Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Ex3B said:

I'm glad to see NATO getting some bullpup rifles, vanilla Arma 3 seems to treat bullpups as something only CSAT can make for some reason.

 

Tiny tiny suggestion, since this does modify vanilla assets, and since you do seem to care about realism.... there are 2 vanilla weapon names that bug me, maybe they'll bug you too and you can change them:

gatling_20mm       display name "Minigun 20mm"

Gatling_30mm_Plane_CAS_01_F               display name "Minigun 30mm"

No, just no. These are Gatling cannons, not miniguns. the original "minigun" was a miniaturized version of the M-61 vulcan cannon. It was essentially scaled down to fire the 7.62x51 mm rifle cartridge instead of the  20x102 mm cannon cartridge. So they miniaturaized it, it went from a cannon caliber to a gun/machinegun/rifle caliber. So they called it a minigun... makes sense.

The 20mm cannon of the commanche (XM-301) is derived from the M197, which was a 3 barrel version of the M-61. Its the same caliber, its not miniaturized, its a cannon not a gun... its not a minigun.

And the GAU-8 (I'm presuming this is what the wipeout uses, as its a clear A-10 derivative), its not miniaturized either, its enlarged... calling this thing a minigun is just... wrong...

If you add back in the 6.5mm miniguns (since it seems you changed them all to M134 7.62mm miniguns- but it seems to me that CSAT shouldn't use these, so maybe CSAT helos and Qilins should stick to the 6.5mm fatling guns), keep the name minigun.

If you were to add a 12.7mm gatling gun (Like the GAU-19), I wouldn't mind calling that a mini-gun - its not so mini, but its still smaller than the M-61 (which is basically the standard as it was the first modern gatling cannon - the Russian 23mm gatling cannon, the GSh-6-23, entered service 6 years after the M-61)

 

Other suggestion: +350 rounds to the Wipeout, for a total of 1350, like the ol' A-10

 

I'll probably change the names then. And will do regarding the Wipeout's rounds!

 

2 hours ago, zukov said:

@Night515  you enabled the big (very big) holosight (DLC 20 or a name like that) for  rifles, but this optics is  for HMG like M2HB right?

 

Yeah but it's admittedly kind of useless. I only really added it because it was left-over, and there aren't any ways to put it on HMGs. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have ported the Jackal from BAF,
if i remember well, the M2 on it  has a Rail with optic, but i don't know if "proxied"..... would be a cherry on top :don11:and maybe in a landrover for special force

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zukov said:

You have ported the Jackal from BAF,
if i remember well, the M2 on it  has a Rail with optic, but i don't know if "proxied"..... would be a cherry on top :don11:and maybe in a landrover for special force

 

Possibly, though the M2 on the Jackal is just a placeholder. Hopefully someday it'll be replaced with a Mk30 HMG/XM312.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Night515 said:

Another pic of the L85A3, which is now available in the development branch (WIP beware, also the pic below is slightly different compared to the dev branch version.)


I found a bug with the SA80K rifle:

1IkWHLu.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, pipewr3nch said:

I found a bug with the SA80K rifle:

 

The SA80K is a config placeholder for now, we're still working on the model. ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO just call it L22A3 and it'll be gold :f:
 

Since there was no L22A1 i'd imagine BAF would update the designation to match L85A3 and (possible) L86A3.

 

Also here's a small idea for future: if you decide to go with P/E-mags then consider D60 for L86 since BI seem to handle mag fed LMGs as if they automatically get a drum mag )

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full name for the current L22A2 in service is RIFLE SA80, 5.56 MM L22A2 SA80K so of the choices there, SA80K would be the "correct" one.

If they bother to modify them with the strengthened welds for the breech block and top rail, they would probably become L22A3.

 

However, with the carbine there would realistically be issues with using the extended top rails on the current L85A3 designed for the FIST rail adapter, or the full-length picatinny rail like the one on HK's prototype. The L22 top cover needs a slot cut out of the top of the receiver in order for the operator to remove the gas piston, otherwise there is not enough room between the gas block and the receiver to pull it out. Something that is illustrated towards the end of this video from Forgotten Weapons

So the MoD maybe wont bother upgrading the carbines, and just continue to use the old school  short rail adapter for modern picatinny/weaver optics for those that need something other than SUSAT

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed a small bug related to the minigun. The AAF and Raven Orca variants still allow selection of 6.5mm miniguns on their pylons, but these miniguns are non-functional.

