PVT Watt.J

Perhaps, but I imagine that would depend on: -Will active defense systems survive long on the battlefield against another advanced nation? Can those systems be sufficiently protected against 20mm+ rounds, 80-120mm HE frag, etc...? If not, then these tools are nice on the typical modern battlefield against lower-tech opponents, but not so much in an even fight. -How big is the gap between 120/125mm old-fashioned AP vs. sabot rounds. If the gap is big, then perhaps you are better off just overwhelming the ADS with multiple sabot rounds at once.

I believe that functionality is part of SysDanger, if you exclude it you don't get it. The best way to incorporate squad links ATM is to use scripts like UPSMON/GAIA or ALIVE.

Not sure who you are responding to. I am aware of everything you are saying and in fact hinted at it in the post you are quoting. I'm aware of these issues not only because I have been in various roles on mod teams for several games including C&C Generals, Homeworld 2, and Company of Heroes, but because such issues are obvious just by taking a moment to put yourself in someone else's situation. That said, you are off the mark because you are misunderstanding the way such a project should be run. It should be run by the people who WANT a consolidated mod rather than the original content creators. Having been on mod teams (and other online ventures), I know that the ball gets moved forward by people who are interested in the product they are creating. The creators of the original content are busy making what they want to make (e.g. their own mods) and that's great! The creators of the original content shouldn't have to do any more than give consent to use their content. And while I would strongly encourage any modder to share their work with others, I wouldn't twist anyone's arm to do so nor would I condone doing that. Guys like Lukrop are already doing this in a small sense. He's modding other peoples work to allow for interchangeability of ammo and adding Spartan's ballistics and JSRS sounds. There is absolutely no reason a modder couldn't or shouldn't, with permission, use his own time to take the best weapons from packs NatoSF, RH M4, R3F, BWMod and HLC and combine them into one pack with consistent ammo/sounds and no duplicate weapons. There is absolutely no reason a modder couldn't or shouldn't, with permission, take something like CAF aggressors and replace the placeholder AKs with something more detailed. Those are things we should encourage as long as: A) The guy who wants to do this is the one doing the work. B) The guy running the mod only uses work which he has permission to use/edit. C) When asking for permission he asks nicely. So let's be clear about this. We shouldn't hold a grudge against a modder who doesn't want to be part of that, but let's also not jump on someone if he is wants to do this and asks nicely. There is nothing wrong with asking because any person doing this would be doing expending considerable work and doing a great service for the community.

Hold on, we can talk about whether the attitude is right or not, but something like the OP suggests is very badly needed. We have a lot of great user-made content for Arma 3 in terms of units, weapons and vehicles. However, in doing this,we have a LOT of duplication. Let's take a moment to consider the AK-47. I can think of at least 4 different mods with different AK-47s (HLC, Massi, CAF Aggressors, Russians). That's 4 different duplicates of the same weapon, with incompatible and duplicated magazines/attachments as well. This causes real problems. It clutters up VAS (unless you manually tinker with exclusions), it makes for annoying problems (you pick up a mag of an enemy and it is not compatible!) and leads to lower-quality weapons being used. It would much better if the authors of these mods would cooperate in a way that some of these great weapon/unit packs could be combined to use the best of all content. But asking a modder to participate is a delicate question because people take usage rights seriously. Something like this, if it could even be done, would be best done by someone who is well-respected as a modder and trusted to be impartial and give proper credit.

I'm going to have to go with either a lit flare or a Pez dispenser...

I would definitely like to try the AirplaneX variant, Sakura. I don't believe I've noticed any of the stuttering issues which you've had with the Buzzard (which you mentioned in another thread) or with any of the Arma 3 planes so I'm not sure I'll have any issues with the Osprey here either. Perhaps I just haven't looked closely enough, but then again, if I have to look that closely to noticed it does the issue really matter? As always, thanks for working on this. Very much looking forward to it even if it has a few kinks.

I suppose so. Those upgrades are in progress and all AH-6s are supposed to be upgraded by the timeframe of A3.

I'd second that.

Thanks for this, very excited to try it out. Any chance you could add flares to the Pawnee?

I'm happy with hacky for the BIS vehicles as long as it gets balanced. For the mods, I think the most important thing is the strategy for inclusion. Asking modders to do compatibility patches often moves at glacial speeds. It's often far far more successful to ask for the modder's permission to do the patching yourself. Lukip has accomplished a ton here in terms of taking the best of JSRS sounds and ammo types and bringing them to various weapon mods. Here are some mods that could definitely use compatibility: -Arma 2 Helicopter Port -A10 C -Bundeswehr mod -R3F French Weapons -Aggressors mod -NATO SF

I don't think any of the past few comments were directed towards you. Author already confirmed that modded missiles will not work unless a compatibility patch is applied, so Apache/Hellfire do not currently work with this.

*Cough*

Out of curiosity, is it given this based on speculation about the real DAGR or based on balancing the AH-99 so that it is effective at AT?

I'm not an expert on DAGRs irl, but I do believe they are very lightweight compared to proper ATGMs like the Hellfire. As far as I can tell, they are more about bringing Hellfire-level precision to Hyrda-type rockets rather than a replacement for true ATGMs. Assuming they do pack HEAT (I'm not sure they even do), I don't imagine they would do anything against proper tanks like the T-100 and even the ZSU I imagine would be able to take a beating from them. Question for Olds: Any idea on how this mod will interact with AT weapon mods? Will something like the Hellfire from the Arma 2 helicopter port work passably with this mod?

Did you rename the @bcombat folder to something else? If so change it to @bcombat.

Thanks for the work so far on this Sakura. Would very much appreciate it if you could release the current version of the MV-22 so someone else can finish that as well.

I seem to be getting a blur effect whenever the XMedSys module is on a mission. I've tried removing/adding it and the blur goes away/comes back. I rolled back to version 3.0 and it still happens, oddly enough. Any ideas?

Thanks for this! Many weapons in here that I was hoping for! A couple questions: -Do these weapons have compatibility with FHQ Accessories and other optics using ASDG Joint Rails? -Have set up or are you setting up LEA compatibility?

This is great, much appreciated! Would it be possible to add configs for any of the following?: -BWMod -RH Pistols -CAF Aggressors -Kiory's L85A2 -1987's MP7s -HLC M60E4

Great mod! Issue: ZU-23 does NOT fire at aircraft.

While we are at it, can we make the flares less bright? For some reason everyone can see me when I shoot one...

Have restarted game a few times, tried launching the mission either directly on a LAN game or through editor. Effect is the same. Unsure if it works with a human pilot. Also, getting an "object could not be opened" error relating to the chinook wreck.

Hi Apilion, Thanks for this! Possible bug: I've set down an Apache with AI pilot and playable gunner. When I play gunner, I am unable to access the gunner's FLIR view. This worked fine though when I spawned an empty Apache and hopped in the gunner's seat.

Feature request: Add a readiness level variable to units/placement modules. In the placement module, you might set the % of forces that are "ready" to 20%. This would mean that 80% of forces would be garrisoned (rather than on patrol) and/or dismounted from their vehicles (crew included). These forces would behave passively until they are either directly engaged (in real space) or given an order due to a nearby threat (in real or virtual space).

Thanks for the update Peral. On the most recent version, I am getting a script error upon detonation of the MK82, something about the "cloudlets". Any ideas?