Recruitment requirements lowered to two major operations. Bog is a respected veteran of the GOL, but unfortunately can't attend training sessions on time.
Initially aiming for reservist status. Active membership is always an option depending on how things go.
Welcome back Bogsy !
MoW seems a lot more matured than CtA when I last played it. It was decidedly on the early access side of things, content was lacking, unit control was extremely finicky. Still it has pretty much exactly the same traits as it's based on the same game engine. And I sort of prefer the contemporary setting. You know, it has BTRs.
Would play both.
These do look very well made.
I still prefer the plain red/blue without logos though.
my favourite so far
Seconded
That's cool.
Edit: I think you could do without the eagle and the muskets. The red-inf/blue-AAC concept is intuitive. The broken chain is a very good idea in terms of symbolism. Prefer that over previous raised fist suggestions. More neutral.
Could we please put some of our drafts from the old forum in here?
Please suggest new modifications to be added to our repository in this thread.
Please include the following information when doing so:
1. Addon Name
2. Addon Size
3. Description
4. Link to Addon
5. Test Notes (If/when applicable)
Suggested addons will be considered for testing. Alternatively, applications can be individually tested by the person suggesting the addon, or other volunteers.
Council will decide over fully tested addons in a majority vote.
Of course you can also request certain addons to be replaced or removed.
hoofed as times are currently rather confusing with the sudden transition, i didnt include those mods within the new repo. at some point it has to be updated, but the we should first define an update date and make sure everyone is connected, before updating it.
Mod name: immersion cigs
Size: 2.6mb
Discription: immersive cigarettes cigars lollipops and lighters. If you have five types of the same damn weapon and helmet for 10gb. I want my damn cigarettes for 2mb.
Links:
https://steamcommunity.com/sha…filedetails/?id=753946944
http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=28846
Will be testing this one.
Mod Name: F/A-18 Hornet Size: 372MB Description: New Firewill aircraft. Includes the A+ and C versions. The Hornet is a multirole, carrier-capable jet flown by the US Navy and Marines along with allied countries in Europe, Middle East, and South East Asia. Link: Steam Workshop
Mod to remove: F/A-181E Black Wasp II
I gave the Hornet a thorough test this morning. Everything looks good. 👍
Requesting removal of Blastcore Tracers A3 - FoxFort Edit.
Under suspicion of interfering with observable accuracy of tracers.
Removal Request
Diwako's ACE Ragdolling - Doesn't seem to be working anymore. Although the idea is interesting, genuinely affecting gameplay, it is now without function and therefor shouldn't be maintained in our repository.
Radio Animations for TFAR - Does anyone even use this at all? Does it have any impact on gameplay, other than cosmetic? Haven't bothered with it. Don't think we should maintain addons that don't see use.
Mod name: Zombies and Demons
Size: 27.556 MB
Description: Includes custom zombie units with custom animations that can easily be placed in the editor.
Link: https://steamcommunity.com/sha…filedetails/?id=501966277
The next mission I am making is on Halloween, as such I want to make it pretty spooky so I am requesting a Temporary addition of this mod, it will allow me to create a pretty unique and hopefully fun mission to celebrate the holiday.
Temporary addition
This is somewhat against regulations. It's also extremely short term, since council won't sit down for another mod ceck in time.
As far as I'm concerned we can still do this, as long as the addon is thoroughly tested on dedicated server. Steam comments aren't all that promising, with boat loads of bug and error reports. Nonetheless we could have falseprophet add this to beta repository so you can do your thing.
Mod name: Zombies and Demons
Im all for this
Interiors for CUP
File size: 1MB
Description: Updates Arma 2 buildings on CUP maps with Livonia versions. These buildings have actual interiors. Game changer for all maps with A2 buildings. DLC ownership not required.
http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=35550
Testing progress: Preliminary testing by Oksman. Please add to beta repo for forther dedicated server testing falseprophet
Mod Name: Dismount Where You Look
Size: <1MB
Description: The Dismount mod allows the player to exit the vehicle at the point closest to where they are looking and in the same compartment.
Link: Steam Workshop
Yes I use the animation mod it’s great
Light mortar options for 1-1
Mod Name: vz99 60 mm Mortar Size: 0.491mb Description: A quickly deployable "commando" mortar. Carried by a single soldier in launcher slot. Read range directly in meters with a bubble level. Uses ACE Interaction to deploy and select ammo (HE, Smoke, Flare) and charge (includes fuse options for airburst round).
Dependencies: ACE
Test Notes: confirmed functional editor with GWframework
Links: https://steamcommunity.com/sha…iledetails/?id=1413018159
More rifles? They're not adding functionality are they? Same with the mortar.
More rifles? They're not adding functionality are they? Same with the mortar
More interested in the mortars, which are one piece single slot, more like a launcher, that could be carried by the grenadier so kinda adds functionality to the fireteam. Will reveal anything of note once tested.
Fair enough. Just make sure they work without the artillery computer.
