capable of displaying any page, so it isn't necessarily unrealistic. To me, this isn't as big of a deal as the hover attitude being wrong (And is a simple change in O2, rotate everything 3 degrees nose up) or the CG not being directly over the cargo hooks (Seems like every helo) causing the nose to pitch without any input.

precisely, it is a very low priority. 

Hello.

During loading of mission with RHS, my serwer shows in log:

Missing addons detected:
  RHS_US_A2_AirImport
  rhs_cti_insurgents
  rhs_c_a2port_car
  rhsusf_c_troops

http://www.rhsmods.org/

Are those packages complete?

It seems your addon is not installed properly. Try and install the game again using RHS updaters. 

[kromka 40]

 

It seems your addon is not installed properly. Try and install the game again using RHS updaters.

 

Is it proper way of installation?

1) take package for each side from web,

2) update each side with updater.

 

 If yes i still don't see those pbos.

[mistyronin 1181]

So will you guys have ACE 3 Compatibility added into your Configs, It doesn't cause a gap between both mods. Its not like it causes it to be a dependency just makes things work better. Hopefully you guys consider it,

To complement Pufu's answer, in our official website you can find our official position in certain frequently asked subjects (check the number 9): 

RHS official F.A.Q

I hope it helps you to understand us better  :)

[kromka 40]

Is it proper way of installation?

1) take package for each side from web,

2) update each side with updater.

 

 If yes i still don't see those pbos.

I've solve it.

I figured out, TADST does not support detection of addons in nested directories.

 

It means i can't have structure:

my_addons/@rhs/@russian/addons

my_addons/@rhs/@usa/addons

and just add my_addons/@rhs to repo of TADS.

 

It means installer is good (of course). Thx for support.

[samb 15]

Generally speaking, this is true. However, all of the MFDs are capable of displaying any page, so it isn't necessarily unrealistic. To me, this isn't as big of a deal as the hover attitude being wrong (And is a simple change in O2, rotate everything 3 degrees nose up) or the CG not being directly over the cargo hooks (Seems like every helo) causing the nose to pitch without any input.

I never wrote it's unrealistic, and I understand how MFD work. However since we don't get to change MFD's page in Arma I just suggested to fix it and make it more usefull to those of us who fly helicopters. Too bad it won't get fixed any time soon. Cheers!

[maffa 29]

Hello guys

 

i wanted to ask something im not really sure about. How do radars work on helicopters on RHS (or is it on all Arma)?

 

This is whati understood it, tell me if i am wrong. Apache and Cobra for example. The both share the same RWR radar, but one relays the information directly on the circular radar (which also give the relative orientation of the gunner view on respect of the hull facing) , and the other has a very very thin strip on top of the radar. Moreover, the icons arent relative to a radar lock, but a generic vehicle existance. I thought that to being on a radar you either must emit an emission (active) or receive an emission (passive). But if you place a vehicle whatsoever directly behind your chopper, here it appears in grey, and if said vehicle has a radar (say, a Shilka) and that Shilka radar locks the chopper, the icon remains grey, it doesnt give off the information that you are under radar lock. The only times when you hear a beeper is when a radar locked missile is launched at you (i.e. most of the times when it's already too late). The icon only changes colour when the gunner locks himself a target, independently of radar locks. 

 

Long story short, there is no RWR but for that beeper warning on a launch, and the colour or the position of the icons are not dependent of a "radar" working, but its a magical Arma interpretation of how military aviation radars work. 

 

Am i correct?

[sargken 286]

To complement Pufu's answer, in our official website you can find our official position in certain frequently asked subjects (check the number 9): 

RHS official F.A.Q

I hope it helps you to understand us better  :)

 

Sure your mod doesn't cause compatibility issues but it would be nice for you guys to extend compatibility to other main mods. Like ACE3 functionality. This statement if false "So unfortunately there's nothing we can do in our end, it's up to other mod teams to add / extend their features to our content." Because you can do something add in values into your configs that will not cause any dependencies. All it will do is enable mod users to get a better experience. What i don't get is why a third party has to create a compatibility mod aka this one that just came out for fragmentation. 

[mistyronin 1181]

Sure your mod doesn't cause compatibility issues but it would be nice for you guys to extend compatibility to other main mods. 

I'm afraid it's not the aim of our mod.

Our focus is to bring quality content, 2010-2015 Russian and US Armed Forces, and additionally add features to increase the realism of our own content. Which is already an insane amount of work, that will keep all our team members busy for ages. 

But, as Pufu well said, if you want  to create an addon that extends other mods features to RHS, you are very welcome to do so.  :)

What you shouldn't expect, is our team to work on other mods/addons stuff. As I said before, it's simply not our aim. 

[PuFu 4600]

I've solve it.

I figured out, TADST does not support detection of addons in nested directories.

 

It means i can't have structure:

my_addons/@rhs/@russian/addons

my_addons/@rhs/@usa/addons

and just add my_addons/@rhs to repo of TADS.

 

It means installer is good (of course). Thx for support.

Yeah, happy to hear you have sorted it out. Indeed, to have those working correctly, read here: http://www.rhsmods.org/page/updaters

I never wrote it's unrealistic, and I understand how MFD work. However since we don't get to change MFD's page in Arma I just suggested to fix it and make it more usefull to those of us who fly helicopters. Too bad it won't get fixed any time soon. Cheers!

It is low on the priority list, but never say never. Also, please use our feedback tracker instead of BIF for bugs and requests.

Long story short, there is no RWR but for that beeper warning on a launch, and the colour or the position of the icons are not dependent of a "radar" working, but its a magical Arma interpretation of how military aviation radars work. 

 

Am i correct?

you are. But it's not RHS particular "feature", it is ArmA wide.

