PuFu

we don't really deal in "mostly accurate". for ACU in RHS, there is not OCP, just OEFP (OEF-CP) Crye developed MultiCam used in Afghanistan. The improved OCP weather uniform (IWHCU OCP) has less and smaller pockets to allow drying faster. That would obviously require a new uniform sculpt, or at the very least some modification to the existing one. https://www.joint-forces.com/features/kit-camo/27127-know-your-multicam-oefp-or-ocp https://ovinnovations.com/pages/scorpionmc EDIT - my bad, in fact it seems we have left in some OCP test camo on @clima_x ACU model, despite the OCP ACU being a bit different cut to the UCP one

no idea. but wouldn't it be easier to just test it out without any other mods but RHS, like we have always suggested when it comes to reporting any issues?

sure, thank you, although we were actually looking for people able and willing to work with us rather than provide content already done

...on our feedback tracker

besides A3 samples, there are also A2 un rappified mlods available, although for what you need, samples would most likely suffice. i wouldn't get my hopes high about getting such vehicle from anyone tbh

It isn't anywhere related to A3 life span, which is not really close to end until BI announces a future title to replace it. It is in regards to the next point below for bullets etc, these are just config values. but things needs to be configured together with all the other systems in place. For vehicles, it's also about how you define individual LODs. some info has long been posted on biki, and these days things are easier post Tank DLC engine update https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Damage_Description if anyone would want to make the changes, even though that means most modern tanks for instance stand little chance about vanilla (future) values, it could be done, but would most likely require a good part of configs to be adjusted / changed. for big mods like CUP, that would be a humongous amount of work, not impossible, but could only be done with access to mlods. so an external dude couldn't just do a config compatibility patch to get it to work. To be honest, most mods out there want to have their stuff compatible with vanilla, not some 3rd party again, for neither A1 or A2 such system was needed, because the base values were accurate enough for the purpose. A3 is different here. You don't need to have CBA dependency to use magwells. RHS works just right, and it doesn't require CBA to run, but it is compatible from the get go with CBA. again, the current big mods for A3 had, from the get go different scopes. and for RHS, we figured out that what we wanted to achieve couldn't be done with some of the systems and values in place along the line, not from the get go. again, JAM was what CBA is these days. with a very important difference - for A3, you need to do some changes to the model as well, not just the configs. hence 7 years after the game release, doing that is simply not viable. as you can see, i am not ignoring. I am simply pointing out that due to both values provided by the base game, and some engine limitations and work arounds required, things are as they are. i am just hoping that a future title will provide, from the get go, accurate real world values that could just be inherited from, and would contain most of the calibers used by various depicted and possible modded weapons.

so do i, even though back in the OFP days i wasn't modding, and mods was something it took me an eternity to download. assumptions. there are actually little to no differences or conflicts between various modding members, under closed doors there is actually quite a lot of collaborations going on. I have known / worked / collaborated etc with most people that released custom stuff for well over a decade. It isn't about who is the bestest, it is about individual scope of mods, and these differ. Would have been better to get such a standardization going for mods say like 7 years ago? sure. it is worth doing now? nope. as i said, there isn't a multiplier (say 1.73 x real values = arma values) that would make things easier. 6 years ago when we figured out we had to create out own bullet values, things were buffed from A to Z. I don't recall if 7.62x51 was in that list or not, or if it was changed along the line, since we have custom values, we aren't affected, or had to adjust. That said, 7.62x39 wasn't even defined before APEX, since no weapon was using that caliber. so there's that you can use this if you wanna test out some things yourself https://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=25287

hello. please send me a DM with more information / a portfolio of sorts containing 3d models you already done so far