If we’re going to use mortars as an attached team, it’s a good add.
Updated suggestion tested in editor with GW Framework, please let me know if I'm ok to test this on the server. thanks
hello,
Really enjoyed the mission and as a "medic" was kept very, very busy. Although my own death rate was terrible..in reflection some of this was recovering the wounded which feels kinda good.
Good team spirit mixed with an amazing mission left me actually twitching after the event..so thanks mission maker...you excelled.
We were well led by chroma as is the norm...and I do maybe think Osman should choose to be either more front line or more strategy.
Many thanks all..yo all rock and I greatly enjoyed your company...as is the norm.
Unionjak
It's highly unlikely that this addon will be accepted by council. Granted, it's small, but considering we already have the capability of carrying mortars on a single person it's unfortunately quite redundant.
We can further our indirect fire capabilities by modernising the Dragon role in our framework. No additional mods required.
It's highly unlikely that this addon will be accepted by council. Granted, it's small, but considering we already have the capability of carrying mortars on a single person it's unfortunately quite redundant.
We can further our indirect fire capabilities by modernising the Dragon role in our framework. No additional mods required.
The current Dragon Mk6 Mortar needs two people to operate it, where as the vz99 only needs one person to operate it, making it much quicker to deploy, target and fire the weapon. Its also lighter and only takes up a weapon slot, whats not to like?
The current Dragon Mk6 Mortar needs two people to operate it,
This is not strictly true, 1 person can do it, just a bit more challenging
I think the vz99 is better than the Mk6 in pretty much all aspects.
Its meant as an infantry weapon
its quicker to deploy, target and fire meaning it can be used by a fireteam member rather than deploying a separate team keeping boots in the action
It doesn't require map tools or range card additional items
it has a short range of 250m
you don't just stick it in your anus like the Mk6 it actually fits in a slot (immersion)
its adds functionality over the Mk6 with all the same options but with an airburst fuse option
its a tiny mod 0.5mb
I kindly request that this mod is approved for conceptual testing before a final judgement is made
Thank you
Spc Parker
It doesn't require map tools or range card additional items
That's quite a significant point.
I kindly request that this mod is approved for conceptual testing before a final judgement is made
That can be arranged in any case. You doing your own personal testing is also always welcome, since it saves work for the group as a whole.
Not instantly shooting this down. However, please manage your expectations.
In light of recent events, and due to them not seeing any use whatsoever, I'd like to see the following addons removed:
-EA-18G Growler
-F-14 Tomcat
-F-15 Eagle
-Su-25SM3
Additionally, a revision of PARKER 's light mortar suggestion is urgently needed, as ground based fire support becomes more important in the near future.
And what are you suggesting replaces them?
Eagle and Growler are very situational but the Su-25 is your only soviet block attack jet worth flying
And what are you suggesting replaces them?
Personally, I think that something that isn't being used doesn't warrant a replacement. But I'll leave that to Council to decide.
Su-25 is your only soviet block attack jet worth flying
Don't believe anybody ever put that thing into a mission. Correct me if I'm wrong but from where I'm looking it seems like dead weight.
Like all the aks that you have in cup? You know what remove all the aircraft screw the aac why not
Like all the aks that you have in cup? You know what remove all the aircraft screw the aac why not
This argument is invalid.
CUP AKs are used not only for player faction kits, but also for enemy gear scripts. The reason why they're used for enemy AI kits is their lower texture quality, leading to a reduced performance impact.
CUP AKs, even though they are admittedly redundant, do have their place in our modpack.
The air frame addons I suggested for removal are not at all being used. Neither by players, nor by enemy AI. There is no benefit.
My intent is not to screw an AAC consisting of one (1) active member. My intent is to have a modpack that consists of addons that are actually useful. Ultimately, this is for Council to decide. If that decision is that our one man AAC needs these air frames, so be it. Not my call.
To the removal request, which I'd ask Council to review, I'd like to add an additional suggestion.
Please bring back CUP vehicles.
https://steamcommunity.com/sha…filedetails/?id=541888371
Limited file size of 1.8GB.
Great Variety.
Was in use with the group for years.
May not be pretty, but always work (in stark contrast to RHS vehicles).
I'd be ok with the council removing the 15 Eagle and EA-18G-Growler, although the 14 and 16 are still very versatile aircraft when used by BLUFOR.
Mod Name: Virolahti - Valtatie 7
Size: 560MB
Description: "This is a fictionalized version of the municipality of Virolahti; which is the southeastern-most municipality of Finland and thus right on the border with Russia. This project was started by Tonto [the creator of VT5] and I to make a larger Valtatie 5, a 'spiritual successor' of sorts, for Tonto's VT5. You will find lots of forests, farmlands as well as plenty of villages dotting the terrain. At the moment there is not as much micro-terrain as in VT5, but I might improve upon this in future updates."