 

While looking at pylon settings, (and its the same in vanilla), the AH-9 can load guided missiles, but as far as I can tell, it can't actually lock on to any targets (I seem to recall the Hellcat used to have this problem). Am I just ignorant, or is there no way to get an ASRAAM to function as more than an unguided rocket when equipped on the AH-9?

 

Also, while using the config viewer, I noticed that "2Rnd_GBU12_LGB"/"2Rnd_GBU12_LGB_MI10" say that they are used in the "F-35F" in the description line. I guess at one point the F-35 was going to be in Arma3 (I seem to recall seeing an alpha screenshot, and hearing it was a placeholder) - also evidenced by the 25mm gatling inclusion - but I guess BI was going to name it the F-35F (rather than the real A/B/C variants). Did you ever consider using this designation instead of the F-38?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CommanderCharms said:

You should fiddle about with an RHS style foregrips config for the rails - I think it would be pretty cool!

 

I'd do that, but sadly it wouldn't be possible with some of the vanilla weapons (PDW2000, MX, Mk20, etc.) as they have foregrips already; consistency is something I really want to strive for here.

 

SA80s will get foregrips anyways, tho.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Night515 Is there any chance you could be persuaded to include some CTRG gear that isn't the UBACS/Crye uniform? I'm a big fan of CTRG and their gear can work well for PMCs (just see your own Clouds setup) but there's no option for a barracks/garrison/non-field uniform anywhere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RabidStoat said:

@Night515 Is there any chance you could be persuaded to include some CTRG gear that isn't the UBACS/Crye uniform? I'm a big fan of CTRG and their gear can work well for PMCs (just see your own Clouds setup) but there's no option for a barracks/garrison/non-field uniform anywhere.

 

It's a possibility in the future, but no promises.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another small update!

 

The L22, or SA80C as it will be named is nearly finished! We just have to do some minor details and wrap things up here and there and it'll be good to go!

 

20180120183329_1.jpg

 

VISCOSITY is hard at work with the FAL Para!

 

Screenshot_406.png

 

Also, the SA80C is now available on development branch! Go try it out! Keep in mind textures are heavy WIP. :P

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RabidStoat said:

Oooo FAL love incoming! Any GL option on these?

 

Yup!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FAL 7.62 mm

PCePT1w.jpg

 

EMR-Pustynya camouflage and Modular Helmet (Khaki)

MPBFGCK.jpg

 

And lastly, MX sand textures were darkened a tad.

EC0tVE0.jpg

 

:)

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the lack of updates, I've felt burnt out regarding modding but I'm starting to get into it again. Currently I'm reevaluating the mod's direction, current content, and future content.

 

Just to be clear, no current content will be removed completely. Instead, they'll become separate addons or part of a miscellaneous Aegis addon. I'm doing this to keep things concise and relevant with the actual lore, and also to make things easier on us. :)

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we talking one addon per Side, or per Faction? or just per logical grouping? :don11:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RabidStoat said:

Are we talking one addon per Side, or per Faction? or just per logical grouping? :don11:

 

Addons such as:

  • Clouds & Flames
  • Operation Magnitude Factions (Bandits, Kabeiroi, Paramilitary)

Et cetera; stuff that doesn't fit the current setting. :)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2018 at 10:54 PM, Night515 said:

Sorry for the lack of updates, I've felt burnt out regarding modding but I'm starting to get into it again. Currently I'm reevaluating the mod's direction, current content, and future content.

 

Just to be clear, no current content will be removed completely. Instead, they'll become separate addons or part of a miscellaneous Aegis addon. I'm doing this to keep things concise and relevant with the actual lore, and also to make things easier on us. :)

No need to apologize for burnout. I get burnout playing games, so burnout modding is even more excusable.

Splitting the mod into separate addons makes sense, much like there isn't just a single CUP addon. If I were doing it (and I'm not), I'd use similar groupings like "vehicles", "infantry weapons/equipment", "reskins", "Stat tweaks" (non-cosmetic changes to base content), "factions" (which may have dependencies of the infantry equipment and vehicles).

 

As for the direction, that's entirely up to you. As far as I'm concerned, base Arma 3, despite all the DLCs, still feels unfinished or like it misses many things. I want a mod collection that "completes" Arma 3, and itself feels complete but not cluttered. 

