Ex3B

Ah, I had just forgot to set it to Public, its up now. I have also uploaded a combo of the Atlas LHD with my own F-35 port: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1738092921 I don't remember AI becoming active in the editor in the old LHD mod. I remember simulation was enabled, and dragging vehicles through things made them explode, they'd bounce around when I loaded the file, etc. That was a consequence of the old script enabling simulation in the editor, I think it was related to executing the script and spawning the sections in the editor. That script is gone now, since I'm using the BI system for specifying multiple linked parts as they do on the USS Freedom and USS Liberty. It seems to work just like the other BI ships now. To do it that way, I had to add memory points to the .p3d for each of the sections... I couldn't find much rhyme or reason to the placement ... well at least I couldn't find out a way to place them precisely given the coordinates of their models, so I had to go through several iterations of testing, adjusting, re-testing, but it now seems pretty good. Many places I was adjusting down to the millimeter.

Hmmm, I must have posted the wrong link. I removed an old mod that had the old atlas lhd as a dependency. I'll re upload tomorrow morning, its late here (on my phone)

(originally posted in the wrong sub-forum) I've seen large ships, such as the ATLAS LHD composed of multiple parts, with a "helper" item that executes a script which spawns the sections of the ship. This approach has problems, such as having any aircraft (fixed or rotary) spawn flying when placed on the deck. Also there are problems with moving the ship in the editor (often required a save and reload). In contrast, the BI static destroyed and carrier do not have these issues. In their config, they have a section specifying multiple parts, and what seems to be a position associated with them. something like (can't look at the files right now): { { "Part_1", "Pos_1" }, { "Part_2", "Pos_2" }, { "Part_3", "Pos_3" } }; So I'm trying to make a multipart ship using that method. So I've got a model that I split into sections, each section is already offset in the .p3d file from the origin (0,0,0). If I completely omit the position specifier like so: { { "Part_1" }, { "Part_2" }, { "Part_3" } }; When spawned on perfectl flat ground (VR terrain), the ship seems to spawn correctly with all the parts in order, but it won't move correctly when dragged in the editor, and it gets all out of alignment when placed on uneven terrain, and very screwed up in the water. So I added memory points to the origin of a helper item, and linked the other parts to it (via the config text), In this case, all the parts spawn, move when the part is dragged in the editor, etc... but they all spawn in the same place, overlapping. So I don't quite understand this system... in my experiments, it seems only moving the memory points specified in the helper will move the parts when spawned... yet since the .p3ds are already offset, I don't know how much to move the memory points... it seems to take some center of the model instead of the 0,0,0 point of each model. So I think I can know where to place the memory points if I can get the editor to display whatever this "model center" is. Another method I tried was piecing the ship together from individual pieces in the editor (starting at 0,0, and 100 meters up in the air), but the offsets needed didn't work when I moved memory points by the same amount. Can anyone explain how to use this system that BI used for making their static ships, and how to determine where to place these memory points to make the ship (trial and error would be extremely tedious to get the ship even remotely close, much less seamless)

I've seen large ships, such as the ATLAS LHD composed of multiple parts, with a "helper" item that executes a script which spawns the sections of the ship. This approach has problems, such as having any aircraft (fixed or rotary) spawn flying when placed on the deck. Also there are problems with moving the ship in the editor (often required a save and reload). In contrast, the BI static destroyed and carrier do not have these issues. In their config, they have a section specifying multiple parts, and what seems to be a position associated with them. something like (can't look at the files right now): { { "Part_1", "Pos_1" }, { "Part_2", "Pos_2" }, { "Part_3", "Pos_3" } }; So I'm trying to make a multipart ship using that method. So I've got a model that I split into sections, each section is already offset in the .p3d file from the origin (0,0,0). If I completely omit the position specifier like so: { { "Part_1" }, { "Part_2" }, { "Part_3" } }; When spawned on perfectl flat ground (VR terrain), the ship seems to spawn correctly with all the parts in order, but it won't move correctly when dragged in the editor, and it gets all out of alignment when placed on uneven terrain, and very screwed up in the water. So I added memory points to the origin of a helper item (that has the other parts linked), and memory points with the same name to the origin of each sub part (remembering that the parts are all offset from the origin in the .p3d file, not centered on it). In this case, all the parts spawn, move when the part is dragged in the editor, etc... but they all spawn in the same place, overlapping. So I don't quite understand this system... in my experiments, it seems only moving the memory points specified in the helper will move the parts when spawned... yet since the .p3ds are already offset, I don't know how much to move the memory points... it seems to take some center of the model instead of the 0,0,0 point of each model. So I think I can know where to place the memory points if I can get the editor to display whatever this "model center" is. Another method I tried was piecing the ship together from individual pieces in the editor (starting at 0,0, and 100 meters up in the air), but the offsets needed didn't work when I moved memory points by the same amount. Can anyone explain how to use this system that BI used for making their static ships, and how to determine where to place these memory points to make the ship (trial and error would be extremely tedious to get the ship even remotely close, much less seamless)

