RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[samyg 3]

Maybe. But due to the Bindon Aiming Concept one can use ACOGs with boths eyes open irl. Which makes the scopes useful in CQB situations too. Now Arma doesn't offer that possibility which renders ACOGs in game in CQB pretty much useless. Imho a red dot backup sight would be a suitable, pretty realistic and easy to implement substitute.

Actually the game already does. If you look at the MRCO in the vanilla content, it has the ability to look through the scope in a 3D setting as well as using the optic in the manner you mentioned. What RHS could do is make a version of the ACOGs and other scopes like it that uses Arma 3's 3D optic system.

[[evo] dan 79]

Can anyone else confirm that the BTR80A (only the A version, the BTR80, BTR70 and BTR60 seem fine) just drives along the bottom of the water without dying instead of floating like the other BTR's do?

[semiconductor 309]

Can confirm.

[ligerfangz 13]

For the love of god please get rid of the afterburners. 

[Redphoenix 1540]

for the love of god get rid of the afterburners. 

 

Script us better ones, and we gladly replace the current one.

[ligerfangz 13]

Script us better ones, and we gladly replace the current one.

I didn't say replace, I said get rid of please. They're so annoying, they turn on automatically. Whenever I try to land the afterburners turn on and it prevents me from slowing down. I'm just highlighting a problem. 

[mistyronin 1181]

I didn't say replace, I said get rid of please. They're so annoying, they turn on automatically. Whenever I try to land the afterburners turn on and it prevents me from slowing down. I'm just highlighting a problem.

And let me quote a good follower of this mod:  :) 

 

maybe it's time to write a little guide on how to narrow possible bugs/errors down

 

follow situation, something strange happens with arma3 and RHS

 

1. disable all other addons you loaded apart of RHS, control if bug still exists

2. if bug/error still exists then do open a ticket at RHS Feedback http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view_all_bug_page.php

3. control if bug/error still exists with no addons loaded, if yes open a ticket at BI Feedback http://feedback.arma3.com/view_all_bug_page.php

4. wait until it gets fixed and don't ask every day for it

 

this should count for every bug/error you find in any addon not only RHS

[EricJ 765]

Maybe. But due to the Bindon Aiming Concept one can use ACOGs with boths eyes open irl. Which makes the scopes useful in CQB situations too. Now Arma doesn't offer that possibility which renders ACOGs in game in CQB pretty much useless. Imho a red dot backup sight would be a suitable, pretty realistic and easy to implement substitute.

 

I shot RH's and mine (as well as FHQ's) in various CQB situations and didn't (or don't) have any issues (other than the dumb weapon movement) when using the full magnification mode, and not always the red dot. The trick is (as well as IRL) is to put the triangle or reticule center of mass on the target and pull trigger. Matter of fact it's my favorite optic to use for both distance and CQB, with or without a red dot secondary sight.

[arkhir 135]

Something's up with Shtora:

 

[officeramr 269]

I shot RH's and mine (as well as FHQ's) in various CQB situations and didn't (or don't) have any issues (other than the dumb weapon movement) when using the full magnification mode, and not always the red dot. The trick is (as well as IRL) is to put the triangle or reticule center of mass on the target and pull trigger. Matter of fact it's my favorite optic to use for both distance and CQB, with or without a red dot secondary sight.

I think thats his problem, when you try and track moving targets the scope becomes unusable because of the weird weapon movement 

[EricJ 765]

I think thats his problem, when you try and track moving targets the scope becomes unusable because of the weird weapon movement 

 

True, even that's beyond my control to a degree, though I usually chill out a bit and "combat walk" and so on.

[dbelnomi 4]

Another suggestion to add to the asymmetric nature of rhs having two different armies present and with different doctrines for both would be to use more accurate armor values for both sides armor vehicles (especially tanks). This site: http://www.theworldwars.net/resources/protect.htmit has assembled a great list of armor values for each tank and the varying of these values based on the place on the tank i.e. turrent and glacis. 

