owmyeye

lol it will never be finished if he has to keep replying to more pic messages :P He said to look at www.ausisland.com for more pics

shay_gman is there any commands which can be added to unit's init in the editor to make them start as gaia?

Is there any way that I can use the 2d mission editor to place units and then set a command in their Init to make them Gaia on start? If so, I'm also presuming part of that answer will involve setting them to 'fortify' or some other behavior?

Their logo is the Shahada, which is a Islamic verse which says "There is no god but Allah" and "Mohammad messenger of Allah". It's not actually IS's own logo, they just use it, and there is nothing wrong with the Shahada in itself. If you modify the Shahada, you will be insulting all Muslims, not just IS. Beyond that, there is no need to make humiliating symbols or what not for IS. Playing a game or watching a movie with a certain character or theme in it doesn't mean you support it or want to do it. That's illogical as hell. I mean seriously, there is a video game about being a piece of toast... is anyone going to accuse players of wanting to be a piece of toast??

Oh thanks alot megagoth1702, you have just ruined game sounds for me :mad: After watching your video's and playing your WIP, it's one of those situations where I never noticed before, but now I can't stop noticing how bad other sounds are. I use to kinda like the AK sound used in RHS (edit: actually I think maybe I mean Leights.. dunno.. lotsa mods running), but now I can't stop noticing that the 'clank' part is just as loud as the actual bullet explosion You have also put me in another situation. I hate the vanilla theme of futuristic and fictional crap... but now I want to hear the sounds from your mod. For the first time in ages, I actually started using the vanilla factions in the mission editor (to hear the sounds)... then I went to make a mech group and remembered why I hate vanilla. So uh, damn you. Damn you to hell... and um, i'll be looking forward to further releases

Yes nade use by AI is pretty good. When i'm real in close to the enemy but obscured from vision, I always now worry a grenade is about to drop next to me. On a funny note, the last few games i've played, I kept throwing grenades at the exact same time as the enemy AI was throwing one back. On one occasion I just let go of the nade and heard the 'tinkle-tink' sound. I started wondering 'does it make that sound when you throw one?', so I dove for cover just in case and yeah, bang. The amount of times the AI and I have thrown the same time at each other to me says the AI is ready to use and does it well (like a human player would).

Ah cool, I see the link now. On first glance over the page I thought the link was the title or something related to the video immediately below it. The whole loudness war thing in both games and music is crazy. I can't believe people butcher music for stupid reasons like not wanting to use the fricken sound dial... and then for game sounds, I can't believe people make gunshots where the secondary sounds are just as loud as the explosion. Crazy. I'm going to give that WIP a try and will look forward to your work.

Geez I got an infraction just for replying to you on the JSRS thread... so anyway megagoth1702, any idea when this may be released in some form?

Oh sure.. I understand....

Thanks Das Attorney :) Hey AccuracyThruVolume did you catch that ^^^^ What do you reckon about implementing some kind of suicide units? Likely not embedded into the regular infantry squad (as they will wipe out their buddies, etc), but as a single unit or maybe a 2 man suicide group?

Let's not get carried away. I don't think we should load up the game with 1000 factions I say that essentially, but not just for visually telling factions apart, but also for the question of: what will each faction bring in game-play? I don't think it's worth cluttering the game with a lot of factions which are only different by the clothes they wear. And now for a suggestion of my my own... Is it possible from the mod makers end (not mission maker) to make suicide units? What I mean is, a mission maker can add scripts in a few ways to make someone blow up on proximity and what not- but is there a way that a suicide unit can be an actual unit type which does his thing without any mission maker scripts? Ideally I think it would include an AI component so units will charge with a vehicle or on foot, but in a more simple form it could just be a unit type which acts like normal but auto explodes when an opposing unit is in range. I think additions like this go along with the previous point I made about factions bringing unique gameplay and meaning more to play against than just something visual.

