Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

lumnuon

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    408

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by lumnuon

  1. Posted

    I perfectly realize that writing this is more than likely a complete waste of time but I will hold out hope. I have created a similar thread on DayZ Server forums.

     

    Is there any reason whatsoever for BI seemingly hating IPv6? None of their games support it. For Arma 3 it makes some sense considering its age and lack of further development. For DayZ the age argument also holds true even if it would be nice to see some remaining developer resources being assigned to implement IPv6 support. Lastly for Reforger I can't think of a reason beyond simply noone at BI caring about it? Is it that hard to create game server compatibility with IPv6?

     

    The lack of IPv6 support makes it effectively impossible to host a server for an increasing number of users. My own provider flat out refuses to give out IPv4 addresses for regular consumers since last year, even if asked and I am certainly not the only one as evidenced by Arma/Reforger/DayZ related requests for help on numerous tech and game forums.

    • Like 2

  4. Posted

    10 hours ago, Dedmen said:

    Weferlingen*

     

    Yes, same as with Apex you need to own to use map.

     

    It is correct the way JD Wang said it. Unlike the official DLC the GM terrain assets are not available to all players. That means you have to own GM to play on costum terrains that use GM structures.

  5. Posted

    42 minutes ago, rksl-rock said:

    Errors 1 & 2 are now fixed the update will be pushed in the morning.

     

    Error 3 - Debeaching.  The reason its locked down so tightly was to make it a last resort kind of thing. Also to prevent cheating/griefing with it.  The first few versions were limited to >5kph and eventually 1kph.  Hemorrhoid found a way to cause havoc in the Welldeck of Albion.  hence why you have to be static.  

     

    Which LPD are you clashing on?

     

    I used the ATLAS LHD (CUP or the new standalone one can be used). Probably worth noting that it really only is a problem when waves are at ~30% or more.

  6. Posted

    Congratulations for the release 👍

     

    Three things I noticed while playing around with it for a few minutes:

    1. The addon seems to have a dependency for the foxhound configured - it obviously works fine without it, I am assuming it´s just a config entry that you forgot to get rid of?

    2. When folding the mast, the lights don´t fold with it. This causes the lights to float in the air.

    3. The de-beaching option only appears when the LCVP is truly stand-still. On higher incline beaches/welldecks + higher waves this can mean that the option doesn´t appear which in turn can cause you to be permanently stuck without it. A little more movement tolerance for the option to appear would help in that regard imo.

  7. Posted

    awesome work 👍 

     

    A small bug I noticed: the engines and the railings on the outer stairwell of the bridge are lacking collision. Could someone double check and try to reproduce?

     

    The see-through doors issue is also something I can still reproduce (although not all dorrs seem to be affected strangely enough).

  9. Posted

    37 minutes ago, Ex3B said:

    They reject a landing because of the part here:

     

    The Freedom dynamic airport with the "isCarrier = true" means that only planes with "tailHook = true" will land there.

    If I don't put arrestor wires on it, then the Jets will try and land on it, but go flying off the end.

    If I don't have "isCarrier = true", then any plane will try and land on it... I wish there was a "onlySTOVL = true" option.... but there isn't


    I mean... just naval jets trying to land on it and failing is still better than jets and cargo planes trying to land on it and failing...

     

    Would it at least allow the F-35 to land properly or would that one also try to land in conventional flight and therefore fly off the deck?

  10. Posted

    15 minutes ago, Ex3B said:

    So I think I know what to do with the walking sounds... but I was wondering, I could configure it to have a dynamic runway....

    https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Dynamic_Airport_Configuration

    Now, it has no catapults, it has no arrestor wires, but it might make it easier to get planes to launch from it for the start of missions.

     

    Do you think I should try and add one to this (otherwise when the AI tries to take off with me F-35Fs, it looks wonky), or would that cause more problems for people than they'd like?

     

    Or perhaps leave it as something that can be placed in the editor, like this:

    but resized to fit the LHD?

     

    As far as I can tell larger airplanes that wouldn´t have enough space on the runway of the USS Freedom reject a landing there. If that assumption is correct and planes can be made to behave similarily on the LHD I don´t see any obvious downsides.

  12. Posted

    7 hours ago, Maj Ray said:

    Thanks very much for releasing this. It's really, really nice to have a standalone LHD that works well.

     

    I'm trying it out, and I've noticed two issues that are worth reporting:

     

    First: there are no footstep sounds when moving around the decks. There are only footsteps on the metal grating on the lower deck, when moving into the water.

    Second: there doesn't seem to be any control for the lower deck boat entrance/exit. Boats can't externally activate the boat entrance, and the control panel on the interior doesn't have an option to open the lower door.

     

    Thank you.

     

    Can´t reproduce the second issue, for what it´s worth. The lower well deck door control panel on the inside works perfectly fine for me.

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    19 minutes ago, da12thMonkey said:

    Probably not, no. Graham made the receiver based on the L1A1 and a variety of other parts that we can configure to suit GREF.

    It's not so much meant to be an exact replica since we also have parts that weren't on the real SLR like a folding stock (that accommodates the ramp sight rather than the typical aperture para sights) and picatinny dust-cover, that we will probably add in some form down the line.

    We have a wooden Inch pattern pistol grip that will likely be used at some point with the wooden furniture, but the polymer one is based on an R1(metric) for now. I don't think there is a folding cocking handle in the parts set.

