dragon01

Actually, I think that it makes sense when you realize it doesn't use wings for Mars ascent. I imagine there will be a drop tank of sorts for it. The real purpose of its aerodynamic shape is Earth reentry. Note that it has interior elements that indicate it's supposed to operate as tailsitter, presumably during the launch from Mars. As far as I see it, it's supposed to launch like a rocket, then be used as an Earth reentry vehicle. Quite a waste of mass, if you ask me, but there you have it. I accidentally posted this in the "general" section, but here's a somewhat more comprehensive list of complaints/suggestions: https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/188795-mav-and-mdv/

So, the latest update brought us two vehicles. I say, they're a nice start. However, I see several issues with them. I know they're WIP, that's why I'm posting this (so that the issues don't appear in the final version). 1. The engines for MDV and the MAV main engine are a bit too obvious copies of the SSME. Unless MAV is going to use some sort of very large drop tank, I'd advise against copying a hydrogen/oxygen engine onto what is presumably going to run on methane. MDV engines are quite obviously using storable propellants (likely MMH+NTO) and thus should look more like MLM engines. 2. MDV interior is... weird. It looks like a bungalow, or perhaps a large sailing yacht. :) The wood, the tiles, everything seems like it'd be a waste of mass. Even if they're fake, they don't look like anything that I'd expect to see on Mars. 3. MDV interior doesn't hold pressure (pretty sure that's a known issue, though). 4. Why does the MAV docking port look like a passive one? The docking target is specific to passive docking ports like ISS PMAs. Shuttle's docking port doesn't have it. Also, on the active port, the docking ring can be extended to "soft-dock" (lock the rings, but without a rigid seal) with the target: http://i.stack.imgur.com/lmS2n.jpg This allows less than perfect initial alignment to "snap" into the correct position. After soft docking is achieved, the ring retracts, creating a seal between spacecraft. 5. How is MAV supposed to attach to MDV? It either needs some sort of adapter (maybe the aforementioned droptank? It's a good idea even if it does run on Methane) or a rework of the tail part. 6. MDV is reusing Shuttle assets a bit too obviously, but at least we know the Shuttle will look good. :)

If nothing else works, you can try the devbranch. I found that setting AI to "normal" and disabling all aids gives a stunningly realistic experience. I play on devbranch now (mostly due to learning to use Eden editor), so I don't know how the main is, but they did improve AI by a lot from what it used to be at one point. In particular, it gets suppressed now, meaning that if you fire a few shots at them, even if you miss, this can be enough to make them move and their accuracy to drop. Of course, this is not your regular FPS, this isn't even Ghost Recon (though if you played that one, some stuff does carry over). ArmA is an actual simulator, it has, at times, more in common with airsoft matches than with most FPSes out there. Most actual military manuals apply there. Other than that? Practice. ArmA has tons of tools to help you with that. Check out "VR Training" in particular, also the Bootcamp campaign can be great help (certainly a better start than jumping straight into The East Wind).

Was this on the latest version? It throws an error in the arsenal, but I haven't tested it further. I'm on devbranch, BTW (and will be until the Eden update goes into the main one. Can't figure out the old editor). I suppose I'll have to test it myself in an actual mission. If it works then it's awesome (and I suppose I'd have to bug Zeelax for some RHS-style female USMC uniforms :) ). I'd certainly love to see female characters in RHS. The entire USAF and most of the AFRF (I know that VDV accepts women into combat roles, surprisingly enough) could certainly use them.

I noticed that in the Virtual Arsenal (in the voices section), there is a US female voice. It doesn't work, though. What should I make of it? Is the voice going to be fixed, or is it a holdover which someone forgot to remove (or deliberately didn't for some reason)?

I suppose it would have to be quite form-fitting. I posted an XOS2 pic for reference, but it'd probably be something more like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/US_Army_powered_armor.jpg Perhaps something between that and Imperial Guard armor from Warhammer 40K could be made to work with current animations. I was thinking that it could go in the uniform slot and use a similar setup to them. An additional vest could provide extra chest armor, storage space and/or battery capacity (depending on variant). Primary battery would go into the backpack slot, the pack could also have multiple variants, for example one fitted with a parachute, one with extra power capacity or extra storage space. Then again, I don't know all that much about ArmA modding (though I am slowly learning to use Eden). I do know, mostly by following this very mod, that animations are generally rather though to work with. BTW, you and Zeelax should team up. :) Getting a female soldier mod working without problems is certainly enough work for two people. I am following your mod as well, but I'm mostly interested in female combat units (marines, to be specific).

