biggerdave

I always had this funny idea that 3rd world nukes would be built around those monkey with cymbals toys, except half the critical mass in each hand, rather than the cymbals... they'd just send them towards an enemy position and hope they only explode at the right time...

I wasn't really talking about the F-35, I was talking about stuff like EATR (the robot, that eats), the "smart" ammo for XM-25, flying humvees, personal transport torpedoes, "gay bombs" and whatever other madcap stuff the DARPA is trying to build that we don't know about! :butbut:

It's a case of damage control for explosive warheads. Why risk it hitting a school when it can explode at an enemy launch site. Most biological and chemical warheads will usually be neutralized by the fuel explosion. Contrary to popular belief, almost all nuclear devices require advanced trigger mechanisms, and present absolutely no danger unless "the big red button is pressed". The actual amount of fission material in such a device is very small, and usually chemically safe (below critical mass, weapons grade fission materials only danger is their radioactive properties, which only become an issue if ingested). The only real danger is are some chemical warheads. Most people who have the chemical weapons will take sufficient measures (ie, isolated launch zones, special triggering mechanisms for the warhead) to avoid risks in the event of a mislaunch. "Dirty Bombs" would unlikely be used by those with access to anything on the level of a SCUD launcher. But would probably have the largest risk associated with destroying the weapon pre-launch.

Because the west, in general, is now making the same mistakes Germany did during WW2, wasting mind boggling amounts of money on "wonder weapons" (the XM25, along with the replacement for the AAVP7 come to mind, though I'm sure there's others). Thankfully we're not on the same level of conflict (or the same level of crazy) as Herr. H was, but the way things are going these days... you can never be too certain...

All the pine trees should be replaced with Christmas trees :p Good ol' OFP :)

Memory LOD... Like I said, something obvious I've overlooked! :butbut: Many thanks :) You have to bear in mind, a lot of people make simple addons in order to learn how to make more complex addons. If this leads to the situation, like in the OFP days, where every other release is an "M4 pack", then I guess that's the cost of progress. Of course, that said, like you say, there will be people releasing something that's been done a thousand times already because they (usually erroneously) think they can do it better...

Like I said, I have seen work that doesn't have this bug (or at least, doesn't appear to have this bug, I've found a workaround, by creating duplicate weapon classes that don't use the new animations, but it's not really a "fix" per say, and doesn't work with all weapons, for example, the M79), but I haven't been able to work out how they've fixed it, my current belief is that it's some kind of "foule majick". (not to accuse you of being some kind of "darke wizzard", but until you tell me your secrets, I shall assume this is the case!) (though, now that I think about it, "Vilas" does sound like a good name for a wizard) As for shadows and shading for items that aren't there and whatnot! I'm going to agree with you. I realize people can't test everything, but something like this can be spotted on Buldozer, you don't even need to test the addon ingame to see this bug! :butbut: I've never understood about people who get really concerned about the position of the selector switch... most of the times people would see it (ie, actually get a good enough look at the weapon to notice the position of the switch), it'd be in safe anyway... poor trigger discipline otherwise! Supposed to be a military simulator, not a redneck simulator :rolleyes:

The "gimpy arms" bug relating from basing new characters around the old MLODs comes to mind. That said, I've seen soldiers based off these models that don't have this bug, so I'm sure there's an obvious solution I haven't noticed in the year or so I've been trying to fix this... other than this, mainly referencing model.cfg stuff. Missing the first two LODs would be workable for a lot of stuff. But wouldn't work for everything (ie, weapon animations, most of which only exist on the first two LODs). To be honest, I don't need MLODs that much, but I've seen a lot of people requesting stuff (there was a thread I noticed here yesterday requesting things like an SVD with a thermal sight, it definitely wouldn't be first time I've seen stuff like this requested), and I can't help but think, if they had the MLODs, adding these would be child's play. (Of course, if they were released I'd probably find a use for them, no point in putting the cart before the horse though, as they say) (It's actually "D@ve", for some reason, when the forum changed software the "e" changed to this weird L thing, I haven't been bothered to get it fixed yet :butbut: )

On normal difficulty you also get markers on your map showing the estimated positions of known enemies. (where the AI thinks enemies are) I don't think these should be added to harder difficulties, ArmA is a realistic simulation! In real life you don't get little markers telling you where people are, you have rely on your team-mates (sometimes unreliable or indecipherable) reports of where they are. If you want the AI to be more challenging on lower difficulty settings, you can change the skill slider. (you should be able to find this under options > difficulty)

Hotfix 1 has been released, this solves a few issues and adds some stuff overlooked in R3. Filefront: [Download Hotfix 1] Full list of changes: 1. Config files are no longer binarized 2. Class "HSO_AIMS74SPECOPSDPSO" pointed to the wrong model, this has now been fixed. 3. Backpacks on units now start with stuff in them

It's a scheme used by the British army [pic] (it's been used for a long time, you can find pictures of WW2 vehicles painted in the same way). IIRC, the history of Sahrani is that it used to have pretty strong ties to the British Empire, so they probably picked up the pattern sometime along the way. Amazing work as always P-RACS team! Don't let some naysayers tell you otherwise, you guys are a huge inspiration to the whole community! :)

