Ex3B

I'm surprised that there's no discussion thread for the Prarie Fire DLC yet. My thoughts: Generally speaking, looks awesome. The setting and the groups they follow seem like there could be some nice stories/missions. Multi/singleplayer balance: I'm (personally) a bit concerned about the MP focus, because I simply do not have sufficient time to set aside for large co-op missions or such. Apex protocol missions and KOTH are the limit for the time I can devote to multiplayer. OTOH, 14 player coop campaigns do sound awesome for those that actually can do them. The Map: I've only seen small screencaps of the overall layout, but it seems to be like Chernarus, with the north west border being land, and south and eastern borders being sea. Generally, I like this configuration much more than landlocked maps, and one does get more land area from this configuration (for the same grid size) than an island map. My concern is that it is a fictional terrain (as opposed to a terrain derived from real world data like altis, stratis, tanoa, chernarus, etc), and many fictional terrains simply do not look natural... the geopgraphy is... off. They are trying to pack in many different types of terrain to represent many different relevant areas from the Vietnam war, I hope that they manage to pack all that in without it looking un-natural - but it is a concern I have. The vehicles: The F-4 Phantom looks awesome, I never realized how much I wanted one... The light tanks are awesome, with Vehicle Interiors!!! (something Global Mobilization was lacking) I fear that some content that would complement its assets is lacking, and thus it will need to be compatible (ie balanced) with other Arma mods or DLCs. The F-4 should naturally have a Mig-21 or Mig-17 available to the opposing side - even if it never factors into the missions/campaign, it would be great for user created stuff in the editor The F-4 has the option of navy colors, and thus naturally I hope it comes with a hook and is carrier capable. Compatibility with the USS Freedom is, IMO, a must. A Kittyhawk or Forrestal class aircraft carrier would be great... simply because they'd open up a lot of possibilities in the editor, but using an ananchronistic USS freedom wouldn't be too big of a deal. Creator DLC musings: This CDLC is temporally close to the Global Mobilization CDLC. Many of the weapons and vehicles are simply redundant between them. I wish there were steps taken to reduce this redundancy. We don't need every CDLC to have its own version of an AK/M16, or in this case even more obscure vehicles like an Mi-2.

I've been around since OFP too (with a significant gap). I'm... ambivalent about the change from real forces fighting in fictional countries of OFP, to real+ fictional forces fighting with real equipment in fictional countries, to real and fictional forces fighting with real and fictional equipment in fictional countries. A2 even had shades of this with anachronistic f-35s, and A1 somewhat as well with the su-34. A lot of the "future" stuff in A3 is actually real equipment. Fictional, base game: The MX rifles, CSAt suits, caseless ammo, A-164, greyhawk/abail, kajman, the new HMGs/gmgs ... The rest is real, although some never got past prototypes. Of those, none are really functionally different from real equipment other than the CSAt suits. So to me it's basically still fictional forces with real equipment.... Same as earlier titles With DLC, fictional: Blackwasp, sentinel, shikra, xian, CSAt drone,blackfish, lsvs, type 115, Huron/ taru The black wasp isn't that different from the latest super hornet with podded external weapons, or functionally different from a f-35c. Shikra- not functionally different from the Su-57. The apex vtols were the worst offenders. The Huron has no functional stealth, it's a Chinook. The Uh-80 I left out because we know some kind of stealthier Blackhawk exists Well, if it added an A3 quality America or wasp class amphib, would that work for you? It's not future/fictional. Neither would LCUs or LCACs be. Nor are F-35bs, or "J-31" Chinese 5th gen fighters (although those are not operational/ finalized yet). A Chinese amphib need not be fictional either: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202104/1222263.shtml#:~:text=The newly commissioned amphibious assault,purpose well in islands and Granted, at this time, the only "opfors" carrier based fighters are going off skijumps, and are basically SU-33s. As for the CSAT amphibious armor, I would model them on something like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_05_amphibious_fighting_vehicle Or similar... So generally, no fictional equipment need be added. It would be a good idea to have a choice between a CSAT texture, or a more realistic color scheme. I think such a DLC could be added that would use modern assets, and fit in with a real 2021 setting, or the armaverse 2035 setting.

