reconteam

Hi CUP crew. Currently the picture-in-picture scopes like the ACOG don't work properly with a 21:9 aspect ratio monitor. Is this something that would be fixable or a hard-coded limitation?

I thought the T-64B and T-80B had what was essentially the same armor scheme which is estimated to be roughly equal to that of the T-72A? I've also heard the T-64BV and T-80BV besides for the addition of explosive reactive armor had some improvements to their composite armor. But that raises a few other questions. Were all BV models new build tanks? Were older B models upgraded with ERA but no integral armor changes? Did they share the same designation then? There are so many sources with different information on the minute differences between T-64, T-72, and T-80 variants that it is a nightmare to study if you ask me.

Hi Dedmen thanks for that information. The RTX 2080 though is a real nice card though so I'm surprised it's not giving higher numbers. I guess the engine they use just isn't good for jungle.

So I have an i7 8700k, an RTX 2080, 16GB of RAM (I can get exact details later if needed) and on Tanoa running ultra settings at 3440×1440 resolution I can't seem to break past 40 FPS or so in deep jungle with view distance set to about 1200 meters. And this is before I'm actually in a scenario with stuff going on around me. Should I be getting more from this setup? Also the game is on a Samsung m.2 SSD so there shouldn't be a bottleneck in that area. Altis seems to run a lot better but is there anything I can do to increase my FPS in the jungle? I know ArmA 3 is heavily CPU dependent but that's a pretty good processor and often CPU usage is only reaching around 30-40% while in the game. One oddity(or maybe its normal for ArmA) I've noticed is that when I "zoom" in to look at something the FPS often goes up by 10 or more, even if what I'm zooming in on is a detailed area.

Gotta say I like a lot of the more recent additions to the mod. One minor thing I noticed however is that on some of the weapons like the M16A1 and M16A2 if you look directly down the muzzle there is just a grey texture rather than one trying to simulate looking down the barrel. Other weapons like the XM16E1 and M4A1 have that feature.

Didn't even notice the date, went back a few too many pages I guess.

I don't know if dezkit is still active in the ArmA modding community but if you need any information about the Lockheed A/F-X or NATF designs I might be able to help.

Sounds like some great improvements in the works. BIS ought to hire you guys to spruce up the USS Freedom a bit.

I'm still debating whether or not to purchase this DLC. I love the setting of Cold War-era Germany but the problem seems to be that this is a very small slice of that. There are no US Army or Soviet forces and the Germans are lacking a lot of vehicles like the Leopard 2, Marder, and (for the East Germans) T-72. No airpower either. So my question is mainly, are there plans to expand upon this content and add more over time?

So I'm trying to learn a bit of basic configuration by making an addon that will effectively add a few modified variants of existing ArmA 3 aircraft weaponry. I'm starting off with a modified cluster bomb and air-to-air missile. Yet I'm having a difficult time finding what exactly is required to create a complete .pbo and addon that the game will recognize. In the config.cpp file which I will at some point have to turn into a .bin file and later pack in a .pbo what exactly is required besides for the parameters of the modified weaponry and the "base" ammo values which are drawn from when there aren't specific values for that weapon? Do I have to include the visual models I am using from the Jets DLC in the .pbo? If I wanted to allow jets to select these weapons in the editor loadout screen would I have to include another PBO that added modified versions of the existing aircraft? For the time being I'm going to avoid that and just use scripting to load the aircraft. Are there any good tutorials out there that would help cover this topic?

Is there anyway to create a script that would substitute one model for another. I want to substitute the AMRAAM D model which isn't a realistic representation of the actual AMRAAM with the AMRAAM C model used by the AAF jet fighter. In the config.bin file the model for the AMRAAM D is listed as model="\A3\Weapons_F_Jets\Ammo\Missile_AA_06_fly_F"; proxyShape="\A3\Weapons_F_Jets\Ammo\Missile_AA_06_F"; while AMRAAM C is model="\A3\Weapons_F_Jets\Ammo\Missile_AA_10_fly_F"; proxyShape="\A3\Weapons_F_Jets\Ammo\Missile_AA_10_F"; Is there anyway I can achieve a method of replacing the former two with the later?

So I added an "and" command and have been trying to get the script to function on only pylons 8-12, yet is there any actual method to do that? neither pylon == or pylons == seems to give any result.

Any chance of increasing the rate of fire of the 120mm gun on the destroyer (USS Liberty) somewhat? I understand it can't be too high for balance reasons but it is still very low for a naval gun.

Excellent. Is there any way I could get it to address only pylons 8-12 (which represent the internal weapons bay) however?

Alright thanks for letting me know. Yes the AMRAAM C is the same one used by the Gryphon. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an internal "INT" variant of that missile for the correct jettison from the weapon bays of the F/A-181. Such variants exist for the AMRAAM D and R77. I can see in the editor's config viewer the one line used for that jettison effect, (initSpeedY = -25;) Yet even though I can see all of this in the config viewer there is no way for me to edit that and plug-in that line into the AMRAAM C? Or is there some functionality to the config viewer I haven't discovered? Otherwise I guess I'd be looking at the hideously complicated task of creating my own addon so I can stop obsessing over such minor details.

