Jump to content

Kaxii

Member
  • Content Count

    432
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Kaxii


  1. Great work I just take some time with it and seems still needs work, hope you fix them and make it better and better:

    A10:

    M113:

    1- can't turn left and right in water and also in many times it never surface on water and just go under water. Thats a bug with Arma, tracked vehicles do not float currently, so it's a BIS issue

    and some other bugs I found:

    UAZ I tested, can climb hills with high speed (near their maximum speeds) I don't think many cars can climb steep hills at nearly full speed, especially not old UAZ's

    thanks.

    fivew


  2. Yes on the SUSAT ( Might be in the next WIP ) and Yes on the LLM01 but the older A2 hand guard we are still not sure about , there will be a variant of the SA80 without the vert grip just with the rail covers on.

    While they have been made by Kiory, if you wanted to cover all weapons in use, a plastic handguard version would still be useful, as a lot of L85A2's still use those handgaurds, the RIS mainly only being used in theatre, or here and there. Guards and L85's at home especially in Gaurds or units which would not see combat much, would be using the plastic.


  3. Yes, but considering that they must send at least a basic and stable version to BI's guys, it would be really sadist if they don't publish also something for us, 'ordinary people' :rolleyes:

    Well they did say "we will have to release it by the end of October" iirc, so I'd guess it would be a public release at the same time as the final comp entry, after all if it isn't fit enough for a public release, how would it win the competition? That and today is only the 27th, and they have got until midnight tommorow to release it/enter their final build, so I am throwing my eggs in one basket and saying it has to be within the next 30 hours.


  4. So I was thinking.. Why try to port over old models of vehicles when some ArmA III vehicles have somer eally good textures to em.

    Maybe making the following retextures:

    - AAF MORA = M2 Bradley A4

    - AAF Kuma = M4A2 Bliss

    - NATO Mohawk = CH-52 Crow (I know its the Sea King, But why can't the us military use it?

    - CSAT MArid = M6 Stryker A2

    * along with other vehicles already in NATO, such as the blackfoot actually being used as a scout helicopter (Comanche) and the Littlebird being a bit more agile.

    The mohawk isn't a seaking it's a Merlin, the Moras a Warrior APC and the Kuma is a next gen Leopard 2, so I would say none of thrm really match the US


  5. In real life that's not much of a problem, because you can gradually hold your gun up or down as much or as little as you want. But in Arma 3 there are just three different places to hold your weapon: Held down (double tapped ctrl), combat stance (toggled by C) and looking down the sights (right mouseclick). In two of these cases the G36 blocks the view. It's as though the current place the weapon is in somehow simulates the placement when you're looking down the red dot. That problem should be reflected in weapon mods by lowering the position of the gun in the combat stance to get something like a dirty average between the proper position and a position that is suitable to the limitations of the game.

    Although it's probably better to say: The G36 currently blocks the view when in combat stance, but less looking down the sights. It should be exactly the other way 'round.

    But thats Arma's fault not Bw's fault, if the weapons like that, it is like that they can't fix it without making a new stance system. The G36 is fine,


  6. Honestly I don't see what the problem is...

    Yes the G36 isn't as functional as other weapons, but thats because it's a G36. They made it that way, because that is how it should be, after all it doesn't have to be perfect. Saying that you have to change the rails and scope placement just to make it more easier to use, despite it being unrealistic is like me saying to someone who makes an RPG, make the tube smaller because I can see inside the tube and it obstructs my vision to much even though that would make it unrealistic.

    Yes the Iron sights could do with a bit of work, I wouldn't say they needed thinning out, just rather a more details, to me they don't seem bulky at all!


  7. Actually, the future of army camouflage is currently under dev as the Marine Corps gave them a big giant No on that matter. However, since they're wasting even more money on yet another uniform study congress has come down to say that everyone will adopt the new camouflage that comes from the study. Marines are not overly happy with this decision.

    It will be interesting to see what the end result is.

    And Marpat is better than any boneheaded design big army has chosen in the last 10 years. Why they don't stick with multicam is beyond me since they've already spent the money to develop and field it.

    Yeah I know about all that, but atm the latest news is that MARPAT may be what they want to adopt anyway despite the camo effort as guy above as shown, although they have also tried to "soft launch" multicam but crye has put the price too high and so stopped that from happening for now, either way they may just choose a crappy pattern when they get round to it.


  8. Im a great fan of US4CES so I would go with No.1!

    And this is what US4CES looks like in RL for you others:

    US4CES+Desert+Field+Shot.jpg

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSOEddr-4M1tpY_eAbEhFibF1Jkbbjd5EwR8VU3VRz6vE0Sgki6MA

    Although apparently the latest in US army camo effort news, is that they may just adopt MARPAT themselves because apparently "all the contestant camouflages were equally good" and so les get one we didn't even test and has been proven to be worst than the contest finalists! YAY UCP all over again!

×