toadie2k

Yep, certainly that's one thing that I'm working on. Could concievably do this. Yep. My patch will do that, my additions to RHS itself won't. More yeses. So,small update- If you check the OP, I've started making good on my original intention of providing animation source files as I went. Sadly I've been grossly behind on that, so I'm recifying it now. So far, I've put up the AK and AR sets, as they're most demanded. G3s, HK51, FALs, M14s sometime later in the week, MP5s next week. I've also made visible my stance on licensing, due to certain ongoing shit-storms- General gist is as long as you're not being an asshole about things, you should be fine. If anyone's unclear about terms, or wants something specific they're not sure about, feel free to drop me a PM and ask away.

Planned/In the pipe/development Big - AUGs (shortly) MMGs and SAWs WW2 Commonwealth arms Smaller releases - RHS patch (for those that still want it, actually implementing the stuff into RHS isn't THAT far off.) Updates to all released patchs with support for Advanced Ballistics, AGM,TMR (For bipods,etc in AGM/TMR respectively, Additional ballistic configs for advanced ballistics) Currently investigating doing more of what I did with the G3s and Mp5s on all other weapons (sights visibly adjusting with zero),Currently hindered by the way the cameracontrols are handled on non-GL rounds, or at least so it seems (Point Blank, Point of Aim and point of impact do not appear to correctly correlate when moving camera angle such as required for most zeroing mechanisms) Will advise when more progress is made on that front.

Yep. HK33 is planned. If CALs and FNCs were to happen, I think I'd want them in their own pack. I'm looking at doing some barrel-clamp WMLs in the future, but as of right now, no.

Short answer- yes. Long answer- In the short term,yes. RHS have been in contact about the possibility of a tighter integrated version as a more viable longterm solution (read: implementing animations as part of the base RHS mod itself).

That is correct. The MP5/10 and MP5/40 both have boltcatches that engage on the last round like an M4.

Partially it's because AK mags on the whole are heavier than most of the other rifle magazines, but also partially because honestly I've not seen a proper metric on what the inventory mass number is supposed to represent in actual real-world terms, so my inital guesstimates were working off decigrams (one of never-used middle measurement between grams and kilograms). It's compounded by the way it doesn't even seem to be universal even within standard Arma3, thing heavier or lighter than any sort of establishable baseline. With the MP5s I did some math and I've found a ratio that feels to me to be close to accurate, and I plan to go back over the weights of everything and bring it in line with that. If it relates to the PVS4, yeah I spotted them cross-linked textures. I plan to patch soonish to make all the weapons conform with the newly implemented inertia settings, so standby on a fix for that. I'll see what I can do about it. More than it is already? Granted there a bit more of a grab at the bolt on the downstroke, but that's because the pivoting cocking arm gives you more mass to grab than the nub on say an MP5, so it made more sense from a tactile perspective to me. Speaking of MP5s- Core Updated to 0.8, MP5 Pack now out. Core V0.8 Changelog on first page. MP5 Pack V1.0 [/url] Notes - Yes ,the zero on the MP5K/MP5K-PDW are fixed to 50m. This is to reflect the intent in design of giving the MP5k low-profile notch aperture drums- it's not really catering for range. And there's known visual issues with the MP5K, see readme for details. In other news, I'm looking into implementing support for Ruthberg's Advanced Ballistics across the board, as well as fix interia across the board. So expect patches for that in the coming weeks. Probably also AUGs, because I've been sitting on them long enough.

