victim913

Vehicles should go wherever you tell them to. If you want to have a tank knock down a whole forest then they should be able to do it. Even small offroad vehicles (who could easily go through the forest) won't go. It is insane. I don't see real life army drivers say " oh no, those trees are 20 feet apart. I won't drive through that" when commander tells them to. Even when trees give plenty of drive room. I was trying to get a good tank on tank mission using Proving Grounds and it is very difficult. Tanks won't drive over fallen trees and won't drive through even simple tree rows. Chernarus was easier to see. Forest was everywhere and should be difficult to drive through. But Proving Grounds? There are very few places a tank wouldn't want to drive through. But the trees on proving grounds are in lines/rows that are 1 tree deep. There are parts where one tree is 30 meters from the next tree and NO vehicle will drive between them. And again, fallen trees????? my civilian, piece of crap car can drive over them. But not in Arma. Anyone test it. Put tanks anywhere and give them straight waypoints through easy tree areas. Half of the time they won't go through. It's one thing to give a waypoint thats a good distance away allowing the tank to figure out which way is best. But put a waypoint 20 or 30 meters away (so that you are clearly telling it to go through) and watch your tank get to the first waypoint, then drive all the way back to the road then drive all the way back to the second waypoint that was 30 meters away from the last one. IDEA: Why not set the waypoint behavior dictate the path. Careless=they drive where they want. Combat=they drive almost exactly where you tell them. Stealth=they go EXACTLY where you tell them. Fixing it probably means that you need to fix your collision values so that a tank doesn't bounce 30 feet in the air when driving over a tree. I'm sure others can understand what I am talking about. Thanks.

I want to have a couple dead soldiers lined up next to a crashed aircraft. How can I get them to be dead, laying on their backs? I searched dead and didn't find anything like this. If i just make a unit dead in editor, he spawns standing, then dies a second later. This causes them to fall in a couple different ways. I want them to look like they were gathered and placed there. thanks

Wow I have smoke coming out of my ears. As soon as I comprehend all that, I'm sure i'll have more questions. But it seems pretty straight forward. Now i'll try some of it and see what happens. Thnaks. My next question will likely be about setting up the vegetation and stuff. But one step at a time.

I have started working on 29 Palms Marine corps Air Ground Combat Center. Alot of the area is pretty flat so I am moving arond trying to find the best terrain for the game. I may end up not getting the airstrip there where the urban combat area is, but there are about 5 other airports in the area and still a big hunk of the base. It's hard to see where the terrain is in global mapper, I guess I won't see how it looks until it's half way done. I have a question though. Does everything have to be so copied? Looking at tutorials I pretty much end up with a recreation of everything. Can't I just get the terrain and put things where I want? I don't want the same street settup, or really the vegetation. I would rather it be my own island rather than 29 palms. Is it possible or practical or easier? I also have a small area in Corona California where S.C. village paintball park is. It's got a lot of good terrain around it for a small map. Maybe a good place to start my first map. Also have had a greek island Aegina and another one around Corinth. Some land in southern Israel and tunnisia. Trying to see which has best potential. May wait for the greek stuff until Arma3 since it's same relative area and use those buildings.

oh man, thank you for the detail. I think I actually understand what is going on. Thankfully we have people like you who try to actually help people instead of pointing and running. Even in the Visitor manual it doesn't explain what some of the values mean. I guess they figure anyone using it should know something. But not me. So if I am to understand you, I am thinking that the size of my xyz being a 20480 has nothing to do with the 2048 map size in visitor.? I thought they were the same. I thought the xyz had to be the map size. So I think you said; If I choose a 2048 x 2048 I will have a map with 2048 squares going left and right an 2048 squares going up and down. Then my cell size is how big each square will be. 10 meters for each square would mean that my map will have room for 20480 meters side to side, and up and down? I'm glad you said resolution. Because then I think of my monitor, and level of detail when changing resolution, instead of squares on a map. I thought of it more as coordinates. I had no idea it was the resolution of the terrain and how it smoothes it out or not. And if I have a xyz that was 20480 that would fit exactly. If I had a map that was smaller like 10240 that wold mean each square would end up measuring 5 meters not 10 even though the cell size would still say 10? And stretching the map out like that decreases the detail? Instead of shrinkiing a map down from 4096 to a 2048 size. So if that is right, or close to it, I need to understand how the terrain gets put on the map. I thought it just lays down exactly what the xyz says. Does that mean 1 cell will be 1 size? Meaning that 1 cell will not change height. On te south end of the cell it's height is 4 and the north size is 4.3? A user map "Tora Bora" comes to mind. I don't think that there is a flat spot anywhere on that map. It's really bumpy. It will be hard to find any flat spot as big as a house. So does that mean that it had a higher resolution? Maybe each cell was 5 meters or less? Am I right to assume that terrain that may have steep mountains will need smaller resolution in order to make the transition in height more natural? If not, using a lower resolution like 50 meters on a map like that would create odd looking steps rather than natural mountains? Thanks

