Jump to content

WyndonP

Member
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by WyndonP


  1. Great looking blaster!

    I have one critique that hasn't been put out there yet, as the gaping muzzle of the suppressor has been addressed: It's piddling but if we're shooting for accuracy, it probably should be corrected- the lower is stamped RRA. Though RRA used to have some federal contracts, none of them were military. Colt has up till now made any and all M4s in service and until FN starts producing the M4A1s later this year, Colt is the only lower for M4s or Mk18s in service.

    Other than that, the gun looks awesome.


  2. Nice, thanks for the heads up.

    Thank you for this .kju, works great for me!

    I couldn't get it to work with either Steam launch parameters or shortcut because the character limit cut off the end of the startup parameters. So I created a .bat file to bypass the character limit:

    Just copy the text in the quote box above to Notepad, replace the paths of Arma with your own Arma paths and save it as yourfilenamehere.bat . (Note: You need the quotation marks around the arma3.exe and -mod= lines if you have any spaces in your Arma paths, e.g. in folder names.) You can now launch your Arma without the annoying startup parameter character limits by clicking the .bat file.

    If you want to add custom startup parameters like many do, put them between the Arma3.exe and -mod= lines:

    Hope others having the same issue find this useful!


  3. I imagine that 'hit' is a direct damage modifier while 'typical speed' is a muzzle velocity multiplier of the existing velocity defined in a magazine's config?

    For what it's worth though, my wondering was re: whether muzzle velocity based on barrel length was simulated in the vanilla or not -- no need to make this change if so, but as I mentioned elsewhere, it's why I once modified a mission to replace the RH Mk 18 pack entries with vanilla Arma 2/OA M4A1/M4A3 entries -- "no point as far as gameplay is concerned".

    I did not see the class AmmoCoef entry used anywhere else in the small arms configs, so it's not being used to differentiate between the MX full length and MX carbine length barrels, for instance.

    If my guess is correct- and I am going to be testing this this week on my own weapons I've been porting- it's that all the numbers are multipliers. That data I pasted in was directly from one of the suppressors in the A3 weapons accessory config. It would seem that the suppressors act on the velocity and power, as well as visibility and audibility, of the cartridge fired in the magazine currently in the weapon. This used to be done to the cartridge itself, and then reflected in the magazines. In a messy workaround for carbines in A2, I had various magazines that kind of faked the barrel length issue in this manner; I had M4 and Mk18 magazines. It was usually more pain than it was worth.

    Of course, I can only test some facets of my hypothesis, and I'm going to reduce the hit down to what I think is 10% and start engaging live targets against an unsuppressed version of the same gun. Unfortunately, there isn't much of a chronograph to work with to test muzzle velocity...


  4. Doesn't seem to make much difference unless there's actually barrel length simulation with muzzle velocity in the alpha...

    I think this should be easily done by adding a variation of the "typical speed" section in the code found associated with the new suppressors and then adding this class to a weapon:

    class AmmoCoef {

    hit = 0.5;

    visibleFire = 0.5; // how much is visible when this weapon is fired

    audibleFire = 0.3;

    visibleFireTime = 0.5; // how long is it visible

    audibleFireTime = 0.5;

    cost = 1.0;

    typicalSpeed = 0.6;

    airFriction = 1.0;

    };

    The coefficients would seem to be fractions, so the typicalSpeed indicated here would cause the weapon to utilize 60% of the cartridge velocity in the magazine being used in the weapon at the time. Power, loudness and visibility would be affected in a similar manner. In the formula above, the ammunition is only half as powerful as the baseline ammo.

    Of course if my understanding is wrong, someone please correct me.


  5. Here's a fun one-

    Duplicated in 2 different MP sessions on Chernarus, different missions, different areas of the map, confirmed by ADuke in single player test mission.

    Three out of four players have noticed that warehouse doors near the docks, through out the island, etc., will not give an option to open, nor will we see the door opening animation when the fourth player, who does get the options, opens the doors. He's able to go through, which to us appears as him just jumping through the closed door. He then is able to drive vehicles out of the building if there are any inside, move around in the building, and so on, though, again, the vehicles look as if they're just leaping through the closed door out of nowhere.

    We are running many many addons, probably too many to list, though if it becomes an important issue I can list them is some fashion later on. We do run ACE, CBA- which leads to another question- are all three of the CBA's necessary or can one of them be used alone? To the best of my knowledge, all four of us run the same addons, unless the fourth player is missing something we have that's conflicting on the other three games. It could be some clash in the order the addons are running I'm aware, but I haven't heard or seen this door issue up to now.

    Other details: 1.60 patch, last official one, no betas. MP is hosted by me, from my PC, no server. The game doesn't crash, so I don't have any report information to share about the issue, just anecdotal evidence shared by 3 players that these doors are inoperative.

    Anyone else getting this, and if so, what was your resolution?

    An addendum: ADuke tested in SP, vanilla, no addons, and the doors work fine. Obviously an addon issue conflicting with the island...


  6. We pretty much know what we're doing, we don't need you to do the thinking for us or tell us how to conduct our business, thank you very much.

    LOL Well, there's always room for debate on that point, and apparently reading comprehension isn't one of your strongest suits. At no point did I suggest how you go about anything, nor did I offer any solutions- if anything I thanked you and complimented you for your attention to detail and effort. I agreed with AD's observation and merely questioned the logic of developing and releasing on a regular schedule elements that may or may not mesh with what BIS is doing at any given time, especially when it requires unfinished or potentially broken patch RCs.

