ryankaplan

Hello. Thanks for the new patch, the VON seems to be working flawlessly now . However i have a problem with the new flight model. I use the keyboard and mouse, and i noticed it when i realised it was a hell of alot harder in 1.11 to accurately engage singluar targets like tanks with the A10's cannon. It appears to me that in 1.11, the mouse control (Turn left and Turn right) not only banks the plane using the airelons (the flaps on the wings) but also utilises the rudder(the flaps at the back)? While i was able to engage targets accurately out to more than a kilometer in 1.09, i cannot in 1.11 due to erratic mouse movement. I am not a pilot and have no clue how planes handle in real life, but as far as i understand the controls for each should be seperate since they basicly do different jobs. I checked my controls and they were unchanged from 1.09. Anyone who used fixed wing aircraft to strafe tanks and so on will notice the difference immediately, and i would appreciate if more people commented on the subject. To reproduce: -try to fly an a10 and kill some stationary tanks with the cannon in 1.09 from longe ranges (1km ish) -And then try the same in 1.11. -the result should be that it will be alot harder to aim in 1.11.

i'd say the scripting gods Dinger/Spinor/NonWonderDog, but non of them seem to be around much anymore *cries*

to bis: is it possible to get a hotfix for the mp join bug before we get the final patch so we can test it properly please?

Indeed, i find this 'feature' of ai steering their way around mountains which the player can easily climb, to be game braking at times. I made a company sized 'defend the hill' mp mission, with all sorts of fancy scripts and so on, only to find that the the Ai, couldn't climb the 80m hill Namely it was the small hill with a tower on it in North Sahrani, called 'Alcazar' iirc. Put me off mission making big time that one. On an offtopic note (hint hint) the terrain being 'too smooth' is why you can have 200km^2 islands in ArmA. It's a compromise, but the ability to make smaller islands with greater terrain detail would indeed be quite nice.

apparently, this addon comes in mlod form. Could you also release it in binarised version because when i binarise it the models become all screwed, i dont know why. Other than that, great idea and good job

generally, there are two things this means: 1)You have lost connection to the server (internet cut out) 2)The server lost connection with you, most likely because it crashed. If this happens on all a single server you go to, then it's most likely a server problem, while if it happens on other servers, then somehow you are losing connection yourself. Wireless USB sticks are notoriously bad, i had one and kept dropping out if it got too hot, so i got myself a cheap wireless card and all my problems to do with internet dropping out were solved. My guess is, the USB wireless dongle is your problem. Hope it helps.

It's midnight and i decided i would make the effort to write that those partisans look truly fantastic. Also, that last screenshot you posted Topas with the commentry. Don't think i ever looked a ArmA screenshot and felt the tension of a war movie before

I hope the legend who created this hasn't burnt himself out with arma yet. Seeing what you have achieved so far, I had really high hopes for other improvements you could bring to ArmA. Things such as -simple FCSs for all armoured vehicles -simple FCS for Gunship Gunners -Somewhat better simulated Javelin optics etc. I say 'simple', knowing how much importance you put on realism NWD, but even simplified versions which work in MP would add so much to the game. Your work is up there with the King Dinger of COC-Artillerry in my view, and I hope you haven't given up on ArmA just yet.

Yeah, bollocks. We were supposed to wear silver suits while we were driving our hover cars powered by a Nuclear microplant in New New York in Mars by now. Catch my drift? In 20 years? Maybe AI that acts believably human in certain videogames due to millions of lines of code, but not 'human' level ai which can learn from its mistakes/successes. Although, the former would be enough for me anyway.

thank you bis. Bugreport: I downloaded mine from Armaholic so i will need someone to confirm: The First 2 LODs of all stryker models are mainly missing/screwed.

the parallax effect is sure nice, but ,what is the point when you can't see any difference when you're in 'looking down the sights mode' and when you're not looking down the sights you won't see the dot anyhow, as you're head is too far to the right?. It is a nice technology demonstration in my opinion, and that about it, since you would be a silly billy to hold free view button down and look at your weapon to see where its aiming. I hope i make sense, becuase it was kind of hard explaining. Ah, that's ofcourse unless you have track-ir...nm, i take what i said back.