Can I get a response from real Marnes? What is the difference between the body armor used in A2 and this one? Obviosly they are completely different, I can see that. But which do you guys prefer? The last one gave me a little comfort seeing the protection they gave to the groin. These don't seem to have that protection. What can you tell us about it all? BI's Marines really disappointd me. They just lookd blah, brown from a distance. I didn't like the legs, pants not tucked in to the boots, etc. Everything about them was bad. The only good thing was the person who made a desert variation. At least it looked more like wht the marines look like. thanks for the addon. great work

Awesome work. I believe this is the best looking paint job I have ever seen. The way you "painted" it and the dirt and grime looks great. It's not just dirty like every other addon, it's dirty and greasy and rusty for a reason. It looks real the way you have the grime running down the sides and everywhere. Again, I can't think of another addon that looks that realistic. The vehicle itself looks bad ass. It makes me want to put it in missions just to look at. Once I figure out how to use it, then it will be very good. I know you made alot of buttons like "prone" etc to be used to do things in the vehicle, so it will take me a minute to figure it out. But I would assume you would use some of the normal controls too. I can't get the machine gun on top to fire, or actually grab. The commander just leans over without doing anything. I would assume the normal controls would work for it though. Using the 0 or left click or middle mouse scroll, or whatever people have set up to normally get the MG to work. I'll have to dig in through the read me a little furher. You have so much info in the readme to make it more realistic, but i'm not sure what is there for the game and what I am reading for the "mood", "baking contaminated soldiers to 400 degrees" if something leaks. Does it leak in game? Excellent work, p.s. Looking at what some people have said, I hope that it can be used in both realms, realistic and easy. I see people say they have to learn a bunch of stuff to use it. That's cool for people who like realism, but I hope there is also a way for dummies to use it too. It's your work and you can do what you want, but not everyone wants that level of realism. Some of us want to just get in and play without having to do homework in order to use it. Since the game is set up to just play, I hope you can at least set up some kind of option. It would suck to have such a good addon, but not be able to use it because we don't have time to be realistic. At least a way for AI to know what to do if I put the in it.

I have the same problem, exactly. It's either because we have OA or it hates us. :eek:

I'm sure someone will have seen this question asked already, i just can't find the answer. I haven't installed a beta for a while now, but when I did try this one I got an error. It said: "Game version 1.58 required. Your current version is 1.54" But I have patch 1.59, I double checked it and made sure i installed it. But if there is a 1.59, then why would the latest beta say that it's for 1.58? If it's been answered somewhere else, I apologize. Hard to search "beta" when the whole section is beta. Thanks

There are so many threads now with too many thoughts in them. Like a thread about AI ends up talking about tanks and so someone looking for a tank thread won't find any. So I thought maybe having a general OPFOR thread might help. What is everyone thinking about the new screenshots with the OPFOR in them? From behind they look like aliens. I am wondering if those OPFOR are SF or regular? They look way too sci-fi for me. I know it's in the future but it looks like it's WAY into the future. Just looks like overkill on all the gear, including arm pads, gloves etc.. It looks like OPFOR that you would see landing on Mars or something. And with the Comanche (which I hate) and the armor, and pretty much everything we have seen so far, it seems to kind of lean in the direction of BF 2142. Don't get me wrong, I am tired of fighting the same old OPFOR. But I'm starting to get a little nervous about the game. Maybe they could mix in some of the not too sophistated screen shots. They are trying to market this with the future aspect of the game, but that is what may turn alot of people away. Well, not away, we will all still buy it. But I would just like to see more LOW TECH military screen shots. Just to let us know that it is still anchored in the real world.