     

    Would maybe make sense to seperate the SLR from the metric FALs since there are some significant differences between the two in form and function. Additionally metric FALs have seen service around the Globe with many different armies and militias while L1A1s are a bit more confined (similar to how you guys have two SCARs in RHSUSAF and RHSSAF now). I obviously understand if that is not possible because of additional modelling/texturing you might have to do. Really just a thought that came to my mind.

  16. Posted

    7 hours ago, PuFu said:

    issue in general is in relation with topography of the terrain - having a pretty flat surface terrain where you push inwards the terrain mesh until you find the see level is possible (see PKL for instance). having a mountainous terrain where you have a stream of water going down from top to bottom is not possible. So you are sort of limited to what GM did, or what blud did. There is no way to fake it in the former situation otherwise.
    i 100% agree that one thing this engine does poorly is "wetness" in general. It all feels a bit dry.

     

    Pufu can scream this from the rooftops. I share the enthusiasm for fresh water features but it´s very hard to pull off in Arma.

    Here are some examples to illustrate the issue perhaps better than can be explained in words (to people that have never opened Terrain Builder)

     

    There are few areas where using sea level water to create rivers is feasible without significantly altering the overall terrain topography. To give a few examples, river deltas into the sea are reasonably easy to do since they are obviously still very close to water level and generally have slight elevation changes over long distances (Here / Korean DMZ river delta). Similarily, rivers in flatlands can also be somewhat faithfully be recreated without looking completely out of place (Here / North Germany flatlands) as long as you have enough space (a few dozen to hundreds of meters to either side) in the terrain to make it appear as if you have a somewhat smooth riverbank. As you might notice, the things described here only work on very flat terrains. Now keep in mind that most players are understandibly not very fond of terrains that are very flat for kilometers since they restrict or completely deny certain playstyles and can be perceived as boring as a consequence.

     

    So where do you run into bigger issues? Terrains that have even a moderate degree of topographic variation (Here / Korean DMZ further inland) which causes rivers that should have nice, gradual riverbanks to evolve into canyons. Sometimes that can be hidden by embracing the canyons (it´s a feature, not a bug!), but that is basically impossible in terrains with more than moderate topograhic variation since you would end up with absolutely ridiculous cliffs.

     

    GM´s new river and pond objects might be a remedy for this to some degree, but I wouldn´t expect to get great results with rivers that lose a decent amount of elevation over a certain distance either.

     

    Bottom line: Rivers in Arma create a lot of additional work, still behave like oceans since you can´t seperate them in the terrain config and generally create wider reaching problems for the terrain topography overall.

    • Like 1

  18. Posted

    Release of Version 1.3

     

    Added:
    -Minor details like historical wrecks and a few more cliffs

     

    Changed:
    -Ambient sounds and animals

    -New satmap preview picture

     

    Fixed:
    -Edited the satellite image of Kuba Jima to better blend with the detail textures

     

    Note:

    I will release a 2035 version of the map with several recreations of artificial islands China has built in the South and East China Sea. Said map will be seperate from the existing map but will be packaged within the same mod.

    • Like 2

  20. Posted

    48 minutes ago, Richards.D said:

    Alright, a little update about a feature request someone asked for a really long time ago. In our first release of the old FMTVs, they had overhead protection fitted. When we injected the new model, we got rid of that. Now, I am happy to announce a lot of the US MRAPs and trucks will get some new customization options for the Objective Gunner Protection Kit (O-GPK) turrets. 

     

    Great to see that the virtual garage solution was applicable :)  I dare say that it´s looking... splendid.

    • Haha 1

  21. Posted

    2 hours ago, corporal_lib[br] said:

    Hey Lumnuon, many kudos for recreating this map (disputed island between Japan and China has the potential for many scenarios with their respective mods or even vanilla content), thou I have a technical question: you´ve based your work on Fromz´s previous Diaoyu Island, which I have many old but fond missions based on... If I just rename the terrain part of the mission, should they work with your Islands? Or the terrain and object placements (rocks etc) doesn´t match?

     

    On the other hand, I think I can import those missions on your terrain, as long as the old Fromz´s mod doesn´t intereferes with yours... does it?

     

    Cheers and keep up!

     

    The terrain is only "based on" fromz´ terrain in so far as that my terrain was inspired by it. I didn´t use any of Fromz´ files so sadly it probably won´t be as easy as just renaming the terrain entry in the mission. 

     

    Having said that there should be absolutely no interference between my terrain and Fromz Diaoyu Islands. You should be able to import your old mission by changing the terrain entry and then you will probably have to adjust object placement.

    • Thanks 1

  22. Posted

    2 hours ago, WombatInCombat said:

    couldn't you just make another version including the artificial island and call it Senkaku 2035 or something?

     

    That would definitely be another alternative if some people prefer a more gameplay focused terrain and others prefer a more realistic one.

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    1 hour ago, ISAR_IRG said:

    also we never repack the original mod 

    we just create a pbo and put re texture configs in that  and we have permission to do it 

    about the original pbo we just putted it in our mod because its not available in  steam workshop and Dezkit wont support it more.

     

    If you have permission to include it disregard what I said. Good luck to your project :) .

  24. Posted

    6 hours ago, ISAR_IRG said:

    so its actually new mod that Contain some old mods

     

    You should make sure to ask for permission from every mod author whose work you include in your pack. Last time I talked to Dezkit he didn´t allow repacking.

    That was quite a while ago though, so if you have reached out to him in the meantime and he gave permission I apologize.

×