thediscernist

FEATURE REQUEST: Eden Editor Problem: Unable to move camera forward in Eden editor with non-standard control configuration - conflicting, un-editable Eden Editor keybind. When E - not W - is bound as 'forward', the left column of the editor is closed when pressing E. Unable to move camera forward at all. Proposed solution: a.) Regardless of keybinds, hard-code WASD as Eden Editor movement keys. Infantry movement when testing can then resume with whatever control scheme user has defined. b.) Create an Eden Editor keybind screen on the Controls combo box that enables user-defined keybinds, thus avoiding keybind conflicts.

PW6 still shows USAF as requiring AFRF, though I thought this was 'fixed' as of 0.3.6. Comments? If it shouldn't be that way we need to let the PW6 guys know. I've been jonesing for USAF without having to require AFRF in some instances.

Hey. PlayWithSix guys. We need version control on this. A LOT of people's older mods that rely on CBA are no longer being updated by their authors, and this latest update breaks a lot of the older stuff. Version control please.

"* The old keybinds will revert to their defaults * These old keybinds defaults will be locked and cannot be changed." And thus the community was split. Brilliant.

Evaluating this now. Great quality. Nice variety. Waaaaaaay too big. Waaaaaay too many variations on each outfit. And some things just don't make sense. Tan ghillie suit? Grey ghillie suit? What?? You would enjoy much more popularity if you released a "lite" version of this pack. I don't need to select between fourteen different glove and balaclava colors in combination with just the right belt color or what-have-you. I don't need to select the length of the balaclava down the player character's neck. This is beyond obsessive compulsive, and makes it a very hard sell for multiplayer. Please create a lite version so that I don't have to tell folks who play our campaigns to download 2GB+ just so they can have a high-quality OCP uniform, plate carrier, and MICH helmet.

Hello, I am experiencing some ballistic-related issues. AGM is enabled; wind is turned off in MCC. Bullets are often falling short or are simply way off. Using the RH Acc ACOG TA01NSN (2D or 3D) sight on RH M4A1 RIS using M855A1, aiming at center of mass at 400m using appropriate 400m BDC reticle often results in misses. When using appropriate 100m reticle at a target 100m away, shots are minute-of-man, but can be well outside the platform's mil-spec accuracy of 1.5 to 2 MOA. This can be seen in the following image, target engaged at 100m: https://i.imgur.com/Hk2XGhj.jpg The RH M16A4 with RH Acc ACOG TA31F RMR is more-or-less minute-of-man out to 500m, but also suffers from reliability problems at 600m. These are my observations. Personal experience with the platforms IRL says that they are far more reliable than this. Performance here is honestly disappointing. Would be much easier to swallow if we could see consistent 1.5-2 MOA performance (within 10-inch area at 500m).

So I would love to check this out, we need an L85. But there's no playwithsix download. Need that, otherwise folks in the group will never download or be current.

Hello, Can't say that I've read the whole thread, but I thought I'd add my input. I really like the weapon pack, but there is one thing keeping me from deploying it for use: weapon sway. I'm supposing this is a function of weight, but as a user of the M4 weapon system, I can say that the sway is pretty ridiculous here. Needs to be toned down considerably on all variants, especially GL version. It's gotten to the point where, when I do use it, I don't dare attach anything except a weapon sight, as doing so apparently raises my character's blood-alcohol content to the point where he cannot hold the rifle steady. Anything you can do that glues the ghost ring to the user's eye (since the user of the platform welds his cheek to the cheek weld, thus producing no rear sight sway, requiring only that the front sight align with the target, which is instantaneous for anyone with sufficient experience shouldering the weapon system) is a good thing. The next is the inconsistent recoil when in full auto, whose single-shot "tap" behavior produces much more recoil than when in semi-auto mode. Finally, and this is very nitpicky, the purist in me yearns for a variant of the carbine with standard, non-RIS handguards and safe/semi/full auto. (Edit: Oh, and of course, the 'painted' red dots.) Looking forward to seeing what you come up with. I very much like the mil-spec leanings of this pack as opposed to the 'other' big AR/M4 pack out there, though I grudgingly deploy it instead since its implementation is much more consistent and reliable in a firefight. Cheers, and good luck with your next update.