Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by the_antipop

  1. A few references:

    1.This is what our lads are using overseas as their shirts.


    As you can see the middle isn't textured, similar to the default ArmA 3 guys. (Note the way the flag is facing on the sleeve, same goes for the helmets)

    **EDIT: I see Crow has posted that image above too

    2. With what Scarecrow posted, here's a more up to date flag patch that is infact in AMP:


    3. No one on operations uses the Blue Australian Flag. Here are some examples of what we wear:






  2. Squad name:- Australian Armed Forces [AAF]

    Timezone/location : Australian Eastern Time Zone (GMT +10)

    Gamemode preference (eg coop or pvp): Co-op

    Contact email: admin@australianarmedforces.org

    Website address: http://www.australianarmedforces.org

    Short description: Tactical Co-op squad based in Australia/New Zealand that has been around since 2008, with roots extending to Operation Flashpoint

    Language: English

  3. From what has been described by Dean so far, DayZ will not be using ArmA 3's engine. Rather it will be using ArmA 2's with some improvements (Ragdoll, lighting etc). But it won't be the full-bull ArmA 3 engine (DX11 etc). AFAIK.

    I'm looking forward to any news on the alpha from Gamescom. Surely it's not too far off....

  4. The early RTT in the vehicles did have a massive FPS hit. At the moment it's slowed FPS and doesn't give as big of a FPS hit, from what I can see it's only 1-2 FPS. To make RTT on scopes useful it would have to be high FPS which would then give a big FPS hit (You couldn't make it as slow as the vehicle ones). Therefore I believe BIS just saw the FPS hit not worth it, which I'm happy with.

  5. I know BIS is trying their absolute best on ArmA 3. But my only hope is that they really look into not only DX11 features, but also DX10 features. Remembering ArmA 2, thus RV3, was only DX9. DX10 brought in loads of new graphical upgrades as well. I just hope BIS aren't just doing a half hearted job at 'trying' to get these graphics features working. ArmA is really a platform rather than a game. I'd much rather see much nicer graphics engine, thus platform, then a amazing campaign that took up all the time of the developers. That's just me. But I hope that BIS get some DX10 and 11 features in there. It can be done, it takes time, but I really do hope they do it. I'm almost certain Tessellation on Vehicles, Player models and even objects wouldn't impact too much performance. Improved Shader models could also be achieved. These sort of upgrades can make the engine go from a 6 or 7/10 to a 8-9/10.

  6. 1. What is the new revised released date in 2013? Q1 or Q2? Or Later?

    2. From E3 you stated you were working on DX11 features, how has that transpired so far? Of all the features available not only in DX11 but also DX10 (As ArmA 2 was DX9), which ones will most likely make the game?

    3. Is there talk about changing the Server browser interface and the whole ingame MP GUI? From OFP not much has drastically changed, is there talk about modifying it?

    4. How do you think the campaign is progressing? Will it be much more interactive than previous ArmA campaigns? Are there more cut-scenes to immerse the player more?

  7. I assume it's because most resources are going into Arma3.

    You're not missing much yet, some new weapons and some not-even-properly-rehashed maps (someone couldn't even be bothered putting the town names etc back in).

    I think they have a separate team who did ACR and now all the beta patches that isn't associated with the ArmA 3 development group, i.e a dedicated ArmA 2 team. (Not 100% sure, but that's what I've heard).

    But I agree with you, this DLC was not overly impressive. The campaign is fairly bland, maps in editor don't have any names and are just Chernarus in the summer. It's some nice new content (weapons, vehicles, units), but it's nothing note worthy. BAF was by far the best DLC. Quality campaign and quality units.

    I believe they'll announce it when 1.63 is done with ACR lite etc, or I would assume so. Still very strange that actually haven't posted anything in regards to it going live.

    Oh, and as Sabre said, I also got the email from Sprocket.

  8. The campaign does feel a little bland. No cutscenes. Missions are very, "go out there and do something". Seems as if it was made as a community campaign rather than a proper BIS one. I'm only on the third or so mission, but that's my impression so far. Maps seem nice. Quality of vehicles, units and weapons are solid just like BAF. But the campaign isn't as enjoyable as I thought it would have been. Seems like it was made in like a week.

  9. Hey guys,

    Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I've been fiddling with Object compositions and I've just run into a slight problem. I'm making it so on a certain vehicle, when you click the action 'Deploy FOB', the composition "Small Base" is built around the stryker.

    Now, I've got it to work perfectly with the stryker and have the composition built in the direction the stryker is facing, rather than the world's direction.

