war_lord

My rational for ISIL being OPFOR is that they're not aligned with Blufor under any circumstances. In my opinion this is the most realistic solution under the three side limitation. Thus the government troops appearing twice, so that in missions with both SAA and ISIL, they can be made fight eachother without workarounds.

Personally I'd go BLUFOR: * [iSC] Peshmerga * [iSC] Free Syrian Army * [iSC] Iraqi Army OPFOR: * [iSC] Islamic State * [iSC] Syrian Arab Army * [iSC] Syrian NDF (National Defense Force) Independent: * [iSC] Al-Nusra Front * [iSC] Syrian Arab Army (again) * [iSC] Syrian NDF (National Defense Force) [again] Al Nusra Front are assisting the Rebels against ISIL, who basically no one involved wants to see in charge of Syria. Thus they certainly shouldn't be featured on the same side as ISIL. They're anti-ISIL and also anti-West, the definition of independent.

Isis seem to be getting too immersed in their own hype. All their brutality is going to do long term is turn even the Islamic world completely against them.

Not without permission. You can't package stuff without the author's okay on it.

Bug reports M14 pack: Leupold scope is config-ed as though it has a backup sight, leading to strange visual bug when you press numpad slash. G3 pack: FR Ordinance MC51 is listed in the hover text as 5.56x45mm NATO, rather then the 7.62 it actually is. AR15 pack: 300. Dissipator is stuck in semi-auto. For my brave testing work I'll accept either an M203 on my favorite rifle, the BCM "Jack" Carbine or an MK46/MK48 pack... joking, but it would be nice.

As someone who has ran groups and made missions in the past the main issues with your Island is that A. There's literally 5 Atoll maps out there. B. The other ones are made by "name" modders. C. Your advertising isn't too strong. Atoll maps are a niche type and there's quite few out there already, including some amazing quality stuff. For what it is I think it has done as well as expected. Most major groups never use these types of map because there just isn't enough quantity to justify the dl. Oh and ask Armaholic and PWS about getting it up on their website/service respectively. Many Arma 3 players won't touch workshop with a 10 foot pole because of its buggyness with the game.

I don't think modders can edit the map. Even if it could be done you'd be looking at an extreme performance hit for little gain.

He has perfectly good reasons to censor it. The Daily Mail is the sort of paper that'd publish his details on the front page and accuse him of being an ISIL supporter with no regard for truth or consequences. I'm sure Leight doesn't want his life besieged by thrash journalism. Really not worth the risk of damaging his personal life for the sake of a unit addon.

I'm aware, your point? RH said he was scrapping the camo HK 416,Tsark asked about a camo RH HK 416 he recalled from Arma 2. I then pointed out that his recollection was incorrect, the weapon in question was M4 based. At no point was the existence of the Arma 2 HK 416 pack under debate.

Can you point me to the mod? The only mod by Sabre I know of is the Aussie SOG commando mod. The AR-15s in that were M4 based, and while they used the same source models as Robert Hammer's M4 pack they're ultimately not RH 416's. If anything they're retexed RH M4A1's, but it looks like more went into it.

The correct GL model for the HK416 would be the M320, which is ultimately based on the AG36. Sure you could mount a M203 on your HK416, but it'd be like buying a fancy PC and plugging it into one of those old tube monitors from a decade ago. I'm pretty sure the Sabre HK 416 used a different source model. RH any chance of getting Chris Kyle's custom MK-12, described on page 100 of his autobiography? I can PM you the text if you want. It's the lower receiver of a SEAL M4A1 attached to the upper receiver of an MK-12, so you get the collapsible stock and full-auto capability of an M4A1 with the fancy marksman's barrel of the MK-12. I figure the model would be relatively easy to make, since it's a cut up of asset's you already have.

I'm not even saying there isn't proof, what I'm saying is the only way you're going to galvanize BI into legal action is if you can provide evidence that Pay-to-Play is still going on. BI sees the piracy as out of their hands as long as it isn't on the forum. Only way you'll get them to act is if you can prove the allegations that donation for perks is still happening. Alternatively, you could report the models jacked from other games to the companies affected and see if they'll issue a cease and desist.

If you're going to respond to actual posts with single image replies, you're the one who should stop posting. If you have a better source for the playing habits of the user base then anecdotes, show it. Forums aren't a representative sample.

I'd be here in a year regardless. I like mods, I appreciate mods, but I can also do without them. You're overestimating the importance of mods to the overall picture.

It's rather pointless to speculate on what "most people" buy the game for, people who sign up for forums are very much a vocal diehard minority. Arma 2 certainly had a massive spike in sales due to Dayz, but I'd say only a fraction of those people became fans of Arma 3. Personally I buy Arma because you just can't find a better Military Sim Sandbox on the market. Are mods a big part of my experience? Yes. Are they vital to the experience? No. Thing is, the average user doesn't care about Modding Politics, hell an increasingly large part of the audience play Arma just for novelty mods like Dayz derivatives and A3life. Most of the userbase don't care about this issue. How do you think A3L have been able to run the scam as long as they have, pretty much in the open? Do I like the situation? No. Can I see why Bohemia isn't leaping into action? Yes.

