Mickyleitor

Ehm.. yes.. But it has dependency from others .pbo so be careful with your choice. That video is running Arma 3 1.58, pre-APEX but some members of the community are helping Green in order to fix the issue, hoping It will look better.

To be honest I'm not mission editor so I really don't know how it can be done right now but this feature will be added in the upcoming update meaning that you can put the AI in the position you want directly in EDEN editor.. Check this out: As you can see you will be able to put the AI on M2, bridge or cargo position.

Buenas! No, hopefully a hotfix will be available after APEX release as we're right now doing some tweaks to introduce new "low level changes" (A lot of new commands/new config structure have been introduced in APEX/EDEN), giving all units a 3D editor Preview image and fixing some config errors (Be aware, expect some error log in your A3 after APEX release) Including spanish voices implies doing more than 3000 (¿?) individual records at a reasonable quality and we cannot afford that right now, first because it will require extra human resource we do not have and definitely we haven't enough money to request such work to a profesional studio.

Another one topic on this? https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/169981-legal-discussion-regarding-steam-workshop/ https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/180643-steam-workshop-policing-is-meant-to-work-how/ Think it was clear with what en3x has posted.

Hi srbknight, I'm seeing you writting in this forums about Naval stuff in the last few month. I'm very suprised how fast you are doing all those naval stuff! Congratulations, you are an expert modelling in blender (As I see in your images)!! However, let me give you some feedback. I don't know what are your needs or what you intend but I'm seeing that modelling and finishing your ships in a "industrial" way (I mean, a repetitive task fast again and again) bring your addons not to be "unique" in arma community.. Ok yes, It's unique because no group have modelled or have your amazing (and large) roadmap but I think if you put "some more love" at your stuff and giving them more time in development phase, redoing the interiors (this is a personal "feature" and It's a point to discuss depending on your needs), "playing" with multi-material techniques (titles available in english) which have been created in RV engine for this purpose, giving the chance to developer use not only 1 texture per UV Map, putting a better textures mixing with proper normal/specular materials (and multimaterial).... etc.. These are the "little" things that holds in player's mind and make your addons to be "memorable" and if someone see your addon they for sure will re-play again mission with your naval stuff. Big things take times, maybe some more than others but for sure if you want a "high"(est) level addon then It will cost resources in time and in human resources. I will relate my own experience, in FFAAMOD, we had a ship ported from Arma 2 which was using a very poor UV Map/texture/materials (but hey, it was fine as it was unique in A2, no matter how poor it's because it was the only! jaja)... So, the "challenge" for us was make a ship using arma engine tech (Multi-material)/putting the proper textures (walls, floors etc) and bringing the "same" ship to the next level. Ok, development time was aproximately 1 year because we had a tons of addons in development phase running at the same time which could be reduced drastically if we focus only in this. See two videos showing the "before" and "after", got the differences? If you need some help/explains on "how to", I'm available since July (I'm now in exams). And, if your needs are releasing the content as you are doing (a standard ships moveable which cannot be entered, wasting time developing interiors/material as It will not be in "eye's player" very often) then forgot all I've wrotten you!! Just thinking how you can improve your addons! Keep standing up and good development time !

