opfor Project OPFOR

[rafy77 0]

Hi

 

Wich mod must be loaded in the game in order to use the T34, the T55 and the Landrover in Project OPFOR ?

 

Each time i spawn them, or a scenario use these vehicles, it crash my game back to desktop, but all other vehicles work (Landrover with machinegun work too, i don't know why)

 

thanks

[road runner 4344]

11 minutes ago, rafy77 said:

Hi

 

Wich mod must be loaded in the game in order to use the T34, the T55 and the Landrover in Project OPFOR ?

 

Each time i spawn them, or a scenario use these vehicles, it crash my game back to desktop, but all other vehicles work (Landrover with machinegun work too, i don't know why)

 

thanks

Do have all the RHS addons loaded?

[rafy77 0]

USAF, AFRF and GREF 0.4.1.1 loaded in my game

 

i'm going to download all the last RHS mod (0.4.2) to see if it will fix my game.

 

Except if you confirm me that RHS only added the T55 in the 0.4.2, and it's because i don't have the very last one.

 

Sorry for my English

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

5 hours ago, rafy77 said:

USAF, AFRF and GREF 0.4.1.1 loaded in my game

 

i'm going to download all the last RHS mod (0.4.2) to see if it will fix my game.

 

Except if you confirm me that RHS only added the T55 in the 0.4.2, and it's because i don't have the very last one.

 

Sorry for my English

RHS USAF and AFRF being 0.4.2 is an absolute must for the current version of Project OPFOR. There is no way around this. Project OPFOR's data relies on the most current build of RHS. 

 

Project OPFOR integrates a lot of its assets directly from RHS, which is currently 0.4.2

[alessiomoreno 43]

Hi folks!

Congrats on the latest update! Real good :)
Also I am glad to see you guys chose to include GREF, definitely the right choice IMO, since probably most people who'd use RHS mods
will use GREF as well, or might otherwise miss out on quite a bit, if I may say so..

 

On a completely different note, talking about T-55s and such something came to my mind recently:
Is there any interest and manpower, I'm just throwing ideas on the table, to perhaps port other vehicles than those already done?

This is really just an idea - maybe contact some folks back from A2 Project '85 http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=17822
Namely perhaps, Vilas and Ryugugu for their models of T-55 variants, T-62 (for like Afghan troops, they're using them now 
http://www.armyrecognition.com/customer/thierry/afghanistan/t62m_01.jpg ), and M60 tanks (certainly some factions uses some).
What d'you think of that?
Might it be possible to contact the authors and ask whether they'd give permission to port the better quality models (such as T-62 and M60),
perhaps with minor alterations where necessary? It would then of course, be a lot of work to do as Reyhard did with the T-72M, T-55, and T-34
and make them as much compatible with RHS' work as possible.

But first of - what's the opinion on this one?
Has anyone heard of any incident where somebody contacted Vilas for A3 ports? I think I read of some instance somewhere, but for the life of me
cannot recall where it was and in which exact context! Maybe somebody else knows more!

Anyways - just food for thoughts - once I'm through with exams, might be able to lend a hand!

Best regards, and thank you for your hard work, Keeway and co,!

 ~

 

[Devastator_cm 434]

On 28.1.2017 at 9:59 PM, wsxcgy said:

I'm glad about the GREF dependency. Would you possibly make the overlapping factions a separate addon or remove them altogether, perhaps without GREF dependency? So that the people who don't want GREF can still use that and then the people who use the new version with GREF don't have to have duplicate factions and stuff to clutter the editor.

 

I think a modular approach for GREF dependency would be the best. The vehicles and weapons which opfor factions have are basically coming from NATO or Russia imho in real world. Would be really nice if it is possible to have OPFOR in the future runnable without GREF for no-GREF fans :))

 

 

[wsxcgy 1960]

7 hours ago, Devastator_cm said:

 

I think a modular approach for GREF dependency would be the best. The vehicles and weapons which opfor factions have are basically coming from NATO or Russia imho in real world. Would be really nice if it is possible to have OPFOR in the future runnable without GREF for no-GREF fans :))

 

 

I think a more modular system in general would be a lot better. I'd rather each separate faction was individual, personally. It might get over complicated to maintain GREF and no-GREF versions though.

[Devastator_cm 434]

seperate factions would be also awesome. Mods are becoming bigger and bigger.
I need for instanse ISIS at the moment by my missions but need to have all the others as well loaded. 

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

I don't see what the problem is. Even if they were made seperate (which I'm against FWIW), you'd still need a few RHS's loaded because it requires their assets. So how much smaller would it end up being, really?

 

As for GREF being a dependency, I'm fine with it. And I don't personally care if it's optional or not. With RHS being on Workshop now it's easier and more convenient than ever. 4 mods and you can make just about any battle your heart desires.

 

Remember before the LOP re-release when we had almost zero currently supported Middle Eastern factions? I do and I feel like I'm living in paradise now!

[Devastator_cm 434]

Problem is, not every country has unlimited download limits ;)
I don't have such issue but I have friends who have such problems.

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

Right I get that. I'm saying, even if Keeway separated the factions (bad idea IMO), it would still rely on at least two (very soon three) full RHS downloads. So how much smaller would the total download size be? It would be insignificant.

 

It would be a totally different story if Keeway and Leight modeled their own vehicles/weapons/equipment. But it seems to me the problem here is actually with how much content RHS packs into their mod, and nothing to do with Project OPFOR itself.

 

Project OPFOR is a pretty small mod on its own all things considered.

 

 

[wsxcgy 1960]

For me, the separate factions is less about GREF and download weight and more about about Editor and Hard Drive clutter that I won't even be using. The factions I use primarily are the Ukraine factions, the Iran faction, and the Afghanistan/Takistan factions. By no means is there anything wrong with the other factions, they're quite great really, but I don't like having all the redundant or unused stuff. I can understand why some would not want GREF+SAF dependence, for some, this mod is their GREF/SAF and for others the 2gb or whatever that makes up those two really matters. Project OPFOR is about 1.4 gb on its own, between the handful of new vehicles and new uniforms, so I'd say its fairly large. From my point of view, breaking it up, aside from the tedious config work likely involved, can't be have a negative effect. All the .pbo's will be there and for those who want everything, they can just leave them all there, but if someone doesn't want say the RACS faction or something, they can just ditch the hypothetical poRACS.pbo. It wouldn't change anything for the user unless they wanted to change it.

[TheLimbo365 70]

1 hour ago, wsxcgy said:

For me, the separate factions is less about GREF and download weight and more about about Editor and Hard Drive clutter that I won't even be using. The factions I use primarily are the Ukraine factions, the Iran faction, and the Afghanistan/Takistan factions. By no means is there anything wrong with the other factions, they're quite great really, but I don't like having all the redundant or unused stuff. I can understand why some would not want GREF+SAF dependence, for some, this mod is their GREF/SAF and for others the 2gb or whatever that makes up those two really matters. Project OPFOR is about 1.4 gb on its own, between the handful of new vehicles and new uniforms, so I'd say its fairly large. From my point of view, breaking it up, aside from the tedious config work likely involved, can't be have a negative effect. All the .pbo's will be there and for those who want everything, they can just leave them all there, but if someone doesn't want say the RACS faction or something, they can just ditch the hypothetical poRACS.pbo. It wouldn't change anything for the user unless they wanted to change it.

 

Unless its changed its already like this

 

The only pbo's you need are the two core ones plus whichever faction you want

 

Everything will work fine on its own.....

[wsxcgy 1960]

22 minutes ago, TheLimbo365 said:

 

Unless its changed its already like this

 

The only pbo's you need are the two core ones plus whichever faction you want

 

Everything will work fine on its own.....

It's somewhat like that, this is the current file structure, as far as I know. it is divided into 3 large categories that have individual factions inside them

if you take a look inside the .pbo, you see that there are multiple individual factions within, and the config is not individual to them, all the faction folders in the .pbo are just raw model and texture data.

I could easily get rid of say the po_factions_eu.pbo if I didn't want to have the IRA units, but then I lose the Ukraine army and militia units. And I can't go in and delete factions from the .pbo because either I would be deleting just data and not configs so I would get errors and still have the factions, or I would have to go in frankenstein the config file, delete data, and basically hijack the whole .pbo, never mind that fact that editing the .pbo probably violates usage terms and invalidates the signatures.

[TheLimbo365 70]

6 hours ago, wsxcgy said:

It's somewhat like that, this is the current file structure, as far as I know. it is divided into 3 large categories that have individual factions inside them

if you take a look inside the .pbo, you see that there are multiple individual factions within, and the config is not individual to them, all the faction folders in the .pbo are just raw model and texture data.

