ballistic09

I can categorically recommend that you not use that. IIRC from the last time somebody posted about problems with RHS ammo while using that mod, the author seems to have some kind of fundamental misunderstanding of how Arma calculates armor penetration and uses config values for caliber that are way too high. Ammo from that mod typically penetrates about 2-4x as much as it should and results in situations like having certain types of 5.56 being able to shoot through heavily armored IFV's that can normally withstand 30mm AP rounds, and some of the .50 cal rounds can even shoot completely through both sides of a T-90... Using that mod will seriously compromise the balance/realism of your game.

You can use them together, but it's generally not recommended. In the old days, RHS was incompatible due to a script that spawned a submunition penetrator whenever a HEAT round would hit a vehicle, which only ran on RHS vehicles. This was fixed when Bohemia made changes to the way eventhandlers worked that allowed the script to run on all vehicles, and then eventually phased out entirely when Bohemia added a similar submunition penetrator system to the base game with the Tanks DLC update. The issue nowadays is that the hit values of RHS anti-tank ammo are generally lower and therefore insufficient against vehicles with extremely large health pools (like vanilla tanks and modded ones that are configured with similarly high health/armor values), coupled with many mods simply reusing vanilla ammo which has grossly overestimated armor penetration capabilities that defeat present day armor without difficulty... This leads to RHS tanks getting absolutely curbstomped by most mods, while also requiring that you fire 1 to 2 more shots than you would expect to kill a non-RHS tank. Aside from main battle tanks, RHS should work more or less fine in conjunction with everything else though. Just keep in mind that if you have any heavy armor in the mission, the RHS stuff is going to struggle mightily to deal with it.

Well, considering that the formula for bullet penetration in Arma is publicly available, lets check: Armor penetration in mm = (projectile speed / 1000)x(caliber)x(bulletPenetrability of the target BISURF) So, if the caliber parameter for B_762x51_Ball is 1.6, the initSpeed parameter for the Mk14 mag is 850 m/s, and the penetrability of the armor BISURF is 15, that means the penetration of vanilla 7.62x51 ball through armor grade steel is: (850/1000)x(1.6)x(15) = 20.4 mm. For reference, that means Arma's 7.62x51 ball round penetrates about 2-4 mm more than M993, the US' current best 7.62x51 AP round... If the GM devs were talking about something in that ammo being massively nerfed, it certainly wasn't the penetration value... They were more than likely referring to the "hit" (damage) value of the ammo. This is probably a good time to point out that when it comes to Arma's damage model, there are 2 separate factors at play: penetration and damage. Arma actually has a pretty robust armor penetration system that operates similarly to Warthunder's. In order for a round to deal maximum damage to a vehicle, it has to penetrate the physical armor defined in a vehicle model's fire geometry, and hit a damageable component with a corresponding hitpoints class in its config. Once a round penetrates a vehicle's armor and hits something inside, the game calculates an amount of damage to deal to the vehicle's health value based on the hit value and speed of the ammo that hit it, as well as some parameters from the hitpoint class of the component that was hit. Penetration is easy to quantify (see formula above) and you can plug in real world values which will work in game as they should in real life. Damage is not easily quantifiable, and values are generally chosen based on how modders would expect something to perform. What's problematic about this is that the penetration values of all vanilla ammo types are extremely overpowered. They're either based on current state-of-the-art AP ammo, or estimates/guesses of what it would be by 2035. This means that the default ammo is strong enough that it can do things like have 5.56 & 7.62 that can shoot through a BTR, or 125 mm sabot rounds that can penetrate any part of the Abrams frontal armor. This is a rather huge issue because most mods simply reuse the default ammo... To counteract this, modders are left with two options: Ignore armor penetration entirely and give vehicles enough health that they can tank enough penetrating hits so that it "feels right," or just ignore the vanilla content and define their own ammo with correct values. RHS did the latter option, and unfortunately, as long as other mods are using any of the default ammo, it means they will never be "compatible" with each other... Vanilla will simply always overpower anything using real world armor thicknesses and penetration values. On the other side, RHS is guilty of using hit (damage) values for anti-tank ammunition that are well below that of vanilla values. RHS anti-tank ammo deals about 2/3 the damage of vanilla, making vehicle combat against stuff balanced for vanilla armor even more difficult. This was done to get around an engine bug where ammo that didn't penetrate armor but had a high enough hit value would cause damage to "bleed" through the vehicles armor, damaging hitpoints that weren't actually hit. This is no longer the case for vehicles that have been updated to the Tanks DLC armor standard, so this may possibly be remedied in the future. Vanilla ammo will still wreck RHS vehicles, but you would at least stand a fighting chance to destroy enemy armor before it kills you.