Would anybody be willing to write an example script for me using one of the vanilla ArmA 3 vehicles such as the AMV-7 Marshall? I'm not quite certain how to account for the multiple magazine types necessary. (in this case it would be 40mm GPR and 40mm APFSDS)

So I've been working on a scenario involving a ragtag squad with an M2A3 Bradley working their way across Takistan trying to get out of the country. I wanted to represent some unusual field modifications made to the M2A3 including boosting the rate of fire on the 25mm chain gun which would theoretically be possible with a more powerful electric motor. Would such a thing even be possible through scripting? Would it be possible to simulate any other changes? Maybe give the gunner's FLIR sight a green overlay which I think it has in real life? Or is this all beyond the realm of possibility?

Looks like I was mistaken about the muzzle flash. But why is a different memory point used for the smoke effect? Sorry my ArmA 3 modelling knowledge is very limited so that may be a stupid question to you.

My mistake, I'll post in the correct thread from now on regarding the F-15 and other aircraft packs. About the F/A-181's 20mm gun perhaps "bug" was the wrong term to use. The effects from the gun just do not correspond with the location of the gun port on the aircraft's 3D model which is located on the nose and not in the wing root.

Normally when you switch firing modes with vanilla weapons there is a small "click" sound that corresponds with moving the selector switch. It's no big deal but apparently I have some sort of OCD about that sound.

Thanks for the help, I must admit this is quite a bit more complicated than I thought. Do you have to find the correct parameter for each of those categories corresponding to the 25mm chain gun? Seems weird that you can add an init line that reduces small arms recoil so easily yet boosting rate of fire is so complicated.

Hi Firewill I have some more useful useless comments about your work and minor bugs to point out. I love the F-15B Strike Eagle demonstrator aircraft with the green camo it flew with back in 1980 due to the crazy bomb load it can haul. Yet to the best of my knowledge the CBU loadout for it is a bit incorrect. On the wing pylons the multiple-ejector racks only ever carried four CBUs each on the outer and center stations. I don't know what weight those wing pylons are rated for but ensuring enough clearance for payload separation was probably a factor. On the F-15A through F-15D those wing pylons are rated to carry up to six Mark 82s on a MER but I've never seen a photograph that clearly shows if that particular F-15B was carrying 4 or 6 on the wing MERs when flown in that "all Mark 82" configuration. It's possible that they kept the inner MER stations clear for separation clearance. This rear cockpit of F-15B 71-0291 during this testing was also different from a usual F-15B or F-15D. It had four display panels but not the same MFD type as on the eventual F-15E. It probably isn't worth the effort to model this change however. Anyway a minor bug I ran across the gun smoke and flash from the 20mm cannon on the F/A-181 appears on one of the wing roots when the gun's location is evidently in the nose like an F/A-18. Also if/when you do get around to updating your excellent F-15SE Silent Eagle pack I'd really love an option for the turkey feathers on the engine nozzle. That reduced RCS airframe doesn't look right without them. It's different from the F-15SE I know but most of Boeing's promo stuff for their current offering of the less ambitious F-15X/F-15EX show the fighter with them. If Boeing is going to keep offering updated F-15s they ought to combine the F-15SE with the wing envisioned for the F-15U which was a McDonnell Douglas project from forever ago. Of course they'd be better off with something completely new to offer the Air Force or Navy.

Oh nice I hated how that was ending up on all of my weapons by default even those of the wrong caliber.

Very nice Strykers hiding in the background. Hopefully we'll eventually get the new Dragoon variant at some point. I love autocannons and cannot lie.

I see what you mean. Personally I have no problems with people working off existing concepts and designs to build something that's "semi-fictional" as long as it's not too crazy or unbelievable. I think BIS did a decent job with their F/A-181 of mixing elements of various US fighters for example. I must admit that side view you posted is cool looking. If Firewill was looking to do anything more with the F-14 I'd again have to suggest doing a fictional "F-14E" using elements of the ST-21 design first. The only significant changes to the external airframe profile that I'm aware of was the reshaping of the wing root area (where the glove vanes were on the F-14A/B) to carry additional fuel, and a new canopy that provided better frontal visibility. There would be some basic treatment to reduce radar cross section similar to what has been done for the F-16 and other fighters but nothing extensive like what was envisioned for the ASF-14 or NATF. Engines were to be F110-GE-129s which offered a significant increase in thrust over the earlier variant used on the F-14B/D. Besides for that it would be a matter of simulating the improved avionics, new cockpit with multicolor MFDs, HMDs, etc, and new weapon systems. The AIM-152 which was intended for the F-14D should be one of them but they hadn't down-selected to one contractor team before it was cancelled. Personally I favor the somewhat more conventional Hughes design. Firewill don't view this as me asking for anything I'm mostly just using this as an opportunity to ramble on about the Tomcat and what could have been. The mess of 1990s NAVAIR procurement is a somewhat interesting subject.