Sgt.Makarov

Going back from whatever that was to the threads topic - is the Mi-24 pilot viewing gunners aiming reticle suggested above possible?

"3:33:59 Updating base class rhs_weap_rpk74_base->rhs_weap_pkp, by z\ace\addons\compat_rhs_afrf3\config.cpp/CfgWeapons/rhs_weap_rpk74/ (original rhsafrf\addons\rhs_c_weapons\config.bin)" I believe this is also one of the 'sinners' causing issues for some people above

Yet you answered within an hour. Wasn't so complicated, was it? I said that I 100% agree with what he said. Then I added that it seems people are refusing to understand that BI has stated - a change will not happen, so there is no point in complaining, other than.. that. Thread - "csla-its-prognosed-low-sales-and-future-of-creator-dlcs" and identical/similar stuff people said about GM. My post - Proof how GM had good sales, was liked by many, and how CSLA will not have "low sales" Most basic form of arguing when lacking an argument is insulting the opposition and claiming their argument is wrong because "it's not related". Something a few seem to keep doing here. " I guess it is a normal human behavior at some point in our lives to resent change in any form even if it will greatly benefit the community." - I can't "damage the image of the person" anymore than what the words they use let me. I made my arguments above. Post responding to PuFu first established that I agree with him completely, and pointed out some more issues with the opposition - then explained why I used such a ridiculous number in my example even through I knew they are wrong. Then right before posting I noticed your post, in which you where contradicting yourself completely. So in good internet fashion I had to point it out. In the previous posts I wrote, I made sure to write them out so 'everybody' would understand it, but last post was just a quick reply that wasn't meant to be very informative.

This 100%! There is no point in people complaining when no change will be made. It seems people are complaining just for the sake of complaining, especially because it's before the content is even released. Yes, you are correct - I had boosted the number to ridiculous amounts as proof how the "nobody buying the CDLC" point even then makes no sense at all, much less for the real, way lower, number. So.. what you are saying is that people who don't like BI's new system rather than the old don't like change..?

All it takes is one person in a community to know, and everybody will know. Since anybody who has ever used the editor without owning DLC's probably knows that you can put down something otherwise locked, and start the mission as said vehicle. Also by using AI unit switching. And those who aren't in medium-to-large communities, most likely don't make or don't have custom made missions, so that knowledge wouldn't help them much anyhow.

Using your less than questionable analogy - if you have a class with 100 students registered, all of them won't come to the lecture. Lets say 10 will, and of those 10, 2 will understand the teacher, and those 2 will be successful at what they learn. Then 2 more will understand under the courses time and also succeed in the class, while 90 students wouldn't have even tried. Retarded analogies aside - Lets use actual statistics: https://steamcharts.com/app/107410 https://steamdb.info/app/107410/ You think that Arma's 5.5 million players play arma? At the highest ever Arma had 56k players, and thats the peak. Average would be around 40-45k back then. Today, Arma peaks at 20-25k a day. Even without the fact that this is only the peak, without the fact that average is way lower, it's already not 5.5 million. Lets now double it to try and strengthen your argument - because there are two main places people play Arma - each side of the ocean, America and Europe. We now have an assumed daily average of 45k. The 100k CDLC's GM sold from it's release in May until when ever this magical number of 100k sales "statement by BI" that you provided no source or proof on is - thats double the average amount of players. In reality there is no real way to calculate how many people own or dont own the GM CDLC from the average players we have, anything we can do is speculate. But! - every owned of the game isn't "the playerbase" - it's absolutely anybody who owns it. Playerbase is the people who actually play the game. So even with the grossly overestimated average number, without any other fail factors, and again assuming your numbers are real - thats a CDLC that isn't reaching "1.8%" of the playersbase, that is reaching ~200%. And again - sadly, the biggest failure of any calculation for counting Arma players and doing these things is that, by far, the biggest part of Arma players that exist aren't Arma players, but lifers. Personal guess is 50% of the daily players is that plague, guess comes from what is viewed on twitch/youtube when it comes to arma content, and amount of subscriptions life uploads get on the workshop before they are instantly taken down. Again, for those who really want to - it can be easily circumvented, and not "illegally". BI went out of their way to teach people how to use the workshop when they created the 2035 P90 mod. If you are an Arma player, or any similiar type of game that is built around mods - you are supposed to know how to use the workshop. Everything wont be fed on the plate to you on the steam page, but even then - in the latest CSLA CDLC announcement they specifically stated that the CDLC will have a compatibility patch on the workshop just like GM did. But if somebody didn't bother reading that, I doubt they would bother reading the steam store page.

