RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[beaar 78]

Hey guys! Any chance of seeing the paintjobs from your BMD-2 pack for Arma 2 in here soon? They look great :)

[gatordev 214]

These where added in as an extra just cause we had the pieces from Ardy, the extra attention to detail perhaps wasn't applied because there is no focus on SF or SF related equip yet, was more of an addition of opportunity.

Most of that kind of stuff in the mod currently is because we thought it would be good to throw it in as a 'placeholder' as 'most of the pieces' where laying around etc. as some people might get enjoyment out of it.

The issue was noted and is known.

I can't say when it will be addressed, whether someone has the time and wants to do it tomorrow or it doesn't change until/if ever SF equipment does become the focus. If it's breaking immersion, maybe we can take it out until it's up to standard, whenever that is.

Completely makes sense. And PLEASE!!! Don't remove them. They're still an all-around great addition. I've switched over any Block 2 guns from Ardy's to yours since he's stopped updating, so I'm still a big fan. Thanks for the reply, and if you guys get to it, great. If not, so be it.

The photo basically showed a Ranger shooting a standard mil-spec M4A1 (with some Block 2 parts), as you can see the barrel is longer. That was in answer to coffeeshock who said that all the mil-spec M4A1 have a shorter barrel.

I understand Sabre's explanation and am moving on, but...

No, the barrel is not longer. It's the same length as on a Block 2 (14.5"). The KAC RAS is shorter (7") compared to a DD RIS II (12-ish inches). Coffeshock's point was that a "real world" CQBR has a shorter barrel than what appears in-game, and the Block 2 in the real world appears to have a shorter barrel compared to a Block 2 in-game.

I get it, Sabre explained why. Just clarifying Coffeshock's point.

[vasmkd 12]

Hope you are all having or had a good weekend.

I have another little surprise for you all :)

I just finished texturing the T-90 model by Soul Assassin and Petr

cheers

[officeramr 269]

Made my day with that T90^^

[mistyronin 1181]

No, the barrel is not longer. It's the same length as on a Block 2 (14.5"). The KAC RAS is shorter (7") compared to a DD RIS II (12-ish inches). Coffeshock's point was that a "real world" CQBR has a shorter barrel than what appears in-game, and the Block 2 in the real world appears to have a shorter barrel compared to a Block 2 in-game.

I'm afraid that's not what he said.

Still hoping for a proper "mil-spec" MK18 and M4A1... right now they still look like civilian clones, since both barrels are way too long...

[zeealex 2029]

does anyone really care that much? being honest here, there are much more pressing issues than the barrel length, they're not wildly inaccurate, if they were meters out then, yeah by all means point it out, but come on, a couple of inches out, there's no big deal to be made here, especially when we have a massive list of other, more important things to worry about.

does it break your in game experience, because the barrel of a weapon is slightly too long? really?

[darkking810 19]

woot I love this mod, the only 1 issue I have is vehicles eat so much dam fuel and so quick too like the helo's for example it doesn't take too long before it runs out of fuel

[pulstar 55]

Made my day with that T90^^

W00t long time coming for T90! :)

Btw, the AI can't fire vehicle ATGM?

[Damian90 696]

Do not expect much from current T-90, it is just T-72B with some additions, not really as good tank as propaganda and fan boys that don't know anything about vehicles they talk about made it to look like.

Btw, the AI can't fire vehicle ATGM?

Can, when other types of ammo are depleted, sorry, we can't fix that, it's how it works in arma engine.

[slatts 1978]

Alex come on, we all know a couple of inches can make all the difference ;)

On a serious note, that T-90 is looking (to celebrate Irelands gay vote) FABULOUS.

[mistyronin 1181]

Alex come on, we all know a couple of inches can make all the difference ;)

I just told her that ;)

(uhm that sounded bad, I mean it was meant to sound bad, but not that bad... whatever...:p)

[heavygunner 179]

Y'all dirty childhood ruiners!

Nice T90 btw. looking damn good.

[pulstar 55]

Can, when other types of ammo are depleted, sorry, we can't fix that, it's how it works in arma engine.