Ok, say I buy Arma 3 to play some community mod, and only to do that. Then the maker throws a fit and stops development. I've already bought the game, BI has my money, why would they care? Personally, if all the people who bought Arma only for Dayz and Island Life vanished tomorrow, I'd consider it an improvement.

Simple Hyperbole. Most modders aren't affected by this or won't care very much, anyone who does decide to boycott modding over this is being foolish anyway, only person getting hurt by doing that is the player. And BI doesn't make money from mods. And Island life will keep on using the work no matter what you say. You really don't understand how server hosting works do you? Bohemia has zero control over which servers run what, privately hosted servers are handled by private businesses that don't have any association with Bohemia at all. The best you could do is get the Arma 3 life servers taken down on an individual basis, but that would take weeks and Arma 3 life could simply find a new host every time. You're seriously overestimating the amount of "pull" Bohemia actually has.

Except that they aren't going to do that without proof, BI is a company, they aren't going to invest manpower and time into getting servers taken down unless it can be proved that A. Something is up, B. It affects BI's bottom line. Stolen content doesn't give them the motivation to move on this, because BI isn't losing money on that.

As I said, they're not going to do that without proof. Bohemia has already made it clear they won't intervene in cases of stolen content. The allegations of pay to play need to be substantiated if we want something substantial to be done.

Anyway the charge of mod thievery is immaterial. If any sort of "content for cash" scheme is proven, the mod and any host servers are violating the user agreement. The problem is that you can't prove such a charge without a smoking gun. You'd need to catch them saying "yes, we're charging people for access to content we don't own". I'm inclined to believe the allegations personally, but BI themselves can't operate on just allegations. And that's what we have, lots of plausible allegations.

Mil geeks like to claim everything is classified, I've long suspected they say that just because they're loath to admit they don't know something. It's not like 7.62x51mm NATO is some sort of crazy space age Pentagon round, it's glorified .308. Don't let em get to you.

I'd say that while RH stuff often looks "off" compared to BIS Arma III stuff, it's still the highest quality weapon mod series I've seen, made even more impressive by the variety involved. It's one man working with the limited resources provided to him by the generosity of strangers who are willing to let him use their work for free, and I think the guy who lets another modder use his okay looking M4 model for free, is a far better modder then some guy demanding 300 bucks for a SCAR model that can't actually be implemented in any modern game. I don't feel you can criticise the quality of the work unless you have a constructive solution. It's easy to say "that doesn't look good enough" but what's needed is a solution. I'm not saying that you can't criticise the work, only that the criticism needs to offer some solution.

Someone actually has to create said asset and make it freely available to modders.

Name: Murphy Nationality: Irish (the clue is in the name) Timezone: EST Preferred. Geographically GMT. Preferred Unit style: I'm interested in US forces, particularly Army, including fictional units using US equipment. I also have great interest in Special Operations Forces, however only as a supporting arm for conventional forces. I'm not interested in, for example joining a unit and becoming a SEAL by default. But I would be greatly interested in qualifying for a Recon or Special Operations role already in place, or perhaps founding that arm within a pre existing unit. Another important note is that I'm not interested in units with a training regimen I consider excessive, excessive in my opinion being anything more than two 2 hour mandatory sessions with any future training being optional. Also, under no circumstances will I even consider joining a unit that requires I refer to anyone by a rank or title. I prefer units that assign fixed teams and roles to members. Not only do I not mind large mod lists, I prefer them, I'm fully able to install mods without any outside help. In terms of Operations I prefer story based "Campaigns" lasting for some time with a story behind them, to random single missions. I'm pretty pedantic about attention to detail, so I like correct equipment. Use of LEA loadout editor in mission creation is a must. Previous Unit Experience: I've been in a few different units, and I feel like I never really "clicked" with any of them. I'm also tried to start, or help start, units in the past, which has taught me important skills, both in technical terms, such as running an Arma 2 server and mission creation, and in terms of leading a group of individuals both on and off the virtual battlefield. Roles: I only play Infantry roles with a particular love of Airborne or Helicopter insertions and night missions, the following is a list, sorted into the following sections. Confident as: Rifleman AR AAR EOD and Demolitions Designated Marksman Recon Capable, but not preferred Fireteam Leader Medic Sniper Spotter Willing to learn: JTAC _________________ Contact at http://steamcommunity.com/id/War_lord_Murphy or alternatively by PM at the Bohemia Interactive Forums.

There are absurdly obvious visual and mechanical bugs with many weapons, for example the NATO .45 has a bug where fitting a suppressor breaks the animations so that the slide doesn't move while firing.