Link: Steam Workshop
Mod to remove: VT5
I've tested the map (it needs cup & contact DLC) and it works fine. Compared to VT5 it offers more "Life". You get a quite a big city aswell as a couple settlements and villages accross the map, giving us more possibilites to create objectives. There is also a Airfield which can be used as a base of operation. Its good mixture of forests and villiages. You still got those large forest areas like in VT5 but with the addition of villages in the south. Therfore a better and larger variety of missions can be played instead of just fighting along the "long road / fullstation area".
Tested the zv-99 on the server and found the following;
Any other testing you can think of that needs completing please let me know.
Spc Parker
Effective range is 100 - 480m
Not sure I get the whole idea of ranging. 480m seems like very limited range for a mortar to me.
The sight displays two columns, one on the left with the value you gave in meters in your post, and one on the right going up to a value of 1230. What exactly is that about?
Is the right column elevation in mils? Or is it the one for charge 1 rounds, going to 1230m?
If it isn't, and it's displaying elevation in mils, how do you know when to use a charge 0 or a charge 1?
Apart from the ranging stuff, I'd be interested whether you did any testing on the effectiveness of the VZ99 and its different kinds of rounds.
Please don't remove VT5 until you play my mission. That would be 10 hours wasted on nothing
Mod Name: INIDBI2
Size: 56KB
Description:
Allows for simple databases to be setup on the server which can be then be read from and written to during mission run time, requires no additional setup just needs the mod in the server directory and then the mod added to the servermods command line. The databases are stored in plain text using a .ini file, easy to use and has some good documentation, doesn't require any knowledge of SQL unlike some of the other database mods for Arma. Clients do not need to have the mod in order for it to work, it just needs to be on the server. I'm planning to use this for a persistent campaign, it can be used to track which objectives have been completed as well as what equipment people are carrying so that when the campaign resumes it will carry on from the last time it was played.
Link: Armaholic page
Please don't remove VT5 until you play my mission. That would be 10 hours wasted on nothing
We wont
Joe Malley INIDBI2 needs to be tested. I will upload the mod in the next few days. Contact me so we can give it a test run.
http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=35796
Name: Chernarus CUP Terrains 2020
Size: 261 Mb Description:
This is most likely going to adjust future maps with new textures and foliage. Looking forward to see where it goes
Quote
The Community Update Project is here to bring the first release of our latest initiative Maps 2.0! Maps 2.0 is the next step to bring our beloved A2 era terrains up to Arma 3 terrain standards, it's goal is: Increase terrain heightmap resolution where appropriate. Conversion to Arma 3 buildings when suitable replacements exist. Adding new interiors to older buildings. Adding new terrain features and locations. Maintain reliance on the existing Terrains: Core pack. Other creative additions that we haven't thought of yet. Content As of this initial release the only terrain available is Chernarus 2020, however it is possible in future other terrains will be added to this pack when they reach appropriate milestones. In this initial release of Chernarus 2020, almost all vegetation from Summer Chernarus has been replaced with foliage from Arma 3. All buildings that were brought in with the Contact platform update, have replaced their older A2 counterparts, and the heightmap has been converted to a higher resolution in preparation for future updates. The satellite map and ground textures have had colour tweaks to make them a bit less fluorescent and generally more summery, the lighting that came with Livonia has been plugged in to give the map a more European feel and finally the ground clutter has been replaced with models that came from the Contact platform update. This is just the initial release of Chernarus 2020, something for everyone to get their hands on and be able to play with. It is by no means the finished state of the map, we have a number of plans for things we want to add and change to the map in the future.
Please check if there's a fix for the glitchy Mission Enhanced Little Birds ("MELB").
If there isn't, please consider removing the addon.
Please also reconsider CUP vehicles & CUP Terrains Upgrade 2020 once more
Please check if there's a fix for the glitchy Mission Enhanced Little Birds ("MELB").
There is no fix or updated version, at least the mod itself runs on the newest version from may 2018. Maybe someone else has made a fix for it. As far as i know, they implemented this into RHS or at least were about to do so.
If there isn't, please consider removing the addon.
Do we need it?
I mean it really breaks immersion in a massiv way for everyone on ground. Even when beeing passanger it looks like a rollercoaster ride..
This can be removed. MELB helicopters are already a part of RHS USAF, try using those and see if they bug out the same!
Guess which one is RHS
Cup buildings, CUP Terrains Upgrade 2020 and Cup vehicles are addons that require a thread, discussion and Poll for each, as directed by last council.
If you Gentlemen would like to start those threads and state your cases, and tag in the relevant members (Guzz for sure) then we can get the ball rollin’.
Cup buildings, CUP Terrains Upgrade 2020 and Cup vehicles are addons that require a thread, discussion and Poll for each, as directed by last council.
If you Gentlemen would like to start those threads and state your cases, and tag in the relevant members (Guzz for sure) then we can get the ball rollin’.
In the case of the CUP Upgrade (Contact DLC buildings for Chernarus maps) and the CUP Vehicles, the formal procedure has already been fulfilled. In some cases, months ago. It's all in this thread.