 

 

Sure your mod doesn't cause compatibility issues but it would be nice for you guys to

1. extend compatibility to other main mods. Like ACE3 functionality. This statement if false "So unfortunately there's nothing we can do in our end, it's up to other mod teams to add / extend their features to our content."

2. Because you can do something add in values into your configs that will not cause any dependencies. All it will do is enable mod users to get a better experience.

3. What i don't get is why a third party has to create a compatibility mod aka this one that just came out for fragmentation. 

 

1. what do you mean by main mod? If we create compatibility with one, we should create compatibility with every other out there, isn't it?

2. what are those values you are talking about? write a config if it is that obvious whan needs to be added or amended.

3. why is the thing that eludes you? I find it fair: the lad wanted compatibility when it comes down to the fragmentation, so he created an addon. Good for him!

 

Let me put it this way. I don't use any other mod besides RHS when i play the game(very very rarely i use Arma as a game these days).

I don't know and have no intention to dig into other people's file for those mentioned values. I also have no intention introduce any sort of 3rd party dependency, of any kind. 

I work on these mod for myself, not for anyone else. I do it because i like it and it gives me a certain satisfaction, and no other reason.

For the scope and man power available, working on RHS will still take a pretty high amount of time to get everything we (RHS) want in. I see no reason to have this limited man power diverted to anything else besides our own mod (AFRF & USAF). 

 

As we said before: if anyone wants to create any sort of compatibility patch between RHS and any other mod out there, it is welcome to do so, especially since it can be an external file. Hell, we'll even promote it here on BIF, our facebook page etc. Isn't modularity and optionality a good concept?

[alganthe 74]

Yeah, happy to hear you have sorted it out. Indeed, to have those working correctly, read here: http://www.rhsmods.org/page/updaters

It is low on the priority list, but never say never. Also, please use our feedback tracker instead of BIF for bugs and requests.

you are. But it's not RHS particular "feature", it is ArmA wide.

 

1. what do you mean by main mod? If we create compatibility with one, we should create compatibility with every other out there, isn't it?

2. what are those values you are talking about? write a config if it is that obvious whan needs to be added or amended.

3. why is the thing that eludes you? I find it fair: the lad wanted compatibility when it comes down to the fragmentation, so he created an addon. Good for him!

 

Let me put it this way. I don't use any other mod besides RHS when i play the game(very very rarely i use Arma as a game these days).

I don't know and have no intention to dig into other people's file for those mentioned values. I also have no intention introduce any sort of 3rd party dependency, of any kind. 

I work on these mod for myself, not for anyone else. I do it because i like it and it gives me a certain satisfaction, and no other reason.

For the scope and man power available, working on RHS will still take a pretty high amount of time to get everything we (RHS) want in. I see no reason to have this limited man power diverted to anything else besides our own mod (AFRF & USAF). 

 

As we said before: if anyone wants to create any sort of compatibility patch between RHS and any other mod out there, it is welcome to do so, especially since it can be an external file. Hell, we'll even promote it here on BIF, our facebook page etc. Isn't modularity and optionality a good concept?

 

I think he's speaking of those config entries http://ace3mod.com/wiki/framework/

[PuFu 4600]

I think he's speaking of those config entries http://ace3mod.com/wiki/framework/

I think it seems it's even easier for anyone who wants to create a compatibility config for this particular mod than i imagined..

[maffa 29]

you are. But it's not RHS particular "feature", it is ArmA wide.

 

Thanks. On this note, i did a little research (wikipedia, FAS and GlobalSecurity) and i found out that the Cobra AH-1Z and the Apache AH-64D share the very same RWR radar (AN/APR-39A) and they MAY share the same active radar (AN/APG-78 Longbow).

 

Now i dont know which one you take reference to for modelling the actual radar in the minimap (probably none in particular, since it's the Arma's), but since in RHS they have two different radar layout (and the one in the Cobra is almost impossible to use, being grey on grey, and its miniradar lacks the gunpod orientation in respect of the hull) asking for both having the same radar model (possibly the Apache's) would be asking for a feature or pointing to a minor bug?

[sargken 286]

I think it seems it's even easier for anyone who wants to create a compatibility config for this particular mod than i imagined..

So if I create a compatability will you support it? I dont mind creating one, but i want it to serve a use to people.

[PuFu 4600]

Thanks. On this note, i did a little research (wikipedia, FAS and GlobalSecurity) and i found out that the Cobra AH-1Z and the Apache AH-64D share the very same RWR radar (AN/APR-39A) and they MAY share the same active radar (AN/APG-78 Longbow).

 

Now i dont know which one you take reference to for modelling the actual radar in the minimap (probably none in particular, since it's the Arma's), but since in RHS they have two different radar layout (and the one in the Cobra is almost impossible to use, being grey on grey, and its miniradar lacks the gunpod orientation in respect of the hull) asking for both having the same radar model (possibly the Apache's) would be asking for a feature or pointing to a minor bug?

feature i think. Reyard is the one in charge with "special things" such RWR ;)

So if I create a compatability will you support it? I dont mind creating one, but i want it to serve a use to people.

we could surely advertise it. If you want it released together with the mod, you can surely talk with the ones you make the compatibility features for. nevertheless, i think it is safe to assume that due to the fact that both those mods are pretty popular, people will use it nonetheless.

[maffa 29]

feature i think. Reyard is the one in charge with "special things" such RWR ;)

 

Thanks again for the answer  :D

One last thing. Hellfire II L requires an active radar to feed the information to the warhead, radar that Cobra doesnt have. It should have Hellfire II K which are laser guided missiles, which require the laser active and homing on the target, definitely not "fire and forget". This is a bug, isnt it?