Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

bugkill

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    423

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by bugkill

  1. Posted

    THx for our quick answer  wink_o.gif

    but plz can u say me exactly what i need to to

    smile_o.gif

    Okay, download either Kegety's Tools or Eliteness and unpack the Characters.pbo file located in the ArmA\Addons folder.

    in the Woodland bdu\data folder are all of the colormap files you need. Copy all of these files and then paste them into the extracted Characters\Data folder.

    Using either KEgety's pbo tool or Eliteness, re-pack Characters.pbo and move it back to Arma\Addons and click Yes to overwrite.

    don't forget to do a backup of the characters.pbo file. wink_o.gif

  3. Posted

    the problem with some of you guys saying "DPM" or "AUSCAM" is that those cams are not worn by US forces, which the game is using as it's main unit.

    also, the acu has yet to be issued Army wide and there are many units that don't have. like i said before, the acu is fine, but the camo scheme should have stayed the same (woodland and 3 color desert) or went with the crye camo.

    the use of it in iraq is not much of a big deal given the type of operations we are doing over there. it is an urban environment and camoflauge is not a big issue. all that crap we wear is going to give us away anyway and unless you are on a special mission team, your ass won't be wearing anything short of your body armor and uniform.

    it is all about the mission because mission dictates what you do and don't wear. there is a time to wear the acu with no problems (patrols in urban areas), but there are also times when it is just not the right uniform to wear on specific operations (reconnaisance and UW missions).

  4. Posted

    well, i don't mind if they are acu's, but they have to be correct. it is really pissing me off to see so many games or "sims" that get our uniforms wrong time and time again.

    there are way too many photos on the net and even the ofp and vbs1 community have already released acu addons that are more accurate than the crap BIS just pushed out.

    like i said before, they could have posted on these very forums and made a thread for us US Army soldiers to post pics or give info to accurately portray our forces. i truly wonder who they sought consultation with on this subject.

  5. Posted

    Either way, BIS pretty hit the nail on the head. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's far superior to any other game I've seen.  Stick with ACU.  If it's good enough for (arguable, for you whiners sake) the best Army on earth, I'm pretty sure it's good enough for ArmA

    the only problem is that it looks like crap because it is inaccurate (no arm pockets or velcro), so they pretty much missed the nail. banghead.gif

  6. Posted

    i would venture to say that all the uniforms, minus the dcu's, could be used. the marpat camo would need to be for a marine addon because US Army troops don't wear it.

    the acu and bdu versions should have been available from the start. Clavicula is correct about SF teams not wearing acu's, but it is more of an option, not a rule. we wore what we wanted and usually it was the good ole dcu's in afghanistan, but some teams wore acu's on several occasions.

    so, the acu, bdu, and marpat are the camo schemes that fit best with the islands because they are not in the middle east or desert enviroments. i hope to see some desert islands down the road though.

  10. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]Yeah, giving the SF guys the flightsuits is a good idea, except we can't change models right now until the tools are released...also..the pilots are wearing IBAs!!!!  

    yeah, i was laughing my ass off when i saw that. i can't believe that after vbs1, they would showcase such bad unit uniforms and gear.

    i was mainly talking about the camo and hopefully it can pass as a flightsuit confused_o.gif

  13. Posted

    rofl.gif , yeah, i heard of 35th sig. and i'm glad i never went over there. i felt the same way you did when i got to group. i was in the 82nd (325th AIR), 101st (502nd INF), NATO, 1AD, and then SFG.

    getting my ass to group was the best ticket as far as being in a tactical unit (can't beat the netherlands). i got there and i thought that us support guys would not be doing the "team" guy shit, boy was i wrong! i never did so much firing in my life (even when i was infantry) and i got to receive some kick ass training.

    i just ETS and now i'm in the guard (back in the infantry). i could not get my CAB for iraq (2003) because at the time it did not exist (i did raids and patrols because of my past experience in the infantry) and they want all these BS docs in order to get it. it was over two years ago and most of the people have moved on, no way i can get witness statements.

    oh, well! when i saw knuckleheads getting it for getting mortared and never leaving the FOB, i just said "screw it". ooops, sorry if i got off topic.