A guadalcanal type DLC would be epic, but why the opposition to a 2035 setting? The problem with a 1940's setting is that it would basically be a total conversion dlc, and would need to replicate uniforms, guns, and all sorts of vehicles. Every cDLC thus far has been like this, and they all lack a "full" complement of vehicles needed for combined arms warfare (generally no fixed wing combat aircraft) A 2035 setting would just need to fill in the gaps of the vanilla lineup with regards to amphibious assaults Yes, the size of the maps is rather limited for 2 sides with airbases to be operating at the same time. Generally, it would be best to not portray a NATO amphib going against a CSAT amphib... But a CSAT amphib going up against some 3rd world military with equipment somewhere between that of the AAF and Syndicate? That could be done. Also, static ships on island maps effectively expand the battleground with respect to air operations. On Altis for example, one can place static ships off the normal map edge, 60 km apart. 60 km still is crossed really fast by the jets, particularly when they may open fire from 15 km away... But it's getting closer to being practical for gameplay - and imposing koth style protections around the team bases means that you can fight for territory between the bases without new jets launched by either side just immediately showing up right over the battleground. I have heard that it may be possible to make a 8192x8192 grid map, which even at a grid size of 5m (intermediate between that of Altis-7.5m- and that if stratis/tanoa -4m/3.75m)... If so, then the static ships could be 80km apart while still having excellent terrain detail (most of the map would be water in this case, but I would still expect 150-300 km^2 of land area)

For me, I didn't buy PF because of reports that the map is not AI friendly (theyon't path well across the map), and all the content is for MP. I don't have time for MP. So I wonder, does the AI handle moving around on this map well? Do others agree that the campaign is relatively good? How much of the assets are direct arma2 ports? I see the lav-25 has an interior now, which is great... Are the other vehicles that appear to be Arma 2 ports enhanced in any way (proper interiors, higher poly model, etc)? If so, which ones? Balance wise, how do the vehicles play with vanilla A3 units, or GM units?

I was going to say, perhaps it may be a mig-17 instead, but the munition racks seem like a better fit for a Vietnam eta mig-21. Married with children....er child here, don't have the time needed for multiplayer communities beyond jumping in koth. I do a lot of playing around in the efiitor and single player missions ... seems like this DLC is not for me.

So what is the overall consensus on the map quality? If AI can't use it well, I think thats a deal breaker for me

https://armedassault.fandom.com/wiki/Cam_Lao_Nam Looks like its almost entirely jungle, with very little urban terrain. What are those holes(?) in the top left?

Yes, as I noted in the first post. I hope they manage to fit in the various areas without making the terrain feel unnatural. It is a game after all, and our computers have limited capabilities even if the devs had infinite time to create the map. Packing all that into 300km2 is a hard task, and at this point I don't know if they did the task well or not. Link to the old map, I am interested in it - also how do you know? is there a way to see the PF map in detail yet?

I notice that it has been said the fc-37/f35e is open source. Could I have the relevant files? I would like to try to make a vtol version of it. Its better and looks much nicer than my a2 port.

I ported and modified an MV-22 from Arma2. I added the ability to fold the rotors and wings, and I used the automatic wing folding code as found on the sentinel drone and black wasp, so that as soon as one starts moving, they unfold. What I would like to do, is add the ability to have the MV-22 start with its wings/rotors folded by checking a box in the eden editor, as you can do for the black wasp II. Can anyone tell me what needs to be done to enable this?

I am trying to make a modified port of the A2 Dingo from the ACR expansion. I bought the expansion, and thus I should have the files, and indeed, the Wheeled_acr.pbo file is there. The problem is that I cannot open the .pbo file (is it encrypted?) unlike the other arma 2 PBOs. Is there any way to access these textures for an Arma 3 mod? I plan on modifying them anyway (A CSAT hexcam overlay), so I am really looking for the normal map texture and interior textures. IIRC, in arma 2, if you didn't have the DLC, you'd only be able to see the low res textures... how do I even get those?

