RSF TheCapulet

Bump. Had like 5 crashes just today. Officially a handful.

I've spent maybe an hour total modeling, and none texturing. I could certainly try for something to add to your collection of stuff that needs done, but I've still got that bit to learn yet.

I need an idea. What's my next try?

Second try. :P

At this point, everything like that is modeled. I don't even have any idea how to see how many polys I have. lol. Didn't read that far into the tutorial pdf before getting my hands dirty and getting distracted on just making the model. Here's the .max of just one side of the counter I have pictured, if anyone wants to look and give pointers. http://ihiopc.com/SingleCounterRightHandle.max

If you tell me how. :P

Would love to see this.

I'd love to ride some proper rally cars in the race missions I've actually grown to enjoy. If this does see the light of day though, I do have one request. Release the cars minus race liveries and Aero gear as well. The civ vehicle list def needs some upgrades. :)

I see. So likely out of scope for this project. Makes sense now. :)

Since the update, any time I've tried to play steam scenarios, it gets stuck loading at 27%. I've verified the integrity of the Arma 3 files. And I've deleted the whole arma 3 folder out of appdata, as I assume it houses the steam missions. Neither step solved the issue.

Is there a way to track where and what we placed using MCC, then export that data in any form usable for importing into missions? Not necessarily into the 2D editor, but simply into the mission itself.

That's just the thing. Your perception is off entirely on what the suggestions and discussion is about. It's not about placing anyone's mods into categories, or anything remotely similar to that. It's about providing resources and information for mod makers to use that conform to standards that benefit both the mod makers and mod consumers. Then making it clear to the mod consumers which mods have a defined set of expectations that they can come to rely on when considering which addons they use. Sometimes these expectations may have no more influence on a mod than the documentation standards. Agreed. Unless it's a rare selection chosen by the community for paid DLC with stringent requirements regarding source material.

No one claimed it was. (I was referring to implementing it, which would certainly be new to most) But it's definitely one that deserves revisiting. Which is the whole point of this discussion. The OP suggested a discussion, and put in a few point that he finds important. And at that, no one else has made any type of suggestions or even compromises to his ideas. But instead just chiming in with what amounts to "NOT GOING TO DO IT, WONT WORK!!!11" Which may be the largest barrier to standardization in Arma 3. It won't be the difficulty of implementing it, maintaining it, or using it. It'll be getting past the attitudes and misconceptions of the mod developers. ---- Personally, I really like the idea of release package standardization. Something ideal would be a template package that already has the formatting done, you just have to fill in the info, and drop the mods into the right folders. But hopefully we won't have to worry about it soon, since I'll be subscribing to my mods from steam instead.

This is probably the most articulate argument against this. But, you bring up a very good point that conflicts with your own. No one is really interested in Standardization, aside from maybe the consumer. But by that logic, addon makers simply must not play anyone elses mods? Lets face it. Whether or not we're making mods, we all consume them. So now we're faced with whether we want to conform to a standard for a communities sake, or whether the addon maker simply wants to do as he pleases, not interested in community perception or ease of use. Which is just fine! The OP wasn't suggesting anything that would limit this freedom. He instead is suggesting something that may be deadly useful for the addon makers who DO create for a community rather than their circle of friends alone. With that said, it doesn't HAVE to be a compromise when you fit some set standards into your mod. It's simply entirely up to the mod-makers perception. Is a mod maker compromising if he uses a community standard to create his STANAG mags, rather than creating a whole new set of mags that aren't compatible with any other STANAG weapons? No! He's making it easier on himself, because when he plays with other mods that compliment his, he doesn't have to play a guessing game when he wants to load is rifle. He has to spend less time writing configs, creating ui elements, documentation, etc, because along with standards also comes resources from said standards. To conclude, standardization would really benefit everyone involved. Sure, while there are certainly cases where standardization wouldn't fit with some mods, in most cases it's a will or attitude issue when an addon maker spurns the idea. (Which they're entitled to). But there are addon makers that would still greatly benefit from it. Don't trash the idea just because some some veteran modders hate the idea of anything new or outside their comfort zone. Also, don't discount the idea because of the OP's initial suggestions. I think we can all agree that some of them are a little too far over the edge. (Quality control? Really?)

