Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Community Reputation

507 Excellent

About deltagamer

  • Rank
    Master Sergeant


  • Interests

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Youtube
  • Steam url id

Recent Profile Visitors

1496 profile views
  1. I'm not a terrain guy but if you come onto our discord and ask about your issue someone more clued up in that department might be able to help you. https://discord.gg/DSR6DYb
  2. Okay fair enough, i'll add in the extra 15 degrees needed for them to point forward since I'm working on the uh60 anyways. However I won't add the weapons pointing forward on spawn for now at least, thats something you will need to do manually or via scripting or whatever.
  3. Isn't it currently possible for you to point the guns forward manually?
  4. I don't think having door guns as pilot weapons would work well. Instead I'm planning on making pylon versions of the m134 and gau19 that will fit on most aircraft. That should be a good replacement for what you want.
  5. Miniguns and Gau's should come soon hopefully :)
  6. The uniforms should be compatible, you might need to double check though.
  7. BIS Aircraft Carrier

    @nodunit I've had the chance to get familiar with large static carrier based objects within arma 3 and currently the only way of implementing them can cause other issues such as geometry spacing (falling through decks etc) if not done correctly. Current information seems to point towards there being only one viable way in spawning such objects in game through the use of split up parts "glued together" via scripting. Visually it looks like the same method of split up parts was used on the USS Freedom similar to previous titles such as the a2 LHD or some current modded ships like the Nimitz or the CUP LHD. Is there any possibility of moving away from this method of spawning large objects such as Ships greater than 50 - 60 metres? If I understand it there is a lot of underlying engine issues that prevent an easy fix for ships of this size to remain one whole object instead of split parts. I'm interested if there is any more information on this subject as I could use with some reference to get the CUP LHD to a vanilla standard like the USS Freedom. I would also imagine having a singular object compared to a split one would allow for a safer and more easier way in implementing interior designs for both the USS Freedom and external modded assets.
  8. Perfect chance for me to shill my YouTube channel
  9. Our chally 2 was made in house by Alwarren.
  10. ArmA 2 Stryker Pack

    This mod is no longer being worked on, my work is included within CUP so if you're desperate you know where to look. If it was 10 years ago I would probably agree that 3GB is too much to download but with today's technology I find that excuse to be ridiculous (with the rare exception that is). Especially when delta patching allows one time downloads with small file size updates.
  11. The Blackfish is not powerful enough

    Its not so much that its a bad solo vehicle its more the fact its role as a vtol gunship was wrongly placed. It really should have had an IDWS to allow the V-44 to defend itself un-escorted when landing/departing at an LZ instead of the AC-130 style weapon system. Personally the AC-130 style would have been better suited for a plane in the Jets DLC. I'm not too bothered about it being a QTR or not but if it was I would imagine it would have worked exactly like the V-22 but with a greater carry capacity. If one rotor got damaged it would still continue to work similar to how the V-22 currently does it IRL. If both the V-22 and V-44 had a wing ripped off then they both would be screwed as they won't be able to perform an emergency gliding landing, a V-44 (QTR) may have more chance of survival but that's just theory. Check out page 14 (26) of the V-22 handbook, the rest of it is quite a good read as well : http://www.boeing.com/ospreynews/2011/issue_01/final_8jun2010_179638.pdf
  12. The Blackfish is not powerful enough

    The V-44 has quite a few problems that haven't been addressed yet sadly. Firstly I feel the model design choice was poorly made as I think the V-44 variants should have been a quad rotor design instead of the normal V-22 design. Secondly the V-44 (Armed) isn't really suited for player use unless there is good communications and piloting taking place (which isn't always available, especially in SP). I also think the guns are setup incorrectly as there isn't any use of the FLIR pods on the nose and side of the aircraft by any of the gunners or co-pilot. I think a 360 IDWS would have been more suited for the V-44 (Armed) as that allows a less gimmicky way in order to use the system (also lets the V-44 cover its own LZ without an escort aircraft since most helicopters can't keep up with it). As much as I love the AC-130 design of the weapons I don't think its very friendly to use in MP or SP as other factors can effect accuracy especially at high distance/speeds. I understand that the V-44 will not receive any model adjustments as its way beyond its dev stage however having a few of the issues at least fixed in this ticket I made would be great. https://feedback.bistudio.com/T117966 Overall I personally think the V-44 (armed) is outmatched by the Y-32 Xi'an, I would love to fix the V-44 myself but with no samples released its not possible Edit: I just noticed the V-44 now allows the Co-pilot to use the forward FLIR pod which is great, although there is a lod selection issue when viewing from the camera and the Pod itself not moving with the direction of the camera its still a good step forward.