da12thMonkey

Automatic fire with the LSW in the prone position should be more stable than that of the L85, this is to reflect extra stability given by the bipod on the LSW (albeit it's not modeled in the extended position). I believe it's more accurate over longer ranges too as Messiah said.

Having a look at the config, seems that the only weapons where the firemodes and sound are defined for gunfire are the SA80s/LSWs (other than the ones that have unique UKF sounds like the L96s) and they are as I said, pathed to the default BIS sounds in weapons.pbo.

Sound replacement packs wont work with these since sounds are now defined in the config for each weapon rather than the magazine (as was the case in OFP) and since sound mods just re-path the location of the sound files for BIS addons to their own rather than overwriting the actual sound files, they won't so the same for user-made weapons. As for converting the WMIKs and Warriors; the WIP vehicles UKF have for ArmA, already make significant improvements on the OFP releases. I know Messiah's pretty proud of the new WMIKs and looks at the old ones with some disdain in light of what he's done this time around and what he has planned feature-wise for them, so would be rather reluctant to let anyone convert them. I think Orson would probably speak similarly of the Warrior given that even the later beta versions for OFP looked miles better than the previous public release.

How big is the relief of the tread on the actual tyre normal map? The only thing I can think of doing now is playing about with that. Feel free to send some of the stuff my way or put it up on the team's board if you'd like someone else to have a stab at it for a bit.

What stops working? The relief of the bump map? Mate, I think it might just be that you're using a flat textured smdi. Just make a quick one by taking the grey-scale heightmap you used to create the nohq file and run it through TexView2 using "edit\filter" with these settings <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> sp = 10; p = src pixel [u,v]; x = 1 - green p; y = green p * ((sp * blue p + 1) / (sp + 1)); c = color[x,y,blue p,1]; and see if it looks any better. Does deleting that 'Stage 2' stuff in the .rvmat get rid of the shite washed out colours though?

I quite liked the vehicles BOH produced for OFP and I check the blogs of folks from the Japanese community fairly often to see what they're up to (even though I can't read any of it). There are some pics of a Type-73L truck for BOH here: http://b-design.blog.ocn.ne.jp/log/2007/07/index.html video of it too: http://b-design.blog.ocn.ne.jp/log/images/73_in_act_amra_shd_test.html I look forward to seeing what BOH produces for ArmA

I don't think the colour map needs to be written into the .rvmat file mate. Of all the rvmats I've read with UnRAP the only one that contains a reference to a colour map is one that creates the mirror effect. No real idea if it'll work, but try removing the class Stage2 bit. I've been having some trouble with some of the specular effects too though to be honest. I edited BIS M240 model (adding a few bits), and applied the same textures and effects maps to it, albeit re-pathed to their location in my own pbo, both in O2 and the rvmat file (which contained all the same values as the original one; just the paths to the nohq and sdmi maps were changed) yet ingame I got some very strange lighting effects where the gun was really dark when facing into the light. Worked fine if I just used the seemingly identical .rvmat in ca\weapons\data though.

Looks like they will have some grass at least. See the bottom-right of this pic: http://1985.armedassault.com/wp-cont...._hi.jpg

Scars, the maker of RHS's Mi-24 for OFP has done a pretty awesome looking F-22 that I believe is intended for ArmA (not 100% sure since I don't speak Japanese, and I'm not sure what to make of the google-translation). http://blog.livedoor.jp/scars/archives/cat_50013570.html

@warpuppy. It's no trouble mate; just trying to take some of the strain off the RKSL team when it comes to answering questions and suggestions, and point them to where they might be a bit more relevant. @Prydain. There will almost certainly be a UKF thread here once there's a reasonable amount of stuff that our addonmakers are happy to show. There's plenty of work going on privately, and a couple of images of very early developments have been posted in threads relating to modeling/texuring and the new tools, as examples of work that can be done with these tools. However, like I said, specific info about UKF's ArmA projects is being held private until things are more solid, and worthwhile to the public. For the time being, just be patient and wait 'til there's more to discuss. We wouldn't want to end up having lots of discussion in this thread that doesn't relate to RKSL's work.

Project: UK Forces are doing ground vehicles such as those you suggested. http://www.pukf.net/forum/index.php It's part of our agreement with RKSL that we focus on Ground Vehicles while RKSL do aircraft and naval systems such that we compliment each other's work.