They have at least 1 missions from the side of the PAVN. Also, lets not be juvenile... "good guys" and "bad guys" oversimplifies things greatly. In a fictional setting, the "good guys" can be whoever you want. Arma 3: APEX/old Man: CSAT bad, clearly. Arma 3 East wind and laws of war: CSAT bad, maybe? but Miller is also probably bad? Arma 3: Contact: Russians good-ish, Livonians bad. So "for once" ignores that fictional conflicts in fictional countries have clearly had you playing as the good guy... unless you simply can't accept anything other than Americans = Bad. Now in the Vietnam war... that's real life, and real life is complicated. MACV-SOG operations in Laos and Cambodia = Illegal = bad? PAVN operations in Laos and Cambodia = Illegal = bad? MACV-SOG was responding to the illegal actions of the Ho Chi Minh trial, so... "they started it, they are more bad"? Or are you referring to the US being involved at all? It all started with a mess that the French made. The elections in both the north and the south after the french left were both rigged (98% and 99% wins... yea... right...) The North started a guerilla war in the south... bad The American's supported a corrupt and incompetent de facto dictator in the south.. bad Then they supported the removal of that dictator in a coup... bad? Then the war expanded, and got ugly, as wars do, particularly when one side hides among civilians. As long as the portrayal is not Americans = good, VC/PAVN = bad; as long as it portrays the complexity of the situation and fairly portrays the views/motivation of each side, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Well, I have concerns about inconsistency (they don't fit so well in terms of balance with other vanilla/DLC assets), and as I said, redundancy... How many independent versions of the AK/M-16 or Mi-2 do we need. It would be nice if they could share some assets across them for optimization. Instead, each CDLC seems to be stand-alone, which is a bit limiting if they don't mesh well with other content. That's not to say they are bad, just a cause for concern.

Its my understanding that they will have real places in there, but with the overall terrain being fictional, to pack all the relevant locations and types of terrain into just 300km

Ah, previously I was working from a guide which basically said to use the sample models, and extract the textures from your A2 pbos... which I have done to port(and then modify to sometimes heavy extents) the AH-64, F-35, V-22, C-130, and Vodnik... yet this time it didn't work. Thanks for directing me to a better way... Unfortunately, those links don't seem to work for me, and I can't download them. Found the torrent for the files, from here: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_Licensed_Data_Pack#ALDP_A2OA_PBOs_ADPL-SA_APL-SA.zip *edit* but no seeders...

I was just wondering, projectile initSpeed can be specified in both the weapon config, and in the magazine config... such as the MXM with an initspeed on 920, and the 100rd 6.5mm mag that specifies 880 ms (which was fine before they allowed other MX pattern rifles to use it). When both weapon and magazine specify the initspeed, which one is used? I am guessing the weapon config, I just want to be sure.

For some reason, the armor value of the gorgon turret is double that of the kamysh turret. I "fixed" this in my "offshore assualt" mod when I added a NATO variant of the gorgon in sand and olive green camo

I could swear at one point the GM6 Lynx (particularly with APDS ammo) and HMGs could disable the turret of a Gorgon or a BTR Kamysh. Even a M320 LLR could disable it (I think the SPMGs would work too)... yet in my recent testing post Tanks DLC, HMGs (standard and NSV-T) and the GM6 with APDS couldn't disable it. I even made some mod HMGs firing APDS rounds and the normally unused 127x99 SLAP rounds. They were effective at disabling Marshal turrets, Mora turrets, Rhino guns, the HMG/GMG turrets of MRAPs/Panthers/Marids, but the gorgon and Kamysh seem completely immune to being disabled by HMGs, APDS rounds, and even the 20mm AP rounds of the Nyx's autocannon * for the record, I was trying to find out what kind of armored units could be taken on by various airmobile or amphibious units. Even giving CSAT units 127x108mm APDS machine guns, they can't take on a gorgon... :/

I'd like to have a ship (USS liberty, or USS Freedom for example) get rotated and moved during a mission - specifically I'd like the ship to be lower in the water with a bit of list. I tried using a trigger (Radio Alpha for testing) and this command: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setVectorDirAndUp and setPosASL to try and lower and rotate the ship, but nothing seems to work. (I tested with a fuel truck, and it worked) Is there a way to do this, or is there something funky about static ships?