The blackfoot is poorly balanced IMO. That should be addressed first. While the blackfoot has some stealth properties that can allow it to get closer without being detected... its sensors suck compared to the Kajman (particularly IR, which is what one needs for ground engagements, and A2A engagements with the ASRAAMs). So it has to get closer... The Blackfoot is detected at 4/5ths the range of the Kajman on IR, but its IR sensor has 3/4ths the range of the Kajman's agaisnt air targets, and 2/3rds the range against ground targets. So the Blackfoot will be detected by a a Kajman first on IR, and has to get much closer to get an IR lock on ground targets, giving ground targets more time to see and engage it, despite it being "stealthier". Its radar stealth is a bit better, but if both are using active radar, the ground targets (at least ground AA) will see them coming long in advance. I suppose its slightly less vulnerable to being engaged by jets, at the expense of being more vulnerable to other attack helos AND ground targets. First they need to buff its sensors. Then they can give it two versions, a stealth and non-stealth version, with the non-stealth version mounting external pylons, (like the EFAMs that the Comanche was supposed to have) and losing its radar stealth. Each side should be able to mount an additional 4x scalpel/19x DAR/ DAGR pod. So, you could have a loadout like 8x scalpel (external pylons), 4x ASRAAMs (internal), 24x DAR (internal). I'm fine with AAF being a bit behind, like the resistance faction from OFP, or NAPA/taki rebels from Arma 2 - but the hellcat should have an IR sensor and laser spot tracker to enable it to make use of Scapels and ASRAAMs. FWIW, I'd like to see a fragmentation warhead variant of the scalpel, so even without a gun turret, the hellcat could laser and guide anti-personel Scalpels onto infantry targets/squads. That said, I wouldn't mind them using a Eurocopter Tiger, old soviet equipment, old Cobra gunships, etc... Ever since they up-gunned the slammer up to 120mm, I'm OK with the tanks as they are. The Rhino is cool as an airmobile asset... its something you can get on islands where you can't get MBTs. Its something you can deploy starting from an offshore carrier. I'd rather have an LCAC or something that allows heavy tanks to be used in amphibious invasions. A new faction? I'd rather like the CSAT north african "schimitar regiment" to be more fleshed out. I'm imagining CSAT style fatigues with no armor (they'd use tac vests or something like light carrier rigs), AKMs/AK-74s, lighter helmets, older vehicles (hinds, T-72s, BMP-2s, L-39s) Then a Tanoan/horizon islands defense force... similarly just using tac vests, M-113s, old UH-1s, etc. New weapons is pretty vague, but I'd like to see some NATO bullpup rifles... Its not like NATO countries haven't made them (FN P-90, FN 2000, FN FAMAS, Steyr AUG, L85, Kel tec RFB, Bushmaster M17, probably more that I haven't named) Battleships are obsolete, I'd rather see CSAT naval assets, or larger ships that can really move like this one: I'd also like to see an updated LHD, (A3 quality), and a proper F-35B.