With the new screen shots I must say I am disappointed to see another F35. I know it's the airforce version but still. Every game has it and I'm getting tired of playing in it. Last time we had the Marines so that made sense. This time, however, it's an airforce jet. I'm sure will see anothre a10 too. But since they are using Airforce, can't we move on? Most games out there passed the F22. They both came out within a certain time period, and since the F35 has advantages, most games went straight past the F22. The F-15SE would be perfect for this game. It's new and stealthy and fits the future. Also having Merkavas in game, points to Israel, and they do have F15's. So it's not a stretch to add that. I'm sure other people have suggestions too. But I'd rather see an F-22 over an F-35. And a F-15 SE. I won't say anything about the A10, too many people love it too much. Why not just put all 4 in. Also, F-35's also carry missles and things on the outside too. If it's gonna be in game why not add that version too. It's not like stealth jets are any different in such a small battlefield, so why not?

The reason I mentioned the US Airforce being used was because a year ago, I mentioned that Arma2 could bring in some other aircraft, I was shot down because Arma2 is using Marines, so that means F-35. Pretty much saying I was insane to mention anything else. Even though they had an A10. But I have to disagree with the guy who said the F-35 is a beautiful machine. I think it one of the ugliest aircraft I have ever seen. The only one I know that is worse, was the one that was in competition with it. That's why I am tired of having it in games. I think it sucks worse that US can't afford to buy more Raptors. They are better and more expensive and it sucks that we have to settle for F35s. One day war will break out and we will be kicking ourselves for not having more of the F22's But just my opinion. I would love to see the Israeli version of the F16's.

The game is still really far off. The screen shots we see COULD very well be a mixture of new gear to test. Say the Iranian with Israeli gear. If I was testing my game, I might select the highest tech soldier and give him an interesting weapon that I want to test and play around with. So maybe the gear mixture is a way of showing us as much new content as possible. Maybe the OPFOR are using BLUFOR gear in the screen shots for maximum WOW! But as we get closer we could see them with other gear. Or maybe their gear hasn't been made yet. They want to give us a good look at that convention, so maybe this stuff is just stuff they are experimenting with because the other stuff isn't ready yet. As far as story goes, I can get into it if we see that there was some type of East uprising/unity. And like the world we live in now, UN or NATO doesn't want to upset the masses who can't understand war. Picture the people here in the U.S., we can't do anything without millions of people protesting. So the WORLD leaders may be afraid to go to war, because of these cry babies. So the "EAST" builds up armies and technologies like Germany did pre-world war 2, and then they just walk through any country they want before NATO actually gets involved. Make this 10 years from now and I'll buy the alien suits. I doubt they are regulars, and the new vehicles will have a good story to make them work. And yeah, I wasn't complaining about the features so much as Iwas wanting to see the basic stuff still there. Throw some regular infantry and regular tanks that we are used to. Even if we have to see another t90 vs M1a2 just to show us it's still realistic. I am very excited. I just hope I will still be able to use this computer.

