Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Will you add IMI Galil?

 

RHS is only working on weapons from the US Military and Russian Armed Forces of the mid 2000s-today (mostly). Not including Green Forces, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RHS is only working on weapons from the US Military and Russian Armed Forces of the mid 2000s-today (mostly). Not including Green Forces, that is.

 

I think toadie2k is going to make the Galil at some point down the line though.

I could see them maybe doing the Galil at some point, it is used by a lot of countries with small militaries. It's probably not very high priority though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RHS is only working on weapons from the US Military and Russian Armed Forces of the mid 2000s-today (mostly). Not including Green Forces, that is.

please don't answer on our behalf making facts about things you know nothing above...it confuses people, and we are the only ones allowed to do that in our own thread ;)

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair..

 

From the RHS website:

 

Armed Forces of the Russian Federation brought to Arma 3 in full glory! AFRF focuses on Russian military equipment from the mid-2000s to present. Dozens of vehicles, units, and weapons, all modeled and textured with the finest details and packed with features.  

United States Armed Forces brought to Arma 3 in full glory! USAF focuses on United States military equipment from 2010 to present. Dozens of vehicles, units, and weapons, all modeled and textured with the finest details and packed with features. 

 

Any plans to officially integrate toadie's Mk 48 lmg into the pack as part of the new SOF direction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair..

 

From the RHS website:

 

 

Any plans to officially integrate toadie's Mk 48 lmg into the pack as part of the new SOF direction?

look here, it is from the same RHS website you felt the need to quote from:

http://www.rhsmods.org/faq

"to be fair" 

:D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look here, it is from the same RHS website you felt the need to quote from:

http://www.rhsmods.org/faq

"to be fair" 

:D

 

What part of the FAQ specifically? Dont be disingenuous, Gruntin basically reiterated what RHS members have been saying for years; the mod is focused on contemperary US and Russian material (with the exception of the recently added GREF wildcard)  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of the FAQ specifically? Dont be disingenuous, Gruntin basically reiterated what RHS members have been saying for years; the mod is focused on contemperary US and Russian material (with the exception of the recently added GREF wildcard)  ;)

regarding FAQs; 1 & 2

yes of course, but having GREF about does allow some flexibility, which is precisely one of the reason for it.

 

In any case, most here already know that unless it is set in stone, we do not really talk about our future plans because each single time we had, it was taken like a promise and it meant the questions simply switched from "will you" to "what happened to / when will it be in / it is not in the current release, will you add it in the near future" etc. Because this work is done in people's free time, it means that stuff planned can be pushed back, canned etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

regarding FAQs; 1 & 2

yes of course, but having GREF about does allow some flexibility, which is precisely one of the reason for it.

 

In any case, most here already know that unless it is set in stone, we do not really talk about our future plans because each single time we had, it was taken like a promise and it meant the questions simply switched from "will you" to "what happened to / when will it be in / it is not in the current release, will you add it in the near future" etc. Because this work is done in people's free time, it means that stuff planned can be pushed back, canned etc.

 

Don't worry, I know where you're coming from. But it's like you said, the GREF faction has opened a whole new can of worms with people requesting all kinds of foreign materiel  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PuFu, I wanted to make a Olive Drab LBV Harness skin and send it to you guys hopefully so you could add it to GREF, but I cant find the PBO for the V_HarnessO_brn texture:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little bit confused here so please bear with me. BIS and CUP cars (i.e. the Humvee) can cross the flooded rivers of Duala with no problem, while RHS cars and MRAPs (everything wheeled basically) just stop, with no evident signs of damage, and no script command can revive them, or show what the problem is. I'm not sure whether I should ask here or not, but the next stop would be Icebreaker's shop, so to speak, and I don't really think it's a map issue. Probably not a bug either, possibly a "feature", but I'd like to know, if possible, what you can tell about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has been fixed internally on the HMMWVs. There was an issue with autoCenter in the models

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has been fixed internally. There was an issue with autoCenter in the models

 

Great! Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you guys making a lav-25 and AAV-P7/A1 and osprey 

 

Check here.

 

Srsly though, if it's currently in-service, there's a good chance.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Check here.

 

Srsly though, if it's currently in-service, there's a good chance.

The M16a2 still sees relatively wide use in active duty Army units (Hint, hint, nudge, nudge ;) ), but I doubt we'll see one in RHS. I would like to see some amphibious capabilities added to the US faction though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We would all like to see alot of things but its when the guys at rhs have the drive to make them. They all have lives like us. Also they aren't paid to do this. So please guys stop with the requests.

