deltagamer

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.

Miniguns and Gau's should come soon hopefully :)

I've been playing around on the Dev build that recently released the Eden Editor and so far I've got to say its going to be a huge upgrade in terms of mission making and quality it will bring us. Great job on that one Devs . One thing you might notice however is the intent on removing the 2D Editor once the newer one is released. I can understand why you would want to remove it especially considering the fact that the Eden Editor will make the 2D one practically redundant so it might be a bit hard to argue why it should remain in-game. My main point would be that by having both 2D and 3D editors available, users can use the older system when needed and then if desired switch out to the newer one to finish their project off. It also keeps in the nostalgia feeling as well but that's not really the point. I've had an interesting experience with the Eden Editor so far and I only really encountered one major bug (reason behind this post) that may cause issues for people building certain missions that include large script spawned ships, especially considering that if people are forced to use the 3D editor in the future. Now this was tested in both 2D and 3D editors and all was fine with the 2D one, it might also be best to take this out of context as firstly Eden Editor is work in progress and secondly I was trying to make a mission that had vehicles and objects placed on a modded ship (LPD mod). Basically it seems that how large ships are traditionally placed in the 2D editor and spawned in with the helper object and scripts are now broken in the newer 3D Editor. Mainly the deletion of an LPD or LHD can leave parts floating in the water that don't exist and can't be removed. There is also a case where you can place a vehicle on the ship then preview the mission and the placed vehicles go forward and toward the center of the ship. This is a huge issue for ship mods and with the newest map for A3 being mainly surrounded by water it would hopefully be a good idea to make sure users can still place and use these mods, even if its in an older redundant 2D Editor. Obviously I don't expect BI to make sure everything works with every mod, that just wouldn't work for them and would take up too much time. However the 2D editor seems to get past these issues so it would be a really good idea to leave it in the game, maybe even have it as an option you have to enable in the settings so you can see it in the menu. I understand the Eden Editor is largely work in progress, and the issues I reported are not specific to vanilla content however I feel that if the 2D editor was kept in we won't have to worry about things like this. Maybe more people can add to this and share discussion on the matter and the removal of the 2D editor. Great work so far guys, BI have been taking the right direction for me ever since A3 was released.

The uniforms should be compatible, you might need to double check though.

Chinook Pack Features Troop capacity of 35 players Changeable Camouflages Static Line Parachute drops Deployable Medical Stretchers Usable Co-Pilot FLIR Pod Changeable Multi-Function Displays Working Crew Positions Hide-able Components Removable Cargo Hatch Removable Pilot doors Open-able Crew Door Ability to add decals Ability to Raise, Lower and Level rear ramp Pilots and Co-Pilots can drop smoke from cockpit Different variants of each Helicopter ACE3 and AGM Support AGM fastrope support Vanilla Sling Loading compatibility Vanilla Virtual Garage compatibility Vanilla Firing From Vehicles compatibility Whats Planned Holo Optics for M134 Guns Smoke Drop ability for M240 Rear Gunner Possibly adding the ability to walk around the interior whilst flying Gunship version (Still unsure about this) Credits 3CommandoBrigade WarLord554 Aplion TCBRUNCH Ahles3 CptDavo konyo evrik andy1 soldierman geraldbolso1899 SyNcRoNiCzZ ImperialAlex Theebu Lifetap Thanks to everyone above they have helped me out a lot! Also please let me know if I forgot to credit you. Current ChangeLog == v1.7.5.5 == - Removed Static Parachute Feature - Removed Parachute files and Config Previous ChangeLogs Vehicles & Classnames For Mission Makers Documentation Known Issues Images More Images Downloads v1.7.5.5 Extra Links ChinookPack Sources ChinookPack - Armaholic Forums Steam Workshop Foums - ChinookPack General Discussions All ChinookPack Binarized Releases Below v1.7.5 (File Size - 1.95GB) Licence For special license agreements contact me personally through pm. Dev Note: Please respect my wishes and always contact me before you use this mods sources in your own personal modification. Always credit everyone involved/listed in the credits of this mod when you are editing and re-releasing this mod. Refrain from posting any unofficial downloads on this thread. All releases here will be authored by myself. And finally if you have any questions feel free to message me on the forums or post here. Cheers!

@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.

Perfect chance for me to shill my YouTube channel

Our chally 2 was made in house by Alwarren.

Stryker Pack By Deltagamer Hi there, I finally got past the addon packer issues and I have now managed to pack it. Currently this mod is just a port of the ArmA 2 Strykers to ArmA 3, however I do plan on improving these vehicles greatly. Check the list below for what I have planned. I will be releasing these unbinarized and binarized for everyone to use and enjoy :) Please don't post this on steam, I will eventually put it up soon. Images More Images Included Vehicles Classnames Planned Features Downloads Mediafire ChangeLog Version 1.3.1 - Fixed Vehicle Classes Previous Log Credits - Bohemia Interactive - Community Upgrade Project and the Wiki - MrEwok - Cirav Known Issues Possibly more features to come. Extra Links - StrykerPack - Armaholic Forums - StrykerPack - Steam Forums Licence I don't want to see this in any "Upcoming Life Mods", please respect my wishes and always contact me before you include it in your mod. If you have any ideas to what I can add to these vehicles then please let me know and I will try my best to get it in. Thanks

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.

Addons: CUP

Hopefully someone can help me out with this, I've been trying to get useractions to work with parachutes for a while now as that would be the best way for me to get a 'Cut Parachute' Feature that I've been looking to achieve for some time now. I'm hoping to get the same effect as ACE2 by giving the user the ability to cut their parachute whenever it is deployed. What would be the best way for me to do this and if anyone knows how, what would I do to get it working. Here's what I tried: This is my useraction class UserActions { class cutParachute { displayName= "<t color='#FF0000'>Cut Parachute</t>"; //Red displayNameDefault = ""; position=""; radius=20; onlyForplayer=true; condition="(player == (driver this) && (alive this))"; statement="this call DEGA_fnc_cutParachute"; priority=15; }; }; And this is my function _Parachute = _this select 0; _caller = _this select 1; moveOut _caller; deleteVehicle _Parachute; _caller allowDamage true; I've found this thread from '06 which seems to show that parachutes don't support AddActions, hopefully this still isn't the case. Would anyone know how to help me out with my issue? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?47117-parachutes-and-addAction

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

maybe

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.

I think the delta RRV vests only had two variations, at least that's all I could find when porting them.

MH-60 FAP

How to operate 101, get a tacticool ride!

Its for the position where you want the player to eject from when they select the static line action.

Yeah try this: https://github.com/deltagamer/DEGA_Parachutes/blob/master/Release_Notes/Parachute_HowTo.txt

Not yet™

Some WiP teasers:

If it was another bigger company in this situation I would probably agree with you however BI don't exactly have the resources to dedicate mod QA testers. Its always been their goal to focus on vanilla first and then worry about what external contributors such as modders may require. Due to this I feel its not in the scope of what BI wish to do for their game and would cause unnecessary strain that could be easily avoided.

Why do they have the right to regulate QA or prices over other peoples work though? That should solely be decided by the content creator. If the community feel its an unjust price then as the saying goes "tough shit" because typically they don't have anything to do with the work an individual has created. The best way to avoid all this is to disallow any form of profit making regarding servers/mods.