You know, the fact that this discussion is being had in this thread is pretty encouraging. I echo these sentiments. But yeah, the general gist of order and context of what I work on is basically whatever I feel like working on at the time, taking into consideration available time, resources, and what people want (to a degree.) Things like the Commonwealth weapons that I'm doing are going to take the longest, because none of the available resources are up to a standard I'd want in Arma, so I'm taking my time to do them right(and there's a lot of uniqueness to the planned set, so it's not as easy to reuse stuff), even if that means it takes backburner to something like the MP5 pack, which could be done much faster. Lol, all in good time. Mate, Can't wait for them .308 loads, I'm assuming you have some cold loads in there? Getting subsonic loads to feel right has never been something I've got right, so I'm curious to see how yours look. I was going to PM you a thanks for the Blackout ballistics you put out recently, because they're top notch. I mean, I don't think the ones I did are bad per-se( velocity and friction were pretty close to yours, which pleased me) but the maths relating to penetration and damage values feel a more solid in your than mine (and that's entirely because I live in a place where access to testing that sort of data is a tough ask at the best of times, let alone with something as "new" as blackout). And yeah, .300 is a legit body dropper, but man 10mm Auto out of an MP5 still has that ability to aboslutely dominate the room-to-room space like a boss, and I'm partial to my pop-guns :D Okay, so I'll try and address this as well as I can, going last to first- Yes, eventually updates will stop on things I'd consider done. For example, I think I'm likely to only have one patch more on the AKs(there's a couple of very minor things I want to tweak, but couple probably considered close to their final state now, any plans to add more AKs will be done as exntensions of what's already there, in their own mod). When the point comes when more are in that state, yeah I'll probably start gathering "finished" packs as a single download options, then have ones that are still in development still as separate. I can't speak for all, but I know most organised playergroups basically do this with thier own modsets internally (lump all their mods into a single @modfolder and host it somewhere, or use Arma3Sync,etc), and I generally don't have a problem with this happening with my stuff as long as it's not straight just straight up public redistribution or trying to claim anything as their own. If there was an ACE-like that wanted to do similar, providing they were up-front about it and asked beforehand, I wouldn't be opposed to a similar deal, possibly even some sort of source file sharing deal so they could tighter integrate that should they need it. It would entirely depend. Workshop, yeah I think there's a ways to go with the execution of that. The fact it doesn't seem to lump server keys or signitures with the pbos is a problem, and yeah, there's not a lot of explanation on how to get mods downloaded through there on the whole, but the intent is in the right place. The real bottom line is that the Workshop is significantly more visible to a MUCH larger percentage of the actual Arma playerbase (and it pains me to even say this,) Armaholic, PWS or these forums. Sure, having popular youtubers advertising these as options boosts their profile, but EVERY Arma 3 player has a link to workshop straight from their steam client, so it's certainly very worthwhile for mod-makers to weather at this point as far as I'm concerned, and hope that BI have plans to straighten out integration and execution (and this seems to be the case). Straight up- the amout of people who downloaded my stuff through SW as compared to through my self-hosted version(as it's the only one I have concrete metrics for comparison) in the first week after release was like a 3:1 difference. On the player end, yeah, it's going to be entirely up to your experiences with it at this point. If you've had bad experiences with it, maybe just leave it alone for a few months, noone would fault you for it. Regarding content, I pretty much addressed it above- I do take on board what people want, and thats why you're seeing MP5s and not Stens in the coming week or so, but it's only a guiding factor to what I'll work on. On the flip side, I'm also deliberately not tied to trying to replicate any one specific Armed forces or combat group, so there's no concrete list of things that will or won't get done, so with enough sweetening (could range from linking me to videos through to donating a Valmet)things get shifted around in priority. I also bump things up because sometimes happen. But yeah, I do try and take on board stuff if there's an overarching call for something, even if I want to put my own spin on it, so don't feel that if I don't straight up reply "yes" to something that I'm ignoring it. Anyhows, I was going to do a changelong, but I'm flat out of spare time for video upload this week, so the short story is the MP5s are like 75% done, and I aim to nut off the last of it by the weekend, and get some testing done to make sure I haven't left any glaring bugs in (GP prone reload I'm looking at you), so those should be out within a week at most. The variety of Mp5s pretty much covers the board- Got SEF-trigger packs and 4-position modern ones, Collapsible stocks and solid ones, MP5K-PDW, SDs. Something for everyone, and I have to say, they're the most poppingest pop guns that ever popped. Popped,locked, busted freshes. I'm also going back over the AKs, FALs and M14s and looking at the viability of having the sights adjust Up/down with the zero. There seems to be a siginifcant bug with regards to the way discretedistancecamerapoints are handled with bullet-based weapons (instead of a through-line from the camera-point past the pivot point to the point-of-impact like with GLs, they seem to just straight-tangent from POI to camera, ignoring the front post), and it's an absolute deal-breaker especially for high-offsets like ladder sights on the M60. Normal peep or notch sights seem to be able to function without too much detriment to functionality or reliability.(the point of aim does walk vertically, but not as much) M14- Sights bottomed-out M14- Sights topped-out So those MIGHT be coming if they don't end up ruining functionality in the field OR if Bohemia fix how those work, as it stands now the point of aim shifts enough vertically that you might be a full torso height out at 600m(basiclly- putting the tip of the post on the head to hit the center-mass), which has me leaning on reverting back to static sights (at least the POA is reliable, even if not 100% accurate to function)

Yeah, very much so. It's just going to be a slow burn project due to how involved it needs to be to make it good quality.