 

Things Arma 3 was lacking(IMO) that this mod has already filled:

Spoiler

* Pacific NATO skins, a glaring gap in Arma3's lineup (Maybe the tanks DLC, which has a significant rework of armored vehicles, will fix this)

* A decent VTOL fighter (works well with the LHD plus mod) - something arma 2 had but Arma3 did not... and F-35Bs  doing combat operations certainly fits better in a 2035 setting than a 2018 setting)

* Drone artillery support (with the mortar) - IMO the best system for calling in artillery support, and the easiest to set up in the map

* Shotguns

* Various other little things (police hunter, khaki/black reskins of various rifles, SDAR can mount optics)

 

As far as what I feel Arma still lacks:

Spoiler

* OPFOR lacks aerial assault/amphibious capabilities.

- Blufor can swim or fly wheeled APCs with autocannons to any island on the map - OPFOR can only fly MRAPs with HMG/GMGs, or slowly swim the weakest APC in the game (IMO, the Marid).

I don't feel quite right using "addWeaponTurret" to give Ifrits 30mm cannons. Opfor amphibious/airmobile ground vehicles will get chewed up by Blufor amphibious/airmobile vehicles. Especially with Nato Gorgons in addition to Marshalls.

 

* Specific to Tanoa, a lack of a competent "independent" military. Syndicate paramilitaries aren't suitable for any larger combined arms scenario. I've used AAF equipment as a stand in... it has some green elements, but it also has too many light and tan elements for them to fit well.

 

* CSAT lacks naval airpower... but this can be overcome in a way I find acceptable using the editor,:

- USS freedom + CSAT banners and CSAT nation flags to make pseudo CSAT carrier, 

- CSAT aircraft + triggers on the arrester wire and the set velocity command to allow carrier landings

 

If any of those sentiments about what Arma3 lacks resonates with you, then I would urge you to consider the following suggestions:

* Changing the Marid and Ifrits to use the HMG_NSVT.

- it does result in a slight but noticeable increase in their ability to disable APCs. It makes more sense for OPFOR to be using the 127x108mm cartridge in their Ifrits anyway.

 

* Adding the ability for the HMG_NSVT to fire APDS rounds, without making them the standard loadout.

- I'd like to be able to (in the editor, no need for a specialized unit) to make "Firefly" Ifrits by adding APDS magazines. If this was standard though, Hunters would be seriously underpowered compared to Ifrits (and 127x99mm APDS rounds might amount to too much power creep)

 

* Pacific/woodland/"darker and greener" skins of AAF vehicles and infantry items (although the olive drab skin on some of the helos already works fine).

- Not to imply any specific lore, just to provide some material for an unspecified 3rd force active in the south pacific . It could could be aussies, could be the phillipines, could be a fictional militaristic nation somewhere in Southeast asia/the pacific,  could be the AAF participating in a peacekeeping mission with NATO years after the events of the campaign. Personally I wouldn't care if the vehicles and units were just found under a faction named "Independent Pacific Force"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently working on some Russian related stuff + rewriting code and adding new things. ;)

 

20180220214244_1.jpg

 

On 2/16/2018 at 2:59 PM, Ex3B said:

No need to apologize for burnout. I get burnout playing games, so burnout modding is even more excusable.

Splitting the mod into separate addons makes sense, much like there isn't just a single CUP addon. If I were doing it (and I'm not), I'd use similar groupings like "vehicles", "infantry weapons/equipment", "reskins", "Stat tweaks" (non-cosmetic changes to base content), "factions" (which may have dependencies of the infantry equipment and vehicles).

 

As for the direction, that's entirely up to you. As far as I'm concerned, base Arma 3, despite all the DLCs, still feels unfinished or like it misses many things. I want a mod collection that "completes" Arma 3, and itself feels complete but not cluttered. 

 

Things Arma 3 was lacking(IMO) that this mod has already filled:

  Reveal hidden contents

* Pacific NATO skins, a glaring gap in Arma3's lineup (Maybe the tanks DLC, which has a significant rework of armored vehicles, will fix this)

* A decent VTOL fighter (works well with the LHD plus mod) - something arma 2 had but Arma3 did not... and F-35Bs  doing combat operations certainly fits better in a 2035 setting than a 2018 setting)

* Drone artillery support (with the mortar) - IMO the best system for calling in artillery support, and the easiest to set up in the map

* Shotguns

* Various other little things (police hunter, khaki/black reskins of various rifles, SDAR can mount optics)

 

As far as what I feel Arma still lacks:

  Reveal hidden contents

* OPFOR lacks aerial assault/amphibious capabilities.

