mondkalb

Thanks everyone! @Dedmen's picture is impressively accurate! @nettrucker Indeed, OFP's CWC was a major influence, so it was pretty special for us to be able to do our own entry in that era and setting. There are a few nods to the original CWC missions in our Campaign. One very obvious you'll see right away in the first mission. 🙂

Citation needed. Our VA sheet has eight listed and paid voice actors. Granted, two of those are GalComT and me. Edit: Before everyone gets their panic modes activated about this. I've spent two years in theatre before moving to Prague, so this matter is not fully amateur-work, either. 😉

Heya 1. We're looking forward to providing all the modding resources needed, including sample addons and configs as well as all the texture masks and templates needed. 2. Custom missions, of course! Also custom terrains. For that we provide stand-in objects to allow packing of your custom terrain that makes use of GM assets. (Similar to how the APEX assets were handled at release). No plans to have them integrated into other DLCs. No new UI, Huds or any locking. Full regular Arma 3 experience as you know it. 3. Object shadows? Not sure what you mean exactly with that. The satmap is 100% synthetic and no shadows have been baked in. Perhaps you mean the footprints of buildings. They are of course correctly transferred onto the satmap. AO maps, of course.

Bohemia has been very strict with us on that regard. One of the reasons the DLC invitation by BI was so attractive to us is actually very closely related to this topic: We now have BI's backing and legal department's power taking on the fight against content piracy. Our previous projects in Arma 2 already had been regularly targeted by asset rippers and content thieves (Inb4 "But you released it for free, that means I can do with it what I want!" 🤦‍♂️). For a while GalComT had to regularly take down/DMCA illegal ports of his trucks and offroads from the Spintyres workshop on Steam. Now when it would happen with GM (including other assets, not just models), we have much more clout and a better stand to pursue offenders through regular means, since now there's a very good case to be made for monetary damages and compensation. It's easy to forget the annoying sides that addon makers have to deal with. The Creator DLC initiative resolved one of those headaches for us completely. 🙂

The buildings are fully enterable but without furniture. This is due to concern for performance within settlements and to not lock mission designers in. However, we do have a fairly neat selection of furniture included should you want to design a neat base, hideout or target objective.

Heya, yes we would like to expand GM of course. In our minds we're far from done. However any updates have to be negotiated with Bohemia Interactive, as they'll have to clear any update/patch through their QA. The setting for GM is generally 1980s, while the campaign and terrain are set specifically in summer 1983. At that point the vast majority of MBT available and waiting on each side of the wall were Leo 1 and T-55. This means of course that the next logical step for new MBTs within GM are indeed Leo 2 and T-72. 🙂

@fingolfin We will provide a high-resolution render of the 2D map soon. @DetCord The SPAAG vehicles serve as perfect mission objectives of course. We'd very much like to include helicopters into future updates. The exact form, content and release date of these updates is however currently unclear. Any future update to the DLC will need to be propery QA'd by Bohemia as well, so other scheduling concerns need to be considered. I can tell you however already that CH-53G and Bo-105 aircraft already exist to a very advanced state. At one point we simply needed to make a cut to get GM out at some point.

@Wiki The coop missions are not integrated into any campaign or overarching story besides the thematic setting. They are separate single coop scenarios. @maxl30 1. The assets are all new models we have created, so no recycling of Arma 2 Vehicles. :) 2. For now we want to further expand on the current factions. 3. Part of our plans to expand.

@alexmarine Ultimately the loadout of default Motschützen was a design decision. Indeed the KM-72 is available as well so should you want to create different loadouts, Arma 3 makes doing that super easy. RPK (7.62mm) exists with 75rnd drum magazine, and RPK-74 exists with 45rnd magazine. The respective 30rnd magazines fit of course as well. @the_one_and_only_Venator We're balanced around Vanilla Arma 3 in functionality. The artwork I would say is ahead compared to Arma 3 content. Please do note that there are almost 6 years between GM and the original release, and we didn't want to go for Arma 3's art style when we could instead provide a full conversion for Arma 3 with our own style and requirements.

