Jump to content

chortles

Member
  • Content count

    6582
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

254 Excellent

About chortles

  • Rank
    Captain

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    chortles9
  • Twitter
    chortles81
  • Youtube
    chortles9
  • Steam url id
    chortlesthegoon
  • Origin
    Chortlesthegoon
  1. Tanks DLC Feedback

    @darkChozo I haven't seen any official (particularly 'technical reasons') explanation except this: As for any complaining about the lack of a M1A2 Abrams... I've been saying for a while now that I wanted light tanks in the vein of the M8 Armored Gun System, or its would-be competitors in the Mobile Protected Firepower program -- or the ZTQ-15 (aka ZTQ-105), or the export VT5 -- along the lines of the same 'mobility vs. protection/firepower' dynamic that the Rhino MGS is supposed to hit, instead of MBTs.
  2. Tanks DLC Feedback

    Replying to this specific point, since it's separate from your disappointment with the choices of paywall'd vehicles and instead applicable to the base game (the renamed-Merkava, Leopard Revolution, and T-95/Black Eagle aren't getting APS either): When asked why: So the lack of APS to date seemingly confirms these two dev posts from half a year ago.
  3. MLRS/MRLS model (M5 Sandstorm) as (Jets update sensors-based) SAM launcher has been done, and before that I've already seen shipping containers as makeshift (scripted, no config mods required) missile launchers years ago... no reason that the existing turn-the-launcher-to-turn-the-scan-area tech (see the aforementioned Centurion) shouldn't be reproducible on the Sandstorm model so long as you have the named selection for the scan area to be emanating from and aligned with.
  4. The actual reason I'm sure is "already made the assets, don't let these go to waste" see all the hardware reassigning relative to who had what before the Early Access period but I've tended to headcanon it as "the TRG series was previously an AAF service rifle before they completed a replacement with Mk20s", as little sense as it makes otherwise I admit.
  5. Will you be equipping troops with HK416F as the primary weapon instead of FAMAS?
  6. Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

    No, the F/A-181 Black Wasp II is a fictional airframe (hence 'F/A-18+F-22 mashup') done to an Arma 3 vanilla standard (i.e. tech, features, scale for its sensors/weapons) while the F/A-18X Black Wasp was based off of what Boeing called the Advanced Super Hornet, now dubbed the F/A-18 XT or the Block III. The Black Wasp's conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) and enclosed weapons pod (EWP) are right from the real thing, which flew slightly before Arma 3's release and of which a program director said -- boldfacing here is mine -- "What do we need to prosecute those targets in that [2030] time frame", but they could arrive as early as 2019 since the U.S. Navy went for it this past summer.
  7. Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

    Relevant to the licensing discussion, apparently even sticking to military designation isn't safe: "Removed all M1151 variants due to licensing issues and replaced them with MAT-V variants." Also, to ensure that the overall third-party DLC discussion has the full breadth of 'replying to what the devs are saying', here's pettka on Reddit:
  8. Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

    @Undeceived As someone who contributed to CUP and solicited on its behalf to other modders... no. From the official pitch invitation: "We'll be looking to select and publish new projects, but also existing projects that would be able to scale up in quality/quantity as a result of being published as a premium DLC. However, we'll always insist that any existing free Arma 3 addons and mods remain free. In other words, third-party DLC we publish should never replace something which was previously free." Heck, there's some content whose continued presence in CUP was conditioned on it never being monetized...
  9. Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

    Literally two posts above yours: "Arma Premium DLC protection was not designed to handle scripted features. I would recomend to think about such package that will include at least some key content that can be protected." @armored_sheep Is that "should include a working in-game prototype delivered as an Arma 3 mod" about proposals actually a "must"? Even before armored_sheep's confirmation, I imagine that Bohemia would already have been on a case-by-case basis weighing "do we believe this will sell" against any pitches.
  10. Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

    As far as 'contemporary' content I mainly see would-be 'national forces' packs and sometimes semi-overlapping takes on gear/factions*, versus Bohemia's much sparser 2030s factions (NATO/CTRG, CSAT, AAF, FIA, Syndikat, barely-there Gendarmerie, and most recently IDAP) to make content for. * I'm distinctly remembering three different takes on the PLA in Arma 3.
  11. Just got this error when checking out the Gendarmerie faction in the Editor today.
  12. Changes in holster weapon .

    @M. Glade I believe that you are mistaken and the original poster was talking about placement of the primary weapon when switching to sidearms, which is gameplay-relevant irrespective of faction because it affects the sidearm draw time and thus I'd call it a legitimate issue.
  13. Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

    @soolie Don't get your hopes too high; I for one am reassured by pettka's explanation that all third-party DLC proposals "should already include a working in-game prototype delivered as an Arma 3 mod", a requirement which far too many non-game-mode MANW entries did not meet.
  14. @oukej Any chance that we'll ever get to see the KH-3A Fenghuang get dynamic loadouts as the MQ-4A Greyhawk/K40 Ababil-3 and MQ-12 Falcon did, and/or of the Jian ATGM becoming available to other CSAT aircraft?
  15. @granQ Looking forward to that, and please feel free to PM me if you need any help with the implementation of this or of the sensors and info panels!
×