I could easily get rid of say the po_factions_eu.pbo if I didn't want to have the IRA units, but then I lose the Ukraine army and militia units. And I can't go in and delete factions from the .pbo because either I would be deleting just data and not configs so I would get errors and still have the factions, or I would have to go in frankenstein the config file, delete data, and basically hijack the whole .pbo, never mind that fact that editing the .pbo probably violates usage terms and invalidates the signatures.

Ah, it has changed

 

Last time I checked (about 3/4 months ago) all the factions were in their own .pbo

[bolo861 166]

1 hour ago, TheLimbo365 said:

Ah, it has changed

 

Last time I checked (about 3/4 months ago) all the factions were in their own .pbo

 

Then You re probably talking abaut other mod. Project OPFOR always had that structure.

In my opinion redoing it would only require to put work hours for fixing something that isn t broken.

Right now people can play it with or without GREF and SAF without adverse effect.

I also don t see any significant clutter in the editor either.

Discussion is theoretical, ultimately authors will decide how to expand this mod but I think that if and when keeway will decide to include faction like for example Saddam era Iraqi armed forces it will be unavoidable to include GREF as dependency. 

 

Regards. 

[R0adki11 3949]

23 hours ago, alessiomoreno said:

This is really just an idea - maybe contact some folks back from A2 Project '85 http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=17822
Namely perhaps, Vilas and Ryugugu for their models of T-55 variants, T-62 (for like Afghan troops, they're using them now 
http://www.armyrecognition.com/customer/thierry/afghanistan/t62m_01.jpg ), and M60 tanks (certainly some factions uses some).
What d'you think of that?
Might it be possible to contact the authors and ask whether they'd give permission to port the better quality models (such as T-62 and M60),
perhaps with minor alterations where necessary? It would then of course, be a lot of work to do as Reyhard did with the T-72M, T-55, and T-34
and make them as much compatible with RHS' work as possible.

But first of - what's the opinion on this one?
Has anyone heard of any incident where somebody contacted Vilas for A3 ports? I think I read of some instance somewhere, but for the life of me
cannot recall where it was and in which exact context! Maybe somebody else knows more!

Last time i checked Vilas was not allowing any of his Arma2 addons to be ported.

 

I personally have a T-55 pack which i released in Arma2 but ive not got round to bringing it over to Arma3.

[ferpo_the_great 6]

Question about loadouts

 

can we get some ISIS units outfitted with M-16s and M-4s as they are in real life? Also I think the Ukraine/CDF units would also benefit from a realizism standpoint if they were outfitted with the AKS-74 and the AK-74m with the plum features rather than the black AK-74m that is more associated with Russia. 

 

Also want to say that I think the plan to make GREF and SAF required is the right move. 

 

[john85oc 28]

Hello Guys, Hello keeway

 

Frist sorry for my Bad English but i want say i like the mod how he now its but i have thinking about this topic here with the Last one from  RHS

 

Please dont add the Last one from RHS to required i think RHS US and Russians are good to run and dont need all 4. 

The Other its not all Clans Used or have Plan or want to add RHS Gref and Saf to the modset so for me its the best that make as optinal add not as required

 

Thanks for the time See you.

[alessiomoreno 43]

On 31.1.2017 at 11:13 AM, R0adki11 said:

Last time i checked Vilas was not allowing any of his Arma2 addons to be ported.

 

I personally have a T-55 pack which i released in Arma2 but ive not got round to bringing it over to Arma3.

 

Greetings :)

Yes, @R0adki11l, now that you mention it, I did play around quite a bit with your pack, and the whole of NAF. I remember! Quite some time ago ;)
That's been exactly what I was talking about when I wrote that there were well others besides Vilas.

So now on to the question - Roadkill, would you hypothetically give your permission for somebody to port the vehicles, not just to A3's, but also RHS' standards?
And since I for my part really can't help out at the moment, @keeway are such tanks, further versions of the T-55, something you,
1) would be interested in,
2) something either you or some one else on the team, might have the time and ressources to port, if you were allowed to?

At least in my perspective such older Soviet tanks, which despite their age, are still seeing wide spread usage all over the world, are really something
I miss in ArmA right now, especially since RHS only offers more modern tanks and their configurations. I could see a number of factions benefit from them.
Any one else on the topic?

