da12thMonkey

I noticed that too. I'll be extremely happy if particles are affected by the geometry of other models. Perhaps it means it wont rain indoors like it does in OFP and ArmA

Are the USMC even getting the M320? From what I've read it's a US Army project, which doesn't necessarily mean the USMC will buy it too since their funding and procurement is completely separate.

You've misread what [CAS] Daniel and IceBreakr are on about. The problem ACE had with their spec-op HMMWVs doesn't affect the Jackals at all: AI crewed Jackals happily open fire will all weapons carried, regardless of if you're using ACE or not. The problem with the Jackals in ACE is that enemy AI will not attack the Jackals with small arms or HMG fire (not the other way around). They will only fire RPGs and MBT main guns at them. Enemy AI is quite happy to shoot at the Jackals with anything that goes bang in vanilla ArmA though.

Water jerry cans are black and made of plastic (and have 'WATER' embossed on them), fuel ones are green and I think are still made of metal. I imagine the the left/right thing merely helps to locate them more intuitively (i.e if it's dark). I think we've only stuck water jerry cans on the Jackal: they're a minor detail so I didn't bother making a fuss over it to Messiah, (I'm sure he'll think that's a first, considering some of the shit I've nagged him about in the past) but it has the benefit of only loading one texture panel for their proxies.

As AKM pointed out, in order for it to survive without exploding, it requires a very high armour value. I seem to remember our first few betas being a bit tougher and not exploding following RPG hits, but by the same measure you could unload around 400 rounds of .50 cal into the vehicles before they would blow up. I remember thinking that was a bit much back then. Jackal wasn't really 'designed' with true mine and IED protection like say an MRAP. It simply contains some design features which mean is offers a higher degree of survivability to the crew than say a Land Rover. Any IED protection offered by the vehicle is likely down to deflection of explosive force, rather than preventing penetration of shaped charges. Obviously there will be certain mines that the Jackal will take in its stride, but there will always be the threat of IEDs big enough to destroy vehicles of any type (even MBTs). I'm aware of there already being at least four fatalities from an IED attacks on Jackals in its short service. It is by no means a solution to the IED threat, so I don't think it's too unreasonable to be able to destroy it with satchel charges in ArmA. I believe it's also important in a game scenario that people playing as OPFOR are capable of destroying the vehicle and registering the kill without expending too much ammo. The fact that the crew can in some cases survive such attacks doesn't make it feel too weak to people crewing it. The excellent visibility from the vehicle should be the key factor in surviving an ambush in ArmA; from spotting the enemy quickly and engaging them, rather than the vehicle's ability to take the first RPG hit and plow though the contact before locating the enemy. Correct. Almost all British military vehicles, including Jackal run on diesel (there are literally only a handful that are petrol powered now). The high ignition temperature of diesel was a factor in the 'dieselisation' of British vehicles from the 1980s onward. IIRC the jerry cans are stored such that there are cans carrying water down one side and diesel down the other.

You probably should have posted this question in out general discussion thread rather than this one, since it's more relevant there. To answer your question though, Jtec's currently working on a Mastiff (it's coming along quite nicely too). We appreciate any interest in other projects and don't mind answering the same question a couple of times (as long as it's not about release dates). However this thread is a lot more useful to us if it's only to hear feedback and give responses regarding the Jackal addon; rather than talk about our other work or have other discussions about British kit. It's just to make it easier to keep track of what we need to do. Hope you lot can appreciate this. So everybody, please feel free to ask us some questions about other addons in t'other thread or in our own forums.

Yes it's in there now! It was the first thing I noticed when we got the latest WMIK build from Messy. Clearly that was more impressive than all of the other hard work he's done in getting them up to current EWMIK standard, since the last internal beta.

Controllable brake lights! Was always a popular feature with the OFP Land Rovers. I'm sure many will be glad to see it has returned, especially those who like a bit of PVP.

IIRC this works Commander's seat: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">this moveinturret [jackal_name, [1]] Gunner's seat: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">this moveinturret [jackal_name, [0]] Ed:- Messiah beat me to the punch

Thanks deadeye. I don't think there's a problem with converting it to .7z to match your conventions so long as it's all in there. First post updated Armaholic have also provided a mirror, so thanks goes out to them too. And Jonny speaks the truth: the GMG is an extremely formidable weapon with the ACOG and ranging system. The first time I played with it was a blast: especially considering at that time, ACE hadn't been released so I'd not experienced a sight-adjustment system for mounted GLs before.

Thank you for the mirror Burns.

I've got some old NES, SNES and Megadrive games installed on my missus' Wii via the WFC, to play with my school mates before we head off down the pub or somet. Just as much fun as it was 20-odd years ago. Playing 'Streets of Rage' with my brother brings back a lot memories of us bickering as kids; I still see red mist when he snatches the health power-ups I need, or 'accidentally' grabs me, leaving me to get layed-into by assorted street thugs. Watching us must mortify my nephew

We got rid of Cymbeline a few years ago. I think some of FV436 hulls were converted to Bulldog 2 or 9s. We were using MAMBA mounted on a BV206 (basically the Swedish ARTHUR system) and more recently COBRA (mounted on Foden IMMLC) in Iraq at least, but I've only seen LCMR in 'ghanners.

