da12thMonkey

Damn right! Looking forward to the update Rock. Should be good.

Ah, kay, that makes a lot of sense but I had no idea we were trialling new vests (not that personal kit's my area anyway). Thought the plates probably would be issued but was surprised that they let him have a vest without a frag filler. Since he's been tearing about in a Spartan I'd have thunk that the coverage of the frag filler would have been of more importance than the strike-plates. Too bloody right mate.

jesus H christ on a pushbike, u a airsofter looking for a prince harry loadout? here,u,go http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7272546.stm who cares about the baseball cap! No, I'm a prior US- Army serviceman with 2 trips to Iraq, 1 to Afghanistan, and in my time with USASOC I have been embedded alongside 2 seperate ODA's from 2 seperate groups, both of whom were using the hat. It was a simple observation followed by speculation. It's not my fault if certain people decide to make more of something than what is there. That "3rd group what-ever" flash you pointed at is actually a Blues and Royals form of insignia of which Lt Wales is an officer. Think he means this patch 2nd on the left: That pic's from Kandahar airport and he doesn't have any of those patches in the images of him in Helmand, 'cept the middle one which I think's some Estonian (a nation who work closely with the Brits in Helmand) unit's patch (rather than the Blues and Royals arm badge). I therefore assume he got a couple of new patches at the airport, either from a PX or as gifts from other units flying in and out. Not that any of that matters... Surprised he was allowed to wear a non-issued bit of armour though. I thought the MoD were strict about only letting soldiers wear body armour that had been certified as 'effective' by them (apart from UKSF-types anyway)... but I suppose his nan is the Queen. Ed:- Middle patch is the Estonian Single Guards Batallion:

I'm confidant that such an intense display of pure win and awesome would wipe out our collective 'following' by means of widespread heart-attacks and cranial-implosions across the community. That would leave nobody to play our stuff unless the euphoria resulted in mass-fornication, creating new generations of ArmA fans. Might be cool to do one day though. Bear in mind I'm kidding: we're not that 'up' ourselves... well, maybe I am...

Hmm in sync with RKSL? I was just hinting that we plan on showing a greater variety of projects than last time, and that they're looking pretty awesome.

Not yet. Lots of work's gone on though and the lads are keen to show it off when we have time to sort out a proper update. Should be soon-ish and definitely well worth the wait. I'll have to let Chris answer that. Doubt he'll be too keen on spending time making stuff only for photos and cutscenes though.

Aye, it's been posted on the MoD website that he has to come back early. http://www.mod.uk/Defence....ome.htm Understandable, the media have gone and placed every Brit serving in Helmand at an increased risk after shitting on Harry's PERSEC. Hope they're happy, the poor lad must be pretty pissed off. Was good to know that he had the opportunity to serve the same as every other bloke in our forces, and it's a shame he's unable to carry on doing that.

Did you delete the original config.bin file from the folder (keeping your modified config.cpp obviously) before repacking the .pbo? The two files may be conflicting eachother if you haven't. I have no such problem with the modified version I have.

Agreed (but only after a Chieftain) Also agreed. I'd like to seen all the British post-war tanks in ArmA. I was working on a Challenger I, mostly for somet to do but I was helpful to learn what was new with O2PE (so I had a better clue of what the guys making addons in the team were doing) but I feel I'm unlikely to ever finish it. Really, I wanted to do a Chieftain but I never found any line drawings or renderings that I was satisfied with.

Just to clarify, those models without this license are the original set of sample models released on August 22nd 2007 only, correct? So, taking the Smartti's example case above: One could take the M16 clip from the weapon released on August 22nd and still deny people permission to edit models using that clip. However, if the clip model were taken from one of the newly released models; say the M4 with Aimpoint, any other person would have the right to modify the models in the 'package' (I agree, that term could do with some clarification) containing this M16 clip. The above case I just outlined is possibly a bit confusing, but I think the terms of the license are fair and probably beneficial to the community. Thank you very much for this level of community support BIS. Hopefully we as a community can repay your generosity with addons you too can enjoy.