[giorgygr 61]

RHS guys..

I m constantly seeing you at "Defensive" stance on most/lots user comments.

I really don't believe this is necessary..because i also *strongly believe ..none here wants to be

disrespectful or ungrateful for your work-but the opposite. 

 

Yes..

People here choose to use your mod instead of others (anyone for his *own reasons) -and everyone has

it's mini-dreams to see something *extra for his needs.

 

Of course..

eventually..you can't please ALL people ..and nobody (of plain users) really knows HOW MUCH work

is needed for at least a *tiny thing to be implemented to ArmA ..from a *simple mission

..to a complex addon pack (or a custom top quality map)

 

I personally salute you for your work..and i *forced your addon to my team

But...there is no reason for this defensive stance..which can be translated as "hostility" for the more

sentimental guys..like me..and i don't feel comfortable..

[jagen 18]

RHS guys..

I m constantly seeing you at "Defensive" stance on most/lots user comments.

I really don't believe this is necessary..because i also *strongly believe ..none here wants to be

disrespectful or ungrateful for your work-but the opposite. 

 

Yes..

People here choose to use your mod instead of others (anyone for his *own reasons) -and everyone has

it's mini-dreams to see something *extra for his needs.

 

Of course..

eventually..you can't please ALL people ..and nobody (of plain users) really knows HOW MUCH work

is needed for at least a *tiny thing to be implemented to ArmA ..from a *simple mission

..to a complex addon pack (or a custom top quality map)

 

I personally salute you for your work..and i *forced your addon to my team

But...there is no reason for this defensive stance..which can be translated as "hostility" for the more

sentimental guys..like me..and i don't feel comfortable..

From what I see the "Defensive" stance the Devs take is reasonable when most posts they respond to are from users straight up demanding something be done about something they don't like. Its nice to give input and criticism to help the mod improve but that doesn't seem to be the case. True it could be a translation problem and the users that do post complaints may actually mean no harm but just because you say that RHS is the best mod for Arma 3 doesn't mean you can then say everything you dislike about the mod without upsetting someone.

[BvB1 23]

On the Russian GAZ Tigr, the one without weapons, is there any way to get the AI to turn out and shoot from the hatches? Previously you could tell them to switch to the hatch seats and they were good to go, but don't seem to be able to anymore. Do miss that from the previous version, although I love the two new armed options as well. And the new static weapons & arty were a nice surprise as well!

[andersson 285]

What makes me uncomfortable is people that can't read the thread, not even a few posts up, and keep asking the same things. And the constant wish list.

I don't see the hostility from RHS, they seem fed up and tired of battling the same shit page after page. No wonder :)

[Redphoenix 1540]

What makes me uncomfortable is people that can't read the thread, not even a few posts up, and keep asking the same things. And the constant wish list.

I don't see the hostility from RHS, they seem fed up and tired of battling the same shit page after page. No wonder :)

That is pretty much correct. It doesn't matter how often we post here that DO NOT POST BUGS HERE, instead they should use the feedback tracker - Only a fraction of people do it.

 

So yeah, I personally am thinking to just ignore this thread in future.

[SAS_Raptor 30]

That is pretty much correct. It doesn't matter how often we post here that DO NOT POST BUGS HERE, instead they should use the feedback tracker - Only a fraction of people do it.

I wonder if maybe the forum moderators could help to enforce the DO NOT POST BUGS HERE rule? :icon_question: (Or more general: rules written in the first post of such threads)

 

Anyway I get that these constant bug reports and demands are annyoing and that people are probably fed up by now. But sometimes it seems like even the fraction of people acting correctly get pretty rough responses. Not necessarily from devs, sometimes "random" users act like they must defend their favorite mods because the devs are not capable of doing so. One must be really, really careful to state a humble wish, a tiny issue or even just discuss a matter of realism around here without upsetting someone else :(

[beaar 78]

Another suggestion to add to the asymmetric nature of rhs having two different armies present and with different doctrines for both would be to use more accurate armor values for both sides armor vehicles (especially tanks). This site: http://www.theworldwars.net/resources/protect.htmit has assembled a great list of armor values for each tank and the varying of these values based on the place on the tank i.e. turrent and glacis.

