panduhh

Western Sahara official Discord

The Compatibility Mods for all the CDLCs offer the same 'try before you buy' ability as the official BI DLC content, meaning you have to pay to get access to the premium content. If your server/mission requires CDLC content such as an included terrain, players with only the Compat Mod will NOT be able to join the server. The Compat Mods only exist because the CDLCs are Optional Content, players do not have to download any of the CDLCs unless they are interested in them. This saves a large amount of storage space. See the CDLC FAQ page for more information.

You grossly underestimate the popularity of Ylands. 😜 Otherwise, you are correct. It has not been any kind of secret BI has been feverishly working on the foundations of a new game engine intended to power the Arma franchise into the future. There is no one in the Arma community who wants to see a new Arma game more than the least interested person at Bohemia Interactive.

The entire point of the Aggressor fleet DoD-wide is to provide Dissimilar Air Combat Training. Thus, the Navy might need aircraft that are dissimilar to their primary strike aircraft.

Ordinance Ordnance

It's open source. You can look right at the server source files for that info.

The Arma 3 Dedicated Server official wiki page

@Asheara It took a lot longer than I expected to get around to tackling this task but I just finished going through the Arma 3 CfgVehicles WEST page adding in mostly the game file images from the editorpreviews folders. There are some assets that could use the same images as identical assets with different names but the wiki database won't allow sharing and I didn't want to have to change game files. If I counted correctly there are 67 new images in the wiki database now. There are some errors in the CfgVehicles pages concerning the table code posted. I identified numerous DLC icon errors for Orange DLC and discovered the function output appears to be cutoff on all 4 of the CfgVehicles pages to prevent the last entry on each page from having the correct table code. I made a task in the Feedback Tracker detailing my discovery. I will continue the work on the remaining pages soon.

The difference between running an Arma 3 Dedicated Server instance and hosting a server instance from the Arma 3 client is the amount of control/customization you have over the server instance. You are going out of your way to make this server operation more complicated than it needs to be. Consult the Arma 3 Dedicated Server official wiki page for all the details on configuring a server instance. Note that TADST does not follow these conventions. It sounds like you are running 2 Arma 3 clients on 2 PCs in order to run a server instance and a client instance. This is not necessary and probably impacts performance negatively. You are allowed to run any number of Arma 3 server instances without owning a single copy of Arma 3 (you only need a license to play). As for server browser visibility, it is optimized to show long-running high population servers first, not empty, never-been-accessed servers. If you wish to know if your server is visible via the Internet, you'll need someone on the outside of your LAN to test (give them the public IP address on your router, not the LAN IP address you use locally). They will need to Direct Connect the first time, then they can Favorite it and then it will show up in their server browser whenever the server is online. You will need to either enable UPnP (Universal Plug aNd Play) on your router or forward the proper ports to your server instance. See the Dedicated Server link above for details.

The low hanging fruit of 3rd party mods will be weapons and equipment mods. At the moment 3rd party content created by the community has no restrictions on modelling real world assets either ubiquitous like the AR-15 or AK-47 families of rifles or specific makes and models of assets from USS Gerald R. Ford to the CheyTac Intervention (the inspiration for the M320 LRR). Due to the sensitivities of some manufacturers about the use of their products in various media (notably films and video games) and/or flat out money grabs, will modders be required to get permission to use real life IP in their mods for submission as DLC?

I'd like to help the cause but the relevant wiki pages are protected (only Users may edit). The wiki does not appear to have a link to create a new account. I already have a BI account (for the fourums, obviously and for the Store).

The performance builds are called that to differentiate them from the profiling builds which include extra debugging hooks that can negatively impact performance. Their purpose is to allow BI to drop hotfixes to specific gamebreaking issues in between the relatively long stable build releases. This gets more players back into the action without having to wait for that next stable build release. Unless you are seeing a gamebreaking issue, the performance executables will not have any impact on your headless client's performance.

Is this intended to maintain standalone dedicated servers or to help content creators run an Arma Server on their "development" PC? I'm not really all that keen on keeping a real Steam account's credentials on a box that has public access and is a natural target for hacking.

The proper way to create a custom asset list is to use a custom asset list definition as outlined in jezuro's original post.

I don't believe it's a matter of forgetting. BI is real busy and documentation is the most difficult, most time-consuming and lowest priority task.

One bit of documentation that has been sorely lacking since launch is a guide to what all the symbology means on the various HMDs/HUDs used in aircraft. There are a number of us in the community (/r/arma) willing to take on this task, I just need to know where to put it for maximum visibility. Here is what I have done so far.

