lonesquad

This is really cool, great job! I hope this will be used by other mod makers.

Hey Handlebar. I am having a similar problem with a retexture. Could you elaborate on how you solved the problem with your unbinarized config/the texture not showing? Thanks in advance!

This is really cool. Thank you!

Hey Toadie2k, love your work! I'm not playing ArmA without your weapons, the look and feel of them is truely improving my gaming experience. Seeing you have such an extensive list of firearms you want to bring in to the game, I was wondering if you have plans to add the HK G33 or the HK G41. They would fit nicely to your HK G3 pack and would also complement the FN FNC from your list (for assault rifles that aren't based on the AR-15 or AK). Anyway, thanks for your work!

Ah I see, thanks for the info! I was just wondering if I missed something, because i couldn't find a way to aim them properly. So are rifle grenades obsolete in the French army or are there other ways to aim the grenades? It is pretty hard to find an example of someone shooting a grenade with an optical sight installed. Here is one, but the soldier isn't using the rifle grenade sights it seems. Same here. Here is a video - at 0:52 is a pretty nice shot. I don't get it. :(

Hey Purple, loving your mod! Not only the FAMAS, but also the rifle grenades are a joy to use. Are you planning to add adjustable sights for the rifle grenades?

You should be able to attack APCs with unguided bombs. Not everything with an HMG is worthy of a guided missile. Both methods would help players to use attack aircraft more effectively. It doesn't matter that the underlying principle is the same. Right now people are flying too low (are easy to hit) and are still inaccurate. A least from my experience online. As for the laser designation: It is the opposite of guided, but would still be better than dropping unguided bombs without any kind of assistance. 87th_Neptune's guide simply bypasses the shortcomings of BIs implementation of aircraft in ArmA (you work is much appreciated and I'm looking forward to your scripts). But not having technical assistance for bombing is much like having unadjustable sights for machine guns. You can use them effectively anyway, though it would still be more immersive and realistic if you had this mechanic.

Kind of a useless advice if your missions objective is to fly in such areas. Do you edit the AA out of missions you want to play? This: "Start your egress at 1km from the target, at ~500-600m AGL, and fly directly toward your target." (the_Demongod) makes you an easy target, but works. I don't recall using the word "orienting", it's about flying at it directly, as if you were to use your plane as the bomb. Even APCs are dangerous enemies if you are flying this low. I propose to employ unguided bombs in a way that reflects modern CAS. It's 2035 ingame, not 1935. CCIP or CCRP should be the way to go and if this isn't possible, then designating targets yourself, as LoneGhostOne proposed, would be at least a step in the right direction.

While I agree that this will work, it is also incredibly dangerous. Attacking an APC or, even worse, anything else with an AA unit nearby by "flying directly toward you target" also means that the enemy can aim directly at your face. This should be the last resort if all instruments are damaged or something, but not the standard attacking method.

You are hilarious. Pathetic, but hilarious. ;) +1 to Sneaksons post and thanks to St. Jimmy for the screenshots. I really don't understand why SMAA is still an option in its current state.

P0ci, you're still only voicing your opinion without bringing any facts to the table. You should also refrain from using ad hominem arguments, as this is immature and doesn't add anything of worth to the conversation. This is SMAA Ultra: Link This is FXAA Ultra: Link Look at the blurry textures of the SMAA variant. Even the ground looks blurred. Why is this supposed to be superior? Threads like this one are supposed to help the community, so please elaborate you arguments and bring proof. Everyone will happily accept an opinion if it is convincing.

Glad to hear it's still alive. SOS was my favorite mod before the latest patches.

I disagree. FXAA sharpens the textures quite a bit and looks far from "horrible". SMAA on the other hand simply blurs the whole image. Do not use it if you care for image quality.