    EDIT*

    i plan on making some SOF operators wearing the desert flight suit when i crack open the marpat guys. i think that would look better given the fact the acu's are jacked in this game. who in the hell did BIS consult for this game. should have talked to me and others on this forum about this stuff. banghead.gif

  14. Posted

    you want to resize the image first and then copy and paste. it is a little trial and error, but it works. 1) you copy and paste to see how big/small the actual patch is on the .paa file (which is in tga format). 2) if not the right size, press "undo paste", go back to the tab/patch .tga and resize the image (the patch file, not the .paa). 3) just keep repeating those steps until you are satisfied with the results.

    the deal with the full color flag is one that you and i are very familiar with (i served in spec ops also wink_o.gif ). i have no problem with the subdued patch (we had both of them), but the color flag was used most often, unless at night (we switched to the IR flag).

    i'm thinking of just making these forces all conventional because some of the infantry units share the same files of the SF units. i'm thinking about cracking open the marpat addon (for personal use) and use them as my SF unit, just gotta change the textures.

    edit* you want to go ahead and convert all those us.soldieracu.os, etc. files to .tga, better that way. i have made various soldiers with different combat patches and tabs. that is why i'm not going to mix up the SF units, just gonna make them infantry from the 82nd (i served there and i chose them over the 101st, i thought my time in the eight deuce was better rofl.gif ) and they will have different combat patches (more realistic).

  15. Posted

    here ya go wink_o.gif

    http://www.militaryclothing.com/IBS....07.html

    and here is an update of the SF recon:

    [img/]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/bugkill/armed%20assault/arma2006-12-0917-30-24-71.jpg[/img]

    and the SF operator was reassigned back to group:

    [img/]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/bugkill/armed%20assault/arma2006-12-0918-00-47-71.jpg[/img]

    he was in 1st ranger batt. prior to selection:

    [img/]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/bugkill/armed%20assault/arma2006-12-0918-00-57-97.jpg[/img]

    gotta work on those pockets, not good enough for me and i will try to get a new camo for the SF recon helmet.

  17. Posted

    some more wink_o.gif

    [Do not holink images greater than 100kb]http://Do not holink images greater than 100kb.photobucket.com/albums/v495/bugkill/armed%20assault/arma2006-12-0912-33-09-52.jpg[/Do not holink images greater than 100kb]

    [Do not holink images greater than 100kb]http://Do not holink images greater than 100kb.photobucket.com/albums/v495/bugkill/armed%20assault/arma2006-12-0912-27-48-02.jpg[/Do not holink images greater than 100kb]

    [Do not holink images greater than 100kb]http://Do not holink images greater than 100kb.photobucket.com/albums/v495/bugkill/armed%20assault/arma2006-12-0912-25-16-19.jpg[/Do not holink images greater than 100kb]

  18. Posted

    here is some pics of some testing i've been doing. i just wanted to add a mixture of different units by using armpatches:

    SF Recon:

    [Do not holink images greater than 100kb]http://Do not holink images greater than 100kb.photobucket.com/albums/v495/bugkill/armed%20assault/arma2006-12-0913-39-55-36.jpg[/Do not holink images greater than 100kb]

    82nd Airborne (former SF operator):

    [Do not holink images greater than 100kb]http://Do not holink images greater than 100kb.photobucket.com/albums/v495/bugkill/armed%20assault/arma2006-12-0823-36-20-94.jpg[/Do not holink images greater than 100kb]

    82nd airborne infantryman:

    [Do not holink images greater than 100kb]http://Do not holink images greater than 100kb.photobucket.com/albums/v495/bugkill/armed%20assault/arma2006-12-0823-31-04-22.jpg[/Do not holink images greater than 100kb]

