Ex3B
-
Content Count
582 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Everything posted by Ex3B
-
Hello, I just had a thought for an option that might be fun to add. What if zombies would resurrect after being killed (if not killed by a headshot). They could come back weaker each time though. Suppose they start as fast zombies -> get killed -> resurrect as medium speed zombies -> resurrect as slow zombies -> get killed... stay dead. It could be fun, particularly with a module that can determine how long they stay dead (with some randomization)... it could lead to situations where one may want to go through a recently re-dead horde and pull out a pistol and headshot all the corpses, because they may revive again in a few minutes.
-
Nah, I wasn't even suggesting CSAT carriers or larger VTOLs. The standard game doesn't give them any naval assets, and even if they had them, only the Helos and Xian work... but the editor gives enough flexibility. I'd just be happy with some MRAPs, or something similar, that can threaten NATO gorgons and Marshals. It could be a BRDM with an AT missile launcher (ie, port, for the Russia faction, from Arma 2), or Ifrits and Marids capable of firing 1.27x108mm APDS rounds. NATO just seems really good compared to CSAT now when it comes to amphibious assault capabilities. Amphibious vehicles for NATO: Strider, Marshall, Gorgon Amphibious vehicles for CSAT: Marids Airmobile combat vehicles for CSAT: Ifrit, Quilin Airmobile for NATO: Prowler, Strider, Hunter, Marshal If Ifrits and Marids can be firing APDS ammo from an automatic weapon, then they stand a much better chance against the amphibious and airmobile NATO units. FYI, I don't know if my version of this mod is out of date (though I just reinstalled arma and the mod [via steam] about a month ago), but the CSAT buzzards don't have R73 and R77 missiles selectable in the editor (no big deal, can set pylons through the init). and #2: The door miniguns of the ghosthawk and huron weren't working. Using the magazines command, it seemed that the vehicle had 2000Rnd_762x51_Belt_T_Red assigned to them, but it didn't seem to work in the guns. I did: this addMagazineTurret ["PylonWeapon_762x51_Belt_T_Red", [1]]; this addMagazineTurret ["PylonWeapon_762x51_Belt_T_Red", [2]]; (I think I got those names right) - and they worked again, so again, not a huge deal, nothing "broken beyond repair".
-
Why do so many have a problem with thermals?
Ex3B replied to ivan keska's topic in ARMA 3 - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
I'm fine with vehicle thermals, but I really don't see the infantry thermals being realistic. As stated in this thread, they require active cooling to form a good image, otherwise the IR emitted from the thermal goggles themselves will blind the sensor itself. I could see this being used in a very short duration tactical mission, like raiding a compound, where you get in and out fast (Bin Laden compound raid, for example). Walking around with these goggles on the whole night should not be possible. Also, the personal thermal camo I think is probably pretty unrealistic.... fine if you're laying still, but it will probably seriously limit your ability to exert yourself without overheating (the fabric would have the be highly breathable, with a lot of air flow, I suppose some sort of cooling system with fans and stuff could work, but again, it would be limited duration). I prefer the Ghillie suits which are "directional", and basically conceal you from thermals when you are lying down. So on Scenarios I make, infantry vs infantry combat is without TI. Vehicles have TI, but a ghillie sniper with a large caliber rifle is still a major threat to MRAPs and some APC, and a moderate threat to other APCs (which have turrets that are a bit harder to disable). Tanks....are threatened by Titan AT missiles and laser designation for CAS. -
ah server issues... I actually haven't tried on Mutliplayer... I'd like to try though, to get about 32 people, 16 per side, each based on a carrier like that, none of the vehicles set to respawn except for a single littlebird on each side, and then play for sector control on Tanoa or Altis. I've made some maps like that. (I also had AAF forces on the map, hostile to both sides, guarding some empty vehicles that either side may want to seize)
-
Yes, it does. Static structures seem to disappear if they are too far away. See my post in this thread showing craft on an invisible LHD. I can place these about 50km away from each other with no ill effects on the Tanoa map: But if you put the static objects too far away (I had everything else moved there with the setPosASL command), this happens: So.... yea, the units are still showing up, the colliders are still there, so I don't see why you couldn't have jets dogfighting in these black areas. I can get the LHDs over 60km away on the slightly large Altis map, so I guess there's a certain amount of "black" around a map that static objects still show up just fine.