They sometimes stick cyalumes in bottles, and tape them onto the radio whips of vehicles in Afghanistan. For convoy discipline I believe, but they may have a purpose in IFF. They're too small a detail to be worthy of putting on lower LODs, so they'll probably only be visable at close range in ArmA. At which point the vehicle's most likely near enough to where and what it is assuming your vehicle recognition skills are alright; hence I don't see them as being that useful a feature.

Jackal is correct. Make sure you convert the new texture from the original .tga to change from _ca/_co.paa to _co/_ca.paa though. Simply changing the filename of the .paa in Windows wont work since the way ArmA renders the texture is written in by texview, during the conversion process.

Just because there's already a bunch of people making British stuff doesn't mean someone else can't do likewise. Making addons is more enjoyable to some people than playing the game, so they should quite rightly be able to make whatever they want. Besides, who said UKF would release anything 'soon'? It doesn't sound like anything one of our members would say since we don't have anything resembling a release schedule. @ BFM team: like Imutep said, your pictures are a bit dark and a bit small. I'd like to see some clearer ones.

I feel the same, and it's part of the reason I wouldn't buy VBS2 for personal use, at that price. I consider VBS2 in the use of an individual to be a game, where in use by an organisation it is a tool. Since most of its features are aimed at training organisations; these features are little more than play things unless you're using them for their intended purpose, which is impossible with just an individual licence. I believe much of its potential is wasted on individual license holders, so it's daft for them to spend money on it if they're not getting the most out of it. For a game it falls short of my requirements, which are largely based on appearance and entertainment value; and would do even if it cost the same as ArmA. However, if I was a member of an organisation hoping to use VBS2 as it is intended; to train other people in my organisation, these requirements would be drastically different, and VBS2 is by far the best piece of software at doing what it's intended to do. A lot of people in this community don't seem to understand the point of VBS2 and apply gaming standard to it, including some of its non-military owners. As a result they either undervalue it as a tool or stupidly overvalue as a 'simulator', which is something it is not.

Having vehicle likenesses is important in helping soldiers trained on the system to differentiate between different BLUFOR and OPFOR vehicles, and how to operate in and around these vehicles, assuming there is a facility for reasonable interaction between player geometry, vehicle geometry and environmental geometry (which I believe VBS2 has, particularly with PhysX support). Whether or not they have realistic specular properties and surface textures doesn't benefit the training applications of the models at all, it's merely an immersion factor. Just because they could have been added, doesn't mean it was necessary to add them. Like you said; production costs and times determine whether adding these features is worthwhile given their limited benefit to the function of the software and the core requirements of the customer. The user cost of buying a training suite full of computers that are capable of running a demanding program, is also important to consider when thinking about the customer's requirements. The UK stuff (well, the stuff produced outside of BIA at least) was produced to a strict deadline in order to to satisfy the British MoD's requirements; and from what I've been told, it was tough to meet this deadline. I reckon producing normal and spec maps for each item probably would have either reduced the amount of material delivered to the customer, or decreased the final quality of other visual aspects of the material, below the addonmakers' full capabilities, even more than sticking to a deadline did. I know that producing nohq and sdmi textures doesn't take a great deal of time on the basis of an individual addon; but when you're contracted to produce many dozens of vehicles, each with several different variants (which makes for hundreds of individual items), the time taken to create these shaders adds up significantly, and is a big handicap in reaching the deadline.

Do you have an older copy of the weapon pack installed in another mod folder that you're running?

Have you adjusted the sights with the up and down arrow/cursor keys? Most of the AT weapon sights can be adjusted out beyond 200m, and IIRC the RPO can be adjusted quite a bit further. I'm usually able to hit targets quite reliably out to at least 300m once the sights are set up properly.

Have a look at the wound .rvmats your config is directing to. If the first three values in 'emissive' are greater than 0, change them back to 0. The line should look like this once you're done. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">emissive[] = {0,0,0,1}; If that doesn't work, some of the QG units have luminous faces: Can't remember which ones exactly (either the prisoners or guerillas I think), but I'd check their .rvmats (if you have QG) to see how they differ from stock ArmA models. Might indicate what's wrong.

You can still get it in cans yes. I swear they only sell it like that in chip shops though: Bought one yesterday when I went to get chips and curry sauce to eat with the vast amounts of cold, leftover turkey and beef my parents force me to take home from Xmas and Boxing Day (every bloody year). I could swear we've spent more time discussing the virtues of carbonated pineapple and grapefruit beverages in this thread than anything else. Anyone'd think the community cared less about having decent British land systems in ArmA, than the taste of the Caribbean. Anyway, UKF hope you all had a good Christmas.

@da12thMonkey - Im confused! bootneckofficer He's referring UNN to their internal team forum. It's not accessible to the likes of you and me.

The RAF don't use GPMGs on Chinook instead they have M134s and/or M60s. RKSL are doing a Chinook though, you can see it in the background of some of the Merlin screenshots IIRC. @bootneckofficer - Albion's not finished yet, if you read this you can see that it's not even textured yet.

When you examine the guy, a hint box will appear in the top left that tells you about his condition. You then need to administer the correct treatments for their injuries with the action menu; either bandages, morphine or some other shit I can't remember the name of, but it restarts the heart or something when they have no pulse. You need to have the correct treatment object in your inventory too; this may require getting it out of you backpack. There's no single, magical heal option. Don't know how well AI deal with injured players though.