Multiple personal messages have been sent to more than one member of council to please remember these suggestions.
Please scroll up.
Ok. Remember I wasn’t 1iC when this was happening, and this is not my field.
Without having to read through a bunch of typically rambling and mental masturbatory GOL posts 😆 If it’s already been decided and requested by a majority, then who needs to action it?
Ok. Remember I wasn’t 1iC when this was happening, and this is not my field.
Without having to read through a bunch of typically rambling and mental masturbatory GOL posts 😆 If it’s already been decided and requested by a majority, then who needs to action it?
The addon suggestion process is centralised on this single thread.
The formal process is described in the first post of this thread.
Simply put. A member makes a suggestion. The addon then goes into a technical testing process, to be conducted by either the suggesting member himself, or tech guys in council.
Once technical testing is completed, council members hold a majority vote over the introduction of the addon.
Keep in mind that I wasn't on the last two (or three?) council meetings, so I can't say what has been discussed in detail. Here's how I interpret available summaries on what happened here:
-Contact buildings for Chernarus
Denied without explanation 02/02/2020. Due to its small file size and great benefit, I do not understand this decision.
-CUP map upgrade
No information available. Possibly overlooked?
-Reintroduction of CUP vehicles
Decision delayed as of 02/02/2020.
-INIDBI2
No information available. Possibly overlooked?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I am better informed but none the wiser.
GuzzenVonLidl Can you shed some light on what the opposition to adding these were?
If not, can we action them....
All of these should have been added to the council summary but here we go
-Contact buildings for Chernarus
Denied because it applies to very limited buildings, There are more buildings that are in CUP and Contact DLC that are similar, some have not yet been implemented and then there are exceptions, example buildings that cup has added interior.
This was denied for the time being, hoping for the Chernerus 2020 instead as it would also add some additional terrain tweaks
-CUP map upgrade
To be tested, unclear by who
-Reintroduction of CUP vehicles
Delayed as it requires a more discussion about how to handle it.
Do we just add CUP Vehicles as is or do we replace RHS with it. If replaced it will require work from editors to make sure old missions can be replayed
I believe there is a poll coming after next discussion
-INIDBI2
Unclear what the motive is for using this mod. Its a mod for storing data, using it would require first some one to create something specifically for it, depending on the scale of things, there are other ways of doing it without mods. It was approved for testing to see how it handles on the server, as its not a normal dedi we are using and this is not a normal mod, there was concern it could cause instability because of the read/write it would have to do
Thanks GuzzenVonLidl ,excellent information!
Do we just add CUP Vehicles as is or do we replace RHS with it.
In case council decide that reintroduction of CUP vehicles is only possible if RHS is removed, I'd like to withdraw my suggestion. I can't be arsed losing all my missions again. Especially not at a time when the group is desperate for missions. This was expressedly not part of my suggestion.
Instead what I suggested was to remove a great number of unused air frames to make room for CUP vehicles.
F-15, F-14, EA-18G Growler, MELB Littlebirds, A-10 Warthog, SU-25SM3 and VT5 are all together 1.23 Gbs, I asked Blu before which one he'd like to keep if any that would be the F-16 & F/A-18. 1.23 GB leaving those in, however if they are removed as well that means 2.03 GB, F-16 & F/A-18 is 400Mb each. Removing all of this, leaves room for CUP Vehicles however I do feel we should keep at least one capable Fixed wing that AAC likes.
Could be plus, minus, zero if you decide to, and plus the performance impact on the field with CUP vehicles rather than RHS for the enemy will surely be good for missions not to mention the balancing aspect! =)
Apologies for not taking those notes for council summary. I may have to start recording them as I will undoubtedly miss the technical subtlety of what I’m being told.
Also feel free to attend the meetings if you have a suggestion for addition or removal.
Airframes are 2 GB while CUP Vehicles is around 5 GB so there is still a gap
CUP Vehicles is only 5 GB without the pre-requisite mods such as CUP_Weapons, CUP_Units & CBA_A3 which we already have, so it's only 1.8 GB.
CUP Vehicles is only 5 GB without the pre-requisite mods such as CUP_Weapons, CUP_Units & CBA_A3 which we already have, so it's only 1.8 GB.
What no, all together its 12.8 GB
You are looking at steam workshop which is only showing the download size which is compressed, not the unpacked
The discussion on file size, while relevant, is not as important to me as closing gaps in our mission making capabilities.
Even if we come out with ~3GB+,from my perspective it would be well worth it. We would get more varied missions with better balance out of it.
I’m of this general opinion also. Get what we need then take away what we no longer need when we no longer need it. I don’t think the odd GB here and there is really a deal breaker. So many games top 100GB+ these days, I personally don’t think it’s much of a stretch for a small group who dedicates themselves as much as ours do.