-
CSAT Yak-130... the Neophron is already based off of the Yak-130. That is very redundant. We already had CAS fighters. COIN aircraft are pretty redundant with CAS aircraft around. It would be like an AH-6 vs an AH-64, they do the same role, the AH-64 is just better. I suppose there'd be a role for COIN aircraft if a Wipeout would be overkill, but with the Buzzard and custom pylon loadouts, I think mission makers could already make a suitable aircraft. You can also (crudely) take the Apex DLC prop aircraft and add weapons to them, like miniguns/HMGs, mk82 bombs, rockets, etc.
-
Removed images to reduced post length: Recently it came to my attention that the turret of the Marshall is much more vulnerable to SAF than what is shown here.... perhaps too vulnerable. I've found that even .308 can be deadly to the gunner. Where you were shooting here: Just to the right of where the turret was shot is the vulnerable part, the "metal sheet" with 4 bolts on it Its right inline with the crew hatch and its viewing prisms. I first noticed this when testing the HMG_NSVT against the marshall (I wanted to make an upgunned Ifrit, since NATO (with the Blackfish from Apex) has an amphibious and airmobile vehicle with moderate armor and an autocannon, but CSAT can't airlift anything heavier than an Ifrit). I had crew in the turret (but no ammo) so I could see exactly when the turret drooped. I was testing vulnerability from the side, when if I shot there and saw red hit effects. I was able to kill both the gunner and commander inside the turret without disabling the gun (firing a bit more probably would do it). The NSVT uses the same 12.7x108mm cartridge as the Lynx, so I presume the Lynx with normal ammo can do it. I tried with the normal 12.7x99mm HMG, and it also went right through and killed the gunner. I then tried with the LMG_coax (7.62 x51mm ammo), and I saw a mixture of brown puff and red puff hit effects - like sometimes the armor stopped it, sometimes it went through and injured the crew. The gunner did not die after the first shots like with the HMGs, so I think the 7.62 rounds were barely penetrating and not doing much damage to the gunner. Based on this... a marksman with a 7.62 caliber weapon would be able to kill the gunner with a few mags, if it can get the right shot angle (not sure how much range will affect this). A Zafir at close range should be able to do the job though. This would very much depend on getting a good angle and landing many shots going in perpendicular to the armor. A SPMG/Navid should do much better. I'm going to guess that the .408 sniper rifle could kill the gunner in a few shots or less. I haven't tested 6.5mm ammo against it, but already the vehicle mounted 7.62 NATO caliber was having trouble. Also as soon as your shots start pinging the marshall, its turret will probably start to turn to find the threat, and you won't have a shot anymore. If you've got a sniper rifle or HMG and spot a marshall with its turret in this position relative to you, you can take out the gunner. This is about the only way an Ifrit HMG can kill crew members of the marshall, otherwise its just hoping to get a firepower/mobility kill before the marshal gets a hard kill.
-
No need to apologize for burnout. I get burnout playing games, so burnout modding is even more excusable. Splitting the mod into separate addons makes sense, much like there isn't just a single CUP addon. If I were doing it (and I'm not), I'd use similar groupings like "vehicles", "infantry weapons/equipment", "reskins", "Stat tweaks" (non-cosmetic changes to base content), "factions" (which may have dependencies of the infantry equipment and vehicles). As for the direction, that's entirely up to you. As far as I'm concerned, base Arma 3, despite all the DLCs, still feels unfinished or like it misses many things. I want a mod collection that "completes" Arma 3, and itself feels complete but not cluttered. Things Arma 3 was lacking(IMO) that this mod has already filled: As far as what I feel Arma still lacks: If any of those sentiments about what Arma3 lacks resonates with you, then I would urge you to consider the following suggestions: * Changing the Marid and Ifrits to use the HMG_NSVT. - it does result in a slight but noticeable increase in their ability to disable APCs. It makes more sense for OPFOR to be using the 127x108mm cartridge in their Ifrits anyway. * Adding the ability for the HMG_NSVT to fire APDS rounds, without making them the standard loadout. - I'd like to be able to (in the editor, no need for a specialized unit) to make "Firefly" Ifrits by adding APDS magazines. If this was standard though, Hunters would be seriously underpowered compared to Ifrits (and 127x99mm APDS rounds might amount to too much power creep) * Pacific/woodland/"darker and greener" skins of AAF vehicles and infantry items (although the olive drab skin on some of the helos already works fine). - Not to imply any specific lore, just to provide some material for an unspecified 3rd force active in the south pacific . It could could be aussies, could be the phillipines, could be a fictional militaristic nation somewhere in Southeast asia/the pacific, could be the AAF participating in a peacekeeping mission with NATO years after the events of the campaign. Personally I wouldn't care if the vehicles and units were just found under a faction named "Independent Pacific Force"
-
I noticed a small bug related to the minigun. The AAF and Raven Orca variants still allow selection of 6.5mm miniguns on their pylons, but these miniguns are non-functional. While looking at pylon settings, (and its the same in vanilla), the AH-9 can load guided missiles, but as far as I can tell, it can't actually lock on to any targets (I seem to recall the Hellcat used to have this problem). Am I just ignorant, or is there no way to get an ASRAAM to function as more than an unguided rocket when equipped on the AH-9? Also, while using the config viewer, I noticed that "2Rnd_GBU12_LGB"/"2Rnd_GBU12_LGB_MI10" say that they are used in the "F-35F" in the description line. I guess at one point the F-35 was going to be in Arma3 (I seem to recall seeing an alpha screenshot, and hearing it was a placeholder) - also evidenced by the 25mm gatling inclusion - but I guess BI was going to name it the F-35F (rather than the real A/B/C variants). Did you ever consider using this designation instead of the F-38?