Never agreed "Dont like it dont buy it" insulting in any way. It is clearly not aimed towards the people who do like it - but to the people who complain about "No new content". Again proving that you didn't read the whole thing. Something, something "Your post can be summed up easily - "Disagree with someone? Don't read them."")). Anyhow - I wen't out of my way to not be "insulting" to anybody, as since I come from a very different place to most Arma players, regular manner of speaking to me will be extremely insulting and harsh to others. Seems even the extra steps I took sadly weren't enough( Yes, the map is not usable - that is true, I forgot to mention that, but oh well, some things cost money in the end. Vehicle lock is very easy to come around, both in "legal" ways by having playable AI inside vehicles, or "illegal" ways - AKA glitches/bugs in the vanilla game that I won't detail here for obvious reasons. Through now I see where you might be coming form - as we have completely different points of views on how we play the game. Since now you said that you and your community plays the already made GM missions, it makes sense why the free workshop content doesn't work for you, while my community makes our own missions, hence we use different maps so there is no issue for us. So in the end, this comes back to the original point to selling any product - different interests draw different buyers.

I do enjoy the fact how you insult me and brush aside every point I made by simply calling them "lame". Seems like you are the one who doesn't want to read what people have to say because you disagree with them? If your friends want to try something out - there is the free version of the mod on the workshop, so if what you said is really the case, you'd use that. All of the content is fully usable, and only has a small add on the screen pop up sometimes. Maybe your friends prefer the awful lowpoly models to some adds, which I find very questionable, but if they truly wanted to test something out - they would. Most likely they are simply not interested in Cold War Germany or Czechoslovakia. What statistics? "The burden of proof does not lie with me, my friend, but with you." Everybody and their grandmother I know is really happy that there are no more ass-looking models and textures, and rather people can use things with a small watermark & have mod makers use their time on new content, rather than low poly stuff for the sake of filling up the "lite" version. For both of you lads, again - the community I am in has GM required - and every new member who comes to play a single operation has to either buy it or use the compatibility patch, and they do. Most buy it too, since they don't bother reading "free version of CDLC here". Nonetheless it kinda disproves your point of "nobody getting GM". Either your commnuity simply isn't interested in cold war stuff, or you are bad at convincing them. Every single OP we host requires us running GM, and very many OPs use assets from that CDLC. Most noteably the T-55's, Leopards, Mi-2's, and webbing. Some weapons are also very much better than any other ones out on the workshop too. Same will happen with CSLA for us. The CDLCs have plenty of people buying them or downloading them from the workshop - if you think a DLC is good by lots of people buying it, clearly best DLC would be one for Arma Life ))

Been waiting for CSLA since I first heard of the CDLC program and saw GM announced! People complained the same way about GM as they are now about CSLA, and look where GM is now - sold just fine, people enjoy it, and they are rolling out updates with lots of new things to play with. Here's a list of the roughly summed up complaints about the CSLA CDLC from random, usually clueless people, I have heard & seen: Out of all these points, the only one that makes sense is the last, and I can somewhat agree on it that rather than both teams spending time making an MP5 each - one team can make it and share it with the other. And in reality, we don't know yet how much is shared between CSLA and GM, as neither it, nor the changelog, has been released yet. Only thing we have to go off are screenshots, and since they where taken with other mods loaded too - parts of the screenshots could've been from GM. The rest of the points: This can all be summed up easily - "Don't like it? Don't buy it." People like to act like it's their birth- and human right to get a '20+ GB of content, with all new freshly made models, perfectly balanced, well textured, smoothly animated, regurarly updated, with a big variety of equipment MOD that is FREE', but that isn't the case. (Everything I say here is with no inside knowledge on the works of GM and CSLA, and only info of those two I have is owning GM, and reading the steam page of CSLA. Some of the things I said like GM & CSLA working together might already be true for example. All examples provided are just rough examples for the slower people to understand the points, and the Everything else I pull out of my 8k hours of making missions with various mods for my community. If you have a problem with my grammar at 0130, I will tell you that your mother is a nice lady in 5 languages, fluently.)

Which armour values and penetration values does RHS go off if it isn't a secret? From my testing with Wikipedias penetration values for 125 mm smoothbore , and these some stuff don't always check out and penetrate when they shouldn't. Not saying these are correct, just the only ones I have gotten my hands on.

Most selfish thing I've seen in a while. There are also many groups in other places than US Eastern... Be happy that they are updating and move your scheduled OP for tomorrow. Or even better be thankful that RHS didn't decide long time ago to have their mod be made in Russian language only )

I believe that's an old version which might not even work in 64-bit Arma 3, here is the latest one https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1351428303&searchtext=AH-64D but I can not confirm if it is open sourced too.

+1 on the DUKE and Rhino. Also it was stated that the DUKE is supposed to jam tfar aswell but after 4.4 that function stopped working.

Was looking through the class-names in RHS and found the U-5TS turret in the current version of the mod. Asking out of curiosity is it used in any assets or is it just being stored there for later use/older cancelled projects?

RHS (think it was reyhard) confirmed themselves that the DUKE system is supposed to be compatible with TFAR in a post back in late 2016, maybe it's not the case anymore.