Best regards,
 ~

[R0adki11 3949]

15 minutes ago, alessiomoreno said:

 

Greetings :)

Yes, @R0adki11l, now that you mention it, I did play around quite a bit with your pack, and the whole of NAF. I remember! Quite some time ago ;)
That's been exactly what I was talking about when I wrote that there were well others besides Vilas.

So now on to the question - Roadkill, would you hypothetically give your permission for somebody to port the vehicles, not just to A3's, but also RHS' standards?
And since I for my part really can't help out at the moment, @keeway are such tanks, further versions of the T-55, something you,
1) would be interested in,
2) something either you or some one else on the team, might have the time and ressources to port, if you were allowed to?

At least in my perspective such older Soviet tanks, which despite their age, are still seeing wide spread usage all over the world, are really something
I miss in ArmA right now, especially since RHS only offers more modern tanks and their configurations. I could see a number of factions benefit from them.
Any one else on the topic?

Best regards,
 ~

Well here lies the issue the Tank Pack i have is derived from Vilas work. He has given me permission to use the content in Arma2 and Arma3, however i am not permitted to give it to anyone else. Even if i wanted to you would need permission from myself and Vilas. I intend to port the Vehicles to Arma3 standards, but not necessarily RHS standards as otherwise it would restrict the units been used by other members of the community. And before we get ahead ourselves i don't have an eta as to when.

 

As i've decided to take a step back from Arma3 addon making after some individual(s) in the community decided to rip off my Mig-21 addon and release it in their own mod pack without permission.

[alessiomoreno 43]

@R0adki11 that is unfortunate to hear about the Mig-21. It's really a bitter shame where our world is headed witth kind of mentality, but what can one expect from todays world anyways?

As for the T-55s, weeell - yes, that'd make things more complicated with Vilas being involved, as you mentioned earlier. A pity.

I for my part would recommend to make the tank pack as much compatible with RHS tanks, since I'd say, that is the future of A3, and what certainly a vast portion of players
already use. I would argue that using the T-55s in conjunction with the Vanilla content (which through RAM/ RHS integrated armour module is more or less compatible with RHS armour system), is rather unlikely anyways, given the period context. I'd think they would fit in very well with either GREF or Project OPFOR's scope.
At the end of the day those are of course your models in the first place, you do what you deem the right thing :)

I should really learn to get into this myself anyways,

Thanks for the quick response ;)

~

[R0adki11 3949]

On 06/02/2017 at 10:20 PM, alessiomoreno said:

I for my part would recommend to make the tank pack as much compatible with RHS tanks, since I'd say, that is the future of A3, and what certainly a vast portion of players
already use. I would argue that using the T-55s in conjunction with the Vanilla content (which through RAM/ RHS integrated armour module is more or less compatible with RHS armour system), is rather unlikely anyways, given the period context. I'd think they would fit in very well with either GREF or Project OPFOR's scope.
~

It be nice to make the vehicles work with the RHS Armour System, but far as i am aware there is no documentation released on how to do this. And at present if i were to release them i would rather they be available to use by all, especially as at present i prefer CUP over RHS (But this only because vehicle assets such as UH1 are included etc). 

 

Anyway we probably should get back on topic 

[alessiomoreno 43]

^I totally agree with you! Back on topic.

Though allow me to harken back to one thing: In respect to the documentation on how the RHS armour/ damage system is done, I have to respectfully disagree.
I won't post everything here all over again, but I made a post in another thread, linking all the sites I remembered off the top of my head.

Here's the link to said thread/ post:

I don't wanna further the discussion on this here, but I do guarantee you, that the links I gave there are worth a look!
I'm curious what you think of them, regardless of the above discussed T-55s.

Wish you all well!

 ~

[keeway 287]

@rafy77 You only need new po_vehicles.pbo and make sure you havent loaded older version of this file at the same moment.

 

@alessiomoreno We need to focus on other things right now and atm we do not have the right manpower to deal with more tanks model, there are other priorities that need to be done ASAP. Maybe one day we will ask vilas if he can share his mlods with us, but I dont think he will agree due to RHS dependency.

 

@ferpo_the_great They will get some of these for sure also new weapons from GREF will be added to existing factions. 

 

Also in future we will try to fix modularity, but we cannot afford more than one version at the same time, so we go full GREF dependency (still with out SAF).