Bohemia eyes persistent multiplayer battlefields

[Ironsight 1]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Wow 2 months difference. Who cares?

[deanosbeano 0]

well if we gonna be pedantic.

arma anounced may 05

changes anounced

Quote[/b] ] He added that the second reason "is game development itself". "...We decided to improve the game and the engine powering it, significantly above and beyond the original plan, especially focusing a lot on the visual appearance and AI. These changes are very beneficial for the game but also had a negative impact on the development schedule."

these were changes that included things from game 2 and ofp-e

(the original was simply vbs ports)

therefore the game we have now has things being developed since 2003( which is sourced from ofp xbox and ofp2 related folders in arma ). And to say that arma was only in development for 10 months is true in a loose sense but dosen`t tel the full story.

back to the original thread,i believe it would be fantastic to see

this kind of gameplay, hope they pull it off .I do believe its quite a while off tho.

[dm 9]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

[wamingo 1]

When people think persistant they usually attach themselves with a character, stactic rewards, and so on, but that is not necessarily so.

All you need is like JIP, infinite spawns, randomized spawning of ai's in various places and assign objectives that match and you got a persistant world that should require no maintenance.

A simple moving map marker will do the trick.

Add in two sides if you like.

Problem is of course if server goes down then you have to start over, but as long as there are no rewards attached, who cares.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

[adumb 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

[shinRaiden 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

[dm 9]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

Actually the H-47 and H-58 were modified BIS models, the H-6 and H-60's were new models (although the H-60 MIGHT use some BIS parts for lower lods, its been so long since I looked at them I cant remember tbh)

[oyman 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

[shinRaiden 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

[deanosbeano 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

well they look so alike i cant tell

[oyman 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

Alright, I is confused now :S

[adumb 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

No, his saying BIS models are BAS models. thats what i've been saying from the start. i mean why would BIS make new models if BAS had better ones?

[shinRaiden 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

No, his saying BIS models are BAS models. thats what i've been saying from the start. i mean why would BIS make new models if BAS had better ones?

No, I said BAS edited BIS models for the OH 6 and OH 58, and integrated small portions of the BIS models for the CH 47 and UH 60.

[dm 9]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

No, his saying BIS models are BAS models. thats what i've been saying from the start. i mean why would BIS make new models if BAS had better ones?

No, I said BAS edited BIS models for the OH 6 and OH 58, and integrated small portions of the BIS models for the CH 47 and UH 60.

Which was wrong, because the OH-6 was an entirely new model at the time we released it (the OH-6 had never been an "official" part of any BIS product until it was included in VBS1)

[Abs_01 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

No, his saying BIS models are BAS models. thats what i've been saying from the start. i mean why would BIS make new models if BAS had better ones?

No, I said BAS edited BIS models for the OH 6 and OH 58, and integrated small portions of the BIS models for the CH 47 and UH 60.

Which was wrong, because the OH-6 was an entirely new model at the time we released it (the OH-6 had never been an "official" part of any BIS product until it was included in VBS1)

People, some folks like ArmA, and some don't...can't we just leave it at that without discussing every detail of every aspect of its flaws and shortcomings?

Abs

[adumb 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

No, his saying BIS models are BAS models. thats what i've been saying from the start. i mean why would BIS make new models if BAS had better ones?

No, I said BAS edited BIS models for the OH 6 and OH 58, and integrated small portions of the BIS models for the CH 47 and UH 60.

Which was wrong, because the OH-6 was an entirely new model at the time we released it (the OH-6 had never been an "official" part of any BIS product until it was included in VBS1)

People, some folks like ArmA, and some don't...can't we just leave it at that without discussing every detail of every aspect of its flaws and shortcomings?

Abs

Look Mr. Abs, some of us who paid $50 for this game have a right to complain about this product. if its all imported BAS stuff i will be asking for my money back.

[shinRaiden 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

No, his saying BIS models are BAS models. thats what i've been saying from the start. i mean why would BIS make new models if BAS had better ones?

No, I said BAS edited BIS models for the OH 6 and OH 58, and integrated small portions of the BIS models for the CH 47 and UH 60.

Which was wrong, because the OH-6 was an entirely new model at the time we released it (the OH-6 had never been an "official" part of any BIS product until it was included in VBS1)

People, some folks like ArmA, and some don't...can't we just leave it at that without discussing every detail of every aspect of its flaws and shortcomings?

Abs

Look Mr. Abs, some of us who paid $50 for this game have a right to complain about this product. if its all imported BAS stuff i will be asking for my money back.

Yeah, who knows what sort of chaos there would be if it were all Combat! rips instead of BAS ones.

[4 IN 1 0]

STOP QUOTING OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!

we are not building a "GREAT WALL OF WHINE" here

it makes reading very hard

[Ironsight 1]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

No, his saying BIS models are BAS models. thats what i've been saying from the start. i mean why would BIS make new models if BAS had better ones?

No, I said BAS edited BIS models for the OH 6 and OH 58, and integrated small portions of the BIS models for the CH 47 and UH 60.

Which was wrong, because the OH-6 was an entirely new model at the time we released it (the OH-6 had never been an "official" part of any BIS product until it was included in VBS1)

People, some folks like ArmA, and some don't...can't we just leave it at that without discussing every detail of every aspect of its flaws and shortcomings?

Abs

Look Mr. Abs, some of us who paid $50 for this game have a right to complain about this product. if its all imported BAS stuff i will be asking for my money back.

Yeah, who knows what sort of chaos there would be if it were all Combat! rips instead of BAS ones.

I don't see Combat! mentioned anywhere?

[oyman 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

No, his saying BIS models are BAS models. thats what i've been saying from the start. i mean why would BIS make new models if BAS had better ones?

No, I said BAS edited BIS models for the OH 6 and OH 58, and integrated small portions of the BIS models for the CH 47 and UH 60.

Which was wrong, because the OH-6 was an entirely new model at the time we released it (the OH-6 had never been an "official" part of any BIS product until it was included in VBS1)

People, some folks like ArmA, and some don't...can't we just leave it at that without discussing every detail of every aspect of its flaws and shortcomings?

Abs

Look Mr. Abs, some of us who paid $50 for this game have a right to complain about this product. if its all imported BAS stuff i will be asking for my money back.

Yeah, who knows what sort of chaos there would be if it were all Combat! rips instead of BAS ones.

Probably alot of chaos, maybe we should find out

[adumb 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

No, his saying BIS models are BAS models. thats what i've been saying from the start. i mean why would BIS make new models if BAS had better ones?

No, I said BAS edited BIS models for the OH 6 and OH 58, and integrated small portions of the BIS models for the CH 47 and UH 60.

Which was wrong, because the OH-6 was an entirely new model at the time we released it (the OH-6 had never been an "official" part of any BIS product until it was included in VBS1)

People, some folks like ArmA, and some don't...can't we just leave it at that without discussing every detail of every aspect of its flaws and shortcomings?

Abs

Look Mr. Abs, some of us who paid $50 for this game have a right to complain about this product. if its all imported BAS stuff i will be asking for my money back.

Yeah, who knows what sort of chaos there would be if it were all Combat! rips instead of BAS ones.

I don't see Combat! mentioned anywhere?

Nice job taking this off topic shinRaiden. can we get back to the topic at hand now?

[Ironsight 1]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

No, his saying BIS models are BAS models. thats what i've been saying from the start. i mean why would BIS make new models if BAS had better ones?

No, I said BAS edited BIS models for the OH 6 and OH 58, and integrated small portions of the BIS models for the CH 47 and UH 60.

Which was wrong, because the OH-6 was an entirely new model at the time we released it (the OH-6 had never been an "official" part of any BIS product until it was included in VBS1)

People, some folks like ArmA, and some don't...can't we just leave it at that without discussing every detail of every aspect of its flaws and shortcomings?

Abs

Look Mr. Abs, some of us who paid $50 for this game have a right to complain about this product. if its all imported BAS stuff i will be asking for my money back.

Yeah, who knows what sort of chaos there would be if it were all Combat! rips instead of BAS ones.

I don't see Combat! mentioned anywhere?

Nice job taking this off topic shinRaiden. can we get back to the topic at hand now?

It wouldn't be that weird if modding teams would cooperate. Look at VBS1 addon packs.

[Guest]

Who told you guys how to quote?

He should be shot

[Billabong81 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones  ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

No, his saying BIS models are BAS models. thats what i've been saying from the start. i mean why would BIS make new models if BAS had better ones?

No, I said BAS edited BIS models for the OH 6 and OH 58, and integrated small portions of the BIS models for the CH 47 and UH 60.

Which was wrong, because the OH-6 was an entirely new model at the time we released it (the OH-6 had never been an "official" part of any BIS product until it was included in VBS1)

People, some folks like ArmA, and some don't...can't we just leave it at that without discussing every detail of every aspect of its flaws and shortcomings?

Abs

Look Mr. Abs, some of us who paid $50 for this game have a right to complain about this product. if its all imported BAS stuff i will be asking for my money back.

Yeah, who knows what sort of chaos there would be if it were all Combat! rips instead of BAS ones.  

I don't see Combat! mentioned anywhere?

Nice job taking this off topic shinRaiden. can we get back to the topic at hand now?  

It wouldn't be that weird if modding teams would cooperate. Look at VBS1 addon packs.

I would like to point out both BAS and Combat! work primarily on US based addons. Perhaps there is a conspiracy here?