RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[geotrooper 12]

can you people stop "trolling" and help me with grad script? for triggered artillery barrage?

[semiconductor 309]

can you people stop "trolling" and help me with grad script? for triggered artillery barrage?

MistyRonin's solution that he gave in reply to your question works flawlessly.

[OMAC 254]

Specifically the FMTVs, HEMTTs, BMP-3 and shotguns are in a really early stage, so almost nothing in them is definitive. Have that in mind when reporting new bugs, please :)

A quick list of the development status of various assets would help testing and reporting. Such as a table that indicates which units are complete, nearly complete, beta stage, or alpha stage.

[mistyronin 1181]

A quick list of the development status of various assets would help testing and reporting. Such as a table that indicates which units are complete, nearly complete, beta stage, or alpha stage.

Well it would be indeed really nice to have a list like that, but it's hard to keep track of everyone's work. You have to think that our team is pretty big and the members work on the mod when they can and want.

In fact the idea to have a public beta was precisely to focus our time in working on creating new assets or tweaking the actual ones without having to give much explanations.

I'll comment the idea with other team members and give it some thought but it doesn't seem likely to happen.

[OMAC 254]

In fact the idea to have a public beta was precisely to focus our time in working on creating new assets or tweaking the actual ones without having to give much explanations.

A stated purpose of the beta was to enable crowd testing, as there are so many assets that it became impossible for your team to test alone.

Red Hammer Studios recognises that when our content has grown so large there is only so much we can test internally to be able to deliver a quality product. So for a while we have been thinking of how to get our mod out to the public (i.e. the best testers out there) as soon as possible, and not wait for large milestones. A side from getting us feedback as soon as possible, it also relieves us from the pressure of keeping easy fixes to ourselves for long periods of time.

A quick list would help that stated purpose. It doesn't have to be exhaustive, and could just give general, ballpark estimates as to asset completeness.

[mistyronin 1181]

A stated purpose of the beta was to enable crowd testing, as there are so many assets that it became impossible for your team to test alone.

Exactly, that's the main part of the "tweaking" part I described before, we keep track of all the issues that you add in the Public Feedback tracker and try to solve them as soon as we are able. :)

It doesn't have to be exhaustive, and could just give general, ballpark estimates as to asset completeness.

Nothing I would like more than having that kind of estimations, I mean seriously, I'd love to have them for myself. But as I said, everyone works on the mod whenever they can get some free time and will to do it. It's practically impossible.

Tho, there's already in the documentation site a few remarks on the status of certain assets (like M1A2 FCS). Which will be updated as soon as I know about them :)

[gibonez 18]

I noticed how all of the vehicles and weapons are so faithfully recreated with great attention to detail.

I must ask is there a website somewhere that you guys use that documents the intricacies of these weapon systems ? Such a website would be pretty fun to casually read on.

[soul_assassin 1747]

Not one single website no, but when we approach a project we usually with great care gather a lot of material from all over the web.

[gibonez 18]

Not one single website no, but when we approach a project we usually with great care gather a lot of material from all over the web.

Ic. I would imagine alot of that information is quite hard to find too.

Finding something as specific as the firecontrol system of a main battle tank or the interior has to require some digging.

[mistyronin 1181]

Ic. I would imagine alot of that information is quite hard to find too.

Finding something as specific as the firecontrol system of a main battle tank or the interior has to require some digging.

Have in mind that inside the team there's also former and active soldiers / marines. So sometimes experience is "a degree".

In the web you'll find also a lot of avaliable "open" info.

[AntonioAJC 10]

I have to ask, have you guys considered adding the heavy lift cargo helicopter Mi-26? Love watching these ferry tanks in World in Conflict. http://i.imgur.com/arpTRzo.png (4391 kB)

Edited January 24, 2015 by AntonioAJC

[OMAC 254]

Tho, there's already in the documentation site a few remarks on the status of certain assets (like M1A2 FCS). Which will be updated as soon as I know about them :)

I hear you. Thanks for the info.

[Defunkt 431]

What looks to be a copy & paste error in Groups;

rhs_group_nato_usarmy_d_bradley_aa (with faction 'rhs_faction_usarmy_d') is listed under rhs_group_nato_usarmy_wd_bradley.

