pttn40

I’ll have to check that back out. When I was testing it on Monday and AT mines actually disabled the Bobcat. Maybe it was because I didn’t hit the AT mine correctly.

Thanks for the quick response. That is what I kind of expected, unfortunately, with UXOs being tried more to the sub-munitions simulation than the simulation of general munitions. Strike_NOR points also make sense outside of a millsim perspective. I look forward to reading through the documentation once the wiki is updated, and will be browsing through the configs looking for ways to abuse…. I mean adapt the engine to spawn large UXOs ;) Thank you again for the response and keep up the good work!

I just wanted to add my two cents on the new mine system. The mine detector range may be too large. I found myself able to run around minefields in the campaign (literally standing and sprinting from mine to mine) due to the long detection range. It would be nice if the range was short enough that it forced players to have to move slowly through minefields or if smaller mines where harder to detect with the detector (kind of like how stealth works with the new radar system). The ability to mark mines with flags needs to be added. I play a lot with a mill sim group and we play with minimal HUD so we would never see those red triangles for marking the mines. So having the flags available for us to place next to mines can help us mark mines on higher difficulties that have that HUD element disabled. Instantly disarming mines and UXOs seems a little cheaty to me. It would be nice if it at least took 3-5 seconds per mine, or, even better, different mines and UXOs had different disarm times. It would be nice to see more demining equipment or CEVs that actually can remove AT and AP mines, specifically on the NATO, CSAT, and AFF sides. Who knows though maybe fully functional CEVs might be added in with the tank update ;) There needs to be a penalty for using the mine detector. Right now due to its small size and the fact you don’t have to equip it means every infantry man could carry one of these and find minefields. Also, this can make IEDs useless since the detectors can be used to spot them from a distance, ruining any planed ambushes. Finally, since they can be used from vehicles it means vehicles can also spot and react to IED and mine threats easier as long as they are moving slow enough. Over all I believe the new mine system to be one of the most interesting, but also the most under developed parts of this DLC. I think it would really help Arma as a whole if it was developed a little bit further.

@DnA I have to say I’m really liking the UXO concept right now. Having to consider UXOs adds a new layer to planning airstrikes that I really like. I am wondering though if it is planned to have other munitions, like bombs and artillery shells, have a chance of becoming UXOs? It looks like only the cluster sub munitions have UXO variants right now, and UXOs could pose a greater threat to heavier vehicles if bombs/artillery shells had a chance of becoming UXOs. Also, will it be possible to configure non cluster munitions to have a chance of becoming UXOs in the first place?

I have been playing around with the new sensor system a bit to try to get a feel for how it works. I want to make a small library of radar templates based on real radars that can be applied to vehicles. I made a test template that would bring the range of the cheetah down from 9000m to 5000m. When I try to override the active radar of the cheetah it defaults back to the original radar. I am not sure if this is because I simply cant override the existing radar by inheriting a template or because my template is set up wrong. config.cpp for my test templates class CfgPatches { class Test_Sensors { units[] = {}; weapons[] = {}; requiredVersion = 0.1; requiredAddons[] = {}; author = "Pttn40" authors[] = {"Pttn40"}; }; }; class SensorTemplateActiveRadar; class Test_TestRadar : SensorTemplateActiveRadar { class AirTarget { minRange = 5000; maxRange = 5000; objectDistanceLimitCoef=-1; viewDistanceLimitCoef=-1; }; class GroundTarget { minRange = 5000; maxRange = 5000; objectDistanceLimitCoef=-1; viewDistanceLimitCoef=-1; }; typeRecognitionDistance = 5000; angleRangeHorizontal=360; angleRangeVertical=100; aimDown=-45; minSpeedThreshold=30; maxSpeedThreshold=90; minTrackableATL = 25; maxTrackableATL = 3500; }; config.cpp for overriding the cheetah class CfgPatches { class Test_AAIFVTest { units[] = {}; weapons[] = {}; requiredVersion = 0.1; requiredAddons[] = {"A3_Armor_F_Beta", "Test_Sensors"}; author = "Pttn40" authors[] = {"Pttn40"}; addonRootClass = "A3_Armor_F_Beta"; }; }; class Components; class Test_TestRadar; class CfgVehicles { class B_APC_Tracked_01_base_F; class B_APC_Tracked_01_AA_F : B_APC_Tracked_01_base_F { displayName = "Test AA"; class Components : Components { class SensorsManagerComponent { class Components { class ActiveRadarSensorComponent : Test_TestRadar {}; }; }; }; }; }; Does anyone know if this is because of an issue with how I have the configs set up, or if it is because I am simply not allowed to override the existing ActiveRadarSensorComponent through inheritance?