The standardization should be something that is provided by the core game. simple as that. for A3, that is not the case, everything single config (including penetration values for armored vehicles, armored plates, structures etc etc) is buffed for reasons unknown. The values available can be however translated and compared to real life values, you will note that all RHA(e) is over the top. There are mods that keep these values and inherit from these, making these compatible to vanilla content, there are mods that are using and translating real life values to game configs (RHS for instance) and as such, these values are not really compatible 1:1 with anything that inherits from base game. Which approach is best? well, inherting from base game would be ideal if these values would be correct, but as it is, none aren't. i can't even figure out if there is some overall multiplier used (it seems there isn't). this paragraph is completely against the last few lines in your posts. no poll out there will change how people mod this game. Not really. Most mods can be split into 2 categories: a. the ones inheriting most of values from base game b. the ones that created their own (more realistic, based on real world data) values. again, if base game would provide most of the values correctly, instead of being buffed and gamified for reasons unknown, this would be a moot point to begin with. All armor plate carriers / helmets etc still use the same NIJ protection ratings, but that is obviously in relation to different type of bullets, so there's that. Some of the stuff cannot be made compatible just via config changes. realism is not universal. but things that are based on phisics (balistics, terminal velocity, RHA levels etc) are. you can maybe spend time and try to do something else then whine, especially since you are well aware from post 1 that nothing will change. not for A3 anyways

there aren't any we provide http://www.rhsmods.org/page/EULA#re-textures

you seem new...and lost...

sorry to have disappointed... :)) i think the free part should be already a given, and that gives a lot of freedom to modmakers, and should provide zero expectation for the users. actually, there are quite a few mods that are independent from other mods, for this very reason - you are not dependent to any 3rd party (RHS doesn't require any other mods to work, including CBA, afaik, so is VTN). usually what happens is that these conflicts are reported (or yelled as - this mod is ducked, fix asap) as bugs, when in practice is a conflict of sorts. are these conflicts ideal? nope, but in the current modding environment i think some are simply unavoidable.

i have seen this sort of statement made in regards to other mods out there as well, including (but not only) RHS, and i honestly feel it's a shame that people think this way, i do hope it is most likely due to ignorance rather than some malice. So i'll explain yes, A3 is one of the few very moddable games out there, but it isn't by any means very user friendly. as a mod maker, you're primary concern is to have your own product work correctly/as intended within its self and its content. Eventually with vanilla, despite all the made up stuff and buffed out values in vanilla as a mod maker, you have zero control over any other mods but your own, and even if you had the time to check some of the most used out there (again, there is no set standard), why would you make some over the top contraption to get that to work with mod X, when mod X could very well change a certain approach in a future update, towards a system of theirs and break it once more for you. It is simply easier to focus on your own mod, and ignore, to a large degree, any others. most mod makers are creating content primarily for their own enjoyment, not someone's else, despite sharing that content publicly. As such, i know of no cases where modmaker_A deliberately makes it so his mod doesn't work with mod Y. If it doesn't, it's just a compatibility issue of sorts, some system/function/script/config overlapping somehow. compatibility issues might come from a number of places, modmaker_A simply doesn't know, or care all that much. see point 2 once again. As i said previously, some of us, especially reyhard, have wasted tons of time trying to bugtrack an issue that was in fact, just like the above, a compatibility issue with some 3rd party, which we had no control over. I know the average Joe wrongly expects that every mod out there to be compatible with the ones he is using, but in the current modding environment, that is simply not feasible, especially when more complicated systems and configs are involved. Yes, RHS is not 100% compatible with all the mods out there. And that is fine, most of us that still actually play ArmA from time to time instead of modding it, don't really use any other mods to begin with. In short, before you(a very generic you, no matter of the quoted user) so easily start trowing blame around, think again. Also, because A3 is indeed so moddable, you could very well take some of your own free time and create a config/script/mod that fixes the compatibility between the very mods you want to use, it's mostly lines of codes anyways....

your geo LOD seems not to be working

As a general rule, if you want to report something not working or some other issues (we recommend that everyone fills a ticket on our feedback tracker instead of writing here btw), always make sure you are testing that only with RHS. Otherwise, you are wasting both your time and ours.