Retired USAF Electronic Warfare maintainer here. The USAF has had several different types of IR countermeasures IRCM) for years now and is deploying new ones even now. Everyone is aware of flare-based IRCM as it's been around the longest. Technology has improved greatly over the decades to more precisely match seeker capability (including tuning flare spectrum to emit far less visible light and far more IR in the specific bands used by seekers). Disadvantage: the entire battlefield sees where you are visually/IR. Next to appear were IR jammers - essentially powerful blinking lights (with an IR filter) facing rearward. The blink rate was designed to mess with seeker scan rates to drive the missile away from the target until it was no longer in the missile's FOV. Disadvantage: everyone behind you sees where you are (IR) from very far away. In the late 90s, DIRCM became a thing (on larger aircraft like high value modified transporters) where the blinking light is focused in a much tighter beam (think like a floodlight is switched to a spotlight). Disadvantage: everyone in or near the beam can see where you are. More recently, DIRCM has switched to lasers as the light source as component size has shrunk to meet the weight & space constraints of aircraft. This greatly increases stealth as only the jammed platform can see the bright (IR) light - note this means the actual missile and not the launching platform. Performance is also enhanced as the jammer can potentially defeat several missiles simultaneously. Most recently, DIRCM has shrunk to the point where small aircraft like helos and certain fighters can carry these systems, not just the big boys (C-130s and larger). These systems are much less expensive so it becomes practical to equip larger fleets. In future (or possibly in the classified present), these DIRCM systems will have enough power to permanently blind IR sensors and eventually disable all missiles (directed energy weapon - "ray guns"). Unfortunately, I have no idea what sorts of counter-countermeasures work against DIRCM. Home on jam (a radar counter-countermeasure) is possible if the missile seeker has some ability to locate the exact direction of the jammer but it would be difficult if the seeker receives massive amounts of energy apparently from its entire FOV.

reddit is discussing this topic too.

Proposal for the modification of V-44 Blackfish to AV-44B Spearfish standard Let me start off by saying I spent 12 years maintaining AC-130H Spectres and AC-130U Spooky IIs (Electronic Warfare, specifically) and the rest of the AFSOC fleet. I have missed working on the CV-22s but they are flying overhead pretty frequently here on the Florida Gulf Coast. Wall of text to follow. Well, this certainly took me several hours longer than I planned on. I hope my brain dump here helps the BIminions improve the working of the armed Blackfish. You don't need to use "Spearfish" but the gunship ought to have a different name and desgnation from the other models. If you are feeling froggy, I wouldn't mind seeing a special ops (MV-44) Blackfish version to be more in keeping with its NOE/precision all-weather flying capability. Thanks for making it to the end.

The Arma Launcher Server tab was added with update 1.56. There have been a few questions about its use on the Arma subreddit. Here is the current page on the Launcher. Thank you.

You should take a look at Jezuro's Warlords on Steam Workshop before you get too carried away.

https://arma3.com/buy#requirements PROCESSOR Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz GRAPHICS NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT ATI Radeon HD 3830 Intel HD Graphics 4000 Graphics Nvidia GeForce GTX 560/AMD Radeon HD 7750 GPU MEMORY 512 MB

If one could specify a primary weapon sling style (front Y rig like Spec Ops/SWAT people vs. the 1 strap over the shoulder standard rig), the "unprepared" animation could take X amount of time to put the rifle away on the shoulder and draw the pistol while the "prepared" version would be faster as you're just letting go of the rifle & quickdrawing the pistol. I consider this a neat to have feature. The primary to missile launcher speed bothers me far more.

While many folks are concerned with how the weapon switching looks, I'm more concerned with how long each process takes, especially while on the move. For instance, the time it takes to switch from a rifle to the Titan Compact AT Launcher feels like it's what switching between 2 rifles is like (timewise) as opposed to switching from an 4+ kg rifle to a 12+ kg launcher. I couldn't see much of a difference between standing still & sprinting either. If it's at all possible, I'd also like to see a time difference between primary/sidearm switching for someone doing it unprepared (most combat situations) vs. someone expecting to need to do it (CQB/room clearing). This may require a change in primary rigging like some other folks in this thread have mentioned.

I suggest taking a look at the names the SW Asian militaries use for their weapon systems. "Toophan (meaning "Typhoon" in Persian) is a series of Iranian anti-tank missiles." "The Tosan (Also written Towan, meaning Wild Horse or Fury) is an Iranian light tank" "Mobarez meaning "Duellist" is a domestically produced upgraded version of the British Chieftain tank by Iran" "Safir (meaning "ambassador") is an Iranian 4x4 multipurpose military vehicle built by Fath Vehicle Industries." They seem to use more 'flowery' terms like the PLA does after being translated into English.