English accent and: Placebo ain't coming back is he?

So it's only a bug for people sat in cargo seats in the back while the vehicles are being driven up the ramp and into the aircraft? I could put up with that, no problem. I could also cope with the second solution you posted: Would that option also allow the issues with the Stryker to be avoided if the vehicle didn't have to make contact with the ramp. Admittedly, driving in and out of the aircraft yourself is more desirable, but I wouldn't regard this second option as anything that would ruin the experience for me.

Neither 23 PFA, nor 5th Airborne exist any more; they now form part of 16CSMR and 16AAB respectively. And as Manzilla said, the patch should be red, blue, yellow from the shoulder down.

It's a DZ Flash worn by 16 Close Support Medical Regiment (16 CSMR) the medical support unit in 16 Air Assault Brigade. They wear it because they're part of an airborne formation, I'm not sure that any other units in the RAMC wear such a flash.

So you'll either get a Spooky or a Spectre, they've not decided yet.

Hah, brill mate! Short field capabilities look excellent; can't wait to pop it down in a field, boot some of Messy's Landies out of the back and bugger off. Nice to see your forums back up too mate.

Haven't played RO in some weeks because I can't get specific program settings to work properly and have to alter my video-card settings beforehand to make it look nice, since they're set up to increase ArmA performance most of the time. Fortunately though, this update has added Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering settings to the in-game settings so I don't have to mess about with it any more. Hopefully I can spend a bit more time playing RO again. I recommend anyone who hasn't tried Ostfront, to check out this free trial.

I've noticed that some of the AAD10 have the wrong normal maps applied to their heads. Namely the AA, Assault and AT units. They have camo-painted faces but the normal maps from the balaclava-goggles set on the Urban AAD10 units. Good work though, this mod gets better and better with every release. I particularly enjoy the new ghillie-suited snipers and the fact you've done even more new weapons.

World War 1, World War 2, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Iraq War, Afghanistan, many smaller conflicts and peace-keeping ops. The Aussies get involved in wars as readily as us Brits. They have a skilled military that's just as capable of supporting offensive operations as most in the West.

Agreed, but the bare forearms and lower-legs, feet etc would have to be mapped to the existing face-texture sets to look correctly matched to the hands and head; which we know will be ported directly onto all custom-made units just as the OFP hands and heads were for years. It'd be a lot easier if one could take the arm like they do the hand and not have to unwrap their own arm onto someone else's texture. For the record, I'm not bitching about what we've been given, nor am I ungrateful for it. I just reckon such a model would be beneficial.

A model with short sleeves and shorts, like a RACS soldier or civilian would be helpful too so we have access to the entire mesh mapped to the face/hands texture files, and can create units that can be diverse in appearance.

Should the 'ARMA : O2 TROUBLESHOOTING' and 'ARMA : O2 DOC' subforums be open yet?

The only new tool that was needed to create addons of ArmA quality was Visitor 3 it seems. It's been quite clear for some time that the old tools were capable of creating ArmA addons with the correct knowledge and only a few seem to have grasped the correct procedure properly. Of course, lacking decent reference models have been a bit of a sticking point. Speaking of which Rock, take care using the new Visitor now that it's been released; I hear it can be a bit of a bitch.

This could have gone a whole lot better if BIS didn't publicise a ball-park release date. Surely they could have learned that one from just about every mod and addon maker here. This announcement hasn't shown me anything to get excited over, since it's almost entirely visual, and currently there's not that much that sets it apart from ArmA at decent settings. However, I'm not deterred since there's not really anything concrete in announcement that disappoints me, I've had a lot of fun playing ArmA and I generally accepted its limitations, even if I do get a bit frustrated by some of them. Currently, the information provided on this game leaves me wondering what makes it a sequel to ArmA worthy of ArmA's stature as the sequel to OFP given it's visual and technical advances over it's predecessor. Honestly though, I haven't been shown the anything of the gameplay; refinements to the core engine nor how the player interacts with the game environment this time. This is what will define this game as a sequel to ArmA for me, not what it looks like. As a result, it's unreasonable for me to speculate that BIS haven't made any significant advances over ArmA, simply based on the visual similarities. There are certain features of ArmA 2 that I'll be sorely disappointed about if they're overlooked, but as yet there's nothing to suggest these wont be there.