antoineflemming

Why don't you just post one WIP thread with all of your WIP projects, and then update that one post? EDIT: NVM, I take it this is the same thread that was formerly IL-******. Carry on.

Pretty sure it has something to do with the new multiplayer mode

Right, because lightning has nothing to do with weather....

There are vehicles. Not a whole lot, but there's the Fennek (called NATO SOC ARV, will change the name I think) and the Cheetah, and then an MATV for NATO. OPFOR has armor and vehicles as well. Both have helicopters.

Not getting my hopes up on a new MP mode. I don't really play A3 MP so it's not something I'm hyped about. A storm is coming? Well, that'd be an MP game that probably is themed around some sort of superstorm, and you have to survive the storm as well as the enemy. Yeah, sounds like SuperTruite's ArmAgeddon. That's my guess.

Will definitely have my units using these when this releases. Great Work!

Nothing wrong with the vivid lighting.

No one is discouraging fabrizio_T. Dev build causes issues with this mod. Even fabrizio says so.

That's really the infantry camo, not the aircraft camo. The aircraft camo should be an enlarged version of the infantry camo. Your mod, your call, but just saying... Also, is that my template (don't remember anyone else's with the pattern outlined like that)? If so, you're welcome. I've got two camo patterns (the standard, what I call 'autumn' pattern, and the grey one that they had for the L-159 back in 2011/12). If you'd like to see them, I can send you a PM.

You need to do your research. The US uniform is a Crye Precision Combat Uniform, not a FROG uniform. ---------- Post added at 01:43 ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 ---------- Well, I looked at it again, and it was the same MTP pattern that's currently in the game. They also always were supposed to be the US, as they were sporting a US flag. Unless it was just that CTRG was supposed to be wearing Multicam, and the US flag was a placeholder.

Man, never recognized that. I shoulda changed that for my addon! It's like an olive paint. Also, notice how the units, if I'm correct, were supposed to be Rangers or Special Forces. They've got that map on the arm. Nice. Go back and look at some older pics, and the uniform originally had British MTP I believe, as they got this texture and model from the BAF brits initially. You can still tell by the arms being the exact same. Oh, and the CSAT pants are the BAF brit pants. See? Even the uniforms really aren't original to Arma 3 lol. Borrowed :)

Part of the reason I don't just give you my camo patterns is because of the similarities between your addons and mine. Obviously you're basing your addons off of mine. That said, I'm not sure Red Pegasus is the best choice (of course, it's your decision) unless they've got some advanced weapons stuff. Red Pegasus is the Iranian R&D Division (or something like that) like you said, but they aren't special forces. It's an engineering division of the Iranian Armed Forces led by GEN Ostad Attar (Ostad is like Dr. ). The special forces part of it was something I added, inspired by Ghost Recon Future Soldier. Just keep this in mind. Also, it doesn't make sense for a bunch of ex-AAF insurgents to call themselves the Fighters of Limnos. It's either that they are ex-HAF fighters of Limnos or they are ex-AAF fighters of Altis. Limnos does not exist in the current A3 storyline. It was never Limnos. And what do you mean by platecarriers and helmets to resemble those done earlier by BIS for Operation Magnitude? Do you mean like pre-Alpha, 2011-2012? Were they different (IDK, I never noticed)?

And you're certain you don't have AiA files somewhere in there, right? Completely disable A3MP and see if you can still play your A2 maps. Then reinstall the addon. Suggesting this just to make sure you don't have some duplicate files somewhere.

o.O Sweet! HiddenSelections for these?

Pet Peeve - Iranians' skin is too dark in the game. In 2011, they looked right, but then in 2013 BI decided to make them really dark (oh well, that's what mods are for I guess :p)

Only run A3MP if you only want A2 Maps, and not units/weapons/vehicles. A3MP was made from AiA files, so if you have both, you'll have duplicate stuff in the code. That's why it's saying "conflicting addon..., previous definition...". Because code is being defined twice. So remove AiA (you can just change the Addons folder name to something else or just delete it), and you shouldn't have those issues.

