Defunkt

Possibly a long-shot and I have no idea if Reyhard intends to keep pursuing the PiP scope development (I certainly hope he or somebody else will) but I thought I'd spend 5 minutes posting a new feedback request suggesting BIS implements two PiP quality levels. Then we might be able to use Ultra quality on a PiP scope while having a less demanding quality setting (or None) in place for vehicle mirrors etc. Anyone who's as mad keen on the 3D PiP scopes as I am might like to vote it up; http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=24016

Odd. I've long forgotten what the defaults are but always assumed people used a similar setup to me, right-click to sight, right-hold to zoom (Temporary Zoom, equivalent to NumPad+), so it's click, then click and hold to get a sighted zoomed-in view.

Could be either, or something else entirely but it's for the individual modders, within the framework allowed by the IP stakeholders, to decide that. The success or failure of their endeavors will hinge on the reputation they build for making and then supporting quality content and the arbiters of that will be gamers by virtue of what they do or don't choose to purchase. What gamers don't have (or shouldn't have) is any right to pre-determine what is a legitimate avenue for monetizing a modder's own work. The most vacuous and juvenile objections I've seen in this whole debate are the; 'if you want to make money from producing game content then you should get a job at a studio'.

3CB Weapons won't load without ASDG_JM, no surprise there, it's detailed as a requirement in the OP, but according to the ASDG thread the separate muzzles addon is deprecated and included in JointRails since 0.13.

Great job 3CB and thanks especially to the contributors, it's great to see a package like this made possible by combining the efforts of many individuals. Looking forward to seeing the whole faction develop.

If you *design* an aftermarket part (i.e. a digital IP) but Chevrolet take care of manufacturing (not directly applicable in this case), sales & associated administrative overhead, publicity and distribution through their dealerships then yes, I think you could certainly anticipate them taking a 75% or greater cut. Not that I'm defending Steam, given there's no manufacturing component I think 75% is a bit obscene, but your analogy is flawed.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think objects should mean that you could have a 'noisier' mid-detail texture (because it doesn't display on objects) which goes a long way toward adding visual interest and authenticity to the terrain. If mid-detail is too muted/subtle you get that nude, OFP-look.

The world turns, games become more complex, mods become more time-consuming to develop and the contribution of user-made content becomes better recognised. If there's no effective way of stopping server operators monetizing that content we should at least ensure the original authors can also. Now we might hope that a project like Nova Zona will return to the game;

Awesome, was really hoping your follow-up to the F-16 was going to be an Eagle. Another instant classic for sure.

I'm blown away by the amount you chaps are able to add at such a consistently high quality. Your production cycle appears extremely effective.

Uh, how exactly?

Isn't that likely caused by the crew LOD having other mirrors/viewports that have to be rendered on top of the scope view? It didn't happen for me as a Slammer commander for instance. If so, that will surely be the case with any type of PiP scope (so more of a to-PiP-at-all question rather than the 2D-PiP vs 3D-PiP choice). Personally I don't think that's an insurmountable issue, Reyhard said he was considering trialing disabling the PiP when not actually sighting through the optic which (if say it were applied when in a vehicle) would at least mean the framerate wasn't compromised when using ironsights. Hell, I love what he's done enough, I'd be perfectly happy only having ironsights/over-the-scope available in FFV. Obviously it's up to you guys to decide what's worth pursuing here, I'm just expressing my love for what has always been a bit of an ArmA Holy Grail (RO/Insurgency style optics).

Yep, understand what it is, the key thing I think is that only RHS can make the 3D-PiP implementation (because they have the model sources), the 2D-PiP option can be done by any modder for any (already binarized) optic. For this reason I'm keen to see RHS continue with the 3D version so all preferences can be accommodated one way or the other (assuming RHS don't do both). Obviously I haven't had the opportunity to try the AGM one but I'm pretty sure I will much prefer Reyhard's, it's already pretty damned brilliant. We might even see a combo with both versions as separate optics modes.

It's a 2D scope (as is the AGM example) and IMHO inferior to the 3D implementation already in RHS. The good news is that it can almost certainly be created post-release for any weapon in the game and I'm sure somebody will do so for the RHS weapons at some point (if RHS don't).

Thanks RHS. Just something to be aware of if, like me, you have both AFRF and USAF in the same @RHS mod folder. The updaters will delete all bisigns and then only retrieve those for the faction that's being updated that time (so you need to backup and restore bisigns for the other faction).

I'm all for it but I really hope; - BIS provides the same protection and opportunity for people who script, config and make missions as they do for those who model and skin. - BIS provide mechanisms for delivering LITE versions of content mods so creators can opt to maximize their reach (and revenue) and don't have to split the playerbase. There should be scripting commands available to mission makers that allow them to know if the player is paid or unpaid and suitably limit the unpaid experience (i.e. can't pilot chopper etc.). - BIS uses this extra revenue stream to improve the engine and content creation tools.

Colour me interested. I'm sure you could create the same thing in ArmA but getting a critical mass of ArmA players to agree on a mission and mod selection to facilitate public drop-in gameplay would be nigh on impossible. And then there's ArmA's MP performance issues. I've never been a fan of the visuals in previous iterations of the Unreal Engine but if there were any doubt about UE4's ability to render large naturalistic terrains the following video should say otherwise;

Can you provide any information on the process you used to create a shadow map from the wrp? I'm wondering if it would be possible to use this to generate a terrain normal map.

I like the sound of the plan, best of both AGM and CSE plus all of ACE's experience, and modular. As the roadmap doesn't presently outline plans for new contemporary units, vehicles & weapons as was a large part of ACE2, can you make any comment on your plans vis-a-vis supporting RHS:Escalation's content?

Are you running without mods (and on which branch)? Maybe you could post some steps to reproduce this in the editor? Nothing like what you describe happens for me.

Others seem to have no problem playing with it. The following video (made when the sway was much higher than it is now) shows clearly that the system is very manageable and imitates reality very well;

Have long thought a well implemented 'SWAT 4' mod based on this game could be a huge winner. Good luck!

I think you should reconsider here (perhaps in the future). I appreciate it's a lot of extra work (but hopefully not as much as it might have been now) but if the goal is to get a new baseline either implemented by BIS or accepted by other modders then the best possible chance of achieving that is to share a new set of levels for the whole default soundscape. Then people, yourself included, can start their replacements and additions over top without having to first worry about which other sounds have or haven't been re-leveled. I'd suggest you should really be considering two mods here; A mod re-leveling the whole A3 soundscape (with no new sounds), you might call this something like 'RealSound'. Your own 'MegaSound' mod being your specific enhancements to run on top of (and require) the above. I understand the temptation to only focus on delivering your own vision but I think the above would have the most profound effect on sound modding for the whole community. If you can't motivate sweeping change (which doesn't require users to make a choice between the volume/range they like and the sounds they like) then I just can't see this making much of an impression on really important mods like RHS (which I personally never play without).

Ugh. One more refinement; http://ionwerks.net/arma/A3AudioLevel_V4.zip Percentage changes are now applied to the 0.00-1.00+ linear 'volume'. Thus +% always increases amplitude and -% always decreases it. Regular addition/subtraction is still specified/applied in db's (and the result is still always written as db<+/-0>). There's now also a field for a minimum value (essentially used as a substitute for db-Infinity). EDIT: Here's a dump of the whole A3 config tree as at today's dev update; http://ionwerks.net/arma/A3AIOCfg_1.43.129865.zip