Fizzle, thanks for the links. They are really helpful. What I was thinking though was along the lines of how ACE3 renames vehicles and weapons to more realistic names (Macer to Maverick for instance). After looking at the ACE3 code it looks like they just create a new config with the same name and inherit from the old one to overwrite it. I’m going to try it out and see what happens. Thanks for your help.

Fizzle, thanks for the reply. I did some research into hidden selections, and (correct me if I am wrong) to define a new selection, like I would need to in this instance, I would have to have access to the model. Unfortunately, since the v-44 is binarized I cannot just open it and create a new selection on that model. This means my only two choices, if I go this route, are to find a way to hack the p3d (not worth the time) so I can add selections or create a new v-44 model (not sure how “legal” that is) that then I can define the selections on. At this point, it almost seems better for me to just do something from scratch then try to retexture the v-44. Just to spread this link around more, the information on selections I got from this tutorial for Arma2: http://fab.ofp.free.fr/Tutorials/Hidden_Selections.htm Also, thanks for the links and help.

I have been working on my first retexture for Arma 3. The retexture I’m doing is for a mill sim unit I am a part of. They want the V-44x to have a cammo pattern similar to the V-22. I have the basic texture finished and I am starting on some detailing, but as part of that I need to add the text Marines to the tail section. As many of you know, many vehicles in Arma mirror their textures and this causes text and asymmetric images to show up reversed as can be seen here: But the number on the tail shows the same on both sides: I have tracked this decal to VTOL_01_signs_CA.paa, but for the life of me I can’t figure out how this is used. I found one refence to that .paa in TexHeader.bin, but I can’t unbinarize it to view how its set up. Does anyone know either how that decal overlay works that BI uses for the numbers or any workarounds for dealing with mirroring on the textures?

I have been working on doing some retexturing of some Arma 3 vehicles for a MillSim unit I am a part of since we are thinking about using them in our operations. I’m getting close to being done with a few of the textures and will be starting on writing the configs for the texture pack soon. Being new at modding in Arma I have a question when it comes to writing the configs. From all the tutorials I can find it seems like the “standard” way to do this is make a new vehicle that uses the same configs and model that the vehicle I am retexturing uses, but just with my new textures. I kind of don’t like this Idea as I would much rather just add the texture to the list of available camouflage options for the existing vehicle instead of having a full new vehicle. Does anyone know how I can add my new textures to the list of available textures for that vehicle so it can be changed in 3den, or can point me to some resources that can help? Or is there a reason that I should make each one a new vehicle? Thanks for the help in advance.

So take what I’m going to say with a grain of salt as I am just getting into scripting in Arma, but I’ve been looking into the sensors system a bit for an IADS addon that I would like to try to make. From what I can tell so far from my research and testing is that remoteTargets simply broadcasts the position of targets that unit’s sensors sees. In order for a receiving unit to lock it, they need a sensor that is configured to lock targets that come from the data link. According to the wiki the DataLinkSensorComponent or SensorTemplateDataLink should add this capability. I hope this helps some. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Sensors_config_reference

This may have already been mentioned, but I didn't see it mentioned in the bug tracker or when I quickly searched the last 5 forum pages. When I was playing with the CH53, both regular and viv but I did not test the German variant, if you have the advanced flight model enabled the helicopter seems to force its self into the ground till it explodes as soon as you enter it. This also occurs any time while landing. Is this a known issue? If it was, was it fixed in 1.7.1? (sorry for asking would have tested myself but I'm just downloading it)