    SF operator:

    [Do not holink images greater than 100kb]http://Do not holink images greater than 100kb.photobucket.com/albums/v495/bugkill/armed%20assault/arma2006-12-0823-34-06-16.jpg[/Do not holink images greater than 100kb]

    ranger combat patch:

    .[Do not holink images greater than 100kb]http://Do not holink images greater than 100kb.photobucket.com/albums/v495/bugkill/armed%20assault/arma2006-12-0912-26-54-57.jpg[/Do not holink images greater than 100kb]

    i only did this to give the units more of a different look and i wish that someone can model some SF units with some mich 2001 helmets

  22. Posted

    An x800? I had one of those 2 years ago. Again, I'm not trying to be nasty but this is NOT even a decent Graphics card these days. Its not realistic to expect to play the latest games on 2 year old hardware.

    E

    dude, are you serious? i just played many games that are considered hard on systems with no issues. to say my card is 2 yrs old is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the fact that BIS could have toned down the graphics in order to provide better gameplay.

    i'm not thinking about myself on this issue and i feel that the game should not be harder on my machine (only when making missions in the cities) than vbs1, GRAW, and other gfx heavy games.

    you appear to believe that eye candy is more important than gameplay and i totally disagree with you, especially when it concerns the ofp franchise. armed assault should have had the same gfx level as vbs1 or a tad bit lower, with new animations and features. they did not have to re-invent the wheel, just needed to take the tarnish off it.

    there are many improvements to the game, but there are still limitations that should have been addressed (listed some in my previous post). i felt that they were ignored and that most of the concentration was on the graphics, which is not a big priority with the ofp community. ofp needed an overhaul on the graphics side, but not an overhaul x2.

    you are entitled to your opinion and we just differ. i enjoy armed assault, but i'm not going to fork over more money for a new gfx card, when i have nice vid card that has played all the games that have been out (AA is the first one i had a problem with).

    Edit:

    by the way, i have a x800xt all in wonder 256mb and i have yet to not be able to play any games that are heavy on gfx. wink_o.gif

    See you didn't need to make a double post to add that line smile_o.gif - Placebo

  23. Posted

    In most cases, as far as PC gaming goes, you are going to have to spend a moderate amount of money to get reasonable performance. I'm not saying it's "fair" or "right" but it is reality. PC gaming, for the most part, is a fairly expensive proposition.

    In the case of Armed Assault, you have a huge world with 1000s of variables. When I read the performance complaints, I skim down the post to the specs and I see things like 6600 and X1300. No offense to anyone, but these are budget cards. You are not going to get "Very High" performance with that kind of hardware. It's not BIS's fault, its the reality of PC gaming.

    In the case of the 6600 we are talking about technology that is 3 generations old now. Yes, technology moves at an expeditious pace, especially lately. There are bugs in ArmA, and they need to be fixed but the game running badly on your antiquated hardware is not a bug and whining and shouting abuse won't fix the problem. I'm not trying to insult anyone and I realise not everyone can afford the best hardware available but you CAN find a happy medium without filing for bankruptcy.

    E

    well, i don't have a low end card (ati all in wonder 800 series 256mb) and my system has always been able to play gfx heavy games, but the gameplay of those games allow the graphics to be that high. the type of gameplay for armed assault does not require a high dose of graphics in order to be able to create and simulate large scale battles without too much sacrifice to your machine.

    i'm not defending those that need new computers, but i'm pointing out that armed assault should have no business trying to compete graphically against other "squad based" shooters.

    ofp needed a definite facelift, but it did not have to come to this high of a price. i would gladly trade in the lack of moving while reloading or changing weps for toned down graphics anyday. i would love to trade in the high end scenery for more units and large scale urban battles, you bet.

    this armed assault would be perfect for my xbox 360, but the PC version does not need to be this way, just my honest opinion.