I like the mask, but I think it could use: 1. A version without the telltale glow when using NVGs. 2. A helmet to match it. Now that I think of it... how about an entire suit? :) Something like this (the suit in the picture is the XOS2): http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2008/04/exo_bowling_485.jpg?itok=pTnsQGJw A bit less bulky, armored and requiring a battery backpack. It could work, perhaps, by setting your encumbrance to zero no matter how much you actually carry. On the other hand, you'd be limited in volume you can carry (the battery pack wouldn't have all that much space left for gear) and limited power supply. Power drain could based on load carried, much like fatigue is. In that way, while you could run all the way across Stratis in that thing, you'd probably have to ditch the suit not long afterwards. On the other hand, you could do that while carrying a HMG, ammo for it, a missile launcher (with spare missiles), an SMG in the holster and a medkit.

I don't mind seeing the old editor go, especially as it'll force modders to make stuff compatible with Eden (certain object categories, notably empty vehicles, are not available in Eden, which can cause addon object to be inaccessible). :) Also, less problems for the devs, the old editor dates back to OFP, when the new one is, well, new, and so presumably better written (as it was developed "in one go" instead of iteratively over a few games). I could never figure out the old editor, but Eden has tutorials, easy 3D placement and an interface so transparent that I might actually get into AIII mission making. :) It could use even more tutorials (such as adding dialogue, basic scripting and other such useful bits), but what is there is enough for me to start thinking about a simple SP mission (if I could decide which mods to use, that is...). I could praise the new editor all day, but the point is, this thing rocks. I see no reason why anyone would want the old one anymore.

Is the LHD possible to spawn in the Eden editor? Last time I tried the Atlas one, it wasn't. Also, the manual still references the obsolete 2D editor, it'd be great if it could be updated if it does work in Eden.

I also have this problem. Please fix, I literally just started learning editing, hoped to actually make a mission. I never could figure out the old editor, it's horrible compared to Eden.

His issue is specifically about ACE3-RHS interaction, though. Notice that he said that when the two bindings are different, everything works. Both mods would probably work fine on their own, but their interaction is causing trouble.

That looks awesome. :) Keep it up.

I don't know how much work it'd be, but could the LHD be recategorized so that it appears in Eden editor? It's available on devbranch and is awesome, but it removed the "empty" category (only props in there now, empty vehicles are placed from the faction lists) and it doesn't seem that LHD can be placed with it (or perhaps I just can't find it). It seems to work with the 2D editor. I've also found a bug. If you place the LHD in the old editor and load the mission in Eden it works, but the guns don't spawn. I never figured out how to spawn characters on deck in 2D editor, so I can't check if it's the case there.

I have a problem with PTS-M amphibious vehicle. Long story short, it's not amphibious. :) It sinks when driving into water, which means it isn't very useful for its intended purpose. I'm on devbrach, BTW. Also, BMP-2 (only tested that one) can't be steered while in water. Is that the intended (and realistic) behavior? It also seems to only reach 2km/h in water, while the real thing can make 7 (at least according to Wikipedia). Overall, I'm loving this mod. Especially the nuke. :) So many detailed stuff in here. I might write a mission using both Russian and American packs someday.

I don't think building rockets has a place here, but in general, some launch-related mechanics would be great. Say, light, medium and heavy rockets (Delta II, Delta IV and SLS, for example), all with a number of options like boosters and upper stages. It'd be simple, each rocket would have a certain mass to Mars, which you could modify by, for example, adding a booster (small increase) or a kick motor (bigger increase, but needs some minimum number of boosters). All for a price, naturally. Each part would have a certain mass (if they don't already) and you'd have to make sure that the rover fits under the rocket's mass limit. The chassis you choose would determine which rocket to use. Probe and Small Lander, Small Rover and Zero-G Probe would use Small Rocket, while Large Lander, Medium Rover and Large Rover would use the Medium Rocket (Medium Rover could fit on a Small Rocket if stripped to basics, though). Heavy Rocket would be reserved for manned mission hardware (including crew launches) and perhaps the heaviest of Large Rovers. I'd love to see more lunar scenarios as well. Ability to discover old lunar probes and rovers (like Lunokhod or Surveyor) and recover data from them with the DRT would be awesome. They should also implement some more Mars lander models, like Vikings and perhaps a more faithful Pathfinder reproduction (the Small Rover is clearly a modern take on it, reimagined as a low complexity early lander) not a replica.