Get it in, get it done, prune afterwards and move on. Let’s make it as good as we can in the time we have left.
maybe we should start a proper discussion about mod size to define an acceptable maxium filesize. I suggest starting a new post for it, because otherwise the mod suggestions get lost...
How about...Add everything we need to satisfy mission makers now, re cup and rhs, and that will become the max file size....
After that something of similar size has to be removed to make room. Then have the debate.
maybe we should start a proper discussion about mod size to define an acceptable maxium filesize. I suggest starting a new post for it, because otherwise the mod suggestions get lost...
As I keep saying. Polls, discussions, requests for input and feedback. We never get results from any of this.
Council is a small group that represents the group quite well, and that can make decisions on their own terms.
Personally, I'd like to see quick, simple decisions made by council instead of endless forums threads.
All of this here for instance is off topic and requires an admin to put lots of time in for cleanup.
Dear council, please make quick and simple calls on this stuff.
i know ill get destroyed for saying this but id rather lose the mods and gain the frames than play with lots of choice at 15fps
i know ill get destroyed for saying this but id rather lose the mods and gain the frames than play with lots of choice at 15fps
That's th thing about CUP vehicles. They're lower texture quality than RHS. My big mission from Sunday for instance could have benefited from having them.
And yet when quick and decisive calls are made in council....
....we have requests for rethinks and resubmission.
Something has to give.
I’m of this general opinion also. Get what we need then take away what we no longer need when we no longer need it. I don’t think the odd GB here and there is really a deal breaker. So many games top 100GB+ these days, I personally don’t think it’s much of a stretch for a small group who dedicates themselves as much as ours do.
Get it in, get it done, prune afterwards and move on. Let’s make it as good as we can in the time we have left.
The difference between a game on 100+GB and modding a game to 100+GB is that all this modding have a big impact on performance. Right now you have slightly less GB mods than the game is by itself. It's slow to start and I feel a BIG impact with them. It half's my performance and I don't like that.
How about...Add everything we need to satisfy mission makers now, re cup and rhs, and that will become the max file size....
After that something of similar size has to be removed to make room. Then have the debate.
Then you will have more GB mods than the game is. That will be a bigger impact on performance than you have now.
The discussion on file size, while relevant, is not as important to me as closing gaps in our mission making capabilities.
Even if we come out with ~3GB+,from my perspective it would be well worth it. We would get more varied missions with better balance out of it.
Yeah. you might have more varied missions, The balance i don't know maybe maybe not. But the ~3GB+ is a deal breaker for some players. For me the file size limit was reached ~20GB ago.
i know ill get destroyed for saying this but id rather lose the mods and gain the frames than play with lots of choice at 15fps
I feel the same.
I'm not playing with you much. and there's a reason. It's all thous mods. The impact it does on my gameplay. All mods you have takes away a minimum of 30% performance for me and that's when we spawn. When fun shit is suppose to happen (aka we kill shit) the hit is closer if not exceeding 50% performance. And fore some reason you have always satisfied for that performance hit on everyone by the past years. As soon as we all got upgrades to our computer or totaly new ones you decided to add more mods. OR change mod to a mod with a bigger hit.
I honestly believe you are loosing players because of all this hunting for more and more mods. And because Arma is Arma and tha engine is what it is, it can't handle all these mods.
As I wrote. I don't play with you much, I just wanted to give my opinion so there you have it. Do what ever you feel with it. Just think about it. I left because of the mods and the performance. Maybe others did too. Maybe not But I believe some others did.
requests for rethinks and resubmission
No such thing going on here.
I defer to Council's decision on Contact buildings for Chernarus. I just wanted some information as to why it was denied. Got that. Moving on.
CUP vehicles were removed years ago in a very different group, so defining that request as a resubmission is questionable.
Then you will have more GB mods than the game is. That will be a bigger impact on performance than you have now.
There's a few holes in that way of arguing.
Again, CUP vehicles: yes, we may add a handful of gigabyte to the overall filesize of our modpack. No, that's decidedly not going to impact your performance for the worse. The opposite is true. Enemy forces can finally be equipped with low texture quality vehicles, undoubtedly improving your individual performance.
For many missions, you may not even be required to run RHS anymore at all. Again improving your individual performance, while the overall filesize of the pack is slightly increased.
An increase in modpack size does not necessarily equal a decrease in performance.
There's a few holes in that way of arguing.
Again, CUP vehicles: yes, we may add a handful of gigabyte to the overall filesize of our modpack. No, that's decidedly not going to impact your performance for the worse. The opposite is true. Enemy forces can finally be equipped with low texture quality vehicles, undoubtedly improving your individual performance.
For many missions, you may not even be required to run RHS anymore at all. Again improving your individual performance, while the overall filesize of the pack is slightly increased.
An increase in modpack size does not necessarily equal a decrease in performance.
uhmm. If i need to load in more mods just because you will add one more and not remove the other. that will have an impact. If you remove one and replace it it's an other story. For the RHS I don't need to run where do I get that info? Every time I ask what mods someone says "just load them all in so you don't miss any. " How am I supposed to know what to load in and not? But that's not the point in my text. The point is that you have to much mods already IMO. And you might have lost more than me because of the mods.