Hi, Try setting up your Stage7 to use TexGen 2 insted of 7 (TexGen 7 is using UV Map Set 1 which I'm surely it's not intended). Also, use this template to make your rvmat more clearly for your eyes, you will be benefited :P (Well for me it's) PS: Forum editor make it a terrible code view :angry: diffuse[]={0.57500011,0.57500011,0.57500011,1}; forcedDiffuse[]={0,0,0,0}; emmisive[]={0,0,0,1}; specular[]={0.31700015,0.31700015,0.31700015,1}; specularPower=35.5; PixelShaderID="Multi"; VertexShaderID="Multi"; class TexGen5 {uvSource="tex"; class uvTransform{aside[]={1,0,0}; up[]={0,1,0}; dir[]={0,0,1}; pos[]={0,0,0};};}; class TexGen6 {uvSource="tex"; class uvTransform{aside[]={1,0,0}; up[]={0,1,0}; dir[]={0,0,1}; pos[]={0,0,0};};}; class TexGen7 {uvSource="tex"; class uvTransform{aside[]={1,0,0}; up[]={0,1,0}; dir[]={0,0,1}; pos[]={0,0,0};};}; // BLACK class TexGen0 {uvSource="tex"; class uvTransform{aside[]={1,0,0}; up[]={0,1,0}; dir[]={0,0,1}; pos[]={0,0,0};};}; class Stage0 {texture="2017\map_data_2017\textures\concrete_dirty_slabs_co.paa"; texGen="0";}; class Stage5 {texture="#(argb,8,8,3)color(0.5,0,1,1,DTSMDI)"; texGen="0";}; class Stage11 {texture="a3\structures_f\data\concrete\concrete_old_nohq.paa"; texGen="0";}; // RED class TexGen1 {uvSource="tex"; class uvTransform{aside[]={1,0,0}; up[]={0,1,0}; dir[]={0,0,1}; pos[]={0,0,0};};}; class Stage1 {texture="2017\buildings2_2017\ind_estate\data\ind_estate_building_roof_co.paa"; texGen="1";}; class Stage6 {texture="2017\buildings2_2017\ind_estate\data\ind_estate_building_roof_smdi.paa"; texGen="1";}; class Stage12 {texture="2017\buildings2_2017\ind_estate\data\ind_estate_building_roof_nohq.paa"; texGen="1";}; // GREEN class TexGen2 {uvSource="tex"; class uvTransform{aside[]={1,0,0}; up[]={0,1,0}; dir[]={0,0,1}; pos[]={0,0,0};};}; class Stage2 {texture="2017\buildings2_2017\ind_estate\data\ind_estate_building_brick_co.paa"; texGen="2";}; class Stage7 {texture="2017\map_data_2017\textures\terraced_house_brick_dtsmdi.paa"; texGen="2";}; class Stage13 {texture="texture="2017\map_data_2017\textures\terraced_house_brick_nohq.paa"; texGen="2";}; // BLUE class TexGen3 {uvSource="tex"; class uvTransform{aside[]={1,0,0}; up[]={0,1,0}; dir[]={0,0,1}; pos[]={0,0,0};};}; class Stage3 {texture="texture="a3\structures_f\data\metal\metal05_co.paa"; texGen="3";}; class Stage8 {texture="#(argb,8,8,3)color(0.5,0,1,1,DTSMDI)"; texGen="3";}; class Stage14 {texture="#(argb,8,8,3)color(0.5,0.5,1,1,NOHQ)"; texGen="3";}; // MASK, MC, AS/ADS class TexGen4 {uvSource="tex1"; class uvTransform{aside[]={1,0,0}; up[]={0,1,0}; dir[]={0,0,1}; pos[]={0,0,0};};}; class Stage4 {texture="2017\buildings2_2017\ind_estate\data\ind_unit_ext_mask.paa"; texGen="4";}; class Stage9 {texture="2017\buildings2_2017\ind_estate\data\ind_unit_ext_mc.paa"; texGen="4";}; class Stage10 {texture="2017\buildings2_2017\ind_estate\data\ind_est_as.paa"; texGen="4";};

No, It was for showcase purpose only, in fact it's not operative in A3. No. And this apply to all vehicles as the name describes well "Spanish Armed Forces Modification". :)

What do you mean? I think IRL they don't carry any flag due to tactics/operational procedures purposes, just those two you see in the video in both sides.

What's on roadmap plans it's actually what we will do or working on in spite of we aren't showing anything. Actually as I said before B.A.M is nearly completed and It's being tested by our testers. The reason we aren't giving any news about L61, L51 ..... is because it's actually on stand-by or temporarily stopped, our human resources cannot cover a large amount of addons at the same time (we are nearly 5 active members) and we are doing our best, surely. PS: That video is outdated, B.A.M looks much better right now :D :D

Yes it's planned but we will show everything we can when we want depending in our development stage. On the other hand we are refining all weapons, fitting new animations reloads, new weapon accesories, equipments and new sounds in order to integrate all functionalities EDEN update has bring to the game. Also, B.A.M has recently entered in testing phase.

Ah, that's okay I suppose... Well.. Talking seriously , none of those information have been announced officially so all the information you read are speculations only.

How many Gintonics have you drunk at the time you were writing this?