I found that airlocks in general are wonky. There is one scenario (Kaiser crater) in which there is a dangerous area inside the habitat, from about two meters from airlock door to halfway through the airlock corridor. No matter what, it has no air. I've often built airlocks in which you could go from "danger" to "safe" without passing through doors. The danger area also can extend into habitat in some cases.

This sort of thing is best left to mods. Take On Mars is not a licensed game and should stay that way. That said, I think it should feature as many elements as it can without bothering with a license. For example, an emergency poptent attachable to the Mobile Lab airlock and an inflatable hab (would be a nice alternative to the rather tedious assembly from individual pieces). MAV is probably planned already, seeing as the landers don't look like something that could lift off from Mars. Solar panels like the ones in the Martian will likely appear along with actual power requirements (which are planned). Our Mobile Lab is a dead ringer for The Martian's rovers, save for being a bit bigger, meant for two people and having a handy crane (which likely wouldn't have helped Watney all that much). Really, the biggest problem with making The Martian-style campaign right now (barring unfinished features) is that Take On Mars hardware seems to be running on Methane+Oxygen. A smaller Mobile Lab running on electric power could be done, of course (Science Buggy might end up being battery powered, seeing as it lacks an obvious place for canisters), but it seems that either a mod or even an official addition could take care of that. RTG tomfoolery would be able to be reduced a bit, too, since TKoM's MDV has a couple. Dunno how likely this design is, given the widespread fear of anything nuclear, but I assume they've got over it by the time they got around to sending men to Mars. Oh, and the trouble Ares 3 ended up in is perfectly plausible. Remember that the MAV was very tall (20m, IIRC) and likely slender like a rocket. Making it cope with wind costs mass, and rockets on Earth can be tipped by much slower winds. Also, backup comm systems cost mass as well. They had three, which would have been enough... had they all not been dependent on the MAV. Spaceflight (and not only spaceflight) history is rife with that sort of things, which only seem obvious in the hindsight. Every gram counts when you're sending payloads that far using chemical propulsion. This is also why the whole ISRU business in TKoM is so vital. If you grow your own food and extract water from the soil, you don't need to bring it with you.

How do I go about putting stuff in crates and suit holders? I'd like to make a mission that starts in a manned lander, with suits in holders, supplies and equipment neatly arranged and all that.

Good point, but it won't be a top-notch system by then. It'll be 19 years old, which isn't really that much for a Russian aircraft (they usually receive upgrades rather than being replaced outright), but, say, a force invading stabilizing a foreign country with its own military is likely going to use newer stuff if it's available. Also, it's another aircraft, which means they're still short on ground vehicles. Not to mention I'd like to see Russians with PAK-FAs and Armata-based vehicles fight it out with AIII's NATO or perhaps some other faction like Israel (there's already a mod for those, and AIII vehicles are a good fit for them). :)

I'd love to see the Armata system modeled. Not only the T-14, you could make the entire vehicle pack out of it! The Epoch turret is shared between the three APCs and T-14 will likely be shared between vehicles as well. Quite similar to how BIS did ArmAIII vehicles, too. :) In general, I feel that we really need some AIII-era Russians. All the mods out there are either modern from the end of Cold War. Pretty much the only "advanced" vehicle available from AIII era is the PAK-FA.

Can't you just remove a part from the rover? I'm pretty sure it's possible to make a small rover that costs 1060k.

Really looking forward to proper power management. The current base building is nice, but lacks things to do besides simple pressurized compartments.

I'd like that very much. :) I know that Russian VDV allows women (and has done so for quite some time). US Army and USMC have recently started to do that as well.

Making new heads and body types looks like a neat idea. No matter what recruiters would like you to think, the military isn't composed only of guys built like pro athletes. :) I suppose a few fat POGs around the FOB would add to immersion somewhat.

Have you guys seen the new Russian tank? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHMgucamUVo It already looks like something out of ArmA3, but is an actual concept due to roll out on this year's Victory Parade. Anyone interested in making it?