krzychuzokecia

That's Harbin Z-20. Chinese bought a number of UH-60As in 1980s, but for whatever reason* decided to focus on a mix of light Z-9s (Eurocopter Dauphin), medium Mi-17s and heavy Z-8s (Eurocopter Super Frelon). Now they're looking for replacement for both Z-9 and Mi-17 and the "FakeHawk" is one of the contenders (the other is also an Airbus product, EC175). * official story says due to embargoes after Tiananmen, but that somehow haven't prevented them from getting other tech from the west.

Links on VK work for me.

That's CAIC Z-10, which was always intended as a heavy attack helicopter. The lighter, more "Commanche-like" (even though Commanche evolved into a quite heavy machine itself) Chinese attack heli is the new Harbin Z-19. But even though light attack helis are seemingly more and more popular (after Tiger, A129 and now Z-19), the old heavy concept is far from dead yet - Russians are very into heavy attack choppers, and even USMC AH-1Z is heavier than Apache (Agusta A129 is also getting "thiccer" with the TAI T129 redesign, and possible AW249 development).

Great to see you back modding OFP!

Oh, don't worry, I'm not deleting a single thing related to OFP/Arma! Can't wait to see what you come up with next, good luck! (And as always: if you need some sort of financial support, I'm sure I'm not alone to say "you can count on me"!)

Okay, I uploaded all I had, except two files: SMD-Sara-A2-Full-Sahrani-Map-Port-v165.zip (1,09 GB) and STALKER-FULL-V1.03.7z (745 MB), since those are too big, and get skipped.

When trying to upload a particular file (@DIH_Africa2.zip 531MB), I'm getting the following: Traceback (most recent call last): File "urllib3\connectionpool.py", line 706, in urlopen File "urllib3\connectionpool.py", line 394, in _make_request File "urllib3\connection.py", line 234, in request File "http\client.py", line 1252, in request File "http\client.py", line 1298, in _send_request File "http\client.py", line 1247, in endheaders File "http\client.py", line 1065, in _send_output File "http\client.py", line 987, in send ConnectionResetError: [WinError 10054] Istniejące połączenie zostało gwałtownie zamknięte przez zdalnego hosta During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred: Traceback (most recent call last): File "requests\adapters.py", line 449, in send File "urllib3\connectionpool.py", line 756, in urlopen File "urllib3\util\retry.py", line 532, in increment File "urllib3\packages\six.py", line 769, in reraise File "urllib3\connectionpool.py", line 706, in urlopen File "urllib3\connectionpool.py", line 394, in _make_request File "urllib3\connection.py", line 234, in request File "http\client.py", line 1252, in request File "http\client.py", line 1298, in _send_request File "http\client.py", line 1247, in endheaders File "http\client.py", line 1065, in _send_output File "http\client.py", line 987, in send urllib3.exceptions.ProtocolError: ('Connection aborted.', ConnectionResetError(1 0054, 'Istniejące połączenie zostało gwałtownie zamknięte przez zdalnego hosta', None, 10054, None)) During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred: Traceback (most recent call last): File "bidentify.py", line 47, in <module> File "bidentify.py", line 40, in main File "lib\bidentify.py", line 46, in start File "lib\bidentify.py", line 96, in doScan File "lib\scandir.py", line 68, in scandir File "lib\scandir.py", line 134, in submitFiles File "lib\scandir.py", line 168, in submitItem File "requests\sessions.py", line 590, in post File "requests\sessions.py", line 542, in request File "requests\sessions.py", line 655, in send File "requests\adapters.py", line 498, in send requests.exceptions.ConnectionError: ('Connection aborted.', ConnectionResetErro r(10054, 'Istniejące połączenie zostało gwałtownie zamknięte przez zdalnego host a', None, 10054, None)) [9140] Failed to execute script bidentify Error 10054 description is "An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host". Happened three times today, I'm not sure if it's the filesize that's problem, or the file itself. At the moment I'm uploading the rest of stuff that I have.

