Jump to content

NikkoJT

Member
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

About NikkoJT

  • Rank
    Private First Class

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United Kingdom

Contact Methods

  • Steam url id
    nikkothebrave

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The devs have said that the bridgelayer is something they want to add, but weren't able to get in for release due to engine limitations. It still needs some work.
  2. NikkoJT

    Arma 3 - Creator DLC Discussion

    It's been advertised on /r/arma, on the Arma Discord, on the Arma Twitter, presumably on the Arma Facebook, on the Arma website, and I expect there will be an advert of some kind on Steam when it actually releases. I'm not sure how much more you expect them to do. This has had the same level of propaganda as any other A3 DLC - more, in fact, since CDLCs in general were announced months ago, and the GM devs have been actively talking to the community about it since it was announced.
  3. NikkoJT

    Arma 3 - Creator DLC Discussion

    Fair enough. I'm impressed if they managed to do enough different voices between the two of them for the mission VA, plus a new set of radio protocol. I don't think that detracts from my overall point about the price being justified, though.
  4. NikkoJT

    Arma 3 - Creator DLC Discussion

    BI is providing technical assistance and QA on this project in order to keep it up to DLC standards. They are also allowing the mod to be monetised as a DLC, which is the only way to pay for the time spent (the DLC devs themselves have said the mod would have been lower quality or never released without this). It's quite possible that BI provided up-front payment to support this as well, although this hasn't been confirmed. So they're doing the following things that are usually considered to deserve payment: - Technical support - QA time and resources - Possibly providing actual money - Promoting the mod as official DLC - Allowing someone else to profit from their game - Oh yeah, and developing the game it's modifying - [edit] one of the GM devs has mentioned that legal protection against asset ripping is a major reason they wanted to use the CDLC program BI's support is required for CDLCs to reach vanilla standards. BI is unlikely to provide the level of support needed without getting paid for it, and the CDLC devs need to be paid for the time spent as well (which requires BI's approval). So, yeah, it's pretty reasonable for BI to take a cut of CDLC money. Other cost drivers: - Someone has to pay the VAs for the new audio - The devs deserve to get paid for essentially working a second job on this (again, it wouldn't have happened without them being paid for it) For sheer amount and quality of content it's fair to charge for this DLC. BI gets a share because they helped and it's their game. The price is very reasonable. It's less than Apex, IIRC, for a similar amount of content of the same or better quality. It's silly to be upset about it just because it was done by (essentially) a contractor instead of BI's internal employees. Locking the content in the way that's been done is not something most people are happy about. Even the DLC devs wanted to use the Apex model instead. But that's really not related to the price. A cheaper DLC would have exactly the same problems, only it would probably be lower quality. A free DLC with the same model wouldn't have had the community division problems - but it also wouldn't have been able to happen at the quality level that GM is happening.
  5. If you're concerned about getting too modern, you don't necessarily have to go straight to Leo 2. You could bring in some Soviet intermediate tanks like the T-62, or improved models like the T-55AM and Leopard 1A4/1A5.
  6. NikkoJT

    Arma 3 - Creator DLC Discussion

    All Creator DLCs are vetted and checked by BI before being accepted into the program, are developed in close cooperation with BI, have to be up to BI's standards of quality, and are QA'd and approved by BI before release. It'd be pretty hard to get through that, and because there's legal contracts and stuff involved, any creator that somehow did get illegal or copyrighted content into a paid DLC would be in the shit with the law. It's not just "anyone can make a paid mod now". There's a process, and only a select few proposals get accepted.
  7. NikkoJT

    Arma 3 - Creator DLC Discussion

    The turn away from the original Arma 3 DLC model is disappointing. When you guys first announced it for third-party DLC, I knew and said it was going to be unfun. And here it is, being unfun. I dunno, BI. Having this kind of heavy restriction on the DLC is going to make it a massive pain in the ass to use. What were you thinking?
  8. This would be nice. An alternative option might be to create a new weapon class, like they did for the Dynamic Pylons aircraft - basically the same as your suggestion but ending up with legacy weapons instead of legacy mags.
  9. Loving the new mag proxy system! However, it doesn't seem to be working 100% as described in the patch notes. Mk20 variants can't load Sand 5.56 mags, and Black/Green SPAR-16s and SPAR-16Ses can't load Sand 5.56 either. (And the Sand SPAR-16S can't load Sand 30rd mags, only Black - there's a lot of little problems like this.) I'm hoping this will be fixed and the system will be expanded to all interchangeable magazines - once it's all together, it'll be an absolutely fantastic addition.
  10. I'd be strongly torn between "generic skins for all vehicles" and "make all hidden textures into proper skins and uniform items" Well guess what, that's on dev branch right now! (Now we just need olive skins for the AAF and CSAT vehicles so we can use them for Tanoan and Russian units)
  11. NikkoJT

    Release Candidate Branch Discussion

    The updated ADR-97 visuals look much, much better! Thank you for sorting them! The better textures have really pushed the gun from "demo mod" to "official content" in terms of polish. (Still doesn't match the rail accessories or the RCO, but maybe that's more them being too light at this point. Hey-o.)
  12. NikkoJT

    Release Candidate Branch Discussion

    Making the ADR-97 vanilla is fantastic! Here's what I've noticed so far: - The ADR-97 is black. SUPER black. Like, "my shaders aren't configured properly" black. Could it be made slightly lighter? At the moment it looks weird and doesn't match any of the rail accessories or sights, or anything else really. - The new faces aren't available in the Attributes->Identity panel. It'd be nice to have them there. - Absolutely love the range of texture options for the ADR-97. Any chance of adding matching options to the Mk20? Currently we only have the AAF camo (obviously AAF) and the sand camo (doesn't match anything darker than MTP). A black option would be ace and should be as easy as taking the sand camo file and desaturating it. - The magazine being animated is awesome, but the translucent plastic effect doesn't look that great.
  13. There is a green hex version of the CSAT set. Rightclick -> Edit vehicle appearance. I'm not sure if there's a Pacific camo for the NATO ones, though. There wasn't on early versions and I haven't checked since release.
  14. So the Mk41 VLS has been updated to fire terrain-following Venator Cruise Missiles, instead of 230mm rockets. That's awesome! I've just noticed, though, that the Mk41 has access to a missile camera panel. However, this panel doesn't seem to actually do anything. It stays blank ("no connection") when you fire a missile. It would be super nice if it worked.
  15. I'm well aware of how to use the flag and name fields in the Liberty attributes. It's what prompted the question to begin with. I actually tried using the marker textures directly, but when I applied them using the attributes flag field, they resulted in a completely invisible flag. If you've tried it and it worked for you, I guess I'll try again later, but them not working was why I was asking for them to be made available in the first place. They also don't have the flag ripple and cloth effects. (Generally, I initially said "it would be nice if these flags were also available as standard flag textures", not "I have literally no idea how a custom texture selection works".) Edit: It's spelled "valour" in British English, so...unlikely. That layout is correct based on the screenshots posted in the announcement post. The purpose of the square forward of the Mk45 isn't totally clear - there's some speculation that it's an elevator for taking on supplies. Personally I've found it fits an MH-9 suspiciously well, but that's just a suspicion. It's definitely not a weapon position, though.
×