Defunkt

Not entirely unexpected. The global colour correction and also the new noise will influence the detail textures (which are blended over top) but it shouldn't be by much. In fact I did try making these changes gradual over the detail blend distance but it appeared to have so little effect (and/or I wasn't sure it was 'better') that it didn't seem worth the extra instructions. If you find the difference large or unsightly I'd be interested in looking at a couple of comparison shots.

Honestly as a representation of the real world I prefer the first pic but it is interesting that, light/ineffective as it is, the vanilla one is more defined. Probably the difference is that the vanilla texture is 2048 square and I've only been using 1024 - I think perhaps because I found it near impossible to find a good selection of repeating textures at that size. Since then though I've moved toward procedural noise which means that a nice improvement to resolution may well be possible. I'll have a fiddle.

I'm currently not maintaining the dev version of the shader described in this post.

Only Altis & Stratis as yet. Malden also has a treatment but it's pretty easy to miss (wasn't a lot of scope for changes of this nature).

Hey all, thanks for the positive comments, gives me warm fuzzies to think that others enjoy the change also. Jeza it hadn't even occurred to me to look at it from that far (my PC would probably explode), looks great. Would be interested to know what CC B/C/S you use. Yes it is client-side only and comes with signatures and a key.

Hi Neo. Much like with NoBlur back during the alpha the contained dta\bin.pbo supercedes the default shader cache when the mod is loaded.

http://ionwerks.net/arma/arma3-encore-allinoneconfigs.7z Vanilla Only: arma3-1.84.144923.aio.cpp w. CUP Terrains: arma3-1.84.144923_cup-1.4.2.aio.cpp w. RHS Escalation: arma3-1.84.144923_rhs-0.4.8.aio.cpp w. CUP-T & RHS-E: arma3-1.84.144923_cup-1.4.2_rhs-0.4.8.aio.cpp

I generated some all-in-one dumps of the config tree for the new Eden update. NeoArmageddon, who provided a workaround for a recent breakage in the script to generate these via his MapBuilder FileIO extension (Thanks!), suggested I should post them up; http://ionwerks.net/arma/arma3-eden-allinoneconfigs.7z There are four dumps; Vanilla Only: arma3-156.134627.aio.cpp w. CUP Terrains: arma3-156.134627_cup-1.0.1.aio.cpp w. RHS Escalation: arma3-156.134627_rhs-0.4.0.1.aio.cpp w. CUP & RHS: arma3-156.134627_cup-1.0.1_rhs-0.4.0.1.aio.cpp

Already a thing if you're inclined to check it out; https://dev.arma3.com/ports The same page also addresses your query regarding a console port ("Arma 3 will remain a PC-exclusive").

This is an idea I've also dropped a few times in various mod threads. A very simple viewpilot model, little more than a black box with openings for the periscopes is a very realistic proposition labour-wise (and is likely highly re-usable on existing vehicles and mods). Obviously inferior in terms of immersion but a huge leap forward in terms of situational awareness and being engaged in the action. The 2D cut-out is just so tiresome for long periods.

Hey, just want to say, because I don't know how practicable it will be to try and protect use of your config work, that your perseverance in righting problems thrown up by the 'Visual Upgrade' has not gone unnoticed. However and wherever it's used, some of us at least will know we owe you a huge debt,

I think this is definitely the right way to go, even apart from inter-operation between vanilla and a variety of mods (which requires observation of the same standard), it's the way it is for a reason (limited speeds and world size).

Don't think it was your question, much more likely your assertion that RHS is broken.

Feel a little like I'm missing this party (still waiting on my PC to arrive after a move abroad). I can well imagine obsessing over every little detail of some small town, village, outpost. Get enough obsessive people and you'll likely end up with a pretty damned fine map. Have you thought about how contributors might be able to submit parts of the surface mask for their own little bits? Don't know a lot about terrain building but there's like a palette of surfaces denoted by different pure/primary colours isn't there? Might you define a basic palette so people can incorporate alternatives to basic mid-dry light "shrubbery" where it suits their composition to do so (perhaps via a masked PNG)? Speaking of being obsessive, I'm sure however you eliminate the overlapping areas will work out fine. There's more than enough huge terrain for anyone's taste.

Yep, pretty sure the config tree only supports one global array for all maps so any mod that revises this overwrites that setting for any previously loaded mod. Think it should be CUP's preserve to do so given the breadth and extent of its terrain support and all other terrains should reference these surfaces (or enable its own dust-effects array in an optional pbo).

Can't wait to try these when my PC finally arrives at my new home, they look great. I guess one could achieve something like the best of both worlds by detailing airfields at suitable locations and then choosing a central location and building out in high-detail from there. The center could then host infantry and eventually land-vehicle sized missions while providing air units a realistic area of operation in support of those actions.

Been too busy to check out the latest update but just wanted to chime in with my appreciation of your commitment and talent. It must be pretty fun getting to create and collaborate with so many talented peers!

Terrible news. Loved Bushlurker's terrains and appreciated his willingness to mentor others.

Certainly I am an eager fan but i'd much rather people just wait patiently for a release (the only thing worse than reading requests for updates is reading replies to requests for updates which simply compound the problem). Something I'd love to see (don't *think* this qualifies as a request, not of RHS as least) is for Delta Hawk to find the time/interest/enthusiasm (or someone he trusts sufficiently) to bring his US Military mod under the auspices of RHS (as teams were invited to do by Soul Assassin a few pages back). I suspect the clamor for RHS to do an M16A2 is largely based around equipping these units. RHS:US90.

Believe they were simply responding in kind; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz#/media/File:Liverpool_Blitz_D_5984.jpg Germany should have surrendered.

This would, obviously, be awesome but I hope that in terms of evaluating suitably you'll consider not only authenticity and visuals but give equal import to the other things that makes RHS so good. Thinking specifically of optimization, absence of dependencies, working as much as possible with the native engine and minimal/light-weight/unobtrusive scripting.

Pathfinding and CQB decision-making for AI, particularly around buildings/building positions. This would include monitoring units that are not acting on their move orders (i.e. are presumably 'stuck') and either de-spawning these or, if unlikely to be observed, teleporting them to somewhere more suitable.

Thank heavens! While I appreciate that most people like the Visual Upgrade and it's certainly an improvement on the old vanilla IQ for the majority who don't tinker I was much happier with Real Light on top of the old lighting. In fact the change has rather killed off my desire to play Arma - really hope you can re-kindle my interest Solano,

Thanks once again RHS, really appreciate and admire your dedication.

I have to wonder if people have really thought their complaints about AI through. What other open-world game with entirely autonomous AI is Arma being compared to here? It's to Bohemia's credit that they're clearly good enough to make shallow thinkers find fault with any deviation from an actual human however slight. For my money they're a pretty amazing (and genuinely challenging) accomplishment.