Yep, don't worry about us. We're actively working on this. But we also keep rather low profile for now to not make the wait too hard by dangling all the new bits we made in front of everyone. Also:

Definitely some big achievement to pick up and learn how to model weapons and characters, as well as importing them and rounding them off into a pack. I'm sure this first release will be the fuel to keep you going, and I am very curious to see how your work will change and expand over the years to come!

Check here for Leopard 1 Series and other cold war era German Army assets.

I'm also late to the party. Its just video that shows text, am I missing something there? I am especially curious about the TPZ Fuchs mentioned in the video, since we just finished our take on that vehicle. :)

The further my current A3 content project progresses towards the finish line, the more I start into looking how to license my content upon release. However, something keeps my will to publicly release at an all time low for quite some time: Being exploited by monetized gaming communities. I am not talking about the communities that rely on donations on merit, but those that actively sell ingame items, rights, privileges and general advantages for real money. I absolutely do not wish to enable this behaviour at all, and I fear that my upcoming content (Several tens of European themed structures as well as a terrain) will only enable these types of communities further. Luckily BI has regulated these communities somewhat by introducing the Approved Server Monetizers for both Arma 3 and DayZ. At first this made me think that BI has this issue of mine firmly covered and got my back on this: I can simply release my content with the extra bit of info stating that it is not to be used on monetized servers at all and I will not need to worry any further about having my work exploited for money. But then I looked into that list of approved Arma 3 servers and I wondered: Is this list of Approved Server Monetizers an effective measure? Because found it to not give me a lot of trust into the BI monetized server system. For starters, when was a listed community first approved for monetization? And when was it last checked if it still complies with the rules? This info is not present in that list. Why is this worrying me? I see here the opportunity for a group to just apply for monetization with a clean server modpack, and once granted approval by BI and added to this list, dig out the illegitimate content (Willfully or by accidental ignorance). I understand that these communities push out updates regularly, so it will be extremely labour intensive to keep track of all their changes effectively. Especially as each change would need to be checked in depth if it actually does not contain items that would lead to removal as approved monetizers. I have real doubts these checkups are being done reliably. Simply from an economical standpoint I do not believe BI has dedicated a full time person purely on this investigative policing duty. And It will almost certainly be a full time position, especially since this task would need a senior technical developer familiar with the intricate process and all aspects of content creation and scripting, who is also up to date within the community to know who made what in order to be able to spot stolen content. Ok, so assuming BI is not doing these detailed checks for whatever reason: What if I want to do these checks myself? Or what if I simply don't trust BI or that particular magical allrounder person to do these checks correctly 100% of the time. Mistakes happen, so it's always good to have the larger crowd dig at it to find things that were overlooked. After all, early access was all about that. But again, the list of Approved Server Monetizers falls short of being any use. There is no list of initially approved content files used by a server or what content each community or their specific servers are currently using right now. Is BI relying here solely on the good will of the server owners to orderly report their modpacks? Do they count on the players of these communities to call out possible violations from within? If so, then this is a very bad solution. Why would anyone in these communities become a "snitch"? Most of the time the players have no idea about the origins and legitimacy of the content. All they want is just to play a game. I don't blame them for wanting that. So assuming BI does not track these content changes accurately and reliably in the first place, and it is safe to assume self policing from within monetized groups does not happen, I am left with one last option: To go to each of the 100+ approved community websites, go through the various approval programs and stages (some with admission fee) in order to gain access to their addon file repositories so that I may see if they use any content which I do not allow to be monetized. Then having to unpack the files and check if they repacked stolen content. (So I can start the ever-annoying battle of getting them to actually comply with removing my content from their servers, which in itself is another big issue.) All in all, the current way things are done by BI with the Monetized Servers cannot be how they seriously intend the monetization programme to work. Especially since it is the duty of the content creator to enforce their own IP rights within Arma 3 (Although the creators themselves directly cannot make money off assets in A3, which only adds insult to injury). So please at least enable us to do this policing ourselves in a realistic and efficient way. The current list provided is just a gimmick, as it does not enable anyone besides those in each individual community and (presumably) BI to see if they are actually complying with the rules of using only content licensed for monetization. I'm asking that BI provides an accessible way for any content creator to independently verify that these groups do not use specific creator's content. Right now the "Approved Server Monetizers"-System is a black box that requires us to blindly place trust in BI and assume that they are handing things thoroughly. Simply by going through the process (see above) of what it would take to see if a single server complies with the monetization rules I believe any trust into the "Approved Server Monetizers" list is not justified! A sharper tongue might claim this list to be merely security theatre. So, how can you build this trust? - Tell us more info about the monetized servers - Tell us when they started monetization - Tell us when you last checked they weren't in violation - Tell us their complete list of used addons that you last verified so we can at least see if our stuff is in there that you may have overlooked. (So without going through their registration-/paywall to check ourselves) Additionally I think it is absolutely unacceptable for these communities to keep their addon-packs so secretly tied away behind an onion of checks and registrations. This way we have no way to easily do the check to see if they use content (repacked, renamed, modifed or just simply copied) that they have no rights to doing so with. We can only rely on BI's word that they are all good. Since we have no way to check if BI's "word" is actually true, that list of Approved Server Monetizers is completely useless. I suggest that an extra condition to be approved for monetization must be the requirement of a login-free full speed complete download of the client side (!) addon pack the server is using (The Steam Workshop would create beautiful synergies here by providing a DMCA option as well as letting these communities directly use the official uploads of content. How neat would that be?). Server only mods are of no concern to content creators who want to check if a group is monetizing their content. Am I seeing this wrong, or is my logic here in order? Do others see the the "Approved Server Monetizers" list also as useless?