Don't think they'll be delving into any politically sensitive issues like as such, since the high levels of ultra-nationalism in both countries makes it likely that it will upset some people one way or another. On another note, a very nice start with the mod, and am looking forward to you bringing back all the goodies you served up for ofp. Especailly impressive work on the set of G3s.

I know for sure that your Ak pack will be great quality, so I'm not worried about the looks, however, i am worried about the ak74 iron sights. BIS sights for the AK is amazingly nasty (with the pixel wide aiming dot), while the sights on your AKM & AK47s were nice and clear. I hope they will be as such. Anyhow, really lookign forward to the AK pack.

Are we allowed to use this in other mods, and if not, who do I ask for content permission? I need a specific profile name please.

I don't quite understand as there appears to be too much politician style indirect speech going on here, or simply don't wish to understand. Am i no longer allowed to say: -Get mlod stryker, model it into a Stryker Mobile gun system, and release it? -Get the mlod blackhawk and stick and m60mg on it and release it ArmA? -Get the mlod russian sniper and put a shemagh on it and release it for ArmA? -etc? (note: all above mlods weren't released by BIS, but were unbinarised by someone else) I could do with a clear yes or no answer, as if such is the case, then this sort of makes 90% of released addons illegal. @miles' 'survival of the fittest' theory It doesn't make sense to me that BIS would want this. People usually start with crappy retextures and move on to do better things. Look at ofp. People learn with this process. Look at the progress Vilas made with his ww2 addons. They went from average to amazing in a few months. And say i want to create a fleet of m113s or strykers with all the different variants. Why start afresh and waste all those hours when i can add on bits to complement BIS's work? Anyhow, i'm confused.

Firstly thank you for the modification. Now, Having had several sessions with this thing, i was hoping you could edit it slightly so that the launcher is droped several seconds after you fire, rather than immedieatly. The reason for this is that currently when i fire over a ridge, my avatar decides to keep crouched and take his rifle out before he gets down. If there was a few seconds delay, i could fire and immediatly get down, and then the launcher would be droped, and hence preventing my head from dissapearing by return fire.

RockofSL; Basicly all the points you make in your arguments have been counter-answered very successfully by sickboy, and you are repeating yourself in a circle that has already been catered for with long strenaous posts which I don't wish to repeat when you can scroll up. However, there is one thing i fail to understand. How does the dual-pbo system make it use content without permission? If i wished to use your content without permission, it would not make my job of taking your content and calling it mine any less easier or difficult if you have it in a single pbo. It would however make it harder for the people who wish to make a respectful mod like me to implement it in their mod by a truckload. The dual-pbos system we're on about will still be binarised. You will still need to ask permission to use it. If some idiot does not wish to ask permission, well, we can't anything about it, just like the situation is right now. 'The community' is a social construction of ArmA players. 'The community' is not a whole, or one. Just like in any society, there are ones who comply to the rules and there are not and in our case, you can't do much about it other than binarise your creation. We are not asking you to not binarise. I get the impression from you that lately the 'The community' has been thieveing and misbehaving. I don't wish to be put in the same box as the minority who doesn't comply or listen. I don't understand this bit, please clarify.

Trust me. I know Terox and Terox knows me, and believe it or not, using content without permission is out of the question. By 'permission asking issues' we don't mean 'needing to ask permission'. By that, we mean that the work involved in getting permission is reduced on both sides. Why so? Is my time making the modification not as worthy as the mentioned 'jonny's? Should i feel so honoured that he made the addons that i should stop my modding project for 3 weeks when it could be done in 1 day with no loss to either side? (The jonny is an example btw, it hasn't to do with how jonny may feel or react in reality) Yet again, i say using content without permission is out of the question. If i wanted to do that i don't think i'd care much redistrubution problems and would simply edit his pbo to my liking. In any case, In my example, permission was taken as i said "I ask for permission. Jonny says yes". That's infact good news. But other than hex editing which has it's limitations according to a friend of mine, how is it done? I'd appreciate it if you elaborated as it would solve all problems mentioned.