You know when I started reading your post, I initially had a bad reaction to it. Certain words or the way you said things made be think "here we go, what a d!ck"... I mean even adding the rant about Saddam and "hurrah" really didn't help your case at all. But then I went and clicked on one of the links in your sig, the mega sounds mod. From there I started watching/listening to your video comparison of sounds and I can actually see your point- both visually actually seeing the sound wave chart, and also hearing the differences. I think you are off base to write the state of things off as being about 'marketing'. What really is going on is that people hear JSRS and they like, or they don't. Yes people can be sheep and convince themselves they 'like' something because they heard someone else says it's good... but that's what happens with everything all the time. Ultimately if they get the feeling 'I like this', does it make any difference whether they are an illogical git or not? The net result is 'I like this' either way. If you are worried that some of the likers also think it's realistic...well again... that happens with everything all the time. You can't cure illogical thinking, and if you could, that service needs applying to many more important area's of life than sound design in games. I think it's hard for most people to know what 'real' sounds like anyway. I've never fired a gun, but even if I did go to a range, i'm pretty sure M4's and other military weapons are not allowed (in Australia). Even if they did, how can I quantify how my brain perceives the sound? While some people can pick notes from tunes- other people are "tone deaf" and can't pick a high from a low note. That begs a philosophical question of whether we hear the same thing as each other, or if we switched bodies, would the same sound be un-recognisable? Same goes for if you tried to record the sounds with a device to compare to later. I'm not qualified to even make an assumption about such a thing, but i'm pretty sure that ever different recording device will record a different sound from the same gun. One more thing. I had a friend tell me once to turn all the bass and other equaliser settings off my stereo. He reckoned that he likes the music "the way the artist wanted it to sound when they recorded it". I could see his point but I knew there was a major flaw- the artist didn't record and play back the song on my stereo. To play the same song on my stereo will sound different to another. In regards to these sound mods- are they going to be 'realistic' if someone cranks the dial up on the bass? How different will the same sound be from one device's default setting to the next? Having said this though, the part in your video about the shot being loud at the start and going quieter will still apply, and I do think that part of the sound effects does make sense as you explained. Ultimately though I think it comes down to a 'you make your mod, I'll make mine' situation... then Joe will play mod A, because he likes it and thinks it's realistic... while Jill will play mod B, because she thinks it's realistic... or just reckons fake sounds better.

Yup, that's him

Looks Salmon Pink :p And I spy a recoiless rifle in the mix. Noice :cool:

Oooh, yeah it does need some roo's!

lol you even got centerlink offices :p Do you have any idea what kind of rough time-frame we might hope to play this?

The difference is scripting... which means the same sounds but with extra effects, such as echoing gunshots when fired inside.

Hm but if no one tests it in Dev branch, how do we know if the next update is going to break the mod?

I'm not familiar with the workload involved in making multiple faction pbo's, but it seems like a bad move one way or the other to have so much repetition. For a start, if you have a heaps of mods already loaded, you probably already have a massive faction list to sift through. Even maps (like SMD Sahrani) come with factions sometimes. I actually just recently deleted files out of CUP to reduce faction clutter. While I think the configuration should be both realistic and the most practical for mission making, it's not like the factions limit mission creation. I'll explain using your examples below: To start with, Green Berets and YPG are BLUEFOR... although no one has mentioned YPG for this mod before? Anyhoo, they are pretty closely aligned with the Peshmerga, despite tensions between them rising over Sinjar. Basically to keep things simple but accurate, they would be the same as the Pesh. Next you are meant to link with FSA- they are BLUEFOR too. In order for them to be actually aligned with extremists (and shoot at BLUFOR), you simply group them. That would actually reflect real life in a way. To break it down, FSA should be BLUFOR because they are armed and diplomatically backed by the West and regional allies, but that particular brigade has aligned itself (via diplomacy in reality and via the grouping tool in the editor) to either al-Nusra or IS. In the editor you can link a group to a 0% chance unit of a different faction in order to change their alignment (eg. a BLUFOR group linked to a OPFOR commander will thus be OPFOR). Then the SAA turn up, but they decide not to shoot at the US or YPG. Again, just link SAA to a BLUFOR 0% presence commander... or alternatively, link the US and YPG to a non-present SAA (which actually reflects the very lively debate about if the US strikes are actually doing Assad's bidding). To start, link YPG and SAA to the same colour. Either BLU or OPFOR will work. al-Nusra is INDY and the FSA are (as you say) aligned with al-Nusra (via the grouping tool). Other 'moderate' FSA factions join the fray and are left as their default BLUFOR (or changed to OPFOR if you went the grouping to SAA route at the start). You say the 'moderates' leave before the SAA arrive, but if they did arrive, you just make a (default) OPFOR SAA arrive and thus fight the BLUFOR FSA. This can be done using a trigger to delete the first changed SAA squad and replacing them for clones. So basically my point is I think the most limited (not repeated) faction setup which is also the most accurate/practical is the best route because it will cover most cases. When it doesn't, there are work arounds...and also when it doesn't, it's likely because it's a wierd situation such as 'the US is doing Assad's bidding by bombing al-Nusra' (real debated theme)- in such a case a grouping alignment makes sense in an explanatory way anyway.