AFAIK the RHS team goes to great lengths to do this, and a lot of time goes into research. They have implemented their own damage system (remedying the vanilla hitpoint system), authentic FCS's and even visibly working ERA modules.

[mistyronin 1181]

But sometimes it seems like even the fraction of people acting correctly get pretty rough responses. Not necessarily from devs, sometimes "random" users act like they must defend their favorite mods because the devs are not capable of doing so. One must be really, really careful to state a humble wish, a tiny issue or even just discuss a matter of realism around here without upsetting someone else :(

My two cents, is that some people don't take into account that mod makers are not paid professionals, but enthusiasts that spend insane amount of hours of their free time in a creative work that they share with everyone to enjoy, for free. 

Would you ask a painter to paint something you wish? and for free?

We basically work on what we like or feel like doing, as it's our free time  ^_^ 

On the wishes (even humble) and requests there's a thread in this forum specifically for those: Arma 3 Addon request, luckily some mod maker will like it and work on it. We already have a pretty well definite scope.

[semiconductor 309]

That is pretty much correct. It doesn't matter how often we post here that DO NOT POST BUGS HERE, instead they should use the feedback tracker - Only a fraction of people do it.

Maybe you guys should put this warning in bold red caps into the first post of the thread and pin similar post at your facebook? Granted, certain part of newcomers won't read even the first post, but I absolutely sure that nobody is going to read the entire three hundred pages long thread and then just stumble upon "Post issues on feedback tracker only" sentence in the middle of some lengthy post about upcoming features on page 154.

[Redphoenix 1540]

Nearly every 4th or 5th post has this issue as a topic.

I personally don't see a use in post it on the first page. No one would read that anyway.

[PuFu 4600]

I'm sorry, but "easy to implement" does absolutely NOT mean "being made by itself, out of thin air". I know you guys have to put a lot of work in such stuff and I appreciate it. Just wanted to say that making an ACOG with red dot is probably way easier then implementing the Bindon Aiming Concept realistically in a video game on a 2D screen.

it wasn't directly towards you per see, you were just another trigger. On the other hand, it is really annoying to have people constantly asking for stuff, and then the same people telling you that it should be easy to implement. I find that as a double trouble. Unless you do it yourself, please don't specify the priority and the level of work required for someone else.

Also, if one really wants something made for the game, why isn't that somebody actually help out by making that something himself? That goes for anything from "compatibility configs", to "replacement configs" to small items that are somewhere down on some list of ours.

 

I am first to understand that everyone around here has his own priorities and wishlists. BUT so do we, both as a group, and at individual level just as well.

I mean what gets to me personally and it is a real de-motivator is the fact that a lot behaves like we owe you something.

 

In short, if you want to make sure that red dot on top of the ACOG gets in RHS as early as possible, do make one yourself.

__

I don't feel the need to defend anyone or anything. I'd like instead to have a proper discussion rather than the constant "why isn't, when will you, it's simple, why isn't it yet in etc"

[wildcatbridge 377]

Just want to throw this in (but i doubt anyone will read it) the RHS feedback tracker will get your wish/complaint seen by the team quicker than the forum. I posted something on there last night and within a few hours two of the team had looked at it and i'd already had a reply. So honestly if anyone does take the time to read this an they have a complaint/wish then seriously just go to the tracker.

 

And to the RHS team, just want to say i love your work :)  

[PuFu 4600]

We have just published our 3rd entry to our development blog,

where we try to explain some of the work that was put into 0.4.0 update,

as well as some sneak-peeks of what is already in development

and part of what is planned for next releases.

Read it all here:

http://www.rhsmods.org/b/4