This issue has been coming up again fairly recently and I've reported the issue on the feedback tracker along with two proposed solutions: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T131130 I'm sure BI will take a look, they are certainly already aware of this. So let's be patient and optimistic. :)

Thanks for mentioning me in the author tab. :)

Heya, I wrote in February about making sure the armor simulations receive proper base classes. Could you please look into applying this baseclass change also to the sub-classes? class CfgArmorSimulations { class Default // yay, a baseclass! { class Default // yay, a baseclass! { [...] }; class AP // oh no, not inheriting from a baseclass { [...] }; class HE // oh no, not inheriting from a baseclass { [...] }; class HEAT // oh no, not inheriting from a baseclass { [...] }; class TandemHEAT // oh no, not inheriting from a baseclass { [...] }; }; class Armor_ERA_Light: Default // yay, inheriting from a baseclass! Thanks! Edit: I know its a bit pedantic, as the values inside these subclasses are only two in total. But one never knows what might happen in the future with this class, and what extra might find its way into this. And Class Default also already exists. :D

Oh, I may draw some strong negative sentiment for saying this: In my experience this is a bad mindset. Let me explain: It is my strongest belief that modding must be for the personal enjoyment of creating the mod. Every minute you spend making an addon, you are spending a minute on yourself. Either as personal recreation or as skill development. To me, the fun in modding comes from a combination of both of these. A challenge to go further and farther than I have before. At no point am I making a mod for anyone else but me. A release is always just a bonus. Nobody has a right to it: You release an addon when you are happy and done with it (for the time). If you feel like you have to release it because of some outside pressure, be it promises to the community or other, it's not a stress-free hobby anymore, and therefore not a recreation. You will burn out, stress out over it, get annoyed with the project and worst of all, it becomes a chore. Nobody likes doing chores, and chores generally do not result in great work. (Unless you're a paid professional, where it becomes your job to do this. And you have to be, well, professional, about it) As an example, I needed to place about 130 direction signs on my current map project. Each sign being a unique combo of distance and destination-name. I was dreading to do it, because I knew it would be soul-crushing mind numbing boring work. I overcame this by finding a new and better way. Spent a bit of time honing my scripting/programming skills, and at the end of that I was able to generate all 130 direction signs in exactly 1.5 seconds. It was fun to do because I learned new things, new methods, new ways to tackle tasks that seem huge and full of despair. Learned bit of extra scripting, too, and so on. The time was well worth spent honing my own set of skills and tools. That's why I mod. That's why I think you should mod and continue with your high standards. You've figured out how to make really great looking vegetation. That puts you in the top 0.1% of mod makers. If you can do that, you can do the rest. :) Now all this comes with a big fat huge escape-clause: If your modding activity is serving as a portfolio project to seek (future) job opportunities. Then you'll just have to bite down and suffer through it, but also maybe it's not the best profession to go into. I hope this wasn't too off-topic. :O

