Mattastic

The wall is built into the terrain. i will do some outposts on top and stuff like that. Right now the terrain is very steep but for the most part the wall wont change.

I have been sitting on this version for a while and I decided to release it as is to get feedback on the base terrain. As of right now, there are really no trees or anything. Since this latest release, I have finished roads and added much more trees. I will be releasing that version by the end of the week. Expect frequent updates, I am tired of just sitting on this terrain so I will be working to finish it up by the end of the year.

For procedural terrain generation, I need to have a ground texture and satellite image. I have both, but I am getting an error that it can't find my satellite image. My sat image I am using for the procedural terrain is not as big as the main terrain. Do these need to be the same? Also, can the procedural terrain use a ground texture for my terrain or does it have to have it's own separate texture? https://gyazo.com/4807e03fa81bd2d17cf058d5063d251d https://gyazo.com/c3d60226209698be3534fc7a8fb87cd9 https://gyazo.com/752f11490f5b2e73cc707905e0c9fd32 class OutsideTerrain { satellite = "\mef_alaska2035\data\imagery\alaska_procedural_sat_co.paa"; enableTerrainSynth = 1; class Layers { class Layer0 { nopx = "\mef_alaska2035\data\mef_alaska_stony_nopx.paa"; texture = "\mef_alaska2035\data\mef_alaska_stony_co.paa"; }; }; };

Amen, pboProject takes roughly 2700 seconds or 45 minutes to pack my project where Addon Builder would take 3-4 hours. I have officially drunk the pboProject kool-aid and will be using it for everything here on out.

So I fixed the issue. It seems if you want a procedural terrain outside of your main heightfield you HAVE to pack up your terrain with pboProject.

Thanks, I'll do that and perhaps try reducing the size of the image im using, it is 2048x2048

The error is: https://gyazo.com/9bba33efbcef4aed29423b38c9f8b9a1 Everything inside of my main height map is good to go, i'm not having any issues with that. This is my first time using the procedural terrain, but I assumed it worked the way you described. I am mainly looking to find out whether or not the inside and outside sat images have to be the same size or can they be different sizes?

I went ahead and fixed the really annoying iteminfo and weaponslotsinfo errors and released an update. v2.6.2 -Fixed ItemInfo Error -Fixed WeaponSlotsInfo

MEF v2.6.1 is out now and fixes a few bugs from the previous release. v2.6.1 -Fixed Inventory UI errors -Fixed Various config errors -Added Weapons to Units

The units are only loading with handguns because of a mistake I made. Like 10 min after releasing the update, I realized I forgot to re configure the units with the new weapons I added. I'm fixing this and will probably put out another small update within the week to fix this and the ACOG UI error. The RH rifles load without an optic because the weapon class that the units are using does not have an optic configured to it. Imgoing to go ahead post this here also, some people were not able to open their missions with the new version. This is because the mef_weapons.pbo was removed and replaced. Load your mission with the previous version and replace anything using weapons out of the mef_weapons.pbo. This would be the old M4's. M16's M240, M249, and M27. Apologies for the complications. v2.5 https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4ZXC3a9bH9oOFZrU2EzVnRVTFk

v2.6 has been released, Enjoy! -Replaced M16's, M4's, M240B, and M249 with new ports -Added Mk 12 Rifle -Added MP5's -Added ACOG's -Added Suppressors -Added OD & Grey Vests -Added OD Hunters -Added MTVR's -Added MaxxPro MRAP's -Added bipod support for most weapons -Fixed Author Bug -Fixed Unit Categories -Fixed Editor Categories -Adjusted Sounds, Recoil, and Animations for most weapons Known Issues with v2.6 -Issue with optic and reloading SAW -A couple config errors -No iron sights for M27 and M110 because of rotation issue when optic is mounted