-
I'm glad to see NATO getting some bullpup rifles, vanilla Arma 3 seems to treat bullpups as something only CSAT can make for some reason. Tiny tiny suggestion, since this does modify vanilla assets, and since you do seem to care about realism.... there are 2 vanilla weapon names that bug me, maybe they'll bug you too and you can change them: gatling_20mm display name "Minigun 20mm" Gatling_30mm_Plane_CAS_01_F display name "Minigun 30mm" No, just no. These are Gatling cannons, not miniguns. the original "minigun" was a miniaturized version of the M-61 vulcan cannon. It was essentially scaled down to fire the 7.62x51 mm rifle cartridge instead of the 20x102 mm cannon cartridge. So they miniaturaized it, it went from a cannon caliber to a gun/machinegun/rifle caliber. So they called it a minigun... makes sense. The 20mm cannon of the commanche (XM-301) is derived from the M197, which was a 3 barrel version of the M-61. Its the same caliber, its not miniaturized, its a cannon not a gun... its not a minigun. And the GAU-8 (I'm presuming this is what the wipeout uses, as its a clear A-10 derivative), its not miniaturized either, its enlarged... calling this thing a minigun is just... wrong... If you add back in the 6.5mm miniguns (since it seems you changed them all to M134 7.62mm miniguns- but it seems to me that CSAT shouldn't use these, so maybe CSAT helos and Qilins should stick to the 6.5mm fatling guns), keep the name minigun. If you were to add a 12.7mm gatling gun (Like the GAU-19), I wouldn't mind calling that a mini-gun - its not so mini, but its still smaller than the M-61 (which is basically the standard as it was the first modern gatling cannon - the Russian 23mm gatling cannon, the GSh-6-23, entered service 6 years after the M-61) Other suggestion: +350 rounds to the Wipeout, for a total of 1350, like the ol' A-10
-
Questions about Bootcamp Campaign's story
Ex3B replied to POLPOX's topic in ARMA 3 - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
I know, that's why I referenced "the alternate ending shows that they will go head to head with NATO to protect it". My idea was that maybe CTRG did take it in the begining, and CSAT+AAF went ()*$(#, which sparked the road closure/search of NATO vehicles, and then the attack on NATO in general. During that attack, its entirely plausible that CSAT+AAF were successful in recovering the device from CTRG, so CTRG has to re-steal it later. Otherwise.... I'm going to take the *Altistic Screeching* explanation, because if CSAT was worried about eastwind being stolen, then they'd just up their security and have the AAF tell NATO to leave sooner -
Questions about Bootcamp Campaign's story
Ex3B replied to POLPOX's topic in ARMA 3 - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
I don't want to derail the thread, but that brings up other questions like how did CSAT know that CTRG was trying to steal it. If CTRG and the main NATO force weren't cooperating, why not just increase the facility security instead of starting a war with NATO? I thought that maybe CTRG actually *had* stolen it already. The 1st mission begins with the roads closed/road checkpoints checking truck cargo, and comments about how the AAF probably doesn't even know what they are checking for. Maybe CTRG had stolen it, and they were trying to ensure that CTRG didn't get it very far, when they didn't recover it quickly, they went crazy? But then why was it the AAF doing it and not CSAT forces (the alternate ending shows that they will go head to head with NATO to protect it)? Why was the AAF cooperating with CSAT to develop a weapon that was damaging their island with earthquakes? what started the AAF/CSAT cooperation to begin with? If CTRG knew of this cooperations, and CTRG member nations are also NATO nations, why was NATO helping the AAF put down the FIA insurrection at the same time that CTRG was helping the FIA? IMO, the campaign is a bit of an unexplained mess. -
