kaukassus

Well, you can use the Arma 3 Function viewer and filter for all RHS Functions. RHS has 2 tags for Functions, as far as I can see. "RHS" and "RHSUSF". 1. http://i.imgur.com/YdXLJot.png 2. http://i.imgur.com/Hd4olS3.png This shows you all the functions and the code that is associated with them.

IIRC, It was a custom uniform made specifically for the FP Arma modpack. We did remove it from our modpack when we replaced RHS with CUP, since that uniform in particular depended on an uniform model from RHS.

I don't know how up-to-date this List is, but it should give an approximate overview on what to expect. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntyv14BqYyhabzDfBgnmEfnKlIk3exvM8WDOlU5Qv_g/

The SIG SG 550 is somewhere in the TODO List.

Well, you can simply create a Config Patch that simply Adjusts the Zoom FOV for the weapons to a value you and your community wants. Such Config Patches are not that hard to make. You can use the Arma 3 Config Viewer in the Editor to look for the Value you want to edit. IIRC, it's the opticsZoomInit, opticsZoomMax and opticsZoomMin properties of the Weapon / Scope you want to adjust. Here's some links that might get you going. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/CfgWeapons_Config_Reference https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA_3_Replacement_Config_Tutorial

What?

Could easily be done. I do have this in my "Fork" with my Debug Dialog.

From what it looks like, remote execution of the function is getting blocked. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Remote_Execution#Security

The function "ace_refuel_fnc_setFuel" needs to be run on every client. All it does it adjust a variable on the vehicle that holds the fuel amount. https://github.com/acemod/ACE3/blob/master/addons/refuel/functions/fnc_setFuel.sqf You need to run that function on every client in order for it to work.

1. A quick look in the Repo points me to this: https://github.com/acemod/ACE3/blob/master/addons/refuel/functions/fnc_setFuel.sqf [fuelTruck, 42] call ace_refuel_fnc_setFuel Where fuelTruck is your vehicle object and 42 is the amount of litres of fuel you want to add. I don't know about number 2.

ace_norearm is not related to ace_rearm. ace_norearm is about removing the Rearm action when an infantry goes up to an ammo crate. ace_rearm enhances vehicle rearming functions. Basically dependening on your settings of the ace_rearm module, you can drive up to an Ammo truck with your vehicle, and take out ammo crates of the ammo you want to rearm for the vehicle. There's 3 settings. Setting 1 rearms the entire vehicle, similiarly to what is actually there in Vanilla. Setting 2 lets you take out ammo crates for entire Magazines for vehicles. Setting 3 lets you take out ammo with the amount depending on the caliber of the ammo. (IIRC, you take out a few shells for a cannon at a time, instead of the entire "magazine").

Yeah I'm actually using it since a few months, It does improve things quite a lot in that regard (Actually forgot that I was using that, and that it was a thing. I haven't played arma in a while.). Still had occasional cases where I needed multiple ATGM's to take down an MBT. These don't really occurr on a regular basis tho.

Well, with Tanks from other addons I guess was pretty much aimed at Vanilla for the most part. I do agree that the best fix would be for BI to fix their models and configs, which in turn would be motivation for addon makers to implement this change into their addons as well (Just like the recent changes to the vests for example). I do also agree that the Vanilla Damage system as it currently is is not the most optimal and I would prefer the Damage System RHS uses. However I do somewhat prefer compatibility over realism. But thats my use-case, and I do compensate this trugh using only using assets that work well with each other. And yes, I am aware that this is something not worth fixing, since it is intentional after all and is a change that is initially done on the model level, so it's up to the Indivitual Addon maker or BI itself (For Vanilla assets) to apply these changes. Personally I'm Happy with how things are right now on my side. My post simply described the problems (or rather somewhat impossibility) with writing a compatibility addon for the damage system.

First some background infos. I run with a group that prior to switching to CUP Vehicles used RHS. We also used CUP Weapons (For Launchers as an example), ACE and Various other addons like HLC... We usually mix around different kinds of Factions and Vehicle types to not play the same factions over and over. When I talk compatibility, I mainly mean the Vehicle Damage System of RHS in this context. So We had one OP some months ago, which was about Hamas vs IDF. Hamas had Technicals, RPG's while the IDF had Namer's (Vanilla) and HMMWV's. After playing for a while we noticed that RHS RPG's literally no damage to the Namer IFV. When the mission ended, I did conduct some tests with the RPG against the Namer. I have given up on trying after I spent some 20 PG-7V Rockets into the Back of the Chassis, and the Namer was still good to go. I continued compatibility tests with RHS Vehicles, Mainly Comparisons with RHS MBT's aginst Vanilla MBT's. Vanilla MBT's required far more ammo to kill RHS MBT's due to what I assume is that they don't penetrate RHS Armor for the most part due to different configurations. RHS And Vanilla Rocket and Cannons are 100% compatible agianst Unarmoured vehicles. APC's work most of the time, and IFV's and MBT's soemtimes work. However required far more Ammo to reach critical damage. There's more I probably forgot but this is some of the things I experienced when Mixing Vanilla and RHS Armour and Launchers. I do not condemn RHS for their decision. Reversing the damage model would not make sense and the effort would be too large for something that was done by-design. For this reason my group uses CUP Vehicles as opposed to RHS, due to better compatibility with Vanilla and other vehicles, which is the main reason we used RHS . I myself still use RHS Alongside CUP since I do like certain assets of it and simply use whichever assets work best in certain scenarios. This does not mean that RHS is bad. The work they have done is quite impressive. It simply didn't fully fit into our use-case. Edit: Forgot to mention that I did these damage model tests with RHS Only to verify that no other component could have an impact in it.