I think this topic is big but never gets talked about because everyone knows it will never change. Since Arma3 is coming in a year, there might be a chance to do something about it. Statics are at terrible heights. They are pretty much just easy targets that have 0 chance of surviving. Fortifications would provide the cover they need but they are either too big or too small. Can we get these things to match? Small bunker- too tall for mini tripods, too small for standing tripods. It's knee high. It won't protect statics. You can only be covered if you kneel down. Large bunkers- is too high for statics. Only regular units in standing position. Also making Machine gunners have bad aim. Tower- is a little better. If you use a standing tripod at the top it's the same as small bunker, however, since your targets are lower than you, the angle provides slightly better cover. Trenches- a waste. It looks like they were made for the minitripods but are very awkward and still don't provide good cover. Some people don't care. At least it's something. But most people aren't mission makers, so they usually get placed with the 2d map or in game when doing construction. So they need to be set at a height and ready to go. There is no luxury of adding the green sandbags on the tower to cover minitripods or building with those. How about this: small bunker- MG nest. Empty it. That way we can place all ranges of mini tripods in it. regular bunker- make it chest high. It will be perfect for tripods and almost good cover for standing. Large bunker- give a step in places. So the step next to the opening you can fit a standing tripod, but a few feet away on the ground, Standing units will be able to shoot out. Tower- make 2. A left and a right. Having an opening on the left hand side limits where you can put it. So make an opposite one with the opening on the right side. Put a couple sandbags around the platform to give Mini protection. That way the platform can be used better as AT/AA launchers. HEDGEHOG- make them a size that actually stops tanks. Everything I drive can drive over them, mostly without a problem. Linekeepers box is a really good guard shed. I would like to see that with a door on both sides. ULTIMATELY it would be cool if you release a set of buildable fortifications. Like sandbags, H-barrier, floor, etc. that mission makers can build fortifications and make what they want. They way it is now sucks. Using pallets for floor and some of the training items, to make a base. H- barriers are too big for this. The stuff we have is big and bulky more for like a base. Lets do something for small buildings for soldiers.

I'm not the kind of guy to reply "search" to any topics. This place is about help. Most of the time the reply of "search" is often longer than just giving the answer. There are, however, people who don't give respect to this board either. And posting a thread that only says "what must be done to achiever it" is lazy and disrespectful. And you got the answer your post deserved. I seached "Arrowhead buildings" and I found the answer in less than 4 minutes. And it is in detail. So the reason you were told to search was because it was easy to find. Yet you respond to him as if it's his job to do your work. He makes most of the addons you use, yet you disrespect. If you did search then give an example of why you don't understand it. Don't just ask people to do your work for you. Congratulaions, you taught yourself everything you know....Just like everyone else and their mom here. And if you haven't figured out the OA buildings yet, then you aint on "da verge" of anything. This isn't high school, if someone doesn't give you an answer you like, don't start talking about how great you are. When you get old enough you will see that telling us how great you are and how good your map is and how no one has made an AI friendly map has nothing to do with the topic. You turned this thread from a search to convert OA buildings to a high school bragging contest. But you have your answer. And thanks for letting me know that their are no good AI maps out there. I wish I would have known sooner. I wasted many fun hours playing on maps in SP. If I would have known they weren't any good I wouldn't have tried harder to not like them. Instead, hours of fun that I will never get back. such a waste:(

Not to just fill up this thread with nothing but "amazing" but amazing! I don't know if anyone asked this yet, but what happens when he gets to the groud? Does he lose his gear or change clothes etc...? I have always wanted to make a HAHO mission which this would be perfect for. They are more common than HALO but I think people would be board out of their minds waiting for him to come down. But excellent work!!!

I have seen a webpage with various animations but I'm not sure that that is what I want. I had a link to a page but I can't find it right now. I'm looking for a way to have certain units doing stuff during the mission. It's not for making any video or intro. I want some people sitting on a floor sitting in a chair, standing around talking or moving their arms random things. I was hoping for an animation were you can have someone that looks like he is unloading a truck. It's mostly for civilians and random soldiers. The reason I ask here is because I've tried some that have had no affect. The only one I got to work was someone sitting on the ground. It said he was smoking but he wasn't. I have seen some that say things like "Ohara sitting in chair talking". I thought that that was a description and that if I put it in a soldiers init, he would do it. OR is does it only work on Ohara? Like in OA there is that scene at the end that has all the people you played sitting in a chair next to each other. All with different poses. I thought that maybe the name like "Ohara" was describing the particular pose that he was in. And if there is a chair or something involved in the script, does the chair show up, or do you have to tell what chair he is in eetc. Another reason I made the thread is because there are many threads that say animation in them. And I have a very very very limited online access at the moment. So If I ask in this thread, next time I am able to get online I can find what I need right away. The people I had a wireless access from must have moved, so until i can pay for it, I have to take my computer elsewhere just to look. So thanks, for those who helped and didn't just yell 'SEARCH'!!!