Thanks for the explanation. In SB the IFV's engage from ungodly distances.. but I guess line of sight isn't that large on most Arma maps hehe. On the subject of missiles, the Javelin should be ACE3 compatible, but after I lock on with the crosshairs I have no idea where the missile goes. Is there a trick to it? Or maybe I should bug the ACE guys about this :P

[soul_assassin 1723]

Imho they already know about this.

[jonpas 289]

Imho they already know about this.

Yes, it's in the optional pbo, but it would be much better if RHS(you) would put it into their(your) own config. :)

[bkktmkkt 24]

http://www.sumoware.com/images/temp/xzagnojqgbbkkdxm.png (633 kB)

http://www.sumoware.com/images/temp/xzkibiraxodxbtib.png (983 kB)

[Defunkt 431]

Yes, it's in the optional pbo, but it would be much better if RHS(you) would put it into their(your) own config. :)

I disagree. ACE are in control of ACE development and anything required config-wise is bound to alter as they iterate, better for them to control those values on their own release cycle.

[noubernou 77]

We are not in the position of supporting any content besides our own unfortunately, as this would create a precedent that means we would be supporting all other content.

We are more than happy to help with configuration issues, and some of us have developer access to RHS in other capacities, but ultimately it is up to content developers to support ACE, as that is the only way that makes any logistical sense. Seeing that ACE is the standard for game play modifications now (the reason we consolidated all of the other projects) there is no reason NOT to support ACE.

That is ACE's official stance. If anyone comes to us asking about supporting RHS or any other mod our only reasonable response can be to direct questions back to the other mod makers.

[Defunkt 431]

Well I'd have said the precedent you speak of is already in place in the form of a folder full of optional pbos for a variety of different mods.

Be that as it may, I hope that whatever RHS decide (personally I think they'd be mad to accept responsibility for ACE-compatibility), there's a clearly stated policy around which we might see some effective moderation. I truly hope this thread doesn't spend the 4-6 weeks between RHS updates full of whining about ACE compatibility.

[noubernou 77]

We are trying to stabilize APIs and configs as much as possible. We cant expect mod makers to follow us as we change things every 2 weeks or whatever, just as much as we can not be expected to maintain compatibility with every mod.

[Defunkt 431]

I'm all for inter-operability I just don't think the ideal way to arrive at it is for any one party to say "we're doing it this way" and rely on a rabid userbase to pester everybody else into doing it the same way. Case in point, I'd really like to see RHS and ACE both talk to Robalo/Spartan about working from a shared repo for common ammunition and magazine classes that can be referenced throughout the whole community and act as a single source (including any/all extra config values each party's various extensions require) - then everything will inter-operate out of the box. This is a better way to create standards (wherever possible).

[noubernou 77]

I'm all for inter-operability I just don't think the ideal way to arrive at it is for any one party to say "we're doing it this way" and rely on a rabid userbase to pester everybody else into doing it the same way. Case in point, I'd really like to see RHS and ACE both talk to Robalo/Spartan about working from a shared repo for common ammunition and magazine classes that can be referenced throughout the whole community and act as a single source (including any/all extra config values each party's various extensions require) - then everything will inter-operate out of the box. This is a better way to create standards (wherever possible).

We are talking with them about integrating it into CBA, since that seems the most logical place for something like that to go. We are still talking though.

[Defunkt 431]

Well that's great to hear though personally I'd much rather see it separate from CBA (or at least still available config-only). Config-only it can be included in a mod like RHS (while still allowing them to remain dependency-free), ACE and also ASDG for stand-alone use. If it's all the same data there should be no issue with it being loaded in all three at once.

[noubernou 77]

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).

And as for a joint magazines project I do not think it is a good idea at all to have it split up across multiple mods, as it introduces a place where people might be tempted to deviate from the standard. Things like these are 100% the reason they should be in one place, especially when it can be added to something that is transparent and community driven like CBA.

Edited May 25, 2015 by NouberNou
Hurdur

[Defunkt 431]

I can't speak to RHS's reasons but I do have to say I for one like my Arma as script-light as possible and now that we don't need it for EventHandler chaining I also avoid utilizing CBA in my own stuff (and rather appreciate not needing it for RHS). No offence intended, CBA has always been very well made but I just like knowing there's nothing executing that I don't need.