One thing I liked about Arma 2 was the diversity. The Arma 3 MBTs are all fairly similar in power. Its nothing like putting an M1 TUSK against a T-34 or T-55, regardless of which Arma3 tanks you choose. It can be fun to be the advanced but outnumbered foe (similar to the APEX campaign when fighting syndicate), or the guerilla forces trying to make do with some pretty bad equipment. APCs in arma 3 also seem rather cookie cutter, every faction gets one ampiibious wheeled, one tracked. Opfor and CSAT both get 1 with autocannon, one with HMG+GMG. So I'd love to see A3 quality (with interiors) T-55s (not sure if GM has interiors), T-72s, BMPs, M113s, LAVs, etc. I'd also love to see high end stuff like a proper F-35B - with dynamic loadouts, and all the 2035 goodness, like the various small AAMs that were planned for it: https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2016/01/f-35-news-looks-like-cuda-has-been.html or the 6 AMRAAM internal loadout that was planned (but who knows, given its development cycle). A2 quality is not A3 quality. CUP ports aren't that good either. I did my own F-35B port And I'm fully aware that its not A3 vanilla quality. A2 was great with the breadth of capabilities covered, from the L-39 with just rocket pods (I'll grant that dynamic loadouts has added a lot of diversity to A3, but only to the planes and Helos), to the SU-34 and the VTOL F-35B/ harrier. On the west from old UH-1's with door mounted guns/AH-6s, to super cobras (AAMs in addition to the full A2G loadout)... West needs a heavier anti-tank helicopter. The east had a nice range of attack helos too... But its really the ground vehicles where I think there was a lot more diversity. BMP1 vs 2 vs 3 were very different, as was a vodnik BPPU, or the wheeled APCs and armored cars. Just compara a BMP-1 to a BMP2 to a BMP3, or a BRDM 60 to 90, or the hmmv varieties... in A3, we get nearly identical MRAPs with just 2 weapon loadouts, and LSVs that are either ATGM or HMG/absurdly penetrating minigun (why why why does the 6.5mm minigun have a much higher penetration scaler than the infantry 6.5s?) So: 1) older tanks, APCs, armored cars that are outdated A2 has these, port them and increease the quality, add interiors, etc -BRDM2, BMP-X, T-55/72, T-60, LAV-25/M2, M113, HMMV variants 2) A port of the apache for the west, ideally with wingtip mounted AAM places like the supercobra had (and the real apache had tested this configuration out, even if it wasn't adopted), Mi-24s +MI-8/17 ported UH-1s for syndicate or something 3) F-35B, and a carrier capable SU-34 for CSAT (and a reskin or similar CSAT/Chinese carrier)+ An updated LHD

Ok, so I got a UV mapped polygon working, and I see a PiP effect... The problem is that it is fixed forward instead of showing where the pilto camera is looking, has a lower render distance, and doesn't change vision modes according to the pilot camera. What I want is the same display that you can get in a mini-display (like the radar and GPS/map mini-window displays) to be shown by default in the cockpit, rather than just in a floating box on the screen. Is this possible?

I wanted to add a PIP window to the cockpit of my F-35 port from Arma 2, so that one can see what the "EOTS" camera sees. I looked here to start: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Cars_Config_Guidelines Relevant portions: I also looked in the .cfg of the Blackfoot. In the .cfg file of my port, I added: PilotCamera_Pos and PilotCamera_dir refer to memory points defined in the memory layer (right term?) of the .p3d model, but are also defined in the level 1 and 2 LODs... for "good measure" I put them in the pilot view layer as well (not sure which ones to get rid of) I added a facet/square polygon to the cockpit of my F-35, It has 4 vertices, each of which is also its own selection named: { "PIP_0_TL", "PIP_0_TR", "PIP_0_BL", "PIP_0_BR" }; The facet I assigned a texture of: #(argb,256,512,1)r2t(rendertarget0,1.0) It shows up as black in game. I can't find any sample model with working PIP to use as a guide, so I was hoping that someone here could tell me what I'm doing wrong, or what I am missing to make the PIP work, so that I can have a window in the cockpit view showing the targeting camera's view. Cheers

From the screenshot, it seems you were trying to respawn from a point that you couldn't, everything was greyed out except the insertion point

Pacific reskin for Taru = win I could forgive the lack of a pacific skin for the kajman, as the Xian can fill its role fairly well (though in reality its hover endurance should be so bad that it would not be able to play the role of attack helicopter), but the Xian's transport capabilities are no substitute for the Taru (although I guess the black taru is ok... its not as bad as the sand color MRAPs and trucks that NATO still has). Would you be interested in doing a pacific reskin for AAF vehicles? I tried it for just the strider (just changed the sand colored patches to dark green, but I don't really know how to do it properly, and I was using the smart selection tool to manually select each sand colored patch)

Was busy and didn't have time to follow up until now... what do I do to set up the UV mapping? In object builder, I added 4 vertices, made them into a face, and from face properties gave it the texture: #(argb,256,512,1)r2t(rendertarget0,1.0) I see there is a place to assign an rvmat... I tried a3\air_f_jets\plane_fighter_01\data\mfd\fighter_01_mfd_01.rvmat but it still doesn't work. I'll send the config and the model (the surface for the PIP is just a placeholder for now.. my plan was to get it working, then move it in position)

I've done that You want me to share the model? Also, I don't recall doing anythingto set up the UV mapping, maybe that is the problem

Just tried, commented those things out, and it doesn't work. I think I may be lacking a memory point. The wiki says: I don't have a "renderTarget" memory point... but I have no idea what that should be, as there are no sample models... does that memory point correspond to the camera viewpoint? Can I just make a new selection where the point for "PilotCamera_pos" is also a selection named "renderTarget", "renderTarget0" As I said, there's no example to look at, so I have no idea what this memory point should be

Yes, PIP works on other vehicles, such as the ah-99, and the various mirrors on various cars

I love standalones. Loading all of CUP for example takes far too long. Even for small addon packs, its often hard to know when an asset is vanilla, or when it has been modified.