I've got some stuff lined up relating to that, def some stuff coming before christmas. Camo AR15s would certainly be do-able, my issue is that it kind of expands the filesize (and load times) with duplicates with no real functional differences. I might just open up hidden selections on the ARs and leave it at that. That should let any other modders create their owen camos and extend from the pack in whatever ways are neccesary. To the dustcovers - when I get some more ARs done, be sure I'll probably do some more worn ones. M24, or some modern Bolt actions in general ARE on "the list", ETA somewhere in 2015. I really should stop adding to it, but I'm just so big of a firearms nerd that every firearm ever being in Arma3 would stop that list getting shorter :j: . Spotted that, will look into. I was going to do a changelog video showing them off, but I've been caught incredibly busy the last few weeks(some contract Animation work as well as putting together some portfolio for a for-realsies animator job application), so have an IMGUR gallery of them as they stand today- http://imgur.com/a/tV8eO I'm considering have the S-E-F variants only accept the flashlight-grip, as compared to the interchangable tri-rail grips of the Navy/A4 pack variants, just so I can satisfy both the dedicated weapon-specific attachments AND broad attachment support ways of running the guns.

I disagree with this, I'd argue that most custom Arma3 weapons have the ironsights "eye" too far back, really(this might be a holdever from Arma2 modding). Take an AK; if you've got a decent cheekweld on the stock of that, you aren't going to see much of the back of the dustcover at all. To the first, not going to happen for a number of reasons (on P1).Well... I mean, I guess I could in theory, but the additional upload time might drive me mad on subprime Australian Internets, combined with keeping yet another thing up to date, and add to that the potential for direct confusion... I dunno. To the second: longterm yes, launchers of some sort. Way longterm, I've got ideas though. So, apparently that bug is caused by the game pre-allocating a minimum number of geometry LODs and then not finding one. And it manifests differently on ATI and Nvidia cards (Nvidia cards filling the LOD with a box, I think ATI cards just take the missing LOD as NULL). That's now fixed, and there is a patch below. As an interesting note, I'm fairly positive this wasn't an issue way back when I hotfixed this in the first place(The Goshawk only ever had one and it was exempt last time this issue cropped up), so there's apparently been some engine-level changes to LOD handling that might not have been publicly visible. It has, it's been corrected, patches to follow. Core HLC Core 0.7 Most notably fixes- GP30 prone reload typo corrected 5.45 ballistics adjusted (most noticably EP rounds). Both will still take 3-5 rounds center-mass on a plate carrier to drop. M60E4 M60E4 v6 Hotfix to make the "10-round burst" not player usable AK Pack AK pack v1.4 Most notably fixes- LOD issues with optical attachments (PSO,1p29,kobra, goshawk) Hotfix of RPK to make the "10-round burst" not player usable. And of course, Op update soon to follow

Yeah, that fire mode is supposed to be for the AI only, otherwise yeah, that's an engine thing. Yeah, there's going to be another AK patch end of this week, getting rid of that and fixing a bug with the GP animation amongst other things. Mass apologies beforehand for the rapid iteration here.

doesn't overly matter, I personally would suggest just sticking it in @HLCmods and making sure that it loads after CAF. Two questions to help me pinpoint where this is occurring to finetune the thresholds on it - 1) what range was the AI engaging at? 2) was the AI using an optic(even an ACO/Holosight)?

I set up my ai coeffeicientx and y to within a few points of the zafir LMG for the M60, so if that passes as an MG, this should too. It'd depend on the threshold the script, but it should be "jobs'a should be a goodun'".

I think he's saying that either way, it's possible that it's outside my scope of ability or the scope of the mod, which it isn't. Correct, for the most part- Most of the meshes are, for the most part ports (for lack of a better word, most of the time I'm working from raw source files, not exported game formats), don't want anyone convincing themselves otherwise. I have made parts (the BCM and Geissele parts on the Jack Carbine, For example) and done texture work to some others, and it's not don't do any of the of those things myself , but it's like you said- no need to reinvent the wheel when there's perfectly fine carts around, and I'm not bound by project goals to produce it all inhouse. To the point about the apertures, basically the process on putting together any pack so far has been more about solving a role or functional hole while playing, or scratching an itch to animate (it's less that case now, so I'm more content to go back and iterate), so the general thing is I'm willing to overlook some jaggedness in the geometry if it still works as-intended or isn't immediately abbrasive (which, IMO, the Sights aren't). My intention is to go back over some of those apertures and smooth them out (I think I mentioned it a few pages back regarding the Honeybadger/Dissipator Back up Sights). Not so much outside scope, just a lesser priority up til now. It shall be done, however. I'm okay with someone uploading it on my behalf. Will look into it.

Changes the caf_ag soldiers to use hlc weapons.