That's strictly speaking not true. :) My advice is to seek consistency across the assets used, you have already committed enough work to add a unique new collection of new custom assets. Mixing them with older structures from even Arma1 will really impact that consistency and overall look and feel of the terrain. If your goal is to finish a terrain soon for general use, then using the older assets is your best bet. However, if you enjoy the process of creating and progressing the terrain, then it's not an impossible task as you presume. It's just a very lengthy but also very enjoyable task well worth it. :)

The dubbing for 8 voices was completed in April last year in a studio environment. Thanks for the offers, but we'll stick to known variables with voice overs and actors. I am not sure if I'll even keep some of the voices recorded so far. It was a lot of effort, and a lot of fun, too. But it clearly showed that direction to the VA needs to be given on site, therefore I will have to pass on any offers from externals.

Great to see a newer rendition of the Killhouse theme! Will you also add partially destructible walls and doors for breaching?

Heya @Asheara please consider scalability of the system for community warhead types by adding baseclasses to class Armor_CAGE class Armor_ERA_Heavy class Armor_ERA_Light A class Default for these to inherit from. This way community creators can simply add their own Warhead types to class Default and rest assured that all other Official and Community-Made Armor-Simulations (that inherit correctly from class Default) will have the new Warheads, too. An easy way to establish compatibility across various mods without requiring explicit compatibility class patching. A baseclass will make this a lot easier to config-patch, too.

Celle 2 is super abysmal in Arma 3. The colors are totally off. I really don't like it in Arma 3. But I guess in lieu of any replacement I can see why people go back to that old terrain. As for the release: Yes, I intend to keep the terrain as a separate Workshop item from the military assets. But I will probably bundle terrain + terrain-assets together as one item. Splitting it up into separate packs of "Terrain", "Structures", "Vegetation" might also be possible in the end, but that is less likely.

Thanks for the anecdote! Glad the vehicle is received well. About the terrain: 100% of my structures are fully enterable. There are no dummy rooms or dummy doors. Also, they have a partial destruction model. (So you can blow out chunks and still have the remainder left standing). Edit: An old WIP picture from when I was making the partial destruction tests.

Aloha! It was about time that I ported my Killhouse addon to Arma3. This AddOn adds new walkable buildings. CONTENT/FEATURES: 5 killhouses 1 Shoothouse 1 Big Warehouse Fully functional in Editor and Visitor Highly precise editor-icons for easy alignment Averaging 100 AI-Positions per building Several wall-segments (Straight parts, corners, doors, gates, 3m height an 0.8m height. MP-Synchronized door-/gatesounds Breachable doors and wall-segments PICTURES: Here you go: MBG_Killhouses_A3 (40MB) Edit: 1th July 2016: Copyright 2016 Mondkalb. This item is not authorized for posting on Steam (Steam Workshop). Also it may not be included into any collection or part of some other workshop content's upload. If you wish to upload content that makes use of this(my) mod, please link to the original (this) forum release post.