Ummm... doesn't the USS liberty destroyer meet your criteria? Aside from its hangar, its got corridors, boat deployment decks (ladders and a second level there), stairs up to the bridge, corridors to the bow, etc... A significantly larger interior than the island on the USS liberty. Then there's also the LHD-9, which comes with cup, or can be standalone (but requires some text editing to place initially since it doesn't show up as placeable in the editor, but once added to a scenario via text, can be copied and pasted at will after that).

The scouting missions are really only relevant for getting more gear/ammo for use in missions. As you lose all your gear at the end of the survive chapter, it doesn't matter one bit

Actually, I think its reversed. Altis has a civilian population. With war and what not, who is to say that there aren't many civilians making campfires. You see some civy vehicles while scouting, in one case I found a civy pickup with a bunch of backpacks packed up as if the civy population was packing up to leave.... but no actual civies... still its implied that they are there (such as driving up to the checkpoints with people in Civy clothes, and at least one of the altis requiem missions you meet civilian hunters). So... distinguishing a guerilla camp from a refugee camp could be more difficult... also altis is bigger. Stratis is tiny. Take a quad bike from maxwell to the com station... super short. Gunfire there should be heard all over stratis. They also had campfires going at maxwell. All the other military bases were overrun... how would they not check out that older one right at the center of all the other skirmishes... not to mention you can see buzzards circling overhead in at least 1 of the scouting missions... The small size of stratis + lack of a civy population except for 2 towns, should make the base very very easy to discover. It took them a long time to discover it, and when they did, they just shelled it and didn't follow up, and instead allowed NATO to regroup and assault Agia Marina (although, I suppose you could argue that they were waiting for CSAT to arrive before assaulting the base... still it should have been LGB'd into oblivion after the first night.

Hey @octop01, yes, I just put it in the "complete" forum instead of discussion. As a standalone port, I don't see all that much else to add... maybe some proxy pylons and PiP in the cockpit, but its definitely useable now. I think I've still got some hitpoint tweaks to make, but they are functional now anyway.

Very WIP version here: https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=1583193287 Still needs: 1) improved textures 2) properly configured hitpoints so that the engine, sensors, controls, etc can be damaged while the plane hasn't been completely destroyed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I noticed, years after Arma 3 has been out, there are still very few mods for an F-35B, and none are standalone. Alternatives: So I decided to try to make my own port, and in the process to modify the model to be a bit more F-35-like and a bit less X-35-like, and also to make some changes to stats that are simply judgement calls So at the moment, I've got a standalone VTOL F-35 with a working targeting camera, sensors suite+stealth properties, dynamic loadout system, and animations working. Hitpoints to allow subsystems to be damaged are partially implemented. I will try to make the textures look better soon (it is way too bright under mid day direct sunlight). Misc. Pics: I'm trying to give it a more versatile weapon's loadout, so that it won't just be limited to a pair of bombs (or SDB racks) and a pair of AMRAAMs. To this end, I've made a 4x Scalpel rack for internal carriage, a 2x AMRAAM rack for internal carriage, and a new type of anti-radiation missile for internal carriage. It also has 2 weapon pylons on the doors that rotate outward when fired (similar to the Blackfoot's pylons), so that it can plausibly employ direct DAR and DAGR rockets. The new missile I'm dubbing the AGM-99 ALARM (Advanced Light Anti-Radiation Missile. It's significantly weaker than the HARM (in terms of damage from a direct hit, as well as indirect blast damage and radius), it takes 3 hits to destroy a Zsu-39 Tigris, but it will take out the static SAM radars and the Nyx Radar variant in 1 hit. I had thought about giving it a 25mm internal gun (files for such are in game, but not well balanced- however for a space and weight limited V/STOL model, a smaller 20mm cannon makes more sense. Also since it can fire 70mm rockets for use in CAS, a heavier hitting cannon isn't needed so much for taking out armored targets. Its getting the same 20mm cannon as the blackfoot (which should be a 3 barrel version of the good old M61 Vulcan, "the world's lightest 20 mm Gatling cannon") with 300 rounds. I've also added a new missile type, a smaller version of the HARM, the AGM-99 ALARM (Advanced Light Anti-Radiation Missile. I'm going to try and tweak its blast so that 1 is not sufficient to take out a Tigris/Cheetah, but it will kill static radars and Nxy recons (Currently its direct and indirect hit damage is 1/3 of the HARM's, and its indirect hit range is just above 1/3... haven't tested if this will knock out a Cheetah/Tigris, or if a 2nd missile is needed yet). Each of the two outer pylons supports: 1x Bim-9x/1xASRAAM/1xAMRAAM D/1xALARM/1x12 DAR Pod/1x12DAGR pod Each of the two inner pylons supports: 1-2x AMRAAM D/1-2x ALARM*/4x SDB/4x Scapel/1x GBU-12/1x CBU-85 *I'm considering removing the 2x ALARM racks, and the 1x ALARM option from the outer pylons, so that it can only carry 2x ALARM, as opposed to up to 6 currently. I'm considering making a 3-4x ASRAAM rack for the inner bays, to be something like a MSDM/CUDA type missile: Example loadouts could be: A2A: 2x BIM-9, 4x AMRAAM CAS: 24x DAR, 4x scalpel, 4x SDB Mixed: 2x BIM-9, 4x scalpel, 4x SDB Mixed: 24x DAGR, 4x AMRAAM SEAD: 24x DAGRs and 4x ALARM Top speed is the same as the Black Wasp for now (I think I'll scale it back a little). Radar stealth and range is the same as the black wasp. Its IR stealth is a 20% reduction in detection range (a 0.8 multiplier). Its IR sensor is the same as that found on the A-164 wipeout, except not limited to view distance settings (I don't know why they do that for vanilla assets ). Fictional lore for the F-35F in armaverse:

What sort of limitation? Its just a coastal town... I don't see how its different from georegtown or any other urban setting?

I'm curious, what is the size of the PKL terrain, and are the bridges destroy-able? As for your Caribbean/Jamaica/Trenchtown inspired terrain: So my mom is Jamaican, my uncle still lives there, and I've cumulatively spent months in and around Kingston... so I'm quite interested in this "trenchtown" inspired terrain. Is the airport connected to the main island by a long thin isthmus (basically following a reef line that is above the waves), as the real kingston airport is? Google maps will show it better than I can describe. I see some sort of causeway/isthmus in that last picture, but I can't tell if the airport is on the left. It would be awesome if off shore, you could add Lime cay and Maiden cay... :) Also if the road could be continued from the airport to a place like port royal where you could have old castle-like/fort ruins, that'd be pretty awesome. And to get even more optimistic... some canals like around the portmore area would be awesome. Then one could take a boat from the canals, past port royal and the airport, to lime or Maiden cay (like I've done many times with my uncle on his boat)... I'm not trying to have you portray Jamaica as some tropical paradise that is just sun, jungle and beaches. The main town of Kingston is a good place for violent slums... My family has experienced some of the violence found in Jamaica - my Jamaican grandfather was murdered in Jamaica (before I was born, so I'm not so emotional about it, but my mom is).

Very nice, I had downloaded a Super Tucano a while ago, but it was super out of date - no dynamic loadouts, and it didn't seem to have physX properly configured, the landing gear/wheels were not working right, and it was very difficult to get it to takeoff at all. This would fit in very nicely with a lower tech AAF : Leopard II MBTs and supersonic Gripens? no Nyx's, Striders, and the Tucano seem like a much better match. I also sometimes make missions with a "HIDF"/ "Horizon Islands Defense Force" (syndicate with just the "soldier" class, and a standard Camo, olive nyxs with jungle camo nets ... AH-9's, that sort of thing)... this would fit real nice. I was thinking of porting the An-2 from Arma 2 and adding some pylons to it for that role, but this looks much nicer.

So far I've made 1 successful port of the F35. Initially I could not get it working, I played around with the config and model files, and somehow got it working... although I don't know what I changed. Now I'm trying to port the AH-64D, and I can't get the animation working either. Here's what I've got for the config file: and the model file: I've already played around with the files a lot... since a simple drag and drop of the files from Arma 2 samples didn't work, I don't know what to do here...

Updated: changed the cockpit so that the textures aren't distorted. Made the 2nd RPM gauge indicate engine vector, so you don't need to go in 3rd person view to see that Added a less stealthy STOVL variant with external weapon pylons. Made the underside lighter, so its dark on top, lighter on the bottom.