Finally got some time to go through latest updates - it's all mind-blowing, especially the British forces by Stagler! And the campaign, amazing! Congratulations! On the topic of Guba, I noticed the unarmed variant with Gorka jacket ("cwr3_o_officer_guba") is also called "Colonel Guba" in the editor. Some bugs I noticed in CWC (have only played through first "serious" mission, Morton assault): 1. Armstrong seems to have someone's else face in the very first cutscene, later it gets back to normal 2. The civilian observing US copters approaching Everon is wearing 2035 thermo-active undies. 3. One of the soldiers is aiming at Berghoff during the briefing before assault on Morton. 4. During assault there's no tank support. 5. Assault ended succesfuly even though there were still enemies defending the town (poor Berghoff and Fowley gave their lives to them). Of course there are also big improvements over original, but I'm not spoiling anything!

Of course! It makes me so damn happy to see it working, you're saving the community once again Jerry! Thank you so much!

Yay, that syntax worked! I uploaded 3 megs of missing A1 files, now going through 5 gigs of A2 ones - my ISP will hate me for that, but it's okay, I'll hate them back! :D Edit: @jerryhopper currently client responds "Server full, please wait 15 sec" - I think it started about 20-30 minutes ago.

Is the bIdentify client supposed to usable already? I can't get it to work - running as administrator, bIdentify added to anti-vir exemptions etc. I'm using the syntax from first post/github release page, but it doesn't seem to work. Matter of fact, even the help commands don't work.

I'm perfectly aware of your efforts, as I said in other thread - I'm willing to donate to keep AA.info and all your other projects going. You mentioned bIdentify in your post, which made me think that you're unable to host OFPEC as active site, while it seems that H- would prefer to keep it working - in which case, obviously, the bIdentify is not a viable solution. Of course it can serve as a backup for the files hosted on OFPEC, but again - at the moment it seems that's not the aim, aim is to keep it working. Anyway, I believe you and H- will do whatever that's possible to keep the OFPEC legacy, in one form or another! Good luck!

As amazing as bIdentify project is, I'd say if it's possible to keep OFPEC active as a website (not just as a torrent archive) we should do anything that's possible to keep it alive still. Especially since lots of knowledge was posted on OFPEC forums.

Speaking of file-size - I'm on a rather slow connection, does the client allow to set some priority on uploading files? So I could start with small ones, and get to the bigguns later. Also, what's the further plan? I mean - having all the files backed up seems like only part of the job. To make the archive usable for people, the files should be accompanied by some sort of description, maybe simple tags system? I know you plan some sort of config lookup, but classnames are often not enough.

Yep, might be a good idea to find and write down the model names of all affected objects and post a ticket on Feedback Tracker.

Yay! Thank you guys!

Years of development surely paid off! I can't wait what you guys will do on 40th anniversary of OFP! Seriously though: thanks for all your incredible stuff from the past!

I'll try to dig something up - see, when my HDD died in 2017, I've lost all the data regarding my OFP Iraq War mod, including the reference photos. Since then I'm religiously back-uping my work, but I haven't really got back to the Iraq War project. FWIW: my mod was focusing on Karbala, not Al Kut, but the general architecture is still the same.

No, not in the way Arma 3 deals with it. First: like Macser said, voices are defined in main config in CfgVoice part. But that class contains just their names with paths to actual soundfiles. It does nothing to apply them to actual units. To apply face/voice to unit, you need to use identities. These are defined in CfgWorlds class, were you have four separate classes for identities for West, East, Guerrilla and Civilian units. Unit will be assigned a random identity from the class that fits it's faction. You can add your own identities (with different voices) to existing faction classes, but they'll always be mixed with all the pre-existing ones (resulting in a mix of English and Swedish for all West units). Red Hammer adds it's own voices in CfgVoice, but applies them by replacing speaker parameter in existing identities in CfgWorlds/East/Soldiers. It may be possible to create your own class under CfgWorlds, with a set of unique identities, and then use a script utilizing setIdentity command. However I never tested it, it may never work - either it's impossible to create custom class in CfgWorlds, or setIdentity may not see any CfgWorlds identities at all. The second option is probably true, because all the custom identities (like David Armstrong or Victor Troska in campaigns) are created on the mission/campaign level, with CfgIdentities class in description.ext. Polish OFPL mod used a textfile (identities.hpp) containing custom Polish identities, hidden in an addon, which you could include in your description.ext, and then use game logic to start the script (on all OFPL units) that would assign those custom identities - making Polish units have Polish names, while Americans had American (OFPL had no custom voice-over, but if it had, then it'd still require same steps). In later Armas not only CfgIdentities is added to main config, but there's additional parameter in unit config, which allows you to change what class of identities your units will use.

