HarryZhe

The characters in a3 look like theyre slightly different in proportion to a2. Maybe this is just my eyes playing tricks on me. What i'm wondering is whether a2 character rigs will be portable to a3 directly - will they use the same skeleton? Or will it be a new one? If it's a new one, when are modders likely to get their hands on that skeleton?

would be great, huh

oh he's just being a dick, gotcha

again, right click and view properties, named right there.

Firstly, even if the creators of the bikileaks content ARE community members, it's not impossible for BI to have contracted the work of some of the skilled modders in the community. I know the team for Rise of Flight do this for many of their content updates and, seeing as arma is in a similar "niche" with similarly avid fans, it wouldn't surprise me if they adopted some similar methods to get a greater volume of quality work done by people who already know how to use the engine. Secondly, Even if it has been up for months, surely whatever epic revalation BI are about to drop on us has been in planning/production for months as well. Thirdly, I find it strange that the site is named "bikileaks," combine this with its weird secretive nature, and the fact that a lot of the content displayed is eerily relevant to the scenario unfolding for us here, I'm not inclined to just rule that site out as irrelevant. Besides, the bikileaks poster only removed all the content mid last month. Perhaps in preparation for this little game?

It's very co-incidental though. Are we sure those images are totally unaffiliated? The J20 is obviously chinese, The northrop f5-e and the Fencer are used by iran, I've seen some sites list a "Wessex Mk 52" helicopter in use by iraq, but some list iran... The sa6 gainful is used by iran, And i'm not sure what to make of the passenger jet. Let's say hypothetically bikileaks was BIS affiliated, it could very well have a place in some kind of hostage situation.

Those images are already identified - check their filenames. Doesnt matter as theyre unaffiliated anyway.

We should think about callsigns or espionage terminology. Some ideas: DUSTER: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M42_Duster Though, it doesn't say anything about iran using those. I figured maybe the US gave them some to defend against iraq back in the day, but seems not. Anyone with more information? http://educate-yourself.org/tg/nextterroristweapon27nov04.shtml Long shot, probably nothing... And one of the definitions: "2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Agriculture) a machine for blowing out dust over trees or crops" This kind of invokes an image of a nuclear "dirty bomb" which scatters radioactive material over a wide range on the wind. I don't know if anyone actually uses this terminology with dirty bombs but it could be a clue... Another definition: "duster - a windstorm that lifts up clouds of dust or sand; "it was the kind of duster not experienced in years" dust storm, sandstorm, sirocco" The whole dust storm thing kind of hints at a thretening element in an arid climate, which could just be a kind of callsign for an iranian agent. Cant seem to get anything from here, but might as well post it for others to look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_military_abbreviations I've been trying to summarise the general happenings on a thread in my forum, if anyone is just reading about this now and wants to know what's going on without reading 100+ pages, here you go. I missed a few pieces of info and speculation, but the general progression is covered. (I'm sorry for those who want others to have to read the whole thread, but it really is filled with irrelevant crap and i had to spend a few hours sifting through to the actual info...)

It's weird that it's written in english though, if it's a plan for chedaki

A warning, i'm very new to config editing and never edited OFP, so i feel totally directionless on learning this stuff, and probably have made very obvious mistakes. I've looked at countless sources to find the specific requirements for adding an object/unit to the editor and all I can find is examples specific to a person's needs. There's no actual explanation of why each line is needed, what was done wrong or needed to be changed and why. I've tried to add my own thing to the game, but I get script errors. At the moment, it's saying my animationsources has a problem with it's scope. The unit is showing in the editor though, which is the furthest i've gotten so far. Scope error is something like "no entry for animationsources.scope" I should also note that at the moment, it's the ONLY thing showing in the editor on the BLUFOR side. class CfgPatches { class b_roll { units[] = {"testobj"}; weapons[] = {}; requiredVersion = 1.0; }; }; class CfgVehicleClasses { class test_objs { displayName = "Test Objects"; }; }; class CfgVehicles { class LandVehicle{}; class Car: LandVehicle{}; class HMMWV_Base: Car{}; class AnimationSources{}; class testobj: HMMWV_Base { scope = 2; displayName = "BEDROLL"; accuracy = 0.32; vehicleClass = "test_objs"; class AnimationSources: AnimationSources { class ReloadAnim { source = "reload"; weapon = "M2"; }; class ReloadMagazine { source = "reloadmagazine"; weapon = "M2"; }; class Revolving { source = "revolving"; weapon = "M2"; }; }; HiddenSelections[] = {"Camo1"}; hiddenSelectionsTextures[] = {"\ca\wheeled\hmmwv\data\hmmwv_body_co.paa"}; }; }; Also, when i attempt to actually load a mission with the object in, i get "bad vehicle type USMC soldier"

Takistanis speak farsi in OA, which is basically persian.