I'm really just looking for a way to make a ship look like it is sinking if a player takes to long to neutralize a threat, I'm not trying to make a moving ship. Doesn't need to be a smooth transistion... player takes off, if enemy aircraft get within X distance from the carrier group, when the player comes back to land, I'd like the USS liberty to be listing, low in the water, and smoking... that's all.

Couldn't one edit the glob mob T-55 config to have a lower armor value, and to use the vanilla 105mn cannon (yes yes, this is not OFP, it should be a 100mm cannon). Is it a problem of failures to penetrate the t-55 armor, or simply that the t-55 can take a lot of damage even if the shots do penetrate? Does the kuma's gun do any better? The 125mm of the t-100/140? What about the pt-76b though, surely that cannot take on slammers

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1744603050 Ever since OFP, I've liked making combined armed scenarios where teams fight to control an island that they don't start on (ex, malden with the training island on the south east, and the small airstrip on the north west). Arma 3's VIV + slingloading, and placeable static ships enable such a scenario like never before, yet I feel the vanilla implementation is lacking. While most balance between factions is a matter of the mission maker, some scenarios just can't be made balanced with vanilla assets, without use of vehicles belonging to NATO by CSAT Consider 2 scenarios: 1) Bases are ships several km offshore, and fight over an island/islands between them: * CSAT would have no hope at controlling the air: Black wasps against Xians is very one sided. Combined arms with fast movers is off the table for a balanced scenario. * Even the war on the ground goes badly as CSAT can't deploy anything heavier than Ifrits and Quillins, against NATO medium armor: Rhinos and Marshals. A balanced combined arms scenario with armor is off the table. 2) Bases are on different Islands, and fight over an island/islands between them (such as on Tanoa): * CSAT can now match NATO in the air, and even the AAF can pose a threat it the air. * CSAT ground vehicles still are horribly outclassed. On a map like Tanoa, the Marids can be brought into play since there's not too much water to cross, but Marids are horribly outclassed. Even The AAF ground vehicles win in this case (gorgon) * I have yet to find a map that is both high quality, and of an appropriate scale so that the respective airbases are sufficiently far apart. Using ship bases, you can easily get 30km separation on Altis and Tanoa. So I made a mod adding various items to each side, so that there are more options available to mission makers. All vanilla assets remain unchanged. This includes a number of Arma 2 assets that I have ported and modified This mod adds: Static ships: Non-side specific body armor additions: CSAT specific, Infantry armor: CSAT specific, Infantry weapons: CSAT specific, ground vehicles: CSAT air vehicles: NATO Infantry suits/armor: NATO infantry weapons: NATO ground vehicles NATO air vehicles Independent faction changes.