This message doesn't come from RHS, im not affiliated with them but i cant stand reading the same crap every few days.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you guys making a lav-25 and AAV-P7/A1 and osprey 

 

I'm not with the RHS Team, but from what I know there's currently problems with making tracked vehicles fully amphibious. You can get them into the water and drive them around(although they're very very slow), but when you try to driving onto a beach it won't let you. I'm not a coder so I can't explain it very well, but I do know that the AAV in CUP suffers from this. 

 

But in the meantime the LAV in CUP works just fine as a substitute. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually a problem that has nothing to do with RHS. Tracked vehicles never worked in water. BI was supposed to fix it for Apex, but they didn't.

 

An RHS quality LAV-25 would be awesome, though. Wheeled vehicles work in water just fine. I'd also love to see the Stryker APC (and its numerous variants) for the army. MGS was especially fun in OA. I'm sure we'll get that someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually a problem that has nothing to do with RHS. Tracked vehicles never worked in water. BI was supposed to fix it for Apex, but they didn't.

 

An RHS quality LAV-25 would be awesome, though. Wheeled vehicles work in water just fine. I'd also love to see the Stryker APC (and its numerous variants) for the army. MGS was especially fun in OA. I'm sure we'll get that someday.

 

The LAV-25A2 with the Armatec Survivability Kits is in the works.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is any work being done on the flight models of the f22 and PAK FA? Rn they are incredibly unrealistic and ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M16a2 still sees relatively wide use in active duty Army units (Hint, hint, nudge, nudge ;) ), but I doubt we'll see one in RHS. I would like to see some amphibious capabilities added to the US faction though.

 

60% of all M16A4 have to be changed to convert it to A2.If we talking about 2010-present timeline,I really doubt well see this soon.But I hope I wrong,cuz I want this weapon too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This message doesn't come from RHS, im not affiliated with them but i cant stand reading the same crap every few days.

we have an issue tracking system, requests goes in there just as well. feedback.rhsmods.org

 

I'm not with the RHS Team, but from what I know there's currently problems with making tracked vehicles fully amphibious. 

This is actually a problem that has nothing to do with RHS. Tracked vehicles never worked in water. BI was supposed to fix it for Apex, but they didn't.

seems one of the last changes to devlog made tankX class (tracked vehicles) work in the water, similar to wheeled ones. As always, reyhard is on top of it ;)

1f1c706a83277f48789883cbd0f07a6d.png

 

Is any work being done on the flight models of the f22 and PAK FA? Rn they are incredibly unrealistic and ridiculous.

can you be any less specific? In any case, when you can formulate a more detailed report, feel free to create a ticket here: feedback.rhsmods.org :D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60% of all M16A4 have to be changed to convert it to A2.If we talking about 2010-present timeline,I really doubt well see this soon.But I hope I wrong,cuz I want this weapon too.

Are you talking about the number of rifles being converted?  Or the percentage of the rifle that needs to be converted?

 

Case A.  

I don't see why the Army would convert the A4 to an A2.

 

Case B.  

Considering the bolt carrier group, lower receiver (to include trigger assembly), stock, front sight post (to include gas block) are all the same.  The only things needed to be changed on the A4 (from an A2) would be the upper receiver (old bolt carrier group works fine in this), carry handle (now detachable), and the rail adapter forward grips.  To me, that is FAR less than 60% of the rifle and is relatively "cheap" for an upgrade.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding one cent to that amphibious tracked discussion - you can already test those fixed tracked simulation on RC.

 

There are some tweaks to the vehicle handling we made internal  (turning ratio/max speed/etc) and which should be available in next patch. so more or less, BI kept promise this time ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about the number of rifles being converted?  Or the percentage of the rifle that needs to be converted?

 

Case A.  

I don't see why the Army would convert the A4 to an A2.

 

Case B.  

Considering the bolt carrier group, lower receiver (to include trigger assembly), stock, front sight post (to include gas block) are all the same.  The only things needed to be changed on the A4 (from an A2) would be the upper receiver (old bolt carrier group works fine in this), carry handle (now detachable), and the rail adapter forward grips.  To me, that is FAR less than 60% of the rifle and is relatively "cheap" for an upgrade.

 

Im talking about 3d model convert.A4 > A2.My english is bad,so I write nonsence somethimes  :wacko:

Only few thing can be remain - grip,front sight,barrel and buttstock.Grip must be created from none,reciever can be modified,but still - textures and UWs will be lost.

Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×