Questions about Bootcamp Campaign's story
Ex3B replied to POLPOX's topic in ARMA 3 - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
In "Diplomatic Relations", it seems the weapons cache that they found was small-arms AND explosives "Why FIAs attacked the AAF convoy?" I don't really know. There is a lot about the Altis storyline that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I still don't get why the AAF attacked NATO rather than just waiting until NATO left, for example (I've thought of one possible explanation, but then it raises even more questions). I think when they say "sit-down" they mean a meeting or negotiation. Both sides agree to sit-down at a table and talk. "What happens in Kavala while Adams and Conway are dealing with the convoy?" It seems that the FIA delegation to the "sit-down"/negotiations attacked the government forces rather than coming to negotiate, at least thats what they tell you when you arrive. "Why is MoD is on fire in Damage Control?" The MoD is where they were having the meeting/sit-down, so if the FIA attacked rather than coming to negotiate, then it makes sense. -
I also agree, I'm curious what if anything will set these tanks apart and prevent redundancy. NATO does need a true MBT that isn't also doubling as a troop carrying IFV. That is a role that is unfilled in the NATO lineup (I'll often use the editor to block the cargoseats of a Slammer Up, and then change the gun from a 105mm to a 120mm to make a "true" MBT). But... CSAT and the AAF already have dedicated MBTs. I suppose they could get a "Super IFV" (like what I consider the vanilla slammers to be), but that doesn't seem to fit with CSAT getting a T-14. I suspect the T-14 will simply outclass the T-100. The Kuma seems a bit explody, at least to any sabot round that hits the shot trap/just below the cheek armor, but that's fine... I guess. Since the AAF uses old NATO gear, I could see them also getting an M1A2 Abrams.... but it seems quite possible that the NATO forces should be getting an Abrams variant (the A3? the "Thumper" with a 140mm main gun?) as well, so I doubt 2 of the "new" tanks will be Abrams variants. They basically already said that there won't be active defense systems Realistically, if they stick with designs based on real world designs such as planned hardware or cancelled prototypes, there really aren't that many interesting vehicles to choose from and the T-14 is already a given. I would expect the NATO tank to be more advanced than the AAF one though. I'm kind of liking the M1 Thumper idea as its a cancelled prototype like the Commanche/"Blackfoot"... but I think this could also go to the AAF. The only other interesting tank design out there that I could think of is the polish PL-01. Supposedly its going to have some thermal camo system based on peltier plates thermoelectric cooling. So... maybe they could add a "stealth tank" that has a very low IR signature. This would go well with NATO forces which seem to like having "stealthy" features - even if its only the black wasp that gets labelled as stealth - like the blackfood/ghosthawk. So CSAT: T-14: very resistant to sabot fire, not shot traps/ spot between the hull and turret to shoot for a 1 shot kill AAF: M1 Thumper: Just a tank with a big honking 140mm gun NATO: PL-01, harder to spot on thermals, hard to lock with IR guided missiles?
-
Indeed, I'm using it with my "CSAT carriers"... although this pic is before I changed the texture:
-
Helicopter/Plane Gunner View Bugged?