It may be the case that the only UKF and RKSL work in ArmA are converts of OFP work (both done by other members of the community, with permission of the original authors I might add) but frankly UKF and RKSL know the work made by the Falklands mod almost as well as we know our own. We were for many many years close friends and work affiliates with them. Rock himself worked on the mod, and members of UKF had a large amount of input on FLK's development. The assertation here that this Lynx was done by Col. Klink for FLK rather than Rambo is based purely on the loyalty of these people to those they have worked closely with in the past, not for some childish witchhunt, vendetta, 'addon elitism' or any other reason that might be concocted. There was an instance in the past where FFUR mod (OFP) added the FLK lynx to their mod without asking the FLK team. This met with their disapproval, and a certain resentment towards those who take liberties with the work of those we consider friends that has manifested in us being particularly aggressive in the defence of our work and that of our associates, but none of it is out of spite. Ultimately it's resulted in the project that meant UKF and RKSL would not to allow Rambo to use their work in this mod. Some of you may recall a recent event where one of UKF's addons was modified in a similar manner to this. I made the fact known, and endeavoured to provide every piece of evidence necessary to prove my claim was correct to those who disputed it, just as Pathy and Rock have done here. Such a thing should show you that we don't make these claims unless we're quite certain of it and can provide evidence to support what we say. We do this because the rights of those who create these addons are important to us. We're all old enough and experienced enough to know when and where these issues may arrise; we've been there many times before. We don't make thse claims for shits and giggles. Frankly, I wish I didn't feel the need to get involved with this after last time, but such childishness accusations of bullying and defamation piss me of a bit.

I get that too, both on the goggles and the eye protectors. Other than that, the only problem I've noticed is that both versions of the machinegunner unit (the one with an M240) have heavy armour; there's no version without shoulder and groin protection. Otherwise, these are great Cam, you should be very proud. Love the custom NVG proxy: Think I'll have to ask Chris to add somet like that to his UK infantry.

The new helicopters (Alouette II and III and the Puma) still have the requirement for the old outdated pilot models written into the config. I still had the old pilot file BWC_Helipilot.pbo installed until quite recently and didn't get the error, but since removing it the error appears. If you look at CfgPatches, you can see that the old pilot is still defined as a required addon, as opposed to the new one: Change it to the new pilot addon 'BWC_Pilots' and the error goes away.

Because it was designed to fit radio headsets, respirators etc we'd already issued. Besides, most countries were still using their old steel pots when we started issuing the Mk.6. Be thankful, there are at least 2 groups working on modelling British units right now. Getting back on topic though: Good luck with getting the units out tomorrow Cam, they look better with each screenshot and I'm looking forward to them a lot. Hopefully you can get them out early, you'll have a lot of people spamming up this thread asking for the release tomorrow. Maybe these forums will surprise me for once though, and have some understanding and patience.

DPM2's not being released, nor are any of the other incomplete OFP addons. Chris (Pathy) is completely reworking the DPM units for ArmA at the moment. Ed:- Rock was quick.

I don't really like the idea of paying for addons. I'd consider paying a small sum for an addon from a group or individual who I knew would deliver something of good quality with innovative features, having used their previous free work, and I could name you a few such people right here. Equally though, there are a lot of 'alright' addons that I wouldn't feel were worth paying for. I definitely wouldn't pay an unknown like yourself who hasn't released any previous addons for free for me to try, or indeed published any material that could provide an indication of their ability as an addonmaker (screens, videos etc). I simply have no idea whether you could provide me with something that someone else could do better, and for free. It's too much of a gamble; and I'm now used to people making fantastic addons for free. I also think it's daft to pay people to make addons to your specification only for your own use. I don't understand why people wouldn't think it was more worthwhile to learn how to make addons themselves, or at least provide helpful info for another individual to improve their free addons until it's of a standard you would accept. Neither task is all that hard. As a customer, the only attractive prospect of paying for an addon would be if you had unlimited rights edit that addon. However, if you're capable of editing the addon, surely you could have had a half-decent go at making it yourself.