I'm not here to argue with you. Just wanted to give my opinion.
If i need to load in more mods just because you will add one more and not remove the other. that will have an impact.
Granted. May have an impact on your loading times. Your FPS in a mission though, different story. Once again: RHS vehicles have 3D interiours and generally a higher texture quality. We would use few of them, only for us. Enemies get the lower quality CUP ones with lower textures. We're hoping this will not only improve functionality of AI operated vehicles, but also individual player FPS in missions.
For the RHS I don't need to run where do I get that info?
We urge our mission makers to announce mod dependencies in their OPORDs. As you can see I have done at the bottom of my last OPORD:
gol-clan.org/calendar/index.php?event/4320/
Again, granted, this isn't being done enough. But this is not a matter of the size of our modpack, but of the professionalism of our mission makers.
Every time I ask what mods someone says "just load them all in so you don't miss any. "
Well. No wonder then your loading times are much worse than they could be.
The person to ask is the mission maker.
Maybe we just stop the Addons Suggestions thread. Seems like we have too many as it is.
How many GB mods do you run for your Neko nights?
How many GB mods do you run for your Neko nights?
160MB
when Nemac makes mission we use more mods. about 35GB. And it have an impact but not as noticeable on missions made for about 10 players. But that's not the regular amount of mods. And it last for 4-5 missions and then we go back to our 160MB for a few mounth.
The thing that I don't quite understand is that on NeKo-ArroW 's missions I used to get worse frames than on the fully modded GOL server.
I'm not a tech guy, so I'm very fuzzy on the details that people give me. The thing is, after all these years, to me the subject of performance impact of mods is still largely unproven.
Our mods situation is an awkward one at that, I do believe that the mods are quite large all together (as the recruits have said to me when joining), however due to the fact that we have many missions which are repeatable which rely on these mods makes the situation even more complex. I've grabbed a shot of all the mods I have downloaded so far and the individual sizes, take this as you will as this is an approximation and I haven't deleted some of the removed mods yet. The big mods that we own is RHS and CUP, both of these we rely on to create missions, with the data I got we're around 44.5GB for the entire modpack (again this is what I have downloaded) with another 40GB including the base game, taking us up to a staggering ~85GB. Now as Pilgrim said that games these days are getting larger and larger, however this is a game that wasn't released "recently" and was released 7 years ago, so yes it's going to have a lower base game size, however when we throw in an extra ~40GB that is quite something. I've noticed that i'm rambling at this point so I'll try to get back on track. My opinion is that we do need to do a rethink on what we're keeping and leaving (even though I think we already did that, correct me if i'm wrong) but we need to do so carefully and minimise the amount of missions we're throwing away for this (if we would at all).
Ok I've said my part 
I believe should look into comparing CUP vs RHS, the gap is now smaller than it was way back when we started out with RHS. The CUP Rifles actually have good quality nowadays, not sure about the vehicles but when it comes to performance, I believe RHS is garbage. Then again phasing out RHS is basically us making all new missions without it and then slowly play all available missions and start anew. Depending on AACs side of CUP vehicles, I actually believe CUP can be a better choice, I don't think ShacTac uses RHS, and their shit looks pretty quality! Just my thoughts on this, I've noticed the heavily fucked up nature of RHS lately, and I love RHS rifles and uniforms, but like ThecMaster says, FPS is pretty important!
So at the risk once more of being naive, why don’t we set a date on when to phase out RHS, and insist all future missions be made using Cup only?
So at the risk once more of being naive, why don’t we set a date on when to phase out RHS, and insist all future missions be made using Cup only?
That's one way of going about it, if there is a clear decision against RHS.
All our current missions are built with RHS vehicles, weapons, clothing and kit. Changing this for each individual mission is a workload that's simply not manageable. So we will lose our current set of missions at the point in time we drop RHS.
A transitional period where both mods are available would make it possible to play old RHS missions, while having the ability to create CUP missions at the same time.
But.
Many mission makers aren't necessarily aware what mod that set of sunglasses, that rifle, that magazine, that vehicle they want belongs to.
It is impossible to do this right and without problems.
Still, I'd be in favour of a transitional period because we won't lose all of our missions right away.
You could argue against the transitional period because it will have to be rather long, considering how few mission makers are currently active.
If we're talking editing, it's simply just removing the mod when editing missions, only using CUP instead of RHS. Basically just unchecking RHS. I'd also say a long span to phase out RHS is the better choice, gives a few months to create new missions on, then once we feel ready we transition. However nothing should be done until the quality of CUP can be investigated, by AAC and by Ground! About changing mission to update them to CUP is out of the question I think for most, way too much effort unless the mission is some sort of serious classic, which I don't believe exists :o
Soooo.
