Jump to content

M. Glade

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by M. Glade

  1. On 10/26/2017 at 11:06 AM, mrempireman said:


    Millers team that conducts the bombing could very be from the prolong campaign. Look at the images I posted below. The first one is an earthquake from the east wind device when you are driving up the road to help an AAF patrol that ran into trouble. The second image happens when you are sent to a ambushed AAF security convoy meant to arrive for the peace talks in kavala between FIA and AAF. When you are on the ground a CSAT chopper goes past, this may or may not be the miller team, BUT have a look at the 4th image and 5th image. In my opinion CTRG have access to disguise them selves as CSAT, as also seen  in option B when in the last mission of east wind. They used the AAF commander to help locate the CSAT deivce as CSAT probably had better relations with AAF at that time. I reckon the AAF commander used  CTRG to bomb the town as a deal for information about CSAT device. CTRG used the FIA to hide themselves as well as getting more information. In the Game over ending, CSAT open fire on the AAF meaning they probably knew the only way NATO or CTRG could have got this device was from information given to them by the AAF. During one mission where kerry blows up a CSAT chopper using a AAF rogue asset, James's team links up with him at the end of the mission and James is unhappy . This is probably because CSAT now have lost trust with the AAF, meaning  it's gonna be a lot harder for CTRG to get info from the AAF about the device. Also in the 4th pic, Broadway tells Conway to stand down, this is probably because some higher up above broadway who is in NATO working with CTRG told him to. That's why I think those 3 redacted dudes in the background of that picture are Brits

    https://imgur.com/a/jOAs9    https://imgur.com/a/whwXF    https://imgur.com/a/WQ2xs        https://imgur.com/ZXg6WG6               https://imgur.com/a/Hf856


    Makes alot of sense but I don't think BIS thought that specifically out as much as you lol..


    CTRG is part of NATO because if you go to the Apex campaign mission overview text, it says play the role of a NATO CTRG Operator. And even with Tac Ops we still don't know who the fuck they are.

  2. 12 minutes ago, R0adki11 said:

    I thought IDAP were there as there had been a Civil war between the AAF an the FIA.


    7 minutes ago, wiki said:

    Anyway, in the campaign of Laws of War DLC, they say IDAP was there before the events of East Wind.


    I mean, a decade prior? That's a long time, really opens up new spots in the timeline.


    I understand that TF Aegis has been there for 2-ish years, but what conflict has gone on for that long? 


    Retard post once again...

  3. 11 minutes ago, djotacon said:


    Who say that? you? and who you are?


    Who are Pufu? Who am I?


    We are not the entire mankind and the people spend money in something if they like it.


    Instead posting comments that seems full arrogance let the people make his own decisions.


    Lol mate, we're gamers, we buy games like religion. Maybe not to you, but we're not game developers, we're consumers (well, some of us are BI devs). 


    I like buying things and am not afraid voicing my opinion on what BI offers, since they're literally the only studio I can give a dime about (no pun intended). This thread was created since its crossing the line from what is free and what is paid, we have every right as already base game consumers to provide input what we'd want to buy, and BI is doing exactly that, proving a platform for us to discuss freely.

    • Like 5

  4. I think BIS kinda jinxed themselves when they set no new assets, I mean hell we're getting new units (ish) to assault Malden no? So thats an asset in its self since its part of the vanilla campaign.


    And we're getting some new "Scenario Module" or something like that, which is also an asset. So hey, worth the $5? Only issue I'll have is waiting 6 months for them to put the files in regular .pbos so I have some editor fun :f:


    Also I'm pretty sure the Gorgon retexture is just some brown lines scattered on the old NATO Gorgon tex from 2013. 



    this setObjectTextureGlobal [0, "A3\Armor_F_Gamma\APC_Wheeled_03\Data\apc_wheeled_03_ext_co.paa"];

    this setObjectTextureGlobal [1, "A3\Armor_F_Gamma\APC_Wheeled_03\Data\apc_wheeled_03_ext2_co.paa"];

    this setObjectTextureGlobal [2, "A3\Armor_F_Gamma\APC_Wheeled_03\Data\rcws30_co.paa"];

    this setObjectTextureGlobal [3, "A3\Armor_F_Gamma\APC_Wheeled_03\Data\apc_wheeled_03_ext_alpha_co.paa"]; 


    • Sad 1

  5. 59 minutes ago, Rich_R said:

    There is this;


    'take advantage of new scripted systems to help create advanced custom Arma 3 scenarios'


    It would be nice if the squad radar makes it in. Not sure about the AAR they mention.


    I'm pretty sure the AAR is like the Apex video briefings but as an outro, something extra I guess.


    Kinda bummed that we may not see Miller again, that daft geezer better make an appearance on the next title. 


    2 hours ago, semiconductor said:


    Well, it's November 30 and it's 3 (three, as in one plus one plus one) singleplayer (as in you can't play with friends) operations.

    It's not even funny anymore. :|


    Yeah, talk about a "campaign".

    • Like 1

  6. 31 minutes ago, x3kj said:

    Expecting to make a living is an optimistic gamble. Although BIS haven't given contract details, this is not creators club where Bethesda pays you to make something. You make it and you get a cut when it sells.


    Lol, obviously they'll be taking a fat commission. But if your DLC makes the cut, money is there, they're only looking for stuff that'll SELL. 


    You better be committed to making it your primary focus and think of it as making it a living. 

  7. 2 hours ago, eh chaser said:

    What kind of DLC is possible, i think the question was asked before but i don´t see any answer yet.

    Is it just an addon like RHS or is it stuff like a single vehicle or is it terrains aswell?

    And in terms of Terrains, what about the assets? I think most terrain makers are using CUP objects atm. I think it will not be possible to release some kind of premium dlc with the usage of a free object depency, right?






    You'll probably have to re-create those assets. No dependencies allowed, similar to what happened with MANW, remember you'll be making a living from this and then you'd have to get the people of CUP to sign off. Also, majority of that is just ported buildings from previous ArmA games and BIS probably doesn't want anymore recycling. 

  8. So, if somehow someone created their own version of A3 tools (if the person in question has extensive knowledge of program development, but in the first place you'd need to reverse engineer possibly the entire game) and made their assets implementable in the game, the person can sell it?


    Ok, but I'm entirely doubtful that someone will go to those extents without breaking policy in the first place, to be fair this needs to be clarified slightly better in the terms of use. Why is it always the lifers who do retarded shit like this? 

  9. 1 hour ago, mike2015r said:


    i watch this but dont know is it useful or not


    it talking about AI but not much about normal player

    i not any server owner or server admin  i only a normal player join other server and play

    so it is no way to make function same as client mod like other steam workshop game  like dont starve together?

    if no mod no texHeaders.bin no extra heir or some thing possible?

    no any way to make a mod can join any server?


    is it mod have to is .pbo?



    Mods have to be in PBO format. Like I said, you can't join any vanilla server with mods, it will kick you out of the game. 

  10. You'll never get it perfectly moving like that (you can make it look good, since this is ArmA there are certain extents) but what you can do is:


    retardedLamp1 setVectorDir [0,0,1];
    sleep 1;
    retardedLamp1 setVectorDir [0,0,2];
    sleep 1;			
    retardedLamp1 setVectorDir [0,0,4];
    sleep 1;
    retardedLamp1 setVectorDir [0,0,5];
    sleep 1;
    retardedLamp1 setVectorDir [0,0,6];
    sleep 1;
    retardedLamp1 setVectorDir [0,0,7];
    sleep 1;
    retardedLamp1 setVectorDir [0,0,8];
    sleep 1;
    retardedLamp1 setVectorDir [0,0,9];


    To change the direction retardedLamp1 is facing, call the above script via .sqf file. To view this command more visit https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setVectorDir.  

  11. On 11/2/2017 at 9:07 PM, mike2015r said:

    how to make my character face mod can any server
    i try a lot of way to done it 


    I don't understand, you can have 1 custom face selected in the identity options. Your mod will not work on a server unless they have it running too.


    On 11/2/2017 at 9:07 PM, mike2015r said:

    like disguise/replace original  on fila characters_f.PBO
    add my character mod on original fila characters_f.PBO
    but both way can select character but no face



    This will not work on multiplayer and you will have to re-download those files. 


    On 11/2/2017 at 9:07 PM, mike2015r said:

    mikeros tool dont work any more?

    my english is really really bad sorry


    Works fine for me, check integrity of your game cache on Steam (Right click ArmA 3 Tools > Properties > Local Files > Verify Integrity).

  12. 11 minutes ago, Callsign said:

    I think we're basically saying the same thing. I totally agree on the merits side of thing - it's just I think BIS/ modders will have to try and get a sense of what will sell from the community and I think that's where the polls come in. BIS could poll the community (advertising on steam and armaholic etc.) and have specific themes (ie. air, marine, naval, civilian, mission pack) around what assets the community might like. BIS and prospective DLC modders would then have something to go on. I'd be particularly interested if that included additions to the engine/ base game - like slingloading or radar have done.

    To be fair we could do with some more civilian assets (*cough* women *cough*) to give mission makers more options. I don't care for Life stuff either but BIS will undoubtedly want to tap into that market in some form.


    Yeah definitely, if this HAD to be something to go off of I think the already established MANW contest's criterias would be good. Excluding the gamemodes and total modifications, would work pretty well. 

    • Like 1

  13. 10 minutes ago, Callsign said:

    I imagine this can only be achieved by a complete overhaul of the game - ie. making an entirely new one - ie. Arma4. I'm ok with this as that's what you'd expect from a company.

    I'm curious about the 3PDLC route. I think if it works like the official DLC we'll see good uptake. Perhaps BIS could collaborate with the community (polls, discussion threads) about the most wanted features/ units and then modders could have something to work from? Something like a strategic roadmap for content in the Armaverse. My worry otherwise is we'll just see very niche mods that won't sell or integrate the community.

    Also - what are BIS's plan for backwards compatibility in Arma4? Will mods like CUP have to completely overhaul configs etc. yet again? It seems a shame to constantly be losing all these hours of work that modders put in and making more work to keep content working.