The Issue mentioned (Tanks from other Addons vs RHS Tanks) can't actually be resolved trough compatibility mods, as it requires changes to the model's Fire Geometry to properly work, which can't be done since Neither MLOD's are released, nor is that permitted in the RHS License Terms. I have tried several ways to compensate for this, like Adjusting hitpoints of RHS vehicles or Damage of non-rhs Launchers/Cannons, but down the road these changes do more harm than good and lead to unknown behavior. I would have loved to have a solution using a config patch.

IIRC It's based on this concept (Someone correct me if I'm wrong here): https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Damage_Description

If you are not allowed to modify the addon, and you can't use the addon in your modpack because you use X instead of Y and don't want to also include Y, then the mod doesen't fit into your modpack. If the license of the mod allows modification, then sure, go to town. If not, then you're all out of luck. Maybe you can create a config patch that doesen't modify the actual PBO, but other than that there's not much you can do. Bothering the author to remove dependency Y because it doesen't fit into your modpack is not a very polite solution now is it? Also, Hello! fellow modder. I also develop mods and manage compatibility in some modpacks. I also work full-time as a Software Engineer, but thats not what this is about. I work with Software Licenses and their restrictions on a weekly basis. If I find a library that fits my needs, but depends on several other libraries, there's no way in hell I'm gonna demand that the Project team makes a version that has no dependencies to fit my special use-case. Same thing applies here. And yes, IT IS the users responsibility to make sure the mods they choose to play with work together. The mod authors clearly disclose what the mod needs in order to run. And what it doesen't work with. It is the users responsibility to make sure the mods they use fit in that profile. Now I'm sorry to drag this discussion further but I felt compelled to write this reply. I will also now cease discussion about this topic.

It is also important to remember that not everyone likes RHS. RHS has no intention to make their Addons play nice with others, and puts that responsibility to other addon makers. While I respect that decision, other addon makers are also free to not make their addon compatible/Depend on with RHS. What mods a certain group uses is their responsibility, and it's their responsibility to make sure their modpack works nice together and not the mod authors problem.

Zeus is basically a Game Master System for Arma 3, where one person decides the flow of the mission. He can place Units, Vehicles and Objects, Create Tasks and Command Units on-the-fly. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Zeus In order for an object to be available to the Zeus (Technically called "Curator" in the BI Docs), the objects need to be defined in the CfgPatches section of the addon. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Curator For example, you have an Addon that adds several new vehicles, the CfgPatches class would look like this: class CfgPatches { class Some_Addon { units[] = { "vehicle_class1", "vehicle_class2", "vehicle_class3", "vehicle_class4" }; weapons[] = {}; author[] = {"Author Name"}; authorUrl = "Some URL"; requiredVersion = 0.1; requiredAddons[] = {}; version = 0.1; }; };

I applaud the decision to use CUP. It does provide the same factions as were available back in Arma 2, which does serve better concistency, seeing as this mod adds SAM Sites fitting the Factions from Arma2. This way the mod author doesen't have to create redundant factions. Have you by chance considered adding all the vehicle classes into the units[] property of the CfgPatches class? This way all the vehicles can be placed using the Curator/Zeus interface. I've seen that this is the case for a few vehicles already.

If all works out well in the end, then all is well and everyone is happy. But a Burnout really shouldn't be taken lightly. It can take people months to recover from a burnout, if at all.

Time limits (Especially Short ones) are a direct way to getting burnt out. Thats also the reason why all my donations on Patreon don't have any kind of demands attached to them, despite the amount of cash. IMO. Do whatever feels right for you.

Haven't seen he SG540 on the Worklist, but the SG550 and previously the SG510 have been pretty much high on the list because This single Swiss individual right here has been donating a decent sum of money (60$ / month, and as of a few days ago doubled to 120$/month for transparency sake) for the sole purpose of promoting the SIG SG 510 and SIG SG 550. :)

If you want to do it or not is a decision you have to make on your own. Do you really need acknowledgement and appreciation to get motivated to start working on something? If so, you might be doing things for the wrong reasons.

The License conditions in the top part of the OP should cover everything you need to know. Consent is automatically given as long as you uphold the conditions declared in the License.