    The stryker is called "HQStry" and in init field;

    this addAction ["Deploy Base", "spawnfob.sqf"];

    spawnfob.sqf is;

    _d = getDir HQstry;
    _newObjs = [getPos HQstry, _d, "smallbase"] call (compile (preprocessFileLineNumbers "ca\modules\dyno\data\scripts\objectMapper.sqf"));

    Now the above works, there's no problems there. It's just when I make another one, say for a heli, and call it spawnheli and change HQstry to HQhawk. When I do that, follow everything exactly, it doesn't work. Does anyone know why? I'll give you the example;

    The blackhawk is called "HQhawk" and in init field;

    this addAction ["Deploy HeliBase", "spawnheli.sqf"];

    spawnheli.sqf is;

    _d = getDir HQhawk
    _newObj = [getPos HQhawk, _d, "heli_park_us1"] call (compile (preprocessFileLineNumbers "ca\modules\dyno\data\scripts\objectMapper.sqf"));

    Any idea why that wouldn't work the same as it does for the stryker?

  10. Hey guys,

    One of my clan members is the head of IT at a big company in one of Australia's major cities. Now, he has a spare box lying around doing nothing so he has put some ArmA servers on it. Now, the servers appear fine in the server browser, however if you try and connect to them through the server browser everyone gets "Connecting failed". However, if you go into 'Remote', add the IP, it will appear and then you can connect. It's very bizarre and we aren't to sure what the problem is. Obviously as it's a big company it has a major custom firewall and router protection. Now, he's opened all the necessary ArmA ports, being 2302-2305. Are there any others that maybe are not as well known? Or ones that are maybe open by default on all routers/windows firewalls that ArmA utilises; which is subsequently switched off at this IT company due to heavier security?

    Just a note, once you hit remote, add the ip, and hit okay, it appears in the server browser, obviously by itself; and once it's there no one has issues connecting. It's just a problem when you maybe filter my clan's name, all our servers popup, then we try and join direct from that filter and everyone gets connecting failed.

    TL;DR Server appears in browser fine, but can't connect to it, get connecting failed. Only way to connect is to add the IP to remote and go from there.

    Has anyone else had this problem before? Any solutions or work arounds without pulling down a firewall?

    Edit: Could it be gamespy's ports? Are there gamespy ports that need to be open in order to connect to a server through the browser?



  11. Will this work reliably in MP too ?


    I'm assuming this would be the main area it would be applicable. I hope they're easy to config/model. Therefore all the new custom community player models have variations on the uniform, chest rigs and helmets that the player can use this new gear system for. Makes for a much more dynamic MP playing environment. When overseas on operations no two soldiers look identical, and I hope this customisation provides the individuality that sometimes is lost with five or so of the same player model just with different faces.

  12. It happens in A2 and A1 as well. When you quickly turn and look at another solider and sometimes the textures are low poly, that's the HDD speed there. SSD's make it much more smoother.

  13. As the ArmA3 dev blogs have mentioned something about addon compatibility/easy conversion, maybe it'd be compatible with ArmA3 right off the bat?

    That's what I'm thinking. It seems absurd for them to release another DLC so close to another game release... Surely it has to be compatible with ArmA 3... i.e Buy it for A2, you then get it for A3 when it's ready?

    I just find it weird that they're releasing it now, maybe 2 months a go would have been fine, but now that it's soo close to Q4 and whole entire new game, just seems... strange to say the least. Oh well.

  14. I've got a good feeling for E3 and BIS. There's no Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3 and Diablo 3 to contend with this year. (Only Warfighter and Black "BF2142" Ops 2)

    BIS has obviously gained a lot of attention due to Dayz, including a famous British television company. So I see BIS' booth getting more attention this year, especially by the big players (Gamespot, IGN etc). And from the looks of it, I don't think they'll be disappointed! Game of Show? I think A3 has one hell of a chance!

  15. The reason mods are so successful is that, yes, the vanilla game at times lacks some fundamental components that we all want.

    For me, with ArmA 2 that's sound, explosions and realism components from ACE2.

    Now, from what I understand, I believe ArmA 3 has catered for all of this. Brand new sound engine, built from the ground up, new explosions and particle effects, thrust in there with Ragdoll and Physx, and now with zeroing, improved first aid, fatigue system, weight etc etc. I think ArmA 3 vanilla is looking like it'll provide exactly what I want out of a game. What's the point of editting something that pretty much has everything you need? I know in twelve months time I might have a million mods, but for the time being, BIS seem to be delivering a pretty awesome vanilla game.

  16. For me, ArmA MP has always been a community driven area.

    However, in saying that, I do have some issues with the current ArmA 2 MP, that I'm assuming will be fixed in A3.

    Aside from the numerous GUI enhancements that have to be addressed to get A3 to a modern-fps level rather than still having a similar layout to OFP MP, A country filter would also be handy, aswell as a filter that looks at mods, i.e when you first start up the game (post install), it is set to 'vanilla', easier for new players, there is then the option to have 'mods' or 'both'. I'm sure with a bigger MP team working on A3, we'll be in for some surprises. :) I think the main area BIS need to focus on is the MP engine itself, the GUI, the UI for the server, the scoreboard, the lobby etc. Leave the game modes up to the community.