ERGH. Reupload. Hold off on the AR15s for the moment then, check back in a few hourts, should have it sorted then. Sorted. Now works

Yes to all three, def the PKM and RPG. I can't give you a timeframe, but it's is on the seemingly endless todo list :P. Best estimate is the RPG being the first out of the gate later this year, perhaps packed with a couple of other launchers for good effect. Anyhows- Patch time. First page will be updated shortly, in the meantime, gouge yourselves on files here. Pack-specific changelogs are in the Rars, general gist of things changed is on the page previous. Be sure to download CORE as well as any other weapons you use -Core- Core V0.6 -AKs- Aks V1.3 -ARs- Ar15s V1.1 -M14s- M14s V1.2 -G3s- G3s V1.3 -FALs- FALs V1.2 -M60s- M60E4 V5 A JSRS support mod -Recommended that this be loaded above/AFTER HLC mods, otherwise you'll get some audio incongruity in distant gunfire. No key provided because it's clientside only. HLC Mod JSRS support At this point I want to make it clear to everyone, as a point of tactical awareness- Subsonic, or cold-loaded, bullets arc dramatically and have overally low penetration capacity- the intended purpose of using subsonic is to complement the use of suppressors in CQB environments, where the combination makes for covert takedowns by mitigating report and bullet snap. With most weapon/caliber combinations, if you zero beyond 200 or 300m, don't expect predictable incap or comparable BDC holdovers. This is important, because the ballistic/damage dampening is gone from all the supressors, so the only way to get optimal sound supression out of a can is to run subsonics. AND, as an added bonus - I'm putting out a slightly-more-official CAF-Aggressors weapon replacer. Obviously it needs the HLC AKs and CAF_Aggressors. The patch that's floating around out there already basically duplicates the entire weapons configs, which would be fine, if I didn't change them all just now. This one should stay up to date with changes in the main pack weapons should any more changes come along, Downside is you will have to tolerate my insistance on putting Manufacturer IDs in all the weapon names. (I'm really sorry, I didn't keep note of the author, but a grand shoutout to you.) http://toadie.updatedtuesdays.com/PubSharbse/Mods/caf_hlc-wp_replacement.rar

Yep, to both. Both are . I honestly don't know how I missed the P07 really, (and double worse, I REALLY don't know how I managed to copy/paste that into literally all the config files without twigging that it was wrong :S) I've got patches on the way that should be all out end of week and there's fixes for those in there, as well as- tweaks to the .300 blackout ballistics to closer represent actual bullets (147gr FMJ supersonic and 220gr subsonic, would not recommend the latter beyond 200m envelope) 5.45x39mm AP and hit damage tweaks, both standard FMJ and EP. reworked all values relating to AI in all weapons (RPK and M60s should now be fired in controlled bursts at range, etc) suppressors reconfigured, no longer dampen drastically damage output or ballistic trajectory (carry over from late-beta A3 configs) "cold" subsonic magazines for most weapon sets where these currently do not exist to compensate a second SAMR in the AR15 pack that comes in more a more "normal" flavour FAL prone reload Handanim tweaks (G3A3/KA4, very minor adjustments on the AR15s) And there's JSRS Configs coming too, nearly forgot that one.

Could, but one person's idea of projects goals in the name of realism may vary wildly with another, and the end user application of even just vanilla assets and mechanics . Speaking from my own personal point of view, I've never played in anything bigger than a 12-16 player Arma2 game, largely doing foot soldiering in relatively casual circumstances, so for my experience, there's only a limited emount of ACE features that I actively use, and everything else tends to be hinderance or bloat to my expereince or general game cohesion. To contrast, there's groups that run 50+ player sessions where they can afford to, and want to, familiarise with , for example ACE's Artillery system, because there's enough people who are not "on the front" to warrant the additional complexity to make it interesting. And again, there's people who do nothing but fly fixed wing aircraft, so they wouldn't get any of the benefits of sat Weapon Resting. My point is that no two people look at Arma the same way, and trying to make something like ACE is going to get the same diversity of view, so the mod's going to have to be entirely monolithic in scope,which is NOT simple, and would (and does) require the kind of organisation that would push the workload from hobby to second-job. That or rely solely on contributions alone to make it, which is no guarentee to quality and cohesion. To an extent I agree, but only in so far as that A3 needs more content. Personally, I don't feel BIS are held to an obligation of trying to retroactively support "modern" era milsimming in what is contextually postmodern. They DO need to to work towards more support of that core setting though, the factions as they stand now are functionally basic and could do with some additional variety in general. This all could change going ahead though, so time will tell. Everything you say there is bang on, PuFu. Absolutely bang on. I will say this to the credit thing too- the one REALLY smart thing Bohemia have done about allowing visibly for contributors is having author fields in most of the superclasses, and having them visible in, for example, Virtual Armoury. More things should actually read the field, but it's definitely a step in the right direction about giving everyone who made something a chance at equal billing visibility. Personally I have no interest in becoming a fixture on a large scale project, I've got my own project goals I want to meet at my own pace. Howerver, if there was such a project going around that wanted to integrate existing content into theirs in a smooth way, providing the chain of authorship was maintained, I'd have no problem handing over source material if asked.