    This discussion is also taking place in the ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE forum. I don't consider something that is in essence a beta version of ACE coupled with a beta version of a 1.60 patch "complete".

    This was the intention of what I was saying, not to argue with you or tell you how to do stuff. I use your mod, I like some of it, some I can't care less about and I'm certainly not going to suggest how to go about it. I have enough issues with my own personal addons rather than to go toe to toe with you over this, and it's silly to argue over a game anyway.

    Anyway, moving on, thanks again for the hard work and I look forward to what you're going to be able to do with the new patch.


  7. You realize the latest ACE stable release is 1.12 right ? Which does not require 1.60. So you think it's not ok to have ACE 1.13 RC requiring OA 1.60 RC ...

    Hey, no offense intended- you guys want to chase your tails with trying to anticipate what the RCs are going to break in your mod with each release, go right ahead. I just find the logic a little off personally. Maybe you enjoy doing repetitive work at those times. I have no idea.

    That said, I appreciate much of what the ACE team has brought to the table and thank you guys for your hard work. At least it's not me that has to worry about BIS boning up something that worked fine in previous ACE updates each time they let out a RC, something which may have taken weeks refining. There's something of a historical precedence in one thing or the other getting broken with each additional patch and I can't say I envy trying to track the sources down.

    With that, I bow out. Thanks, ACE team, for at least having the balls to try something unique and revolutionary to the game.


  8. I suppose since I'm doing the paraclete package I could do some PJs' date=' can you post some photos? (my PM box is really full and I'm yet to look at the ones I don't need)[/quote']

    http://geardoshit.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/paraclete-hpc-pararescue-special-version/

    Also:

    http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/USAF%20-%20Para-Jumpers/ca4a2641.jpg Do not hotlink images > 100kb!

    Addon is looking frickin awesome, Fox.


  9. I won't hijack the thread further after this, but here are a few pics showing the progression- drop, chute open and on the deck. Using hidden selections and hidden selections textures it's easily done. The main problem is the wonky issue with hidden selections and cast shadows, so you kind of have to choose what to remove that doesn't leave it looking completely terrible. Then again, the drop only takes only a couple minutes depending on the altitude, so it's usually hardly noticeable.

    arma2oa2011-05-2923-30-58-24.jpg

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/wp33/arma2oa2011-05-2923-32-09-42.jpg 141 kb

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/wp33/arma2oa2011-05-2923-32-18-43.jpg 143 kb

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/wp33/arma2oa2011-05-2923-32-29-93.jpg 152 kb

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/wp33/arma2oa2011-05-2923-33-17-37.jpg 140 kb


  10. Turning weapon recoil off is not an option. That will be cheating as it gets easier for those who turn it off.

    Reading comprehension 101:

    I never said "turning weapon recoil off". I said "reset". That is, returning to point of aim. There can be a certain amount of float to return of point of aim factored in and depending on the slider setting or toggle, it can be removed, just like the aiming dead zone and head bob that already exists in game. I never even came close to recommending eliminating recoil in my post.

    I like realism in my game, I just am saying there are certain points where it starts being far too real and stops being fun, i.e., ACE's stamina system, which is the first thing I yank out upon every update. There are a lot of people that don't want to have to fight the reticle back to point of aim after every shot and chase rounds all over the place at 100m. Yeah, it prolongs firefights but it also gets you killed, adding to a player's frustration. That I understand.

    I'm not saying I'd use the slider or that I even want it, I'm just playing devil's advocate and supporting the idea of choice or running the game at one's choice of more or less of an arcade type setting. It's already possible for MP servers to choose certain parameters, forcing the use of patches, difficulty settings, etc., why not have a reset parameter that will give a level playing field if the fear is that some's reset is different than yours?


  11. I'd suggest, that instead of creating something that is creating such strong feelings for either side of the argument- love or hate the lack of reset- that BIS make it a selectable setting, a la the head bob slider or something you can turn either on or off, like camera shake. That way the ones who think it's the bee's knees can run it as high as they like, and those others who dislike it can shut it off or decrease it to an enjoyable point for them. Best of both worlds. ;)

    BIS is trying to replicate the effect of shooting offhand, which I can respect. Shooting while standing with no support is a tough thing to do well and it's why you seldom see anyone doing it rapidly. I think BIS' version may be a bit high for what is ultimately a game, but I can understand where they're headed with it. The shooters amongst us here will identify with trying to shoot offhand at any appreciable range (100 yards or better) and try and hit a torso or head size target. Now try and double or triple tap and you get an idea of what BIS is trying to do with the new effect. It's nearly impossible with a real weapon and hit what you want to. That said, I'd like to have the ability to tailor it to my tastes.


  12. I've downloaded repeatedly, from multiple sources and I keep getting errors like the following: "Errors found in file ADDONS\a10.pbo (00000000 != 00000001)" for every single addon being updated in the patch and when I choose "abort" the report reads: Update 1.05-1.06\ADDONS\A10.PBO.UPD cannot be applied, error xdelta 3 returned error code: 1

    Some error occurred during patch installation.

    Patch file is probably dammaged. You may need to download it again.

    Error in file ADDONS\a10.pbo, phase 1."

    This happens with every addon in the patch and every single link I get the patch from, and this is also happening to a friend of mine.

    I am running Direct 2 Drive version 1.05 English and the last beta patch.

×