Thanks for the detail, it gives me the info I am looking for. Seeing how you described it paints a good picture now. I had to stop playing Harvest Red when I got up to the part where you meet the russians for the first time. You go to meet someone and the spetsnaz attacks you. It must have been the animations that froze everything up. I could never ever get passed that scene and had to do something different. A few times, I was able to move, however everyone else stayed frozen. All the units were stuck in some kind of freeze mode but their "brains" were still active. They would fire if I walk directly in front of them and talk to each other "enemy over there,etc." But i could shoot them all. So I see how they can mess things up. I probably just need to put some kind of list together of "positions" instead of animation or movements. If I can get people to sit on things or sit on the ground or lay down, etc... I can just use that. I don't want to break into the villa and have people just standing around (not lookking where I tell them to look). I want to have people sitting or laying around. To give the illusion of being real or doing something. Also trying to find a way to make some of the civilian wokers, working. Ultimately I wanted to have a city that looked like people belonged there. Not 15 civilians standing randomly looking out into space. Hopefully the animation viewer will give me positions I can just leave people in until someone shoots at them or something. And I think you gave me some good info on the animations and how AND WHEN to use them. Oh, is it possible to make the women do anything? I can get them into a position in the realtime editor but once the mission starts they just stand. I'm trying to get a secretary to sit at a desk. Thanks

Thanks that is helpful, i'll try some of that. I found the link to the page i was using:http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA2:_Moves It has them seperated by Acin,Acts,Acrg,Adth,Aidle,etc...... It doesn't say what those mean. And it has this: AidlPpneMstpSnonWnonDnon_SleepA_layDown I started figuring out what some of the abbreviations meant, but not for all. I was able to get someone to sit, I think I used this: amovpsitmstpsraswrfldnon_smoking - Sitting smoking But he wasn't motioning smoking. I tried others in that section and didn't really have any good results. I was wondering that Movements and Animations might be different and work differently. Like which I should set up with a trigger to trigger a specific movement, compared to something I can put in someones init to have them stay a certain way. Like my guy that I can make sit. He sits and stays that way, but others do have some kind of time limit (as you pointed out). I put one unit with an init that says after a little time he will walk away. So I sat there waiting and waiting and nothing happened. I come back 10 minutes later and he finally moved somewhere else. It didn't give me a time. So if I want things to work together, it wouldn't work guessing. Hopefully I can get straight with the animation viewer you pointed out. Thanks

This is mostly about vehicles ( i saw an alice thread, this is different).But it can work with civilians too. I never use Ambient Civilian Traffic in Arma2 because I will get a tractor or bus spawned in a base. Or Cars spawning on a hill, or in the middle of an intersection or just really retarded areas. Alot of the times civilians don't spawn in the best places IF it even works. And some islands don't support it. So my idea is this: Have some type of a "Spawn Location" that is placeable in the editor like an object or trigger. 1- a spawn location that will spawn 1 person every set amount of time 2-a spawn location for a vehicle that only spawns 1 vehicle, but will not spawn another in that spot unless the first vehicle moves 3- a "group spawn" that you can change the size (like a trigger) and that will be used for group centers like the markets etc. Where the amount of civilians spawned depends on the size of the area. 4- a manned vehcile spawn location. Or you can modify the Ambient civilian stuff so that if youplace the module in the editor, markers show up on the map where they will spawn (ex 10 civilain spawns, 4 vehicles) then you can move the markers around. So they can be random and/or specific. I think that will put the civilian spawns like Alice etc. out of the hands of island makers who may not have a clue, and it will allow mission maker to take control of civilians. That way it will always work according to mission. Especially when BI releases a map that does not support ALice ( I think Shapur doesn't).

I don't think BI was doing this. BTW why do you guys keep thinking vegetation is GREEN in the summertime? Everything dies in the dry summer, then it rains in winter and things turn green from the rain. Except certain trees that die from too cold. But if I walk around in summer everyones lawns are dead.

