PuFu

yes that still stands true(based on cost values that define attractiveness if defined in vehicles and cfgammo for weapons that provide the priority in relation to vehicle costs), but as SA said, some of the entries are either very sensitive or hardly at all... edit: and that report is ok and the more the merrier (besides some wrong assumptions on how some things work), but it should be posted on our feedback tracker instead

feedback.rhsmods.org RHS does not modify AI behaviour in any way, and there is no such thing as "tank AI"

you don't need to look for specific scope suffix or prefiox, some of them can be switched from PIP to normal to 3d via RHS menu. There is a hard coded limit to what the PIP system can display in terms of resolution(512x512px) hence the pix-lation issue. Nothing RHScan do about it old model was scraped, the MTLB as a project is not canceled though i'd like to know the same

you mean something like this particular teaser of such a vehicle (petr005 takes all the credit):

might wanna check it with CUP as well http://cup-arma3.org/

let me rephrase : Taviana was never legally ported in A3. Being available for download on SW doesn't make it "official". Afaik, there has been hundreds of DMCAs from the developer on Steam Workshop, and i am sure there will be more.

you also forgot to say that Taviana is not to be ported to ArmA3 in accordance to the developer's demand, so you can't really have a mission on an island that doesn't exist in A3, can you?

a. it wasn’t a smug reply, but rather a standard one. Not really sure why people keep asking the same sort of questions over and over again, and when they get the only answer possible they still consider they are entitled to a yes or no answer. When it comes to hobby modding, the plans are either long term and they encompass anything and everything you might have thought of (in 99% of the cases there wasn’t a thing that was asked of that we haven’t actually considered ourselves one way or the other) or really short term plans, with more clear roadmaps on individual level. b. i personally don’t feel that the faq’s deliberate evasiveness is aggresive in any way...not really sure why is it that made you feel some humor = nonsense c. I’m not expecting anything from you, or anyone else, so i’m not sure why you’d expect anything from me/us to begin with, be it content related or in regards to the answers (or the lack of, depending on case) i/we provide... d. i don’t understand YOUR attitude either. do i/we owe you something? i’ll make a note though, maybe ignoring all the questions would be even better

http://www.rhsmods.org/faq#1

...our model has nothing to do with Tanks DLC....RHS version will be released, as always, when it is one. what @da12thMonkeysaid....i personally wouldn't mind modelling some interiors, as long as i'd have proper references, diagrams etc. but these are hard to come by, the few pictures available area really narrow, unfocused and most of the times not taken inside the same vehicle - variations. Would these be nice to have? sure it does. Does is worth the time to get them in? i still think it doesn't.

nope, not possible

also because this thread has been silent recently as reyhard said, and because i did say that i might copy over some of what happens on out social media, here's some shameless image:

?? what do you mean this a tutorial request thread...

you make em yourself...?! A3 assets are not available, the A2 ones are, afaik there aren't any of this sort available though

it isn't OK. I do not care how big or small a community is, the license is there for everyone. speaking for RHS, you are also allow to use your custom mirror if you want to (respecting the EULA), you are not allowed to re-upload it on Steam Workshop though, in parts or in full. the EULA is clear on this one speaking in general terms, even though there is no EULA or license present for a mod, in accordance with Steam Subscriber Agreement, unless you own the mod, you cannot upload it to Steam. Your own convenience shouldn't trump on someone's else's IP rights! It isn't up to the mod makers to fix the server issues with it not being able to transmit to the client the mods needed. It is up to BI & Steam.

for now that is not possible to achieve mod side... not possible not possible - tanoa is a good example where if you do not buy it, you don't have the files at all.