Ex3B replied to The Suited Hound's topic in ARMA 3 - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Notice the little cross hair to the right? that is the predicted impact point. You see, when the plane is moving forward the plane's velocity is added to the bullet velocity (which is realistic) so even though you point the gun 90 degrees to the plane's flight path, the bullets leave the gun still moving forward at the same velocity of the plane, and thus not 90 degrees relative to the flight path. If the plane circles faster then this effect is greater, if the plane is moving slower, its less pronounced. It would be nice if there was a targeting computer that compensated for this, just like zeroing elevation. Instead we get that impact point calculator which isn't quite accurate. The main problem is that for longer engagement ranges at full zoom, the impact point is outside of the gunner field of view. So... its not bugged per se, but it could be improved -
Most of the weapons are just modern weapons with a new name or a slight change. I'll agree on the CSAT armor though, and to some extent the launchers. The vehicles are where it gets iffy for me... like the wipeout in particular... its a... A-10 warthog that looks like they tried to make it stealthy but then forgot that it has no internal weapons? On the other hand... the A-143 buzzard... its just a 1 seat version of a 2 seat Arma2 L159 Not modern times: GPS guided bombs would be great, one could call in airsupport by clicking on the map, and a pilot could lock on to those GPS coordinates, rather than requiring constant laser designation for instance. But.... stuff like the A-164 looks like they wanted a sci-fi look... bad sci fi since it makes no sense, as mentioned (the stealthy looking UH-80 makes perfect sense though, since some secret stealth-ified blackhawks do exist, the stealth chinooks would be sci fi though AFAIK) The Earthquake machine is just bad sci fi though, but that is plot fiction that is largely irrelevant to gameplay. Ummmm Arma 2 did have drones and TI. The major improvements that I see are the added stance options, body armor, overhauled loadout UI, slingloading of Helos, modular infantry weapons, and underwater stuff ditto, played OFP, didnt get resistance... came back much much later to an Arma2 sale when arma 3 was already old. Never got around to looking at ArmA Yea... maybe, but there was probably a bad taste from the early railgun tanks, even if they removed them before release ^ This, although a lot feels like they didn't finish and just made the platform for mods to finish implementation
-
But you can already do this to some extent. You can place carriers "off of the map" where the map displays black not blue. I haven't found any limit to how far out they can be placed, but I did run into limits with static objects not displaying (but their collider is still there) if they are placed too far away So the for Tanoa before the above starts to happen, I can get LHDs (Atlas LHD plus) 50km apart. For Altis I can get over 60. I haven't tried with the USS Freedom, but I have tried with other forms of offshore base (like so: And those run into the same issue... so water bases 50km away from each other on Tanoa, and 60km on Altis, seems to be the best one can do.
-
Arma 2 had a script to fold the wing/rotors of the MV-22, but it had to be added specifically by mission makers. Will this functionality be present in your MV-22 by default? Any plans for an armed variant? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Armament I guess an armed variant would end up filling a role pretty similar to the Y-32 Xian - but its a role that the armed version of the blackfish definitely doesn't fill. I'm also going to guess that game engine limitations prevent slingloading for VTOL fixed wing aircraft, and thus won't be an option on this?
-
Adding an option to change pylon loadouts in missions
Ex3B posted a topic in ARMA 3 - MISSION EDITING & SCRIPTING
So I want to be able to make a mission where a vehicle can be brought back to a certain place, and have its pylon loadout changed. So far the best I've got is a set of repeatable triggers (with conditions to ensure the aircraft is in the designated area) that are activated by radio (ie radio alpha/bravo/charlie) to change the pylon loadout of the aircraft. What I would like to do is have these loadout options added to the action menu of the craft, instead of being radio options. For one thing, if I want to make multiple loadout types for multiple types of aircraft, there just aren't enough radio commands. Is this possible? Can anyone point me int the right direction to writing such a script? -
I agree that this is a major problem. I spent a couple hours last night practicing carrier landings, and this was a major problem, although by the end I was getting pretty good at it. I had several successful landings in a row... although I only stopped after 2 with zero damage. Before that I had multiple landings where I had no hull damage, but INST damage for some reason (why? I think the nose came down a bit hard after touchdown but...), and before that a couple with engine/gear/ctrl/inst damage, but no hul damage. Earlier in my practice, I had multiple landings where I touched down before the wires, had the tail hook retract itself, and went off the end... its like I have to touchdown right on the wires. Here's the somewhat funny results of one landing where I touched down before the wires (a bit hard, granted, I guess, since I took damage), and the tailhook didn't engage, I ejected but the black wasp ended up not going over the edge: But without a towing mod... I don't think that could be salvaged in game. As for a CSAT reskin