Chairborne is a CUP dev, not RHS. We also don't prohibit users from reskinning the CH-53 (or the UH-1Y for that matter), and I don't think CUP does either... Are you sure that Pave Low was just a reskin?

Hmm... Interesting. I'm not having that problem at all. Make sure that you switch weapons to have the main cannon selected as your current primary weapon. The action menu wont display the rounds if you have the coaxial PKT as your current primary weapon. This is normal. Just press the reload key (R) and it will trigger the autoloading mechanism.

Yes. The autoloader in the T-72B actually operates in semi-autoload mode only, meaning that it waits for gunner input before it loads the next round. This is important because, as in real life, once you load a round into the gun, it cannot be unloaded. This way it gives the gunner the opportunity to select the next round before it goes into the chamber, thereby potentially saving a round that would otherwise have to be expended if the gunner had to switch ammo types in order to engage a different type of target. In order to load the first round in game, select the round you want to load with the scroll wheel action menu, and then press whatever keybinding you have reload set to (probably R) to trigger the autoloader. For all subsequent rounds, you'll still have to press the reload key each time you fire and want to load the next round. Once you run out of a type of round, you'll have to use the scroll wheel to select the next type of round you want again, and hit the reload key, just as with the loading the initial round. Hope that helps!

Currently the plow, along with the route marking dispensers, are non-functional and cosmetic only. Hopefully in the future they can be made working, but for now you can only raise and lower the mine plow as the driver and fold/unfold the route marker dispensers as the vehicle commander. Additionally, each side of the mine plow has a scroll menu action that allows you to fold the outermost part of the plow if you are outside of the Stryker, close enough to the side of the plow, and are looking at the part that folds.

It's not really an issue of compatibility, but more an issue of balance. This is somewhat of a complex topic because it's really two separate balancing issues that are compounding each other. In order to understand what's going on, you have to realize that there are basically two separate components to how Arma 3 handles vehicle damage: the armor system and the damage system. The armor system is how we define the thickness of the armor and is quantifiable, meaning we can directly translate real world data into the in-game representation. The damage system is how damage is applied once a round penetrates the armor, and is something that is not easily quantifiable. Balancing a vehicle within the damage system is something that is left up to the discretion of the author, where they essentially have to choose values based only on what "feels right." The first issue is how Arma 3's stock content performs within the game's armor system. Arma 3 is set in the future, and while a lot of the content might be real and from the present day, the data behind the scenes that drives it is not. Vehicle armor and ammo penetration values have been significantly beefed up for the future setting. This means that anything using realistic values will struggle heavily to penetrate the armor of enemy tanks, and likewise, anything using vanilla ammo will slice through realistic armor like a hot knife through butter. This is something that can't really be fixed. The second issue is a slight difference in the balance of health and damage values in the damage system. In order to get around a bug that causes damage to "leak" through armor, the hit (damage) value of RHS ammo was set generally lower than vanilla. Evidently if the hit value of ammo is too high, there is an area damage effect that is applied by the game engine which can damage components near the impact zone, completely negating armor. As a result of having lower ammo hit values, the hitpoint/health values of RHS armored vehicles are adjusted lower as well. This means that RHS ammo deals less damage to vanilla vehicles, while vanilla ammo is totally overpowered against RHS vehicles. It could be partially balanced by ignoring the damage leak bug and upping the hit and hitpoint values to be closer to vanilla values, but ultimately it's really not worth it considering it would only be a partial fix that would introduce a new bug, just so players could have anachronistic battles against future tanks...

There was never a MON-50 in AFRF. I'm guessing you're probably thinking of the MRUD in SAF.

I hate to disappoint you guys too much, but the current ACU OCP texture on the Dev branch is there as kind of a placeholder/test and will likely be removed/hidden before any actual main branch release, at the model author's request. The current ACU model is the old style uniform cut that isn't actually available in OCP in the real world, and is quite visually different from the Army's current OCP uniform. It'll make a return if/when the correct uniform model gets made. The UCP, UCP-D, and OEF-CP patterns are here to stay, however. 😉

Sounds are still WIP afaik. That said...

The BDU uniform.

Incorrect.

It is.

In order for animationList[] to work, the vehicle has to run "bis_fnc_initVehicle" in its init EventHandler. If it's not working, there's a good chance the script isn't being called for that vehicle. Try adding this to the vehicle classes that aren't working: