ReVee

Well, I think what he's saying is that it's literally *dead* as in AGM and CSE both are working with ACE developers on ACE3. It's not that he's bashing preference, just that he's bashing using obsolete versions to base his addon/script.

Haven't tested it, can't wait to get home and try it out. Things I would suggest: -When firing from heli's allow utilization of the stance adjust to shoot straight down, could even make adjustable for using in trucks? -We are going to need the ability to choose which seat we sit in. Maybe add a vbs-like interface for that? Questions: How does Arma 3 Handle Players and vehicles? I know units are considered vehicles, but it seems kind of inefficient, care to explain why that was decided?

Hi, new to any sort of Arma Developing (besides missions, of course) and was wondering about 2 things: 1. Is there any way to use real world geo-information to create somewhat accurate terrain of an area? 2. Is there any way to also get an area's foliage down pretty well? I understand #2 is a little bit more complex, but I've got a case of ArmA 3 Schizophrenia, and can't help but see how amazing my state (Wisconsin) would be for scenarios. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Gamespy went down, that's why. Gamespy had a special feature allowing for seamless port forwarding, I don't know the specifics. Now that they are shut down, you need to port forward 2302 and 2303 in order to host a server. I would recommend the website www.portforward.com for guides on how to do this.

I have noticed a consistent framerate drop in servers where keys are not required for addons. Generally I've been told this is because the server does not know what to send to the client, so it spams errors. I don't know if this is the case or not, but is there a way to fix this framerate issue?

That's a stupid statement to make. That's like saying because a server disables third person, third person shouldn't be allowed on any servers, because it's not apart of that game. The idea of this standard is to have something that a lot of people agree the game needs, while adding other things that other people want too. Having this amalgam of different "features" means that servers can pick and choose what to utilize on their own server. If you don't want the mod, then you would have to look for servers that allow/only use a vanilla game. Otherwise the other servers are using 1 modpack (as opposed to a customized modpack for each server). So you download that, and you now have access to more servers. Mods are an unequivocable part of the ArmA 3 Ecosystem. They, in some cases, make the game what it is. Either BI needs to do a better job of integrating some form of FastDL for servers, or we need to find something standard that has the features we want. It's not a matter of whether or not everyone wants to use all those features because they don't have to, while still using the ones they want. Hell, if you are so worried about that 400 MB, then delete the pieces you don't want, and have your server config state those aren't enabled on the server.

Simple, servers just don't use the mod if they want vanilla gameplay. Otherwise, have the server be config'd to allow people who have the mod on but not use any of the features. This would allow for vanilla servers while still allowing people who use the standard modpack to join the servers. Besides, the mod gap isn't that big of a deal. I mean, DayZ was a huge hit for A2 and that required manual modloading for some.

Easy; Add as much as possible, and let the server owners decide the rest. Bipod, Weapon Resting, Reduced/Enhanced Fatigue. Add as much as we can reasonably add in, and let servers pick and choose what's used on them.

Exactly, and the idea is the apply this concept to the mods themselves. Basically furthering the feature that Arma Servers can enable, while still adhering to a standard that spans across multiple servers. If this became a rudimentary thing to have when playing Arma, servers would/will start using it just to keep with the standard that other servers are using. Monkey See Monkey Do.

the idea is to have one core mod that disables and enables certain features based on a config found on the server. This way the server decides what they want, and that's all that really matters. It's the closest thing to a perfect solution that I can think of that still allows Arma 3 to work the way it does.

That's what donations have become, dude. DarkRP in Garrys mod has the ability to buy perma weapons or a VIP status CS:Jailbreak servers have VIP Models/Abilities Minecraft has the ability to "Buy" Certain items. It's just a donation scheme for running a server. Also, it's 1-2$ per slot. That means a 50 slot server costs from $50-$100 Per month. that's a lot of money for a server you aren't making dosh from. Also, if you have a 100 slot server, thats from 100-200! In other words, you need to have a full time job that pays well, and be able to manage an Arma community if you hope to have a server that's dedicated. A lot of servers run off donations, so if they want to add incentives, that's their choice. It's not illegal, otherwise a large majority of gaming communities/servers would be *shut down*

Thanks for the reply, and you have the general gist of what I'm saying, but there's some things I should clear up. Servers allow for "verify signatures" but that only works to an extent. It's been proven through personal experience and third party anecdote that if a server doesn't verify signatures, and people join with their own mods without anyone having the same thing the server AND the client will lag. This causes issues with servers doing that, and I've found less and less adhereing to this choice. My suggestion/post is merely asking the community what they would like in a standardized mod. Notice how AGM or TMR utilizes modular PBO's to allow users to choose what they want. If scripters/modders collaborated on a standard of mod (much akin to how ACE was the impromptu standard of A2) then there wouldn't be as many issues as ones found in non key-verified servers. For Example; Server A has Standard Mod on the server, and requires players to have this core mod. Core mod has 6 features in it, and the server has a specialized config stating that feature #2 is to be disabled. Player X Joins server with core mod, which has 6 features. He and the server only use 1,3,4,5 and 6. Player X doesn't like the server, and joins a different server with the same core mod. This server allows all 6 features. Both Player and Server use all 6 features. Server B Uses 2 weapon mods, 1 realism mod, 1 sound mod and a units mod. The Server only allows players with the verified keys to join. Player Y Attempts to join Server B, is kicked off for not have xxxx.pbo, xxx.pbo, and xxx_xxx.pbo (Server Disconnect) Player Y Downloads the mods, joins the server and find he didn't like it. Player Y leaves and attempts to join another server and is kicked off because he has mods they don't allow. Server C uses no mods, but allows unverified mods to be loaded in. Player Z Has 2 unit mods, 16 uniform mods, 3 weapons mods and a realism mod. Player Q Has No Mods, both join the server. Server C Attempts to relay information from Player Z to Player Q, Server doesn't understand what Player Z is doing, rpt spam galore. Server lags and everyone's framerate drops. Server C is forever abandoned to the great wastes of 0/50 players. These aren't fantastic examples, but I've seen it happen enough that these are prominent issues here. Notice how Server A doesn't have to require a lot of mods because this one core mod already has most of the features they want, all they have to do is pick and choose which ones they want to utilize. It's faster for server admins, easier for players, and more enjoyable for everyone. enstating such a standard would be good for the ENTIRE COMMUNITY, and if the core itself was open source, everyone could contribute and have credit for their work.

Guys, the flight model would be a form of difficulty setting. So either you choose the advanced or simplified version, and that would be enforced on a server side basis. Your client would merely be forced into one model or another. Technically the flying itself is client side, but your client adheres to certain settings given to it by the server (No Crosshairs, No Third Person, Etc.).

I'm not sure how you could do it with Zeus, but ACRE or TFAR give a kind of effect of that nature. Might try experimenting with that. Just need a teamspeak and the like.

I think the original post was innocent enough, but words are easily misconstrued without vocal context. I agree that collaboration would make for even better mods, but it's also quite obvious that everyone has their own vision of what "Arma" is. That perspective gap makes it difficult to successfully collaborate in that case. I've thought about going into modding, but the issue always seems to be where to start. If we had a baseline for what people want, and what we ourselves want, it might make it easier for people to not only get into modding, but even better; enhance the modding quality that we already have.