RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

I can't speak to RHS's reasons but I do have to say I for one like my Arma as script-light as possible and now that we don't need it for EventHandler chaining I also avoid utilizing CBA in my own stuff (and rather appreciate not needing it for RHS). No offence intended, CBA has always been very well made but I just like knowing there's nothing executing that I don't need.

There is no way still to add multiple event handlers in configs. XEH is still only possible through CBA.

There is no way still to add multiple event handlers in configs. XEH is still only possible through CBA.

No doubt you're right, sorry poor choice of words on my part, I mean now that I can execute my own code without circumventing a pre-defined EH.

Hello RHS Team,

at first thanks for this awesome modification and the time you spend for that and us.

I just want to ask is it possible to delete the Tracers from:

Gun A-10 Thunderbolt

Gun AH-64 Apache

Gun AH-1 Cobra

or is it possible to made it only vissible via nightvision (like IR-Tracer)?

Thanks for this free ArmA 3 Addon. ^^

Greetings Indrid Cole

I'm afraid that's not what he said.

Still hoping for a proper "mil-spec" MK18 and M4A1... right now they still look like civilian clones, since both barrels are way too long...

I still think you're misunderstanding his point, but at this point it doesn't really matter.

M4 Block2 in game....check.

M4 CQBR B2 in game...check.

Game overall a better experience because of RHS...check.

Can anyone here confirm that they can load missions using RHSUSAF vehicles, such as the abrams and humvee, on a dedicated server? Every time I try to load a mission using one of those vehicles I get an error in the dedicated server that says, "You cannot play/edit this mission; it is dependent on downloadable content that has been deleted. rhsusf_c_troops," or an error similar to that. I haven't seen this until a few days ago. I can still load these missions on a listen server and in the editor, so I don't know what's going on here. My dedicated server and client are on the same computer if that information is useful.

Here's an example RPT when I try to load a mission: http://pastebin.com/NwWESXFi

Can anyone here confirm that they can load missions using RHSUSAF vehicles, such as the abrams and humvee, on a dedicated server? Every time I try to load a mission using one of those vehicles I get an error in the dedicated server that says, "You cannot play/edit this mission; it is dependent on downloadable content that has been deleted. rhsusf_c_troops," or an error similar to that. I haven't seen this until a few days ago. I can still load these missions on a listen server and in the editor, so I don't know what's going on here. My dedicated server and client are on the same computer if that information is useful.

Here's an example RPT when I try to load a mission: http://pastebin.com/NwWESXFi

Perhaps mission contains classes that have been changed/removed. Open up the mission in the text editor and cross check the classnames with this: http://class.rhsmods.org/rhsusaf/

Can anyone here confirm that they can load missions using RHSUSAF vehicles, such as the abrams and humvee, on a dedicated server? Every time I try to load a mission using one of those vehicles I get an error in the dedicated server that says, "You cannot play/edit this mission; it is dependent on downloadable content that has been deleted. rhsusf_c_troops,"

I did yesterday night flawlessly. Are you sure you have the whole RHS_USAF in the dedicated server?

I did some more troubleshooting, and I got all the missions that wouldn't start to start by enabling CBA RC4 on the dedicated server. Only one of the missions I tested requires CBA_A3. I don't have any mods enabled that require CBA_A3. I don't get why this is happening. This has happened to me before, and it stopped for a while but now it's back.

Look, just for testing I made a mission that uses a single blufor playable unit, and an M1A1 abrams. Absolutely nothing else was placed on the map. I didn't even have CBA loaded when creating this mission. This mission does not load for me unless I turn on both RHSUSAF and CBA_A3 RC4.

Here's the pbo: http://pastebin.com/Bj7ipKgt

Has anyone ever seen anything like this? Should I post this to the CBA thread?

Hi RHS Dev Team

there are several faction mismatches in the RHS Insurgents configurations

name = "$STR_RHS_GROUPS_COMPANY_HQ";
faction = "rhs_faction_insurgents";
side = 0;

should be

name = "$STR_RHS_GROUPS_COMPANY_HQ";
faction = "rhs_faction_insurgents";
side = 2;

found several incorrect entries like the above ones spread in the configurations

name = "$STR_RHS_GROUPS_SQUAD";
faction = "rhs_faction_insurgents";
side = 0;

to save you time search and correct them I have done this for you already.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1gWUNu0kwK1Z3J6R2JGYTJaU1E/view?usp=sharing

configuration files with the errors are included in the "nppBackup" folders so you can compare it with my corrected ones.

http://feedback.rhsmods.org/view.php?id=673

kind regards

maquez [Q-Net]

Can someone please tell me how to make the random names on the Abrams (eg. Widow Maker) disappear on selected tanks?