4th July as an arbitrary yet prominent date? Maybe an Independence Day special using Contact assets. 😉
Time to assess Cup by say June 1st. Time to build up missions bank.
Thoughts?
Take a day to talk to all the editors and what they think, I can fix the framework if anything needs changing, other than that, sure sounds good. We'll gain I believe 7-9 Gb of space with this. It's up to you guys, I can do whatever, I do prefer CUP vehicles , RHS well.. they're cool and all but it's boring to either have to choose between BTR-60 or Technical as light motorized threats for OPFOR 
Edit: Looked at a few of them, we'll miss some interiors but they still do provide some for lighter APCs. My favorite is back with rear seats AAV. Also there's a "Kangaroo" vehicle too? Not sure what it's called but British with seats in the back to overlook, pretty low level APC. In terms of variety, it's a huge difference, these all have skins to match different factions and the amount of NotOP APCs and vehicles is great. If AAC likes this, then it's surely a good move. Got vehicles for all types of factions now instead of just US / Russian. Not sure about functionality with AI yet but I'm sure it's better than RHS. We also get ships for ship battles & landingcraft with vehicles loaded etc.
Soooo.
4th July as an arbitrary yet prominent date? Maybe an Independence Day special using Contact assets. 😉
Time to assess Cup by say June 1st. Time to build up missions bank.
Thoughts?
Ok.
Is there another council session scheduled for the near future?
First Saturday in March I guess. I’ll put an event up.
Please submit any addon topics you would like to discuss in the upcoming Council Meeting
In light of recent events, and due to them not seeing any use whatsoever, I'd like to see the following addons removed:
-EA-18G Growler
-F-14 Tomcat
-F-15 Eagle
-Su-25SM3
[...]
[...]
To the removal request, which I'd ask Council to review, I'd like to add an additional suggestion.
Please bring back CUP vehicles.
https://steamcommunity.com/sha…filedetails/?id=541888371
Limited file size of 1.8GB.
Great Variety.
Was in use with the group for years.
May not be pretty, but always work (in stark contrast to RHS vehicles).
Please check if there's a fix for the glitchy Mission Enhanced Little Birds ("MELB").
If there isn't, please consider removing the addon.
So at the risk once more of being naive, why don’t we set a date on when to phase out RHS, and insist all future missions be made using Cup only?
Please check if there's a fix for the glitchy Mission Enhanced Little Birds ("MELB").
If there isn't, please consider removing the addon.
Going through things, during AAC Training last night the MH-6M was working without jerking around. Although this may be the case that the MELB birds have been integrated into RHS and are much more updated (2 years more updated I think?). So removing the MELB from the pack is acceptable as long as RHS is KEPT as this has the most updated MELB birds.
I think the idea is to phase out RHS so we had better keep the melb for now.
MELB is broken, can't be used. RHS is the only MELB alternative until a suitable replacement is found for the Littlebird helicopters, unless AAC can try out the CUP Littlebirds and see if that is better
My add-on testing request has been identified.😉
Removing RHS will hurt all of us in some way. Not just by losing the MELBs.
Keeping a broken MELB isn't a viable alternative.
Ground will lose loads and loads of vehicles with interiours, a great variety of realistic uniforms, weapons, etc.
We really do require the CUP vehicles, we've gone far too long without them, and suffer the consequences almost every mission we play.
It's a rock and a hard place.
Keep in mind also we'll lose countless missions.
Personally I'd still be interested in having both RHS and CUP. However, there's considerable resistance to adding even a few GB to our modset, so it looks like a difficult decision needs to be made.
It's 5 GBs according to actual size not 1.8 Gb as I first thought from Steam. RHS is split into two parts though, one could remove the Russian version or all together at once. CUP Weapons are on par with RHS nowadays and are not just simple copy-paste from Arma 2, I believe the vehicles are such as well. We'll lose interiors for mechanized vehicles for some Russian vehicles, the Stryker etc, however since I'm in favor of this group being an air assault group, it wouldn't hurt too bad to have the less frequent mechanized missions without special Russian vehicles, as the best options have always been Vanilla stuff.
I feel the group is focusing a little too hard on playing Mechanized & MHQ, even with a pilot available. I'm hoping this can change so we can return to focusing on infantry only with support, this is just how I feel though, since I'm an air assault boy.
I'm for having both if possible, but do completely understand not wanting to overdo the mod section, CUP is good, not perfect, but neither is RHS and RHS steals way more performance than CUP. Didn't we say CUP Vehicles to be added & played with, if it works out in our favor then we start slowly phasing out the RHS stuff either OPF / US by the end of Summer or something?
Yes there was a phasing out period negating the problem with losing missions.
Mission makers have plenty of warning.
Stop making missions with RHS.
We may well be increasing our AAC ranks but until then the focus had to change.
A balance between the two disciplines will
naturally occur I think.
I recommend we add Cup vehicles NOW, so there will be a temporary BUMP in add on size UNTIL we start phasing out RHS.
I think that's the best compromise we can hope for Pilgrim
Thanks!