so, while one of the reasons for this entire process is to: a. keep A3 alive while there is work done on A4 (which might take a while until release) - b. both test out paid mods/dlc (including Steamd distribution method) and support some modding groups while having little to no direct involvement or downside if the said DLC turns out shit and/or makes no sale (well, lose some sales, but since the development was not done in house or paid for, the lost is minimal) c. relieve the remaining team members currently supporting A3 and re-allocate said resources to other projects you want them to develop their own distribution method for these 3rd party, different from Steam, just so everyone has that content distributed to them? they have been distributing stuff that was made by 3rd party for quite some time. But they were buying that content, so that made it their own. My own contract with BI for Apex was completely different than what they are proposing now with the 3rd party DLC (which would be a direct investment 100% supported by myself) with little knowledge if and what the return is gonna be. how would that option work if you don't mind me asking? in pragmatic way not the theory.... i was actually comparing it to A2 DLC system (that wasn't splitting the playerbase either) i actually consider it completely the other way - the feature updates are the main DLC, the content is the cheery on top more theory. how would that work from a practical pov? define MP compatibility...? my point is that deeper changes into the engine are not gonna be possible via 3rd party DLC. because: a. as a company, i would want to keep a certain distance from 3rd party product that i have little to no control over (no internal art direction, no control over copyright and possible IP infringements etc etc etc) b. again, as per this very thread, all marketing and PR will be handled by the 3rd party developer. would you, in their current situation, from a business perspective, when they most likely need all hands on the new deck(s) (when they will most likely keep just a few lads as secondary priority on their daily task list to deal with A3), actually take the risk on distributing such 3rd party DLC alongside your own files? i doubt they will prohibit the 3rd party developer(s) to release it the way you want it, as long is completely separate from the base game. That said, for the Nth time, what would that distribution system used be?

the content in Jets DLC was made by cooperating with BZ0. Emphasis is on "cooperation". The engine changes and improvements to the jets mechanics were made internally. BI either payed directly for the work done and/or had a % of sales that went directly to BZ0, but that matters less. It is the first time this thing was more visible to the average user, but this sort of business model is not new to the game industry in general or BI in particular (a lot of other content for A3 was made by external 3d artists (on individual basis) or external studios - you can check the credits if you want to Jets DLC was part of their internal extended support roadmap for ArmA3. 3rd party DLC isn't, not sure why you compare the 2 I am not pervy to what such a contract will contain, and what these permissions are going to be. I am pretty sure that will NOT force the developers to provide a free version though. i will give you a technical one: it will not be part of the main branch - it will surely be released separately on steam. while i agree that the current DLC model in A3 is better than any DLC system in any other game, and MUCH MUCH better than the lite A2 model, you have to understand that such 3rd party DLC will have no engine improvements (which is the main reason behind the current DLC system for A3). what if i my 3rd part DLC is or includes a terrain? how would i go about that one then? Arma3 is a lot more than its MP part... again, engine changes like the ones available along the A3 life due to DLC improvements are surely not gonna happen. how would you handle it then, considering these 3rd party DLCs (i am pretty sure there will be more than a couple) will be released separately on Steam? Sure, the author is free to create a demo for these, but as soon as these files are not part of the game data files, and are separate, you cannot have the "but content should be available free for everyone, just not usable by everyone..."

but what you fail to understand, is that: 1. since BI isn't developing anything, there is nothing to continue in regards to the DLC policy, because it ISN'T a product made by BI 2. BI will provide a seal of approval (or not) at some point closer to gold, and one will get approved based on a demo, pitch and roadmap provided. they will do some QA and make sure things are up to spec. they'll also figure out the % that are to be split after Steam takes its share. that's it.

no one will be forced to do anything. Consider these community DLCs as a paid Addon what armored sheep said ^^. what would the free version contain? a A2 lite version with shitty textures and low res models? No thank you...

1. why would any of these DLCs have 2 versions? 2. pretty sure there will be no info on these DLCs all the way until they get pass the QA and they are ready to be released...

if you have that circle/disk, you shouldn't place the memory point manually. The simplest thing to do is to copy the entire disc in mem lod and merge all points. That will be dead in the center with 100% accuracy

"currently" is an overstatement. but yes i have these planned (short term i'd say) and have some parts already modeled from the ak74m modernization kit that i have done feel free to contact me if you want to make it a collaboration or alike :)