I think the worst thing is getting rid of classes, which is even more pushing BF into the territory of yet another COD-clone. The trailer says "all out war", but the maps seem pretty small, created around one/two centerpieces (examples from both trailers: the container ship, the rocket launch-pad, the two skyscrapers, and that "ski resort"). Maybe that's just the way trailers are made - there are some short scenes which seem placed further away from center-pieces. It's possible that BF might have gone a bit into the territory of "battle royale" games, I can see how the match starts with players outside the main target, push to it in vehicles mostly, and then there's some "Michael Bay" crazy fight in the end. Which can be fun (if one gets past the ridiculous idea of riding tornado in a glide suit! :D ), but after enough of replays may get boring. Good point - I've dug a bit, and apparently the F-35 has USMC markings, while the AK-toting commandos in cinematic trailer have... golden maple leaf insignia. Umm... People's Republic of Canuckistan, eh? Doesn't really bother me THAT much, it all depends on how they'll pull off the setting as a whole - it's not like BF series is not known from fake "non-offending" factions - like the MEC, or whatever "not-Iraq, not-Iran, not-Afghanistan" from BF2 was called. Heck, Arma does the same thing, and it sort of works (I'd still prefer real countries, even if in futuristic setting). Still, I strangely like the looks of the assets and even GUI - guess I'm still bummed after seeing that "oh no, Arma 3 too futuristic" was really not that sci-fi'ish at all. One thing I noticed in that gameplay trailer is that "OPFOR" transport heli seems to be the fake Puma-Hind from Rambo/Red Dawn. Stands out in a "vintage" way from the "cyberpunky" rest.

That could make a great use out of Astra corp from Contact, but I think all the Astra assets are still in Contact-Contact ("the total replacement mod"), not Contact-Enoch ("the always loaded" part). Not to mention, it'd add DLC requirement. But yeah, one can dream! :D

The houses, the shops, the mosque, the office building, the warehouses... It all looks amazing, and more important, spot on for the Iraq! I've grown a bit tired of almost every Iraqi map reusing the old Sahrani assets, or (even worse) the Afghan mud-huts from Takistan. This is not only breath of fresh air, it's simply best looking Iraqi asset collection... ever?

I think because BIS themselves don't test the cDLCs - 3rd party devs (SGD in this case) are approved, given tools/help (I suppose?), and BI only influence is to put the content on Steam store. Somewhere on the SGD forums the devs confirmed that in their tests there was no problem with rice paddies, and that issue will get fixed sooner or later. Which naturally doesn't detract from Johnny's solution, which will sure come in handy before the patch!

Disclaimer: the last BF game I played was Battlefield Vietnam in 2004 or so. And years later I tried the standalone Project Reality. So I don't think I'm the supposed target... ...but indeed this type of "pathos-enfused Hollywood" trailer seems like a failure. Yes, they do nod/homage to the classic absurd moves you can do in BF (in BF1942 I really jumped out of the plane, shot down my pursuer with BAR and got back into the plane - for 11 year old me it was the awesomest thing ever!), but they present it in such serious, tone-deaf way... it just feels forced and fake. Which probably is better approximation of actual game than my memories of ancient titles in the series. Watching gameplays from latest BFs my mind subconciously replaces most of the sounds with cash register "cha-ching!", it's all built around sales of DLCs and microtransactions, you'd think that game is an afterthought. ...not to mention weird moralizing/pandering. I like the robot though - we should have something like that in A3! (Yep, I really don't mind the near-future setting of A3, and it fits BF style of gameplay very well too)

Yep, that was mine understanding too, that DayZ SA is "test-bed for Enfusion", and after delivering the "final" version in 2019, BI goes "all hands on deck" to work on a new title that uses Enfusion in it's entirety, with all the features new engine can offer. Matter of fact, that was the plan according to their blog post in January 2020 - they were supposed to finish Enfusion and release the first big title running it (which could take some years even as they said). Except, throwbacks to OFP (Cold War setting, locations) is a far cry from "OFP remake". Leaks were very precise, and BI officially released info (like their blog posts) are clear indication that Enfusion still requires a lot of work - work that's needed to make the game be on OFP level of complexity/gameplay. Well, at least you're good sport about it! :D What I can say - there was so much speculation going on in the last few years, that many people simply grew tired of it. Me included. I'm more of the "wait and see" state of mind really.