.kju

maybe rpt gives some clues whats happening

What is considered "good sales" for a CDLC - to have a reasonable return for the time invested (ie not below minimum wage)? GM according to their own statement was done working almost two years full time - next to their normal full time job. Both are professionals for VBS for many years as far as I know. Yes it's good to get recognition/return also in terms of payment for your work, yet I seriously doubt the return can match their job salary in any meaningful way. I am sure they were aware of this likely outcome, as should be all our CDLC participants. However to state this is a financially successful outcome is very likely far from reality.

stburr91 some flaws in your arguments: 1) Creating lower res textures can be done with a BI tool (pal2pace) via command line in a matter of minutes. One could even offer a smaller download as result / would make the integration into the base game less of a "burden" (download/HDD/SSD wise). 2) The CDLC compatibility pack is in the current form practically useless, besides trying stuff in Arsenal before you buy, or otherwise to make any use of it, you have to use additional mods as player(s) with the CDLC content for the enemies (or friendly AI). Also you need to use a 3rd party terrain or BI terrains. In simple words it create a huge entry barrier. Adoption rate matters as it means sales both for the CDLC developers and BI. One cannot compare BI DLCs to CDLCs one-to-one as: 1) Way earlier in the product life cycle 2) Even though BI acts as publisher and provides its promotion channels, the outreach is not the same. In addition CDCLs are seen way more critical as "paid mods". 3) DLCs have the Arma 3 base game as platform - CDLCs do not (really) unless they use the same 2035 future setting. 4) CDLCs are an optional download 5) Steam sales matter a huge deal, but also mean considerable less revenue per copy sold 6) CDLCs are not supported in the Arma 3 launcher and the ingame server browser for MP play (aka you should only see servers for a CDLC when you have it selected) The Arma 2 LITE approach was flawed as: 1) Not (properly) communicated - Arma 3 did way way better with the new strategy 2) It aligned with the dayz mod hype 3) The quality reduction was far too much (128x128) and also affected audio (bad choice) The bottom line is the current CDLC approach suffers considerable from three issues: 1) No trial/demo - people might buy it if they would be able to check it out ingame first hand themselves in a meaningful way 2) Discourages group/MP use big time 3) Due to low adoption and very critical community reception there is low incentive to be supported by the modding community as outlined by Sparker

try the rvmat and texture used in arsenal for the transparent vehicles

@Smootie please join our discord and upload the rpt log file

@Smootie 1) did you have IFA3 installed before? 2) did you use repair mod in the Arma 3 launcher?

looks pretty nice mate! you should promote it on the different WW2 discords and upload to workshop

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_AI_Skill

Lets see how it goes: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T153299 https://feedback.bistudio.com/T153300

try lockXXX vehicle positions otherwise getOut EH + move back in doFollow is to cancel subgroups. units in vehicle (cargo?) are seen as subgroup cleaner would be new SQF commands to: 1) dissolveSubGroup(s) 2) returnToFormation(Position)

check via config browser or config dump

tried any virtual LAN software yet?

still getting improved: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T152567

see: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/fleeing 1. courage only matters for the group leader 2. setting allowFleeing makes courage irrelevant 3. courage is influence by overall unit skill and cfgSkill settings (aka determine actual value with skillFinal)

AttackTarget = what unit the AI currently goes after AssignedTarget = what the AI(?) GL has assigned - however AI engage targets also without assignment