It is definitely worth it. 2x, 4x, 8x. Everything except FSAA is on Ultra. See the roof of the wooden shed on the left? The white lines? It doesn't seem to be that much of a problem, but it is a real nuisance when moving. If your screen is moving while edges like this are in your view, these lines will "move around" as well and you will see them from great distance. Everything else looks alright, but as I said, edges like this one, power lines, fences etc. ruin the atmosphere (at least for me). Higher AA will give you less frames, obviously. But if you have a strong GPU, you should turn it up. Also, why are you bringing up view and draw distance? As I understand, AA should mainly affect the GPU and the draw distance is a CPU killer. Object visibility hurts the GPU as well, I would imagine. So if you have to decide between 2x FSAA with 3000 object visibility and 8x FSAA with 1000 ov, I would go for higher visibility as well. By the way: 3000 is an insane value if you are not flying, imho.

I can't play without maxed AA - the flickering power lines, fences, etc. would ruin the game for me.

I don't know what's so funny about the OPs assumption. What kind of skills are you talking about? People on public servers are not inferior to players on private servers. It has nothing to do with skills, it's about incentives to play cooperatively. Americas Army was a good example. It was hard and somewhat complex, but you could still play on public servers all night. Many missions in ArmA start out with a premise like "huge island, lots of weapons, go for it." That's just not enough. There has to be some kind of purpose, a narrative or whatever. ArmA 3 is, imho, not realistic enough to be played like a simulator (i.e. not caring for a immersive setting, just having fun operating the equipment ... no inside view of tanks, no weapon resting, hilarious grenade throwing, terrible flight model, you know the limitations). Clans surely can create their own missions/scenarios and play the game the way they like, but that is, like so many things, extra work by the community. BIS is lucky to have so many creative and devoted members in their community that there is ANYTHING worthy to play. If I hadn't played everything by BI since OFP:CWC (yes, even TOH and TOM) and stumbled across ArmA 3, I also would have expected many different multiplayer scenarios, playable on public servers: Convoys, guerilla warfare, assassinations (with one side protecting the target), dogfights with jets, hunting/rushing to help a downed helicopter crew, HUGE battles with hundreds of AI, etc. The fact that ArmA 3 is nothing but a giant sandbox might be intuitive to everyone playing the series for a while, but new players are of course discouraged by the lack of content. Especially if the first thing they read on the forums is that the standard multiplayer is basically unplayable right off the bat, that they have to download x mods, y missions and join a gaming community to have fun. And also by the fact that the idea of just jumping on a server and playing the game is laughed off by the community. Every game is more fun with a group of friends. That's kind of obvious and ArmA is of course no exception, it just shouldn't be a requirement. So in the end, I have to agree with the OP. I also think that the game alone sucks, there is just no substitution.

Really cool mission. It feels somewhat authentic and is a refreshing relief from the typical "go there, shoot that". Two minor complaints: 1. Rainy weather and nightmissions don't mix, imho. The rain looks just terrible in night vision. 2. The insertion via helicopter is somewhat infitting. It works well, but this kind of transportation is anything but stealthy. Getting to the destination by HAHO or HALO would be nice ... just an idea. :) Thanks for the mission!

I would like to see a source on that. I really think you are confusing the H&k rifle with the G36 pistol by Glock. :D Are you in the German army? I was ... and I call bullshit. Do you really think you shot enough weapons by HK to make such an "elaborate" and general comment, Archosaurusrev? The old rumors about breaking buttstocks and deforming plastic are what they are - rumors. Spread in military forums by H&K haters who had no contact with the guns they were rambling about. The G36 is accurate enough and reliable. The only thing i didn't like was the standard optic, but thank god new versions have a rail instead of it. And yes, it's not as accurate as an M16. But who cares. After traveling 400metres down range the .223 is as deadly as a gentle clap to the butt. Yes I'm exagerrating, but rifles in .223 do not need to be accurate DMRs. And why are the pistols so good? Ever held an USP in your hand? The ergonomics are flawed, imo. And honestly ... the MP5? Bad? Such a pity the SAS, SWAT and pretty much every other special forces unit didn't have you around back then to stop them from buying shitty MP5s. I guess they have to live with them now ... poor bastards. And comparing MP5s to carbines is a bit off, because you're essentially comparing all 9mm SMGs with carbines and that is another story.