    If we did that everyone wouldn't vote and just want Altis Life or whatever the fuck its called, King of the Hill? 


    I don't really think the BIS forums would count, we're a very hardline and fanatic division of the ArmA community. What our needs are differs to what the mainstream A3 player cares, yes our opinion is probably the most accurate when it comes to game mechanics and performance. But seriously, if it was polled say on Steam everyone would just ask for more vanilla police units and whatever else cool things you want, or their own armed forces as a DLC. 


    The DLCs submitted should be based on merits of the expansion, quality, conformability to the base game and initial investment into the mod. A good example is third party campaigns, 1000s and 1000s of dollars are invested into professional VA and many hours are also spent in development, this applies to larger projects aswell (which would be harder to implement due to their nature), dozens of developers focus on creating assets and most of these people put some priority on doing so and in a fair world would require payment. 

    • Like 1

  14. 1 hour ago, panduhh said:

    The low hanging fruit of 3rd party mods will be weapons and equipment mods. At the moment 3rd party content created by the community has no restrictions on modelling real world assets either ubiquitous like the AR-15 or AK-47 families of rifles or specific makes and models of assets from USS Gerald R. Ford to the CheyTac Intervention (the inspiration for the M320 LRR). Due to the sensitivities of some manufacturers about the use of their products in various media (notably films and video games) and/or flat out money grabs, will modders be required to get permission to use real life IP in their mods for submission as DLC?



    AR-15 is patented by Colt, AR-101/3/4/5/6/7/etc is not. The look and design of that rifle doesn't matter as its being sold by 100s of companies in the US/Canada without license, its basically an open source rifle like that of the AK series.


    Very large issue when it comes to optional installation, I don't see many people willing to drop money on it without the ability to test it somehow and MP usability. 

  15. 3 hours ago, armored_sheep said:

    BI is developing Tac-Ops "Mission pack" DLC. We shall see how such premium content sells.


    But Tac-Ops DLC isn't an SP campaign that is classical, with a long adapting story, and with numerous insights to a bigger story. If somehow you guys manage to wrap up the Altis / Stratis / Tanoa story in 3 missions I'd be very pleased, but people buy campaign games for the story not so much for the kill AI stuff we all know.


    Anyway looking forward to it, and I think most people already have it bought in the DLC pack 2. 


    @dragon01 Kydoimos already works for BI and has helped develop the Orange DLC. 

    • Like 3

  16. 8 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

    I really don't think large teams will go the DLC route. First of all, they can't monetize any content already released for free. They could release a "premium pack" with new content, but not only would it quickly be uploaded to Steam Workshop (and taking down unauthorized uploads is a chore, even for authors with official Workshop releases), but also mean that they would have to provide support expected of a paid product. You know all those "entitled" people in big mod threads? Well, if money goes on the table, they would actually be entitled to the thing they paid for, and every way in which those people get told off would go out of the window, because again, paying customers. I don't think most mod makers would too keen on that kind of commitment.


    Exactly my point! And to continue, if one of the modification developers go MIA or becomes a tad lazy, whos going to eat up the blame and release information to the public on what will happen to the mods which BIS now endorse? These anomalies don't help, and those who shout for feature requests no longer can't be turned a blind eye upon and will have to be taken into account.


    This creates another problem, paperwork and paperwork. Will every single person associated to a certain mod have to sign non-disclosure agreements, submit legal identification to BI, submit home/contact addresses and bank information for payments? If thats the case, I can assure you even if talented creators have a vested interest, this will turn those who can't submit such information off to the whole idea and will continue releasing things without pay (this crushes some peoples dreams to say the least). Why paperwork? For the exact problem that Steam Workshop creates (having the ability to battle for your rights when your content is stolen). 

  17. 22 minutes ago, esfumato said:

    Really I don't care at all, It is a shame that Arma 3 have no Military Multiplayer Game mode that allows you use all the situations and the potential that the game have. There are no MP game modes out there. For me is something worth buying. That is what I am saying.

    The way that someone manage to do it... it's not important.


    It seems like you cater your posts to your own leisure-only opinion , not that of hard working developers and content creators who like I said, will make a living from this system.


    23 minutes ago, esfumato said:

    Please, is a shame that the most played game mode is "Life" and the most played military game mode is King of the Hill for the love of god...


    And the player base of those life communities? People under the age of 16, no shouldn't be playing this game in the first place. Maybe you should look around the forums just a little, see how many military sim communities are out there. They come from YouTube personalities because it seems fun, not die hard BI fans like us who bother to contribute to this forum. 


    26 minutes ago, esfumato said:

    Why are you thinking that people will leak their stuff instead of releasing it and making profit from it?  If someone decides to harm his work... who cares? worst for them. Not my problem at all.


    Yes it is your problem, you're saying you want DLCs of extremely large expansions with numerous developers and people working on it, 1 leak of a build and you might aswell wipe it off the DLC page because by dawn it'll be infested on the Steam Workshop (which you probably don't understand how bad it is for people who do develop in their free time). This also takes immense load on BIS, they have to deal with this then and take development time away from the next title (you're paying for a BI-affiliated DLC right). 



    • Like 1