Well, IDK. What's the submarine about? Subs making a prominent appearance in arma would be a little out of place imo, I mean, there's boats and jets too, but they aren't simulated with a high degree of fidelity because arma is at the end of the day an infantry sim. What really wouldnt make sense would be a submarine-centric addition to arma, imo. Though, the submarine thing might be completely unrelated... But it seems weird to both spell it out and draw a picture of it, if it's unrelated. That as a "storyline" (chinese/russian super improbable military alliance) is a little bit childish and I kind of think bohemia are better than that... Even during the cold war there were tensions between russia and china, and they showed no signs of banding together to invade europe. Bohemia would do something more believable. Actually an interesting thought... But it doesn't match the shape of utes. http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Utes It's pretty unmistakably a nuclear sub...

yeah, i'll concede that my opinion is tinted by how awesome i think a naval sim centred around nuclear subs would be... I've made a bit of a stab at the current info, here's hoping someone "digs" something else up, so to speak

That explains how, but not why. The only convincing point in favour so far, imo. Well, it means you don't need to have ships ready to take them across a small tract of water which doesn't actually make their journey shorter

Well, i'm totally lost on this. I guess i'll never get my models working ingame unless i can coax somebody else into doing it

And, once they initially landed, they carried these boats with them to the next crossing? Or are they a mechanised force in all amphibious vehicles? ...I still dont get why they dont just follow the coastline of italy.

Well yeah, theyre divisions of army and army groups but this implies nearly every single unit is not only amphibious but crosses water readilly without any real need to. The point RE: the hellespoint could be legit, but usually that kind of area is more defensible as a chokepoint for naval activity, not so much as an infantry thing. Ignoring it completely would leave the "east" with pretty much no capability to deploy ships from the black sea into the mediterranean. And, the Italy group randomly wading across the sea still doesn't make any sense.

I'm not quite sure... They don't make much sense if interpreted as the movements of ground forces either, a lot of the lines of advance cross bodies of water. Instead of travelling through Liguria in italy, our troops are taking a swim. Instead of crossing the Hellespont, cutting across the black sea. Where's the sense in that? They're not, avoiding crossing any borders, that's for sure. At any rate, NAV definitely refers to a naval assault of some kind, because NAV is only labelled on lines originating in the water. It's obvious the attack is coming from the east, because the only "land" advances are in the east, with further west being airborne. Missiles could be steering to avoid radar/missile defense sites... Anyone know about the locations of those?

I'm with Landowar re: it being a naval map primarily. I think it might be a new nuclear sub simulator... Bohemia would be smart to make such a game, as afaik there isn't a modern nuclear sub sim... Only silent hunter which is ww2 setting but still has a strong following and steady market, so why not a modern sub sim? But i'm not sure. The astute class would be fairly useful, i imagine, in defending from naval launched missiles, and that map seems to be showing a lot of naval missiles. A game where you play as royal navy subs defending mainland europe from missile attack would be.... fucking awesome.

"#081206" could be a hint at either the 8th of december, or 12th of august, 2006. http://news.google.com.au/archivesearch?as_q=*&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=12%2F08%2F06&as_user_hdate=12%2F08%2F06&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a http://news.google.com.au/archivesearch?as_q=*&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=08%2F12%2F06&as_user_hdate=08%2F12%2F06&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a Just an idea... I'm not gunna trawl through all of those articles myself on just a hunch, though

an hour? thats 5am here. ffff

Oh right, i guess i missed that piece of info buried in image macros. However, why are we polling? isnt it up to him what he posts first?

what makes you certain it's a video?

why is everyone cluttering this thread up with image macros? when the dude finally does get home, i dont want to have to search through page after page of crap to see what's going on

Ah, i know about the tags. I intended this to be a local test i didnt release or combine with other configs. Lemme try this config you showed though. ---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ---------- urhh.. It's showing in the editor once i manually set the scope but it wont run, probably because i dont have combined operations installed. I assume it's better to base the config on OA? And, i still get "bad vehicle type USMC soldier"