I've been using this mod consistently since you released it. A must have. I was just floating across threads through, and I figured I'd post my only complaint so far with this mod (having taken it's WIP into account). My one and only issue is the M4 sounds. (And to an extent, the M16 suffers from the same problem IMO) :P Outside of the secondary explosions sounds, I think these M4 sounds were some of the worst to come from LJ. The M416 sound should just be C&P'd over. It's the closest thing to IRL out of the samples you've used so far, and quite honestly, with a few tweaks, could be applied to a ton of different 14-16" barrel weapons. Thanks for listening to my complaint if you do, and more importantly, thanks for the wonderful mod!

Thanks for the hard work tpw. New update sounds great.

What if it was based on a predetermined waypoint system instead then? If it'd realistically work, I'd be willing to volunteer some time pouring through the towns, figuring out where cars 'should' go.

So I was playing with this last night in editor, just having fun with MCC Sandbox. But I noticed that after a while, (roughly when 3-4 civilians died), I'd get a mission failed every time. The fact that it wasn't me or my squad doing the killing didn't matter much. I could check my debriefing afterwards and show no kills, but still the mission fails. (both casualties settings also set to 50) Also, I noticed that when there are a lot of civilians in an area, they start behaving really strangely. For instance, I had a group of 13 civ guys (I counted them), all come down and either crouch or prone right under the building I was looking down at them from. And despite the fact that I have max casualties both set to 50, when I hit the group with a grenade, the mission prematurely failed from 9 civ deaths. Also, also, when driving, if a civ comes up behind you in a faster vehicle, you can bet your ass he'll slam into your side, promptly trying to push you off the road. I never spent more than a few minutes on the road without being run down by a faster civ vehicle. Lastly, I was messing around spawning cars in and noticed how much more "lived in" a town looks with empty cars parked along roads, driveways, and parking lots. Is there any way to do this?

In the same vein as this 'gameplay' type improvement, what if instead of just simply failing the mission after too many civs have been killed, it starts spawning armed civs instead, either as a village militia, local police force, or vigilantes? Perhaps even threshold steps that increase the amount of resistance until you have the military coming in with an AH to take you out?

Considering the single player campaign state of A3 on release, it could definitely benefit from A2's missions and campaigns, if you can get them to work.

Logistics definitely plays a major role in Warfare, and I won't argue against it either. It most certainly should. But allowing people to spawn where the action is doesn't diminish the logistic role. A player by themselves, minus ai or vehicles, is theoretically no different or more dangerous than the AI town defense that is already spawning in towns. On the other hand, it bridges the gap between strategy and action, opening up more gameplay options for some, while not disrupting any of the others. It also leads to a faster paced game, but not to an extreme. Which is exactly the kind of balance warfare has needed to cope with the stress of 4-6 hour mission up-time.

One of the ways I've prevented this in Arma 2 BE games is by setting the respawn on camps to 4000m distance. So instead of players constantly wondering between towns, they're respawning into towns to attack or defend. Then the only ones moving are the players moving in to cut off advances at other towns to isolate and take over the towns where the firefights get most intense. I think one of the keys here is to make respawning somewhere important much more accessible.

Awesome news LJ. Can't wait to try it out.

I've only played about an hour so far, but everything I've heard has been great. The equipment sounds seem realistic and really contrast perfectly with the gusting wind and subtle music. And the music really amplifies that Desolate red planet with a tiny fragile robot feel. I never really got a chance to try out Carrier Command, but I've never been a fan of BI's sound design before then. Arma 3 and especially this game really blow me away comparatively. Thanks for the great game, guys.