I think you'll lose the ranks once again if the focus it not shifted towards them, you won't retain any AAC members if they are neglected from doing what they enjoy, just don't forget this. I believe Air Assault is the superior gameplay experience for both ends.
Should the group vote for adding CUP for testing for a month or so? Just making the decision right away probably isn't the correct move, a testing period plus another phasing out period is required at minimum. What's your move general?
This is getting quite off topic again, as seems to be the case nowadays in this thread...
Also, not my place, but some of that's highly inaccurate, completely missing the state of affairs.
I think you'll lose the ranks once again if the focus it not shifted towards them, you won't retain any AAC members if they are neglected from doing what they enjoy, just don't forget this
All mission makers are keeping air assault options in their missions.
However, there is no point in building exclusive air assault scenarios in a situation where there's a likelihood that you will not get any pilots for your missions.
Air Assault is the superior gameplay
Years and years of air assault scenarios in varying scales and scopes have revealed that this MO is extremely difficult to balance. Pilots get bored, or they get overchallenged. There seems to be an extremely fine line in between, a line that's often missed even with capable mission makers.
Similarly, our pilots have constantly complained about the state of modded air assets. There seem to be good fixed wing mods, but no viable rotary wing assets for us to acquire. This is essential for air assaults involving infantry, and has been a massive limitation for what we can do, and also a continuous source of frustration (including sudden explosions).
In stark contrast, mechanised scenarios of varying kinds have been very well received (even by pilots in ground roles) and have made significant progress in terms of balance and reliability. All that in spite of missing CUP vehicles.
More air assault - less mechanised. A highly subjective perspective, one that I don't believe is reflected by the member base of this group. Not even its remaining pilots. Especially if you consider that the two MOs have great potential if combined.
Ah I see, that's unfortunate
We tested this in our run me and Blu, it has pretty low textures for the desert area and basically sand and nothing else, no rocks or cover surrounding the "oasis" of villages etc. That area is pretty low quality, but closer where there's mountains and more hills, the terrain is littered with cover, it's a hill fighting hell/dream and could be nice for patrol missions and hill fighting. It's an average looking map but offers "africa" feel and varied terrain. Pretty cheap for 300 Mb, but freeze is in order I imagine so not sure we'll see it used for now. But not up to me, it's cool, not fantastic but yeah unique!
Name: ZombiesAndDemons + Horror Mod
Size: 142.5mb
Description: looking at a temporary addition here for the halloween mission im working on scheduled for 1st November, zombies and demons was used last year and adds some different enemies to fight, horror mod is a collection of props that can be placed in editor to make the mission spooky.
Link: version im using are latest from steam workshop, I've extracted them from the default workshop folder to this google drive
I would be interested in using this for a mission if I had time to make one, posting here mostly to put some amount of attention on the mod. Name: Spectrum Device Functionality - Rebuilt
Size: 0.033 MB
Description: Basically a small script that enables the spectrum device from contact to function. Could be interesting with consideration for special events or just for creating special missions.
The mod/script works as is, but for features like spying on signals the actual Contact platform must be loaded. As is this could give an interesting electronic warfare aspect to missions in the 2035 timeframe.
Link: https://steamcommunity.com/sha…iledetails/?id=2224534021
Spectrum Device Functionality - Rebuilt
I saw that one. Very interesting. Highly specialised though. Would have to run trainings on this stuff before we could even use it. I don't believe anyone's really played the (excellent) Contact campaign.
Shacktac is a client mod only? You don't need it on the server to work. Is it the same with DUI Squad Radar? If it's only client side why not just ad it and let all of us test it. I will start using it right away if it works.
Funny you should mention this, I started using this about a week or so ago. Takes a bit getting used to with some defining UI changes but a lot more customisability with it compared to STUI. Good to pick up.
Shacktac is a client mod only?
Yeah they're both client only mods so you can load them if you so desire or not. Try not to load both of them for clashes.
The point being, we update the standard we have. It is a part of the modset and we'd want everyone on the same radar no doubt. I think it's a good idea, if we know how to manage it with the teams and colors like now.
Agree with Filth
We have an Air assault training planned as we have a new pilot hopefully playing more with us. So it’s still there.
But we’ve explained why there was a shift.
I've talked the remaining pilots, he's indifferent to playing on ground, but is it the goal of his being in this group? No, not really.
This goes for the new recruit as well, they want to fly, and just because they don't complain doesn't mean they are satisfied, I've asked around what people like and there's people who prefer air assault still, and I'm sure we'll do both.
The option for mission makers are open, but whenever we have a pilot available they should be put into flying since that's what they signed up for, recently it's filling in roles on the ground however, I think we should attempt to let AAC fly whenever possible, rather than letting them play on the ground.
Mechanized is hard to balance too, I don't think that's the major issue, I think it's mostly to do with how Leaders use AAC and what weapons they carry that causes that issue.
But regarding mods, I think we should adapt CUP for a month and