Hi, I've tested this when I was in his stand at HOMSEC. The overall idea is good but there is some things can be improved .. First, the first impression is weird because you have to get used to it, the gamepad under the weapon looks like a little joystick (similar to jone_kone) which its vertically positioned and the movements for this joystick are for horizontal displacements of the soldier so in some cases can be a bit confusing. When you are get used to the gamepad another "issue" (or a thing potentially fixed in the future) is the response time in the rotational movements which limit you a lot in the battlespace. Maybe it wasn't calibrated well but when I was doing some quick moves, it's delayed in game at least 0.2-0.4 seconds (?), a TrackIR has a better response time (from what I saw). I think this is due to the latency introduced by the communication process between the PC and the devices via wireless/bluetooth. The VR Google was good but the field of view this headset give you is limited at the point you can see under the "glasscreen" (not so much but maybe a 10% of your FoV), seeing what its happening around you (I mean, the real world). So the oculus is more inmersive than this (which I think its normal because the main focus of this VR Headset isn't the same as the Oculus). Okay, the good point of this is the fast deployment in all kind of scenarios, allowing you distribute this in classroom with VBS3 already installed and the totally free movements without the need of wires because having more than 5 soldiers into the same classroom with wires is not a good idea. All feedback I wrote before can be fixed, technically speaking except for the joystick... I told them an idea which it's already under developing in my university, the interaction between the human and a device via brainwaves, here is the Thesis (I think when I finish my degree in electronic system I will investigate more in deep about this). The last but not least, is the overall cost production of this, which I think it's a low price product and this is good to be competitive. Regarding to Arma 3.. I don't know but I remember one of them was in an A2 clan in the past and eventually they check some pages about A3 community, maybe he's still in a clan. Congratulations to this spanish young entrepreneurs which have been able to bring an idea to reality in spite of the situation in Spain.

Damn, I was missing that and fortunately it works!

Hi guys, I'm doing a custom bipod for the G36 weapon, but It seems im doing something wrong but unable to locate the problem... The 3D model is very simple, just a base and two legs ... two axis on the memory point LOD to animate the legs when the bipod is deployed and so on... In the Buldozer all goes well, when source bipod_legs is 0 the bipod is undeployed and deployed when bipod_legs is 1. Here is a screenshot: https://i.gyazo.com/e0d22d162be914484e4957cb6c8e98ac.png And the 3D model is so simple: https://i.gyazo.com/7399c3aa14364809d0508bb614028d3e.png Well, the issue i've is when I'm in the game and the player deploy the bipod, the axis of the legs is NOT where I've in the memory LOD, It seems has been translated or rotate the axis itself to another place.... In my model.cfg im not animation or moving the axis.. Here is the model.cfg: class CfgSkeletons { class ffaa_bipod_G36_Skeleton { pivotsModel=""; isDiscrete = 0; skeletonInherit = ""; skeletonBones[] = { "bipod_legs", "", "bipod_leg_L", "bipod_legs", "bipod_leg_R", "bipod_legs" }; }; }; class CfgModels { class ffaa_bipod_G36 { skeletonName = "ffaa_bipod_G36_Skeleton"; sectionsInherit = ""; sections[] = {"camo"}; class Animations { class leg_L { type = rotation; source = bipod_legs; sourceAddress = clamp; selection = "bipod_leg_L"; axis = "bipod_leg_L_axis"; minValue = 0; maxValue = 1; angle0 = (rad 0); angle1 = (rad -90); }; class leg_R: leg_L { selection = "bipod_leg_R"; axis = "bipod_leg_R_axis"; angle1 = (rad 90); }; }; }; }; Here this is the bipod deployed in the A3 (See the legs are in the cannon and not under underbarrel slot..): https://i.gyazo.com/838d9c010b1522a41f3dada6de6196e1.png For more info, here is the config: class ffaa_bipod_G36: ItemCore { dlc = "FFAAMOD"; scope = 2; displayName = "$STR_FFAA_BIPODE_G36"; picture = "\ffaa_armas\bipods\G36\UI\icon_bipod_G36_ca.paa"; model = "\ffaa_armas\bipods\G36\ffaa_bipod_G36.p3d"; class ItemInfo: InventoryUnderItem_Base_F { deployedPivot = "bipod"; hasBipod = true; mass = 10; soundBipodDown[] = {"A3\Sounds_F_Mark\arsenal\sfx\bipods\Bipod_BLU_down",db-3, 1, 20}; soundBipodUp[] = {"A3\Sounds_F_Mark\arsenal\sfx\bipods\Bipod_BLU_up",db-3, 1, 20}; }; inertia = 0.1; };

Hi, I'm working on a workaround fix for the Tiger now, I've sent you a PM (but It seem your last connection was on 21 august :( ) ;)

Not a gameplay itself but show of the UV Mapping process of the UAV Searcher Mk II for FFAA MOD.

Master classes has to be defined outside any class.. Why are you using scope=0; on the muzzleslot class?, On the LinkedItemsOptics there is a slot which it doesn't exist (Crowslot). You haven't to add a weapon on the weapon[] array on CfgPatches which it already exist! You have to add the new weapon you have created in the CfgWeapons. As ASDG don't use arrays for add new items you have to work with clases as well.. Here is your config which I think it will work better... //NATO Special Operators Pack //by DirtyNorf class CfgPatches { class ddrf_nsop { units[]={}; weapons[]= { "scarl_EO_AN15_HA" }; requiredVersion=0.1; requiredAddons[]= { "A3_Characters_F", "rhsusf_weapons", "rhsusf_c_weapons", "rhsusf_weapons2", "essgoggles", "hrp", "kio_balaclava", "shemagh", "tryk_backpack", "tryk_uniforms", "tryk_unit", "zabb", "zabb2", "zara", "asdg_jointrails" }; }; }; class CfgFactionClasses { class ddrf_nsop { displayName = "NATO Special Operations" priority = 1; side = 1; }; }; class CfgVehicleClasses { class ddrf_nsop_green_scar { displayName="Green (SCAR)"; priority = 2; }; class ddrf_nsop_green_m4 { displayName="Green (M4)"; priority = 3; }; }; class CfgVehicles { class B_Soldier_F; class ddrf_green_scar_operator: B_Soldier_F { side = 1; faction = "ddrf_nsop"; vehicleClass = "ddrf_nsop_green_scar"; scope=2; displayName="Operator (Green)"; uniformAccessories[]={}; nakedUniform="U_BasicBody"; uniformClass="TRYK_U_B_OD_BLK_2"; model="\A3\Characters_F\BLUFOR\b_soldier_01.p3d"; weapons[]= { "scarl_EO_AN15_HA", "hgun_P07_F", "Throw", "Put", "Binocular" }; respawnWeapons[]= { "scarl_EO_AN15_HA", "hgun_P07_F", "Throw", "Put", "Binocular" }; linkedItems[]= { "FirstAidKit", "FirstAidKit", "FirstAidKit", "FirstAidKit", "rhsusf_acc_anpeq15", "rhsusf_acc_eotech_552", "HarrisDLC" }; RespawnItems[]= { "FirstAidKit", "FirstAidKit", "FirstAidKit", "FirstAidKit", "rhsusf_acc_anpeq15", "rhsusf_acc_eotech_552", "HarrisDLC" }; magazines[]= { "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "16Rnd_9x21_Mag", "16Rnd_9x21_Mag", "SmokeShell", "SmokeShell", "HandGrenade", "HandGrenade" }; respawnMagazines[]= { "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "M4318_mag", "16Rnd_9x21_Mag", "16Rnd_9x21_Mag", "SmokeShell", "SmokeShell", "HandGrenade", "HandGrenade" }; }; }; class SlotInfo; class asdg_OpticRail1913_long; class asdg_FrontSideRail; class asdg_UnderSlot; class asdg_MuzzleSlot_556; class CfgWeapons { class rhsusf_acc_anpeq15; class rhsusf_acc_eotech_552; class HarrisDLC; class ej_scarstandard; class scarl_EO_AN15_HA: ej_scarstandard { scope = 2; displayName = "SCAR L (EOTECH)"; class LinkedItems { class LinkedItemsOptic { slot = "CowsSlot"; item = "rhsusf_acc_eotech_552"; }; class LinkedItemsUnder { slot = "UnderBarrelSlot"; item = "HarrisDLC"; }; class LinkedItemsAcc { slot = "PointerSlot"; item = "rhsusf_acc_anpeq15"; }; }; class WeaponSlotsInfo { allowedslots[]={901}; mass=60; class MuzzleSlot: asdg_MuzzleSlot_556 { compatibleitems : compatibleitems { muzzle_snds_M = 1; SF556_ej = 1; SF556blk_ej = 1; SFLMGMini_ej = 1; SFLMGTMini_ej = 1; ej_mzls_M = 1; SFSOCOM_ej = 1; SFSOCOMT_ej = 1; }; }; class CowsSlot : asdg_OpticRail1913_long { compatibleitems : compatibleitems { rhsusf_acc_eotech_552 = 1; }; }; class PointerSlot : asdg_FrontSideRail { compatibleitems : compatibleitems { rhsusf_acc_anpeq15 = 1; }; }; class UnderBarrelSlot: asdg_UnderSlot { compatibleitems : compatibleitems { HarrisDLC = 1; }; }; }; }; }; Anyway I haven't here the RHS config (with ASDG extra pbo added) but It won't be required in order to work adding those attachments here, just inherit those slot from asdg_OpticRail1913_long / asdg_UnderSlot / asdg_FrontSideRail / asdg_MuzzleSlot_556 and ASDG+RHS+RHS_ASDG_extra will do the job... Hope it helps