Can I let you in on something? I already have an Owen gun lined up, which is funny because it's one of the more obscure and least portrayed of all the WW2 Small arms, maybe aside some of the polish stuff, but yeah, stumbled across one, half textured and couldn't say no to putting that pop gun in. Definite yeses to all the above if Commonwealth is the way to go though.Even the Austen if I can wrangle it

I wasn't aware the Joint rails now did bipods. I'll have a look into it. Regarding the scopes: Redfield AR-TEL has no BDC markings, how it works IRL is the zoom power and the scopes zero are mechanically linked (so at 3x power, the lowest setting ,the zero is 300m, at 9x the zero is 900m), and the marks on the vertical post detnote "man-size". The idea being that you adjust the zoom/zero to match those marks, take the shot, and if you need to switch targets, adjust the zero/zoom to match (look it up, it's a fascinating piece of kit). Anyways, Arma doesn't allow the ability to increment zero with zero fluidly as in the IRL scope, so my choices were to have staged zero-zoom levels that you would cycle through in the same way you would switching to BUS(not fast enough for successive targets)... or have the zoom "Free-float" and have the zero separate (not great for high-precision, but a better deal given the magnification), I took the latter. The marks should still be good and approximate for 300m at 3x. Regarding the Leupold, correct, it is almost exactly just the LRPS, so it has the 12.7mm calibration. I plan to fix that. Regarding the stock morale sticker- haters are invariably and inevitably going to hate, and I have no plans of removing it. A less personalised version, however, on the cards (it'll be all black though, which IMO is less cool, which is appropriate because 16 is for winners). You know, you actually caught something I didn't- I was inheriting my G3 mags off the FAL ones, which wasn't intended. So yeah, in the meantime, you'll need the FALs for the G3 mags. good news is that they're all on WS now as well as here and Armaholic. Yes. I have a JSRS config testing internally here, just gotta split it up into respective pbos. I'm interested, drop me a PM. So as being made clear now, I've got some patch and updates coming up, ETA couple of weeks. Taking a little breather from working on Arma stuff so as to not reach burn out point, but when I return there patches for everyone and everything. Possibly even more AK/ARs in military config, but no absolute promises on that. On top of that, a little something going ahead, video gets a little tangential, but the main gist is there- So- Mp5s or WW2 British Commonwealth? YOU DECIDE.

Try muzzle_HBADGER Hlc_rifle_honeybase is the rifle itself. 100% Chance, started on it today. Hah, yeah. In hindsight, I'll concede I'm not huge on that rearsight as-is, so yeah I'll see what I can do to make it less chunky. I guess this is a semi-official way of saying there will be updates to the AR15s in the future.

HLC Core V0.5 HLC AR15 Pack V1 Front post getting an update shortly and I'm pretty positive PWS and Armaholic links will happen shortly

The First page will be updated in a bit, but here's the links just in case you have this thread on notify- M60 V4 (inconsistent versioning, I know) AK Pack V1.2 M14 Pack V1.1 G3 Pack V1.1 FAL Pack V1.1 There's a HLC Core ipdate too, but I'll push that when the ARs are good to go. Everything is gravy for the above without it.

Due to my inordinate ability to call the ball, yes, patches are coming up today, for everything to match the new config changes. Uploading now, actually. AR15s are going to be maybe 24 hours late,though, there's one or two small niggles I want to flatten out before those go up. Standby for links. But the honeybadger was already confirmed. Okay I'll spoil it a little' date=' it's a BCM/HSP "Jack" Carbine. You mean apart from the G3KA4, Like a G3A3 + rail? I'm not ruling it out because it's a relatively small job to do, but right now my focus is on other things. Certainly I'll consider it before a HK21E/23E though. To the 416, no 416 or 417 planned. I feel that if I were to do a 416, it would be best left to it's own pack where it can be given some dedicated attention. I can think of at least 7 or 8 variants on the platform (barrel lengths, DMR setups, with/without the DEVGRU Geisele rail, etc), and that alone probably makes it worth the time to go it's own. I can tell you that what you'll get instead more than makes up, if not in direct brand identity, in performance. There is literally an AR in there for every role.