You said you put it in the units init, you do the same thing with the seal unit. Right? I've been playing around with the units alot more. Especially the OA Mercenaries. Those are way better than BI's. Only 2 things that I personally would like to see different. Both are trivial, but #1 could be more helpful, especially when adding units in the editor without scripting for changing weapons and names etc. Also I'd like to point out that I play SP so anything I say is for that. 1-A few more basic rifleman. Out of the non specific units (AT,AR,MG,Sapper,Engineer,Medic, etc... There is only : Team leader, Mercenary, and S58v. Those are the only units that fit in the "RIFLEMAN" description. If you take out team leader, then you only have 2 "RIFLEMAN". Also Team leader and Sa58v are the same model, and mercenary and team leader have same rifle. So there is no randomness (for lack of a better word.) The rest of the basics are with grneade launchers: Assualt, GL, SCAR, Operator,Specialist. So you have 5 units that fit in the "GRENADIER/ASSAULT" description. So it's a 2 to 5 ratio (3 if you count TL). I would think the ratio should be the opposite with only 2 or 3 . I would think fewer mercenaries have grenade launchers. But I could be wrong. Just my opinion. Maybe just create a couple more with basic rifles. You did an excellent job on the models and you created enough different looking ones that you can have many combinations. I think most players would play as team leader, so giving the team leader a GL would probably be more useful but you would probably need a new model (maybe switch him with specialist) changing his model would also take away the risk of having his double with the sa58v. By the way it looks, It looks like you took the models into account when arming them though, which is excellent on your part. The rifle guys don't have ammo packs or heavy vests or anything. I'd like to see a MK16 and 17 with no GL. Also maybe a P90 or MD5. 2-Actually swithcing the team leader was my numbr 2. The models with grenade launchers look the coolest. Feels a little walking around in pink and tan, while te rest of my guys are in black and darker colors. That model also doesn't have much gear on so he looks a little less intimidating. #2 is really trivial, don't even waste time with it. Just thought i'd say what we are all thinking :p Hope this wasn't a complete waste of time reading. But this is one of very few addons that I will use ALOT! The pink team leader being my only insignificant issue. So many things right with this. Thank you.

Since Arma 3 is coming and since BI made a deal with Project Reality to let them modify and release BAF content, can you please, PLEASE unblock the headers on BAF and PMC stuff? PLEASE? It's been talked about before but I started this new thread because there is new situation and things have changed, adding to an old thread would just get lost in all the other talk. There are many cool things that you did in the missions, and I know me and alot of others would love to see exactly what you did. Destroy City, Weather with the Fog, etc. and many other things. I don't see a point to keeping it blocked anymore. Please help us:butbut: And anyone that doesn't know about the PR/BAF deal, here is a page that mentions it, about half way down. Someone here in another thread posted a link to the actual post. But I can't find it so here is a link that mentions it:http://www.realitymod.com/