Hi, Are there no moderators / admins here? I'm unable to contact them since 3 weeks ago... Thanks Gunny, your detailed feedback will be highly appreciated and studied. BagPiperGuy, your issue have been reported on our feedback (next time report there directly ;) ) Hi GamerOnkel, I don't understand your problem.. Can you be more detailed on your issue directly on our feedback tracker? Zriel, For me it has recoil.. maybe increasing it will be okay for you (I've noticed right now in the last patch of A3 it thrown a new error .. :mellow: ) Please guys, if you are sure your issue come from our mod AND it's not a suggestion or discussion about the mod then report them directly on our feedback tracker! Otherwise these issues will never be fixed as we can't check every forum, pages and messages ! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

This go to moderators/admins only as I can't get answer from some of them via PM (No worries, I don't check PM very often :rolleyes:): Is it possible merge this and this threads? (The first thread should be the first post of the main thread and you can delete as well the first post published by tisor of the second thread). This is due to the left of the author of the thread from the FFAA MOD team, we decided to create a user to manage all the FFAA MOD related thread. Tisor own the second thread and is fully agreed to do that (if you aren't secure then ask them for the merge.) The same happens to the release thread, in this case you only need to delete the old whole thread (As it has only 3 answers) and we have created a new for that. (We want to delete this whole thread) Also if you have done that then delete my own post from here. Thanks in advance, Greetings.

Hi Robalo! Can you give me a little help trying to get a working config for FFAA MOD? I think the ASDG JR config is alright but for some reason it doesn't work at all... I mean, i can attach on other weapons (with ASDG JR) our attachments but I cannot attach on my weapons a non-vanilla attachment (with ASDG JR integrated).. Here is the config of the FFAA Weapons: http://pastebin.com/T03p4ZBq And here is the config of the ASDG JR for FFAA Weapons: Any idea what's going on?

We will take a look on the nose of the Tiger, anyway it looks good even with that deformation! (Just kidding, we will take a look). I will personally ask to a real Tiger pilot if IRL that procedure is real then we will leave the pilot to fire the SNED rockets. Compatible? Yes. Integrated with ACE3? No. This means you can play with the FFAAMOD with no errors but you will see that ACE3 have no effect over FFAA weapons or vehicles. For example, we have to make a especific configs telling arma 3 what's the barrel length with the ACE3 code ( ACE_barrelTwist and ACE_barrelLength ) and all the WHOLE functionalities ACE3 bring to the A3. We are trying to make the mod compatible with Joint Rails and TFAR (with custom radios) and in the future make the mod fully integrated with ACE3 but really, we are always under busy work and If any of you want to contribute to the FFAA MOD then you can help by making it fully integrated with ACE3. We, in the past, thought about it and in the first version we almost release with the mod a launcher/updater but finally that project was take down. We had hopes that steam workshop will bring us a "fully working" updater for mods but finally we have decided to not put it in steam workshop... What's now? well, It's true that our releases have an average period of 6 month so it's not a "real" problem at all but in the future it's interesting have some plans about it. Yes but not in the units we have right now in the mod (BRILAT, MOE or FAMET). Answered in armaholic forums :) Thanks all you guys, this is being done with the maximum love for you and this is all we have by the return, your support and happiness enjoying the mod.

Hi guys, Please discussion, requesting or suggestions on the discussion forum, this is the release thread only! We will try answer all your questions in that forum. @Kimi_uy It's bad we haven't enough information to do the real HMD for the Tiger but your HMD fits very well on that cat!

Hi, I don't know why you are trying to fix the Fabarm of the FFAA MOD, the FFAA MOD Team have fixed that in our development version. Any way here is the code of the fabarm fixed in case you want learn how it is done.