  24. Posted

    the reason for the bad reviews seems to steem from the fact that BIS made armed assault too powerful to FULLY enjoy on certain people's machines.

    i honestly think that they put a bit too much on the graphical side and not enough on the little things (like tactical reloads, shooting from vehicles, more air and land units). the one thing they put most of the energy into is the one thing that never mattered to it's fans.

    this game is harder on my machine than GRAW, DOOM 3, and FEAR (all of which i ran rather smoothly), and armed assault  did not have to be graphically beautiful. armed assault's strenght lies with the player having control of large size forces in massive areas. if you make large cities on one big ass map, most players are going to have problems running the type of missions that they are accustomed to in OFP or vbs1.

    the graphics needed an upgrade, but i think it went a bit too far and my fear is that many in the community will not stay with it. hopefully, there will be an island editor and some of you guys could make some small maps that have built up urban areas for urban warfare that won't kill our machines.

    i will say that the open areas are great and the combat is awesome, just wish the cities could be more understanding.  confused_o.gif

    I agree that the high system requirements might turn some people off due to HW upgrade costs but we have to think about Arma has a relatively future proof and expandable "game", just like Flashpoint is wink_o.gif .

    Next year many things will change, current HW prices will drop, DX10 will come out, etc. The graphics have to impress potential customers and be future proof. Arma is the type of game that will hook people for much longer than the average play&throw away game, BIS is well aware of that.

    Those who claim they dont care about graphics are liars, honest people will say: "i dont care about the graphics because i cant afford a high end PC atm, if i could..."

    Graphics are damn important, this is apparent even in user made addons, everyone wants better models, better textures and better effects because... well, they look better.

    If Arma looked the same has OPFR or VBS we would have alot more people here complaining, you can bet on that smile_o.gif .

    i agree that graphics can be important, but armed assault did not need to make the leap it did. the game looks absolutely beautiful and i'm making some great missions in the woodland and open areas, but the cities are a bit too much on the machine. i can play it, but not as good as i would want to.

    i have a pretty good comp and i play many other other gfx "heavy" games with no problem. the problem with armed assault being this taxing is that it undercuts it's main attraction, a simulated battlefield.

    ofp had "horrible" graphics, but was the best military sim ever created and the community made it even better. i feel that armed assault could have been either at the same gfx level of vbs1 or a tad bit lower, and more limitations could have been addressed.

    i still love the game, but more thought should have been given to the fact that some of the people out there that are huge fans, don't have deep pockets. some people can't get a top of the line computer and i think that should have been looked at more.

    the graphics has taken away some of the gameplay and the large scale battles have taken an hit, and that is pretty much my only gripe about armed assault. the new animations, commands, unit models, swimming, and other additions that are not in the game should have been number one, not the graphics.

    i know we are in a "next gen" world, but many people don't have "next gen" jobs. confused_o.gif

  25. Posted

    the reason for the bad reviews seems to steem from the fact that BIS made armed assault too powerful to FULLY enjoy on certain people's machines.

    i honestly think that they put a bit too much on the graphical side and not enough on the little things (like tactical reloads, shooting from vehicles, more air and land units). the one thing they put most of the energy into is the one thing that never mattered to it's fans.

    this game is harder on my machine than GRAW, DOOM 3, and FEAR (all of which i ran rather smoothly), and armed assault did not have to be graphically beautiful. armed assault's strenght lies with the player having control of large size forces in massive areas. if you make large cities on one big ass map, most players are going to have problems running the type of missions that they are accustomed to in OFP or vbs1.

    the graphics needed an upgrade, but i think it went a bit too far and my fear is that many in the community will not stay with it. hopefully, there will be an island editor and some of you guys could make some small maps that have built up urban areas for urban warfare that won't kill our machines.

    i will say that the open areas are great and the combat is awesome, just wish the cities could be more understanding. confused_o.gif

×