Thank you PuFu for clarifying that. However, I think your example of an artist and an art gallery is not accurate because Steam isn't stating that they own my work if I hang it in their "gallery". Essentially, what they are saying is that they could hang a picture up next to mine that is a copy of my painting but with some more work done to it by steam or no extra work at all and it would be just an exact duplicate. That is, as long as my work is on SW. The second I take it off, they lose their non-exclusive rights. I completely understand this and what you are trying to say about permissions with editing a mod and the types of mods that would result from that whether it is a dependent or otherwise. I want to be clear, I'm not trying to argue for Steam. I'm arguing for the less informed people out there that don't understand this which could possibly include myself. I read most EULA's very carefully, minus iTunes cause they have a new EULA every 2 days, and in my opinion nothing in the Steam EULA grants Steam exclusive ownership rights to my mod. The overall narrative that you guys are perpetuating is that Steam owns your mod if you upload to SW and from what the Steam EULA says, that isn't the case. If I am wrong about this, I am happy to be enlightened by a more convincing argument. Just show me where it says Steam "owns" my mod. The idea that steam would abduct my mod and continue it's development without me and claim it as their own is complete lunacy. And yes all the content of Marine Expeditionary Force, that is not my own, was given to me with the full endorsement from their authors to do whatever I want and release wherever I want as long as proper credit is given. ;) Ultimately, I concede this argument, you guys are great members of the community and i'm not looking to tarnish our interaction or future interactions. However, I humbly ask one last question that is relative to my original point about Armaholic. All of the authors that submit to Armaholic do not grant Foxhound rights to use their mods to promote Armaholic through a license agreement. Why should I feel different about Steam's promotional efforts than I do Armaholics? Armaholic uses my mod and ya'lls to promote their site without getting us to agree to a license. It seems like it would be more honest for Armaholic to have a license similar to the Steam EULA informing us Authors about their possible promotional intentions. As it is right now, Armaholic uses our content to promote itself without our permission. I would be very grateful for an explanation on how one of you feel about this. BTW I retweet and like all of Armaholics stuff on social media and do not have any personal contention with their promotional methods. Target_Practice, I would definitely recommend releasing on SW. You will be able to deliver your mod(s) to more people with the use of it. Your stats will be more in depth and easier to access and the process of submission is easier than ever. Both of my mods get more traffic there than anywhere else.

Right, so Steam can do to your mod what everyone in the community is already doing to mods. There are countless reproductions of mods by other authors, there are mods that are modified by other authors and there are derivative works of mods by other authors. I don't really see a cause for concern here. Are there any claims backed by evidence that supports this fear people have of SW? As far as I know, there have been ZERO incidents involving Steam and Arma 3 mods. BTW about that prediction, I am not necessarily a proponent of it. I'm just calling it how I see it.

Definitely check out the threads Mickyleitor linked. Most of this is blown out of proportion by people who don't speak legalese. Technically, other sites like Armaholic could have this exact same agreement. I'm not sure if Foxhound has anything like that for the premium Armaholic subscribers, but he uses the content of all authors in the same way steam would, to promote Armaholic. Nobody is up in arms at his tweets or facebook posts advertising Armaholic with the aid of all of the user content submitted to him. Another idea people get in their head is that Steam OWNS your mod. The clause in the EULA is very explicit. Nowhere does it say anything about ownership and it actually starts off by prefacing all of their rights and proclaiming them all to be "non-exclusive". This is probably the most overlooked phrase in that clause. Steam never has exclusive rights of any kind to your WS content. As time goes on, you will start to find more and more authors submitting their content to SW, eventually becoming the main source for Arma 3 mods. The only way to really negate this trend is for sites like Armaholic to streamline their submission process because SW is way easier and much less redundant. I wouldn't hold my breath for the streamlining though.

So far, the showcase menu doesn't show any new Apex specific showcases on the RC. Maybe they will update the other showcases to include Apex content. Definitely not a bad idea to do showcases for that stuff, but I wouldn't get my hopes up for it.

not 81920, try 819200. Not sure how a 800k map would do...... i'm pretty sure we are all interested in seeing the results of those who test the engine boundaries. You should try it out and post the results. Good luck with making a high res sat image for a terrain that size.

It looks like your having a path issue. Either the file isn't there or the path you have written for it is incorrect. Are you getting this error when you try to generate layers?

I have dabbled with TP but haven't had a big return in it's use( probably should look into it more). On my terrain, I used L3DT and it's bulldozer tool to edit my heightfield. It has a handy dandy bulldozer tool that you can use to pave the way on your terrain for roadways.

When you select "Edit Terrain" under Terrain a "Properties" window will become visible on left side of the terrain builder application. You should see value fields labeled Max elevation, min elevation, above sea, under sea, etc. Change the values in those fields to get the sea level you are looking for. IF you used L3DT to generate your heightfield, you can also use it change the vertical range of the raw heightfield before you start making edits in TB.

Saltiness breeds success :D ...................... in some cases.

^ Generate one like RoF said or piece together a sat image in PS from real world sat images and do your best to make it fit your heightfield. I'm doing a combination of both on my terrain i'm working on right now.

This looks very promising, best of luck to you guys!

This is why dev-branch exists. All the people stopping development on their terrains should have checked out the visual update sooner. If you are surprised at how "bad" your terrain looks now post 1.60, it is your own fault. For the record, I personally still think Taunus looks fine and should continue to be developed.

Been working, when i can, on the next iteration of Alaska. I'm taking a much more methodical approach so development will take a little longer than the first version. In the end though a better terrain will be made. Below are some image of my WIP. New 20 x 20 Terrain (Sat Image(WIP)) Original image of Healy from Google Maps Close up of Healy on Alaska 2035 so far Higher overview of Healy and it;s surrounding area.

To be honest, I'm not sure if the vanilla ammo trucks can rearm the ah1z. I take it that you have tried though. I would recommend looking for a suitable rearm/repair script to use in your scenario.