The issue with most of your suggestions as content is that almost all of them would require combined ops. I'm not going to claim to have any idea what the sales figures for ArmA.2 or OA are, or what degree these overlap, but I'd bet my bottom dollar the largest group is going to be combined ops users. This brings about the obvious issue, if the content is commercial, combined ops users have to pay for something they've already brought, cue the accusations of 'milking' customers. If the content is free, combined ops users have paid for something everyone else gets free, making them question why they bother paying for it in the first place. Whichever way, BIS stands to loose money however they release some of this proposed content. Also: Where would they use it? The biggest lake on the "Takistan" island can be swum across in less than 5 minutes! It'd make no sense for them to spend hours moving a boat there! :butbut:

You know full well what I meant to say! :p But, if you insist, here's the version that insults your intelligence: Almost every weapon addon that uses the aimpoint attachment created since the release of the BIS MLODs has used BIS's model of the aimpoint. Happy now? You brought this upon yourself... :rolleyes: Edit: You ninja'd me John! No, I wasn't trying to be smart or anything, I just had a brainfart :(

The number of addons increased. There are addons available right now that would not exist have the mlods not been released. That more than disproves your statement of "The same it would have with or without the MLODs". Everything else in this quote is exaggeration. But It would solve issues people like Icewindo have. As far as I'm aware the only person who's ever made out that MLODs are "fix the community magic" is the strawman you seem to be arguing with. Which does raise the question of why you seem think everyone else thinks the community is somehow broken? I won't deny I would use the MLODs if they were released. But I'm hardly unique in this regard. Almost every addon created since the ArmA.1 MLODs were released has used BIS's AimPoint model. Almost every addon with an aimpoint sight created since the ArmA.1 MLODs were released has used BIS's AimPoint model. Almost every infantry model created since the MLODs were released has been based on BIS's solder MLOD. I can list a few more examples, but I think you get the picture here. You might as well tell the UN that human rights aren't necessary, and the only reason they're arguing for them is because they're humans, and therefore stand to benefit! :p

Two years, ten months (and counting!) is funny definition of "a couple of weeks"... (Flimsy arguments? At least I'm actually making points, rather than saying everyone but me is wrong, demanding "proof" for other people's comments, while providing none for your own and nit-picking irrelevant details. A flawed argument's always better than an insult.)

Anyone found any noticeable bugs or omissions? I noticed a config issue, so I'll release a hotfix later today/tomorrow. (Check the first post for details)

I didn't say it "wasn't" moddable, did I? I said it was "less" moddable (you even quoted that exact word). You seem quite content to tell everyone else they're misinformed about various statistics, corporate structures and financial mumbo-jumbo, yet you seem to be misinformed about something you just read? Were you born such a hypocrite? Or have you just put that much practise into it? You quite clearly stated that the Call of Duty series "aren't moddable", a quick googling leads me to site a few hundred modifications for "Modern Warfare". "People didn't even know about Elite" - Your source on this? I seem to recall there was plenty of advertising for it. (IIRC there was more publicity outside fansites than ArmA, though, I can't find anything to back this up, so I won't say outright that there was)

In what regard am I misinformed here? That OFP:Elite was a raging success and I've been living a lie believing that PC gaming is still alive? That there is a sequel? (If you mean "Dragon Rising", then... maybe see a doctor? That sort of behaviour isn't normal) Or that it had a modding community that is even noticeable compared to OFP's? As far as I'm aware, none of these are the case.

The models in the first link aren't available in MLOD format under licence (making the point of them being a breach of licence kind of moot, unless you're talking about the ArmA.2 EULA in general). The other two links don't appear to contain any content from BIS. A lot of developers (Bethesda and Valve come to mind, though there are many more) allow modders to edit content shipped with the game (and in the case of Bethesda, DLC), and as such enjoy some of the largest and most diverse modding communities. Mods mean people play the game for longer, which in turn means they're more likely to buy future content from the developer. :D Think about it, would ArmA have sold if no one could make AddOns for OFP? Would BIS have even started development of ArmA? Conversely, the less moddable X-Box version of OFP, hasn't seen any sequels (I'm not sure, but some people claim this is the engine ArmA was built on, which would mean it wouldn't be too much work for a conversion to this platform). (I can't say with any certainty that "OFP:Elite" didn't sell as well as the PC version, but I have a feeling this is this case)

I deny everything!

Operation Raptor, a mission for Pedagne Mod features the pack as OPFOR. It's based around R2, but should be fully compatible with this release :) Many Thanks :) I've added the link to the first post.

You already seem to have a good idea of what the history of Lingor is, why not look to that for inspiration? Who did the government support in the cold war? If it was the US, give them FALs or M16s, if it was the USSR, give them AKs.

So, what would make a release of ArmA.2 MLODs under a similar licence sacrilegious, while people using the ArmA.1 MLODs is perfectly fine? :p

Yet, in both of these addons you've copied and pasted things from the ArmA.1 MLODs. Are you actually trying to make a point, Vilas, or are you just advertising your stuff?

I edited the first post with some of the developments in this thread. Also clarified a few things to better match my own opinions, as some people understandably misinterpreted what I said! Was originally going to add a poll, but like Max Power said, there's not really much point. It'd only really just be a form of empty justification.