No, UKF addons wont overwrite anything. There might be some replacement configs etc made one day, but the addons themselves will be standalone.

Looking very good mate. I'm always extremely pleased to see British addons of this calibre. It all looks excellent. The mid-80s troops you're doing; can you tell me what span through the 80s they represent? I know you're doing stuff up to '85 but would they be alright for troops in the couple of years proceeding that too? Also, any chance you're planning on doing AFV crews? Dunno if you'll still find any use for this but a while back I took a very large scan of an L2A2 SUIT from the MoD's equipment catalogues published in 1985: I lent the books to a colleague, but I'll see if there's owt else of use to you in them if I can get them back.

The ACH is missing chinstraps, I assume you've just not got around to modelling it yet. Otherwise everything looks really good; nice to see some uniform textures with plenty of dirt on them. Looking forward to using them mate.

Of course we are. Orson's work on the Warriors was mentioned in the news post, and occasionally you'll catch a sneak peak of the Challenger 2 in this thread.

The aim point doen't move left or right at all, it's due to something called parallax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax As your head rotates, the angle through which the HUD moves left and right through your vision is greater than that by which the the aim point moves; so the HUD moves left and right relative to the aim point. This is because the aim point is at a greater physical distance from your head than the HUD. You can see that the aim point doesn't move if you look left and right quickly while you fire the Avenger in flight. You'll see that the tracers don't spread out like they do when the aim of the Vulcan moves left and right, and that the impact points on the ground remain in a straight line.

I don't have traffic to see huge video files Anyway i'm sure it's working so i wonder _how_ it's working ? what's the main idea you used ? Watch the then. As for the methodology of it all, we'll have to wait for UNN to give us some details; I'm fascinated to know myself even though I probably won't understand any of it. As ever though, I think what UNN's done is astonishing and I can't thank him enough. He and a few others seem to be taking us to a whole other place in ArmA. I'm just happy that I should now be able to hit ground targets with fixed-wing aircraft now; I'm rubbish at strafing. btw, nice music this time.

Hey Jackal, nice to have some updates from you; the HKs are looking excellent. The HK53s look like they'll be fun. M249's also looking pretty smart, but something about the profile of the barrel looks a little off to me: In the picture you posted the barrel looks very straight, where it tapers in then back out again towards the muzzle brake in many of the images I've seen, and on BIS's ArmA model. http://img246.imageshack.us/my.php?image=m249sawnj8.jpg Might just be the angle you took the picture at though, so I apologise if I'm talking crap here. The model is otherwise brilliant from where I'm standing, (your M145 puts the one I attempted to make some months ago completely to shame ) and the textures look superb. As ever, I look forward to more updates mate.

Okay, since I'm now online and available to respond to Butcher's post myself, here goes: My intention was not to discredit what you posted; I just wanted to point out that not all of the information you had collected regarding the Tornado was applicable to Tornado F.3 and GR.4(A) aircraft currently serving the Royal Air Force, while it is true to say that it was largely applicable to globally servicing Tornados. My assumption was that you weren't clear on differences in ordnance available to the RAF and other operators of Tornado; namely Italy and Germany: an easy mistake to make. The fact that you checked which ordnance Tornados have carried in service indicated to me that you were attempting to create realistic loadouts for your Tornados; and therefore my input would considered be beneficial. You're entitled to reject my input and create your addon any way you see fit, and I don't consider it an insult to me, that you have. Throughout my experience in working with OFP/ArmA addonmakers, and modifying games myself I've always understood that the author makes their addon for themselves, as they like it and that the thoughts and desires of other members of the community are in no way a necessity. I know full well this applies to you and your projects and apologise if you think I've taken any liberties with my input. I didn't mean to offend you.

Hah! I vote to make this feature on the EWMIKs: it'll go well with the gucci, spoked alloy wheels.