I am really confused by RHS's reluctance to use CBA as a dependency. It is a standard that has been around for over half a decade and I guarantee you that a huge majority of communities that use RHS's content are already using it due to ACE, ACRE, or TFR, all of which require it. Making RHS have a dependency on it seems like a no brainier in terms of the functionality it adds and reduced complexity in RHS's own configs having to have a hacky workaround for XEH (which we have no guarantee that it will stay the same in the way it is implemented in RHS).

Considering how many things in RHS fall outside the common sense compatibility/standards, I don't find it surprising. All in the name of "standalone" which, let's be honest, doesn't exist in this community and in reality never did from the moment we rode pink ponies in WWII settings on our Wanzers. Your content will be used with other content. Considerations and compromise for that have to be made for an enjoyable experience. I'm sure if MANW was not a thing, common sense in regards to such things would be much more readily available.

While I understand and respect their reasoning, I liked RHS more when it was a focused content mod (because the content is awesome) rather than a forced standalone mod which in reality is almost never used standalone. :)

Considering how many things in RHS fall outside the common sense compatibility/standards, I don't find it surprising.

I've not yet encountered any issue with mixing RHS with other mods that I expected should work.

I'm extremely excited to see RHS' own systems evolve and mature and am thrilled somebody's looking at better ways to do things rather than just adopting (somebody else's idea of) the-way-it's-always-been-done. For instance, they're ideally and uniquely placed in having all of the sources for two complete contemporary factions, which allows them to implement systems that leverage the native abilities of the engine, the best example of which is the armour and penetration system they're working on which can go 'skin-deep' and utilize actual geometry and materials included for the purpose. I welcome this approach, work with the engine rather than trying to strong-arm everything with a scripting language. If it's successful it's to be hoped we might see other addons adopt it (and a new standard is born). Or not, because it's for the content-makers (only) to decide what they want to create.

I've not yet encountered any issue with mixing RHS with other mods that I expected should work.

I'm extremely excited to see RHS' own systems evolve and mature and am thrilled somebody's looking at better ways to do things rather than just adopting (somebody else's idea of) the-way-it's-always-been-done. For instance, they're ideally and uniquely placed in having all of the sources for two complete contemporary factions, which allows them to implement systems that leverage the native abilities of the engine, the best example of which is the armour and penetration system they're working on which can go 'skin-deep' and utilize actual geometry and materials included for the purpose. I welcome this approach, work with the engine rather than trying to strong-arm everything with a scripting language. If it's successful it's to be hoped we might see other addons adopt it (and a new standard is born). Or not, because it's for the content-makers (only) to decide what they want to create.

Yes, I agree with you. My point is when everyone splits off and decides to make their own standards, nothing is actually standard.

Nobody would benefit from having multiple "standards" like multiple CBA's, Joint Rails, Joint Mags, etc. And that's my biggest gripe, isolating yourself from the community which is small enough and everyone is approachable and pliable to agree on certain things, which CBA does well. But I'll stop here, this is more suited to some kind of an ideals thread or something. :p

Yeah well blame the Americans and their refusal to adopt the metric system. :cool:

Yes, I agree with you. My point is when everyone splits off and decides to make their own standards, nothing is actually standard.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png

Nobody would benefit from having multiple "standards" like multiple CBA's, Joint Rails, Joint Mags, etc. And that's my biggest gripe, isolating yourself from the community which is small enough and everyone is approachable and pliable to agree on certain things, which CBA does well. But I'll stop here, this is more suited to some kind of an ideals thread or something. :p

stop calling them standards as if there was some committee that decided what is right and what is not. We dont intend to compete with CBA, we simply develop what we need ourselves. It has always been the policy of RHS to be dependency free, which given the size of the mod can be appreciated by many users who now dont need to run around and try to find the right version of some other addon for some reason that they don't even understand.

isolating yourself from the community

with almost 200,000 downloads over 6 months I would hardly say that we are "isolating" ourselves from anything.

stop calling them standards as if there was some committee that decided what is right and what is not. We dont intend to compete with CBA, we simply develop what we need ourselves. It has always been the policy of RHS to be dependency free, which given the size of the mod can be appreciated by many users who now dont need to run around and try to find the right version of some other addon for some reason that they don't even understand.

with almost 200,000 downloads over 6 months I would hardly say that we are "isolating" ourselves from anything.