Well my question still stands, and still has not been answered. Are you guys trying to fix your engine limitations or are you simply trying to work around them (the recent OPREP mentioned new technologies needed to fully realize proper soldier protection and such)? Yes, there are limitations in the engine. There are issues with it. So there is no need to question "limitation" as if it's odd to fathom RV having limitations. I just wanted, and still want, to know whether the current approach to these issues is the address the underlying issue, or if it's to try to work around any limitations as much as possible. That's all I was asking. Still waiting on an answer. And this time I hope that my question isn't generalized to "omfg my process explorer don't report xyz GB of memory used by the game process, baaaad coding ..." Oh, and it's posts like the underlined that are unproductive for and contribute nothing to the thread.

Ok, saw this comment somewhere (said I was taking a break, but I need to know if there is any truth to this), that the people who were originally instrumental in creating the RV engine have long left the company, and that there isn't enough documentation for the current developers to know everything about this engine. Can someone tell me if there's any truth to this? If this true, is this an impediment to BI's developers working on fixing the issues with the engine? (Dwarden, you don't need to respond as I already know your response)

It's unfortunate that anyone on this thread who has any criticism of BI, RV, or Arma 3 is instantly labeled a hater, a complainer, a "fixmoaner", or a whiner whose only argument is "omfg my process explorer don't report xyz GB of memory used by the game process, baaaad coding ...", by both some within the community as well as from the dev team. That is what is unfortunate here.

The CAGE plate carriers have flags; it's just that the weapons are covering them up in the pics.

"Here is my Mediterranean Operations bundle, which features uniform, vest, and helmet reskins." Plus the factions listed.

That's a good idea. For my continental European units, as well as my Russian and Chinese units, I use the LanguageGRE_F protocol, because it's better than them speaking American/Canadian and British English, and better than them speaking Farsi. ---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:56 ---------- Doubt it. Seems like things have remained the same as they are now: NATO is the military faction. EU is still the same, except that some nations might have left the EU. Both NATO and the EU are weaker I think.

Means your factions aren't working. Happened to me until I did these things: 1) Make sure that your faction classnames under CfgFactionClasses match the faction classnames under CfgGroups (i.e. the faction classes should be the same, case-sensitive, as the overall groups under CfgGroups) 2) Make sure your units in your groups are either Armored, Infantry, Mechanised, Motorized, SpecOps, Support, again case-sensitive 3) Make sure you've defined the sides correctly. 0, 1, and 2 for OPFOR, BLUFOR, and GREENFOR/Independent Then they should work and CSAT shouldn't spawn where your overriding factions should spawn. That, and inter-sync your MP/CPs to your OPCOMs.

Wow, could you possibly be just a little professional and helpful, and answer the question, being the Community Manager and all, instead of just trolling like every other "RV has no problems" user on this forum? Seriously. Maybe I'd be better off asking RiE or Pettka. At least they professionally respond to the concerns of the community. But, if you're speaking for BI (which, being the CM, I should assume you are), then no wonder there are issues that have been present since Arma 1. You guys are in denial that there's anything wrong with your game. Guess there's no hope to seeing any fixes to this engine, seeing as you don't believe there are any limitations. This is why people get fed up with you guys and leave after putting thousands of hours into Arma 2. Given Dwarden's post, I think the answer is no, they don't intend on fixing ANY engine limitations because they see no limitations, at least according to their CM. Otherwise there would be no question of my use of the term "limitation". I've just about had it with these devs. Oh, and Dwarden, just for your information, I was not talking about any 32GB barrier, as my post did not list any specifics, for a reason (and I don't need to list out the limitations with this engine. MANY users have mentioned problems with your engine). I was speaking generally about the limitations of the engine without naming ANY one thing.

WHAT?! I'm using my Mediterranean Operations units. And, they're supposed to spawn on the road apparently, because that's where they fall. I'll try to get a video for you later today. But they end up spawning in the sky and falling to their deaths. It's got to be something with my code I'd assume, either that, or with Takistan.