EDIT: Same for rhs_group_nato_usarmy_d_bradleyA3_aa

Edited January 24, 2015 by Defunkt

[oksman 37]

I have to ask, have you guys considered adding the heavy lift cargo helicopter Mi-26? Love watching these ferry tanks in World in Conflict. http://i.imgur.com/arpTRzo.png (4391 kB)

Must second this, Mi-26 carrying BMD4s and stuff would be awesome!

[kocrachon 2]

Dont know if anyone else is having this issue, but when ever I add the rhsusf_main.pbo I start getting an error about tmr_autorest needing TMR core. Is this mandatory, because I dont see that mentioned?

Edited January 24, 2015 by Kocrachon

[Redphoenix 1540]

What looks to be a copy & paste error in Groups;

rhs_group_nato_usarmy_d_bradley_aa (with faction 'rhs_faction_usarmy_d') is listed under rhs_group_nato_usarmy_wd_bradley.

EDIT: Same for rhs_group_nato_usarmy_d_bradleyA3_aa

Please provde the full log.

Dont know if anyone else is having this issue, but when ever I add the rhsusf_main.pbo I start getting an error about tmr_autorest needing TMR core. Is this mandatory, because I dont see that mentioned?

Seems like you had another mod enabled. Please recheck.

[sxp2high 22]

The wiki for CH-47F says:

_this animate ["Ramp", 0]; _this animate ["Ramp", 1];

That doesn't work. It should be:

_this animateDoor ["ramp_anim", 0]; _this animateDoor ["ramp_anim", 1];

Just FYI. :)

[Tacti-Cool 10]

I start getting an error about tmr_autorest needing TMR core.

You are running @TMR this is something pertaining to that mod. Nothing to do with RHS

[Defunkt 431]

Please provde the full log.

There's no log (and no error), what I initially reported is probably in practice really just an example of inconsistent class naming (not sure if there's any functional significance to having the Woodland group assigned a Desert faction name). This is with 0.3.5 Beta.

BUT...

I took another look and tried placing some of the Bradley groups and notice that there are quite a few UCP units specified in the Woodland groups which I presume was not intended.

[mistyronin 1181]

Just FYI. :)

You are 100% right. Already corrected ( it used to be the former tho ).

Thank you very much for your report :)

[Redphoenix 1540]

There's no log (and no error), what I initially reported is probably in practice really just an example of inconsistent class naming (not sure if there's any functional significance to having the Woodland group assigned a Desert faction name). This is with 0.3.5 Beta.

BUT...

I took another look and tried placing some of the Bradley groups and notice that there are quite a few UCP units specified in the Woodland groups which I presume was not intended.

Woodland has nothing to do with the uniform color of the soldiers, it's the painting scheme of the Bradley.

Edited January 24, 2015 by RedPhoenix

[Defunkt 431]

Well most groups tend to follow Woodland paint scheme with OCP Units and Desert paint scheme with UCP units but for a couple which, as I say, look like copy and paste errors;

Desert group classname and faction within Woodland group faction (EDIT: this is the case for the AA group for both the M2A2 and M2A3):

class rhs_faction_usarmy[b]_wd[/b] {

...

class rhs_group_nato_usarmy[b]_wd_[/b]bradley {

	...

	class rhs_group_nato_usarmy[b]_d_[/b]bradley_aa {

		faction = "rhs_faction_usarmy[b]_d[/b]";

	...

UCP units in Woodland groups (EDIT: this is the case for all the Woodland M2A2 groups, for every other vehicle OCP units are grouped with Woodland vehicles);

class rhs_group_nato_usarmy[b]_wd_[/b]bradley_squad_mg_sniper {

		...

		class Unit2 {
			side = 1;
			vehicle = "rhsusf_army[b]_ucp_[/b]squadleader";
			rank = "SERGEANT";
			position[] = {-16, -16, 0};
		};

But if it was intentional please ignore, I'll say no more on it.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Defunkt
Clarification on which groups.

[mistyronin 1181]

But if it was intentional please ignore, I'll say no more on it.

I'm afraid they are intended ( at least some ). To represent that the UCP is still present in some non line-infantry units :)

But all can change in the future, specially if OCP ends being 100% standard.

[Wilco 944]

Slight update everyone.

Hatchet has been working hard on some of the radio equipment. He is working in conjunction with ACRE so the models will be seen both in RHS and ACRE.

[CameronMcDonald 146]