that had been mentioned earlier in this thread... its easy enough to "paper over" in the mission editor by placing CSAT banners and a Chinese flag: The obvious problem with a CSAT carrier is the lack of any CSAT aircraft that can land on the carrier - none have tailhooks. This can be handled with triggers/scripts in mission. I made a fairly simple trigger that simply checks if a plane has a speed within a certain range (~105 to 320 km/h in my script), and a direction in a certain range (no more than +/- 9 degrees for my script), and if so it activates a set velocity command which sets the velocity of the plan to ~70 km/h straight down the runway (which is slow enough to stop in time). I find these landings to be a bit easier than dealing with the tailhook retracting so... my CSAT carrier in the map editor: (the banners to cover the US flag are arranged into a neat square with setPosASL commands upon mission start) Obviously, those triggers are the area a plane needs to fly through to get slowed down for landing. Still, the lack of a hangar deck and elevators is troublesome. In that image, you can see that I have a lot of ground vehicles sitting on the flight deck, so that the ship can be a mobile offshore base, and the Helos can sling load them and take them to land. If we instead look at an LHD mod (Atlas: LHD plus, or use the CUP one if you prefer), derived from BI's arma 2 assets, the USS Freedom is *a lot* bigger: Yet it seems with VTOL F-35s (Aegis mod), I can pack more stuff onto/into the LHD because of its elevators and hangar deck, and that less deck space is needed for launching/landing So I'm still using the LHD more than the Freedom... and I'm only using the freedom because there's no good Opfor alternatives for VTOL fighters to use on the LHD. They really could have done a lot more with minimal effort if they had also ported the F-35 from Arma2, and the LHD from Arma 2 + added elevators and fleshed out the interiors just a little more (they already had partially complete hidden interiors for the LHD in arma 2). In the end, I managed to pack 6 F-35s into the LHD interior (+1 on the read elevator for a total of 7), a tone of ground vehicles (plenty of empty space in the well deck), 4 Blackfeet, 4 Falcon drones, 2x hurons, 2x ghosthawks, 1x blackfish onto the LHD, and because all aircraft are VTOL, they operate just fine.. although you can see in the first image of that last spoiler section, that the deck really isn't even that crowded, the blackfish has a mostly clear runway (just the 1 huron at the end.. although that was with the 3x blackfeet, 3x falcon packing, but I was abel to pack them a bit more efficiently and get 4 of each). I can't put nearly as much stuff on the USS carrier because of the lack of a well deck and the greater need to keep the runways free
-
Feedback on minor point: I was playing around with making scripts to enable various CSAT aircraft to be recovered on the USS Freedom, and I noticed that the loadout options on the CSAT A-143 are generally inferior to the AAF variant. The AAF variant can mount 3x scalpel racks, the CSAT variant can only mount single scalpels. --This disparity in guided missiles is of course even greater with DAGR pods, but I'm fine with DAGR pods being exclusive to NATO and independent factions that buy NATO gear. The AAF Variant can mount Zephyrs and ASRAAMs, the CSAT variant can only mount Sahr-3s - While the Zephyr isn't great, it does have a higher CM immunity than any IR guided missile, a longer range (although this is only marginal given the Buzzard's radar range of only 8km),and a higher hit than the Sahr-3. - The ASRAAM seems to be a bit superior to the Sahr-3 (high CM immunity, higher maneuverability, higher hit damage, which is complicated by a higher top speed and lower side-airfriction which may limit its turning radius/ability to turn fast... I'm not sure how the maneuverability rating compensates for this). The AAR variant is, however, at a disadvantage when it comes to mounting unguided rocket pods - this CSAT variant is the winner here. Would you consider letting the CSAT variant mount R-73 and R-77 missiles, as well as 3x scalpel racks? Either way, the set pylon loadout command can be used so its not a big deal.
-
Ah, if its not meant to be amphibious, maybe I just wasn't going in deep enough water. If its not amphibious, then it fords the channel just north of Georgetown on Tanoa quite well - I'll go test and get some screenshots for the F-35. And yes, I know you already said WIP, just giving feedback. Ok, so its not Amphibious, but it drives under water really well :p It can go quite a distance before its engine dies and the screenshots:
-
Of course, but its just a suggestion. Additionally it was a response to an argument from someone other than the author against the suggestion. On another note, I quite like the Jackal AAF textures now. I'm using it for faux "HIDF" forces in a mission now (ie syndicate forces). The mostly drab olive textures work fairly well for tanoa too. Its also amphibious which fits well with tanoa (even better than the BTR-40 that I had suggested much earlier in the thread). The Jackal seems to flip over very easily. I don't know if this is somewhat intentional - its true that its a rather tall vehicle, and driving it too aggressively should flip it, but it seems to flip too easily right now. And one last comment on the new F-35 cockpit: it seems to me that the 1st person cockpit view is somehow reducing viewdistance. I see farther in 3rd person than 1st person am I the only one experiencing this?
-
meh, its fictional, it doesn't take too much imagination to come up with a justification for them having a military and not just a police force.