@Armavidz, RockofSL, DM: The topic has almost nothing to do with permission taking. Terox isnt on about using content without permission. Here is the hypothetical problem for a released addon. -I want to add jonny's marines to my modification. -Jonny has released his addon with a single .pbo, which contains both the addon data AND the config. -Being a modification (and not a collection of addons), i want all the addons i put in the mod to suit the mod, otherwise im going to face problems which include but are not limited to: a very cluttered mission editor, guns that sound nothing like eachother, same men carrying 2 configed types of the same AK, etc. -I must ask for permission to use jonni's marines. Jonny is a reasonable and normal guy, and wants his addons used as much as possible as he spent all that time and effort on them. Jonny is prepared to five permission. Now, to achieve what i want to achieve, i have 3 choices: -------------(1) Edit the JonnyMarines.pbo, take the config out, repbo it, shuv it in the mod and make all the config entries in mymod_cfg.pbo. This leads to the distribution of 2 pbos named JonnyMarines.pbo, with different content in them. This is not ideal for obvious reasons -------------(2)Get jonny to send the mlods to us, so i can repath them to MymodJonnyMarines.pbo. This has a very high chance of not happening, as jonny doesn't trust me, and for all he knows i might get his model, add a dot and say i made it all. -------------(3)Get jonny to repath the models to MYmodjonnyMarines.pbo, and then rebinarise them, and then upload them to a private ftp for us. This has a very high chance of not happening, because jonny doesnt know who i am and doesnt care, and doesnt want to waste an hour doing a very boring thing for a mod that may never see the light of day. So, because i have only one choice in how to add jonnys marines to my mod, i create distribution problems, due to 2 jonnymarines.pbo circulating on the internet. However, if the addon was released in the way Mr. Terox suggested, This is what happens. -I ask for permission. Jonny says yes, as he is the same old reasonable man we love to love. We take the JonnyMarines_Model.pbo and delete/dont use the JonnyMarines_cfg.pbo. We create our own Mymod_cfg.pbo, which makes use of the material in JonnyMarines_Model.pbo to my liking without editing any files jonny has created, and without creating another copy of the addon. Jonny hasn't had to waste time on me, or in the unlikely scenario that he did because he is very nice, i did'nt have to waste time on waiting for jonny to send me the repathed mlods. Problem solved, precious time saved. In the later days of ofp, this was almost standard practice. LSR, SJB, HYK, JAM, all used these for a reason. I hope you can see into the matter more clearly now. Sorry about any hurrendous grammer and spelling mistakes.

...i seriously second that notion. Incredibly good shading.

finally, we're cathing up to chrazzey future techonology that we hoped to catch up to in the 1980s :O. Seriously exciting stuff though. Now my line of thought went: --> Researchers need money to work faster --> This gadget will be useful for military applications --> Americans like --> Americans poor money --> Gadget gets worked on at full speed --> hooray!

looks great RH, if they are anything like your RH AK pack, they will become a must have. will be testing them soonish. However, i have one question.. Why did you not copy and paste some of the parts to create some more weapons? Such as m4-m203-aimpoint, and m4-m203-eotech? I would personally especially appreciate a m4-m203-aimpoint, so we can arm groups sides with aimpoints in our mod.

Even if the carriers look a bit iffy, they will still add alot to the game. Alot more possibilities from a mission makers view anyhow. Besides, the model actually looks alright, its just that texturing needs to be updated to Arma's standards imho. Keep it up gnat.

indeed, i would love to see a more extensive AK74 pack, and AKS74-u pack. Please but please though, don't let the ironsights in the ak74 be like the BIS version, where the aiming dot is 1 pixel thick on my screen. Your AKM ironsights were quite nice compared to BIS

what the fuck is all this shit about being sniped by aks from 300 meters thorugh bushes bollocks. it doesnt bloody happen in arma, it hasnt happened once to me and i play big multiplayer sessions every damned week with a mod which increases ai accuracy and detection ability and firing range. I have quite frequently come face to face with ai in bushes and forests, where i could bayonet them if i had one. I can snipe with an m16 from 500meters without a scope thanks to bis zoom, so why shouldnt ai be able to? even then, they are not that good. People speak shite just because they didnt see the person who shot them and get pissed off. provide some evidence people, provide it with fraps and dont chat shit. phew...