How do I stop units from auto-ejecting from a stricken vehicle in less than a second flat? It's very immersion breaking to see people teleport the second a rocket hits, and it also effects gameplay. I either want to either: 1) Disable auto-ejecting so a player can choose when to disembark- but still have AI controlled units disembark (in a realistic time-frame, ie not teleport instantly) or 2) Slow down the auto-eject so it's not instant. Sorry I think my issue was modded vehicles

Those are some good links. @AccuracyThruVolume you should have a quick skim through the second link. Just scroll down a bit until you see a burnt out M1A1 Abrams with the black Shahada flag on it. Below that picture is a list of IS captured vehicles and also notes on how many have been destroyed. Oh and in case anyone was wondering, in the first image link (shown below), that's what is called a Recoilless Rifle and is essentially a cannon. They are commonly used by Syrian rebels as static and vehicle mounted weapons.

Which one is RL... Stratis or Altis?:confused_o:

Can anyone clarify if this LITE version is broken by the 1.4 ARMA3 update? The scripted version is broken and i'm trying to find an alternative... cause vanilla sounds like sh*t.

They largely use the same gear, just minus the US stuff ganked from Iraq (humvee's, AMRAP's, M113's- but seemingly not M1A1's, despite capturing them there are no photo's or video's of them being actually used). As far as technicals go, the Syrian rebels (including IS and Nusra) love to use ZU-23 AA cannons mounted on to trucks... not as AA, but to actually fire horizontally onto ground targets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu6-lug6HxE They definitely use T-55's and T-62's which have been captured from the SAA. Pretty much any kit the SAA uses, the rebels have.

This part is ok for both real-world and scenario making.. This is absolutely wrong. It would mean that if a Russian unit and IS unit were spawned next to each other, they would sit down to drink tea and braid each others hair... when in reality they would be competing to see who can give the other the shortest haircut (choppy choppy). Another conflict with this is that OPFOR are naturally at war with BLUFOR, but the FSA are naturally at allied or neutral to al-Nusra. Although the events have been absolutely devestating to the FSA, the attacks against them by al-Nusra have been an exception, not the rule (averaged out over the entire war and even in current months). You can still see them holding hands and skipping together in the southern campaign. This is wrong too. IAF are closely aligned with the US, so warrant a BLUFOR label over INDY (they latter would imply they may shoot at each other, which is beyond a joke). The SAA are very closely aligned to Russia. They are so close in fact that negotiations for peace and such are largely conducted by Sergei Lavrov, as though that Russian diplomat is the representative for Damascus. Again, to label them as separate factions is akin to saying they may shoot at each other- which would never ever happen. While it is a conflict that Nusra and IS would be in a the same faction, it is far worse to put a Jihadist group together with Russia. IS are a million times more likely to peacefully co-exist with Nusra than with Russia... and they aren't co-existing with Nusra at all! Yes they are both Shia and Iranian allies with shared enemies. This makes for a conflict if they are split into BlUFOR and OPFOR, but at the same time, they don't stand next to each other on the battlefield. What i'm saying is that this conflict is less likely to be a problem for a scenario maker than the ones mentioned above. Peshmerga are not shifting what so ever! They have never had good relations with Baghdad because the central government knows they are likely to secede and run of with a heap of oil- BUT, they still stand shoulder to shoulder to fight IS. With the limited faction options (only 3), it makes the most sense to keep them in BLUFOR due to their strong link to the US/the West, and also in the same faction as IAF. On the question of will they ever shoot at each other, I don't see it happening, because the Kurds won't start it (militia's and IAF might) and the West will back the Kurds and the UN will pass a resolution for a ceasefire (no one will veto it). Basically Baghdad will never get away with it and Erbil has no reason to do it. This is also completely false. The FSA has NEVER worked with their dreaded enemy the SAA- yet they have worked with IS in the past. When FSA brigades are defeated or if the men decide to defect, they practically never join the SAA or align with them. On the other hand, FSA fighters are constantly joining to IS spontaneously or when they are defeated. An important note to make is that even after al-Nusra smashed Hazm and SRF in the north, their respective brigades in the south continued to work with the Islamic Front and al-Nusra (like the f*ing idiots they are...). Although people in the know (*raises hand*) said they would be destroyed by the radicals from the start, they have always continued to ally with them out of necessity and the retarded logic of 'the enemy of my enemy (SAA) is my friend'.