"now dont need to run around and try to find the right version of some other addon for some reason that they don't even understand" sounds both condescending and arrogant. I'm sorry but however good RHS may be, most users who run it do so with in conjunction with other mods. So if every mod ignores common conventions then its hardly surprisingly that incompatibilities will arise frequently. CBA may not be perfect but its long been a standard used by most other mods. So please for the good of your mod and the community consider integrating common building blocks, however imperfect they may be. Indeed Reckless' parallel with America's obstinate use of the imperial system seems very accurate, i.e. splendid isolation (as a British engineer, I know :D)

"now dont need to run around and try to find the right version of some other addon for some reason that they don't even understand" sounds both condescending and arrogant. I'm sorry but however good RHS may be, most users who run it do so with in conjunction with other mods. So if every mod ignores common conventions then its hardly surprisingly that incompatibilities will arise frequently. CBA may not be perfect but its long been a standard used by most other mods. So please for the good of your mod and the community consider integrating common building blocks, however imperfect they may be. Indeed Reckless' parallel with America's obstinate use of the imperial system seems very accurate, i.e. splendid isolation (as a British engineer, I know :D)

What is condescending and arrogant is the pressure to conform to self proclaimed "standards" and "conventions". Thats point number one. Secondly, we simply don't need CBA...why would we have it as dependency if we don't have anything inside that actually needs to use it? The whole discussion is moot.

"I'm sorry but however good RHS may be, most users who run it do so with in conjunction with other mods." case in point that RHS inputs a MASSIVE effort to be able to run with other mods! Calling us arrogant over this is nonsense!

stop calling them standards as if there was some committee that decided what is right and what is not. We dont intend to compete with CBA, we simply develop what we need ourselves. It has always been the policy of RHS to be dependency free, which given the size of the mod can be appreciated by many users who now dont need to run around and try to find the right version of some other addon for some reason that they don't even understand.

I'm just advocating that common libraries are there for everyones benefit, the word used is irrelevant. Pretending they don't exist, aren't run alongside your mod 99% of the time and proceeding to reinvent the wheel, in my eyes isn't exactly best practice. But your reasoning is your own and as I said, I understand it, you don't need to explain or justify it.

with almost 200,000 downloads over 6 months I would hardly say that we are "isolating" ourselves from anything.

There's no need to whip out your dick and shove it in my face, I'm already amongst those 200k who silently appreciates it on a daily basis.

A quick look at the ArmA server browser should assure anyone that, far from being 'widely adopted and used by everyone', CBA barely registers as in-use on any of the most populated servers. Most players just aren't interested in jumping through the hoops required to enter into what's on offer military-simulation-wise with the way it's so often bound up in complex configurations and addon combinations (however fallaciously that's presented as 'the standard' on these forums). I think RHS is definitely on the right track in terms of providing a total conversion that can stand alone (in fact I think they should go further and offer just an @RHS download combining AFRF+USAF). Arma might actually enjoy some widespread success as a military shooter instead of a Life/Zombie sandbox.

Amen to that when you google arma what do you get its life or dayz. RHS is taking arma to the level of what it should be i barley see a milsim community video that they dont use RHS

A quick look at the ArmA server browser should assure anyone that, far from being 'widely adopted and used by everyone', CBA barely registers as in-use on any of the most populated servers.

...

That's like saying that 99% of people worldwide have health problems because you polled people waiting to see a doctor at a hospital.

with almost 200,000 downloads over 6 months I would hardly say that we are "isolating" ourselves from anything.

however fallaciously that's presented as 'the standard' on these forums

That's like saying that 99% of people worldwide have health problems because you polled people waiting to see a doctor at a hospital.

Quite, especially if you run a quick check on Armaholic and discover that CBA has been the most downloaded mod in all categories for the last 2 versions of Arma:

CBA for A3: 307,011 times in 2 years

CBA for A2: 438,866 times in 5 years

In comparison

RHS Escalation = 36,783 in 6 months

RHS: USAF = 6,435 in 6 months

RHS: AFRF = 9,248 in 6 months

Of course, Armaholic is by no means the only means of downloading mods for Arma, but I think that it provides a fair indicator.

Nonetheless download numbers from other sites would help provide a more complete picture...

There's no further need to discuss this matter.

We just won't include it.

I'm quite glad you guys won't include CBA as it stuffs up a few things in the game, such as changing random headgear on the FIA, and it causes a few bugs in official missions

Anyway, I asked a question before but it didn't get answered :(. How do you make the random names on the Abrams (eg. Widow Maker) disappear on selected tanks?

RHS has no real need to add CBA dependency. At its core RHS is a large content pack, with relatively minor features for that content. From a developers point of view advocating for CBA dependency and the perceived standard is quite ironic, because the only real purpose we could have for CBA is to force our features(standard) onto all other content and a lot of it wouldn't be compatible. Many of our features expand the functionality of the engine by editing P3D files, with the minimum code used when it is required. So to sum it all up, in many ways RHS follows the biggest standard there is, the RV engine. Just my 2c.

@SomeSangheili

I don't work on the decals, so somebody else may have a better answer. To disable decals you can put the following piece of code in the init.sqf of a mission.

RHSDecalsOff = true;