Defunkt

Okay try this; http://ionwerks.net/arma/A3AudioLevel_V3.zip Back to one predefined expression that will match anything that looks like; "(\)a3\sounds(...)", (amplitude) Amplitude may be a db<+/-0> the value of which it will used unaltered, a real number (i.e. 1.5848932) which will be converted to db<+/-0> (i.e. 4) prior to applying any specified DB Change or an arithmetic string (1+0.5848932) which will be evaluated then converted to a db<+/-0> before applying any change. Output is always as a db<+/-0> so you can do a straight conversion to decibels by just specifying a DB Change of 0.

Small update which deals with decimals and arithmetic operators in the source value. Adds a second pre-defined regex which will target any numeric member following a quoted string so; impactGroundSoft[] = {"soundImpactSoft1", [color="#FF0000"]0.2[/color], "soundImpactSoft2", [color="#FF0000"]0.2[/color], "soundImpactSoft3", [color="#FF0000"]0.2[/color], "soundImpactSoft4", [color="#FF0000"]0.1[/color], "soundImpactSoft5", [color="#FF0000"]0.1[/color], "soundImpactSoft6", [color="#FF0000"]0.1[/color], "soundImpactSoft7", [color="#FF0000"]0.1[/color]}; soundImpactWater3[] = {"A3\Sounds_F\weapons\Grenades\handgrenade_drops\handg_drop_water_3", [color="#FF0000"]1.41254[/color], 1, 55}; http://ionwerks.net/arma/A3AudioLevel.zip

Looking (sounding) great. If the tool proves useful it should be possible to add an alternative regex to tweak vehicle sounds in the key[] = {"", amplitude...) form.

Hardly likely when they're just about to release a new DLC.

I made a quick-and-dirty program for you to try as a copy and paste tool. Sorry I don't have time to look into making a Notepad++ plugin. You can add/subtract absolute values or percentages (implemented as a multiplier so with -ve db values subtraction will increase amplitude and addition will decrease it). It will warn you of the number of times it had to cap anything at the specified maximum (i.e. 0db). http://ionwerks.net/arma/A3AudioLevel.zip

Don't know much about sound config but can I suggest you step back a little and describe your need more fully? A quick look at a config dump suggests to me that what you probably want is to be able to identify a class and spit out a new config where the 2nd (amplitude?) member of every sound[] = {...} array within that is modified by some factor (either a constant addition or percentage change)? If so, that doesn't sound like a terribly hard thing to code.

I'd like to see the transition between optic modes animated. Wouldn't require actual animations just a bit of code to briefly track the camera from one memory viewpoint to the next. Lots of good improvements in DrSheep's Action Button Mod would be better implemented by the engine.

Detailed St.Agnes with unfinished island chain (which can be fleshed out over time) is the better option. Smaller (detailed) A-O is often fine as long as you have space/terrain around it to enter/exit from/to. Latest shots look fantastic.

You are exceedingly rude. Far from being constructive 'critique' like yours ("make better models", "your mod is not as good as that other mod") serves no purpose other than to encourage modders to just not bother anymore. Thankfully, based on the way you rack up infractions, I doubt we'll have to read anything you have to say for much longer.

I think to do such a thing in a way that doesn't break immersion they'd need to apply the effect to everything (optic, weapon, hands) and have the transparency diminish at distance so the stock is nearly invisible and the muzzle completely opaque.

I don't want semi-transparent optics thanks.

Just wanted to chime in and say I'm interested in your approach. If the vehicle config stuff is overwhelming just leave it to one side for now, it might mean the vehicle levels are out-of-whack but that wouldn't interfere with evaluation of your concept. If people like where things are heading I expect you'll probably get plenty of offers of help with the donkey-config-work or the writing of a program to re-level whole classes.

Wut??

Audio compression has nothing to do with data compression.

This. Not much point complaining about other mods having inertia if you're not even in the running.

Not as it is at the moment, there's no downside to it, it's just as effective as 'deployment' at limiting sway, it doesn't in any way impede your ability to turn while braced or duck (as it should if you're transferring your weight off the object your braced on) and you can change stance and your aim will be fully 'rested' the instant you pop-up. In short there's absolutely no reason to deploy without a bipod. Fixing these things would make it near as damn the same as deploying which already works, 'feels' authentic and invites you to make a choice between maximizing your use of cover or instead using the environment to steady your aim.

I tend to agree with you. After watching the stream my immediate thought was that, given resting, there was no reason to also allow 'deployment' without a bipod. I'm now thinking deployment (without a bipod) is probably the better implemented mechanic and they could just do away with resting altogether.

Do try and keep up. :D http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?186206-Tu-95MS-%28Remastered%29

Actually, I have one other suggestion related to the choice of faction; do you think you could define the units for each faction in separate pbos (each of which references a core pbo with the base unit definitions)... isc_units_core.pbo isc_units_opfor.pbo isc_units_indfor.pbo ...such that someone who doesn't want the duplication could remove one or other of the factions?

Shaping up quite nicely. My only critique would be around the preponderance of camouflage patterns, I think the units would look a little more authentic with a higher incidence of plain/older-military-surplus fabrics (olive drab, khaki and, of course black) and a few more civilian/casual clothing items mixed in.

With a 2D scope the weapon model isn't visible so there's no need for the PIP surface to be distant. Without getting into which is better the key thing to my mind is that a 3D scope can only be done by RHS (who have the model sources). If AGM or somebody else wants to it should be possible to config 2D PIP scopes onto any RHS weapon as an optional addon which means there will be a way for everybody to enjoy their preferred implementation. This is why I'd be very keen to see RHS work towards 3D versions of all of their battle scopes. Oh, right, thanks.

Can you explain what it is that you're illustrating here? To my eye the most notable issue in the first image is that the bottom half of the optics view appears to be made up of the last row of image data stretched down. Is that a product of the limited texture size or just incidental screen tearing? I do also see that the top half of the view is considerably fuzzier (but I could live with that if BI can't be prevailed upon to increase the maximum texture size). In terms of the scale of the optic with the altered viewpoint, I take it all screens were the taken with the view 'zoomed' in? Looks good. Do you expect to be able to resolve the issue with the view angling when the player leans?

I just took a Hellcat for a spin around Chernarus (RHS+AIA on DEV branch), didn't experience any issues.

How's that gonna work in a 3D implementation? You'd need a PIP surface beyond the weapon that encompassed the player's entire FOV (and which other nearby players/objects would clip through). If you think pixelisation/blur/pip-fps is a problem inside the scope at present imagine how it'll look in that much larger proportion of the view. The only way that will work is if it's done with a 2D implementation (ala AGM) - I think what we have already is superior.

Feels like we've completely worn out all applicable superlatives through over-use in this thread but I'll chuck one out there all the same; beautiful!