So, I wasn't super happy with the SU-34 port as a carrier based alternative to the F-181 black wasp. The idea was that it would be an update to the Flanker series similar to the proposed F-15 "Silent Eagle"... but there's no getting around that cockpit not even being up to standards of a 4th generation multirole fighter. So instead, I modified the Arma 2 F-35. I figure the J-31 is accused of being a F-35 knockoff and product of chinese espionage on the JSF program... and I also took inspiration from the chinese J-20 (ie, having canards), and ended up with something looking a lot like early X-32 concept art. Its distinct from the F-35F, but still obviously very similar: In its current iteration, it has 2 variants, one which is STOVL (it is configured as VTOL = 1 https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3:_CfgVehicles_Plane_class_config_reference#vtol but its thrust at zero airspeed is insufficient for a vertical takeoff), and the other of which has an arrestor hook. The STOVL variant is a bit more limited in its internal weapons capacity. Overall, it is similar to the Shikra as far as sensors go (radar range = 13km, radar target size = 0.6, IR A2A sensor range = 5km), but it is slower (only a bit faster than the gryphon) but a bit more maneuverable (handling parameters lifted off the A-149 Gryphon). It lacks an internal gun, does not carry SDBs (but can carry 4x scalpel racks internally), does not carry DAGRs (but can carry 7x skyfire racks internally), does not have a lightweight ARM but can carry 2 KH58s internally. I also heavily modified the fishing boat to make landing craft capable of carrying tanks, still a WIP and its been improved a bit since these pics. Right now, its just for the civilian side, but I intend to make side specific entries. I'm still tweaking the models, but 4 of these can fit in the well deck of an LHD, and I've set their top speed to be around 45km/h so that they can be used somewhat practically from bases several KM offshore, given time constraints of gameplay, and to make travel by boat faster in many cases than driving (if it allows a more direct route). Lastly, also tweaked my version of the qilin (minigun) so that it fires standard 6.5mm rounds instead of 1 round (at the cost of 3 ammo units) with a very high penetration value, that does splash damage. Instead of a more penetrating round doing splash damage, I've configured it like a shotgun with subminitions, so each shot uses 3 ammo, and fires 3x 6.5mm rounds (essentially, each shot is a shotgun blast with 3 pellets), so it really can saturate an area with 6.5mm rounds, and not splash damage. And with that, I don't think I'll do anymore. Each side has 5th gen carrier based multirole fighters. Each side can deploy heavy/tracked armor across water. Each side can air deploy light armor with autocannons and AT/AA missiles.

I'd like to make a modified 6.5mm minigun that doesn't have the OP'd super high penetration value and splash damage, consuming 3 ammo units per projectile, and instead fires 3 normal strenght 6.5mm projectiles in a narrow cone, so that it actually does just spit out large numbers of 6.5mm ammo. The submunition documentation doesn't really have good examples. Am I on the right track here, if not, what is the proper way to do it?

I also played OFP many years ago when I was still in school. I only dabbled in Arma 2 many years later (after arma 3 was already out), buying it at a cheap price during a sale. Then I very very very briedly dabbled in Arma1 after buying in on a sale for 2 bucks. A lot has changed since OFP, but I think the change from Arma 2 to current Arma 3 is greater than OFP to Arma 2, given all the updates that Arma 3 has had, the vase game is very different fro mwhat it was on release (not that I played Arma 3 on release). Changes with each game, off the top of my head (aside from just graphic improvements): Arma changes: procedural grass, multiple turret support for vehicles, VTOL aircraft support, new helo physics? Arma 2 changes: Drones, Thermal imaging, new inventory system with droppable backpacks, new driving physics? lean left/right (or was that arma 1?), swimming on the surface, artillery with an artillery computer for aiming (or was that Arma1?) Arma 3 changes: targeting pods on aircraft, improved drone system, improved inventory, stamina and fatigue system, a lot of new stances, weapon resting/bipod usage, weapon attachments, submunitions and penetrator submunitions from HEAT weapons and true shotguns, slingloading from helicopters, swimming under the surface and submersibles, improved driving physics, body armor and customizable clothing, new sensor system with data links, new fire control systems and aiming aids, vehicle in vehicle transport, catapult and arrestor wire functionality for aircraft, anti personel mines, top down attack modes for missiles, improved vehicle armor simulation + reactive armor and slat cages, 3d editor, various new scripting commands, etc. I'm probably forgetting some things Arma 3 is better than ever for combined arms warfare, with, of course, the largest map yet. In Arma 3 you can have an offshore carrier, operating air superiority jets and attack drones using catapults and arrestor wires (or VTOL fighters with mods), take submersibles to land troops on shore, and have VTOL transports drop APCs or the equivalent of a striker MGS on shore, while helicopters bring in armed MRAPs, lighter vehicles, supplies, etc to ground troops. It even supports a delocalized SAM netword with seperate radar and launcher units. Get it, and then get CUP terrains... the CUP vehicles mod is a bit bloated though IMO. Too much content packed into one mod, with variable quality.

Hmmmm, very interesting, I think I will make it usable via a mod, I am thinking a radar guided, data-link/loal enabled missile with a long range... Might be OP though.