- Blufor can swim or fly wheeled APCs with autocannons to any island on the map - OPFOR can only fly MRAPs with HMG/GMGs, or slowly swim the weakest APC in the game (IMO, the Marid).

I don't feel quite right using "addWeaponTurret" to give Ifrits 30mm cannons. Opfor amphibious/airmobile ground vehicles will get chewed up by Blufor amphibious/airmobile vehicles. Especially with Nato Gorgons in addition to Marshalls.

 

* Specific to Tanoa, a lack of a competent "independent" military. Syndicate paramilitaries aren't suitable for any larger combined arms scenario. I've used AAF equipment as a stand in... it has some green elements, but it also has too many light and tan elements for them to fit well.

 

* CSAT lacks naval airpower... but this can be overcome in a way I find acceptable using the editor,:

- USS freedom + CSAT banners and CSAT nation flags to make pseudo CSAT carrier, 

- CSAT aircraft + triggers on the arrester wire and the set velocity command to allow carrier landings

 

If any of those sentiments about what Arma3 lacks resonates with you, then I would urge you to consider the following suggestions:

* Changing the Marid and Ifrits to use the HMG_NSVT.

- it does result in a slight but noticeable increase in their ability to disable APCs. It makes more sense for OPFOR to be using the 127x108mm cartridge in their Ifrits anyway.

 

* Adding the ability for the HMG_NSVT to fire APDS rounds, without making them the standard loadout.

- I'd like to be able to (in the editor, no need for a specialized unit) to make "Firefly" Ifrits by adding APDS magazines. If this was standard though, Hunters would be seriously underpowered compared to Ifrits (and 127x99mm APDS rounds might amount to too much power creep)

 

* Pacific/woodland/"darker and greener" skins of AAF vehicles and infantry items (although the olive drab skin on some of the helos already works fine).

- Not to imply any specific lore, just to provide some material for an unspecified 3rd force active in the south pacific . It could could be aussies, could be the phillipines, could be a fictional militaristic nation somewhere in Southeast asia/the pacific,  could be the AAF participating in a peacekeeping mission with NATO years after the events of the campaign. Personally I wouldn't care if the vehicles and units were just found under a faction named "Independent Pacific Force"

 

We've thought about a potential ANZAC faction but no promises. The NSVT is a good idea that we might commit to, but we have no plans to give CSAT carriers or larger VTOLs.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, I wasn't even suggesting CSAT carriers or larger VTOLs. The standard game doesn't give them any naval assets, and even if they had them, only the Helos and Xian work... but the editor gives enough flexibility.

Spoiler

ICBfqsD.jpg

The covered up US flag, and a chinese flag at the top is good enough for me. Triggers that activate when linked aircraft have a heading and speed,in a certain range and then lower the velocity work well enough for me:

?interpolation=lanczos-none&output-forma

 

 

 

I'd just be happy with some MRAPs, or something similar, that can threaten NATO gorgons and Marshals. It could be a BRDM with an AT missile launcher (ie, port, for the Russia faction, from Arma 2), or Ifrits and Marids capable of firing 1.27x108mm APDS rounds.

NATO just seems really good compared to CSAT now when it comes to amphibious assault capabilities.

Amphibious vehicles for NATO:

Strider, Marshall, Gorgon

Amphibious vehicles for CSAT:

Marids

 

Airmobile combat vehicles for CSAT: Ifrit, Quilin

Airmobile for NATO: Prowler, Strider, Hunter, Marshal

 

If Ifrits and Marids can be firing APDS ammo from an automatic weapon, then they stand a much better chance against the amphibious and airmobile NATO units.

 

FYI, I don't know if my version of this mod is out of date (though I just reinstalled arma and the mod [via steam] about a month ago), but the CSAT buzzards don't have R73 and R77 missiles selectable in the editor (no big deal, can set pylons through the init).

and #2: The door miniguns of the ghosthawk and huron weren't working. Using the magazines command, it seemed that the vehicle had 2000Rnd_762x51_Belt_T_Red assigned to them, but it didn't seem to work in the guns. I did: this addMagazineTurret ["PylonWeapon_762x51_Belt_T_Red", [1]]; this addMagazineTurret ["PylonWeapon_762x51_Belt_T_Red", [2]]; (I  think I got those names right) - and they worked again, so again, not a huge deal, nothing "broken beyond repair".

 

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

×