I don't mean to unlock the pbo's making them free for anyone. I just think we should be allowed to make skins or look at the missions they made. I'm being cool about this. I'm not asking for anything crazy. However, if BI won't budge on this. Then I think if BI is willing to give away their content to PR (even though I paid for it) then PR should be forced to let us use their content for free as well, in regular arma2 not pr. We should be able to have their content free and playable as is, without playing PR. I want to use the PR Challenger2 in the mission I just made. And I want to be able to switch from the driver seat to the gunner seat without getting out like all the rest of arma tanks. Not PR way, then everyone has to get out. And you probably won't be able to team switch. (I thought of this at the end but i'm putting it here for those of you who don't want to read this whole reply but....) I CAN'T GET ONLINE. I had a wireless connection but the person who had the connection moved, so now I have to go out to the front of my apartment building to get a connection. And this forum is not even in my country so getting on the forums sucks. My point being, if I can't get online very often, I can't mod. So allowing a small portion of your game unlocked is the only way i'll be able to make my own missions. Release a pbo that has vehicle and soldier skins. That way no one can steal anything, but that way I will still be able to make skins, like the tan/green camo combination the British use, but you didn't make. And another pbo with your missions and campaign unlocked so I can see exactly how you destroyed your city, and created the fog, and how you scripted how the ied went off, or how you nuked all of the ships etc. BI are the masters. Me trying to learn how someone made their wannabe specops mission teaches me nothing. I can't make models either. My money tree out in the backyard died. So I can't afford a couple thousand dollars to buy a modelling program just to model the same thing BI did, all because I wanted it to have a different camo pattern. The forum is good as far as editing goes, but there is a huge learning curve. For the longest time I didn't know that things with _this in front of it meant that you need to fill in that part. I kept putting that in all my codes and they never worked. I can look on the biki for scripting commands but when they give examples, the examples often have other commands in them. The scripting commands are there for people who know how to script can know which commands work. It wasn't until I started taking missions apart that things started making sense. For example Destroycity function. A bunch of people have talked about the scripting command but no one has gotten it to work they way they want. For example "seed" everyone knows what 'seed' is but changing the value doesn't make much of a difference. Looking into the mission BI made for PMC, I would be able to see how they got it to work. Alot of times 1 single script command is supposed to do "A" but alot of times "A" works, because "B" and "C" are going on. And without B or C A doesn't give you the result you are looking for. And not everyone here has the patience to make a whole mission for you. I think that pretty much got my desperate point across (if Bi or anyone reads it) I am not one of those who think everything or anything should be free. I'm just asking for what you already do for Arma2, and Operation Arrowhead. I can reskin those AND steal your models if i wanted. So why not BAF and PMC? I mean those are incomplete. BAF with no Tank, PMC only has 1 vehicle. etc... I paid for BAF and PMC, and anything I reskin will only be useful only to the other people who bought it. But now it's starting here. PR comes and gets to use BI stuff that no one else gets to use. They did that with BF2 and now they will do that here. BF2 released expansions but didn't let the community mix them, But PR was allowed to. BF2 modders are no where near as good as ARMA modders. So if someone did try modding, all we got was occasional new vehicles. So the only place to play the real game and play with any armies and any vehicles we HAD to play PR. We had to spawn a mile away from the front lines and walk an entire mile ingame to get back to the fight. Because in real life vehicles don't just spawn out of no where after they blow up. So if some jerk take the HUMVEE by himself, the rest of us half to walk, then when he gets to the front he just abandons it. That's what we will have now. If i want to play as the BAF and I want to play on Namalsk in the snow, I will have to wear the uniforms BI made. So my guys get killed for standing out in the snow because I wasn't allowed to make an arctic type skin for them. And PR will have the best vehicles because BI gave them theirs and left us witout Tanks, or support vehicles, etc. So bottom line is we get to play with half armies like BAF or almost none if we use Germany or CZ. Or we can go play with whole armies in PR but spend half of the game walking to the battlefield. Or worse if we get wounded with no medic around. YOU CAN"T QUIT in PR. If you do you have to pay a penalty and wait MINUTES before you can rejoin. And every time you die you have to wait longer. So if BI won't let us reskin then why not make PR vehicles playable in regular ARMA I got hooked on this game because of the modding and the community, but I can't keep seeing another group of Force Recon guys reskinned and called British SAS. Every army in the entire world happens to have spec ops that look like Force Recon. It gets really old really fast. I get insulted seeing Amercian soldier reskinned calling them British and using M4's. I'm American and i'm insulted FOR the british. I am not asking for much at all. In fact it probably will take BI a whole minute to be able to do this. And might increase sales. If someone knows he can reskin a british soldier, he may just buy BAF so he can make his own army with th british soldier as a model. That's my 2 cents. Actually it probably won't matter, I hear Jesus is coming to pick me up today. And the rest will be forced to play PR unitl October when the world is supposed to end :eek:

Thank god someone finally made professional looking Rangers. If I have to see one more Specops addon using the same Force Recon, Delta models I think I'll go crazy. The helmets are terrible and every spec ops in the entire world all look the same. You can't just repaint FR and call them Rangers. So once again thank you for a GOOD addon. You didn't leave much to complain about. I love the helmets especially. My (useless) input: -Their pants look too tight. Not baggy enough. -Maybe cause they don't have knee pads. Give them knee pads on both knees and they would look perfect. And it would probably get rid of the tight look of their pants. -Their ammo vests look like they should come down just a tad pit more. -Something looks odd in the crotch. It looks fine when they stand still with no weapons, but with weapons they have one foot forward and it stretches that section. It only stretches a small area of camo, so it takes the light brown color and stretches it but no the green or other colors. No big deal just makes it look stretched out as opposed to looking natural. Not sure how to explain it. Anyway, on a scale of 1-10 they are at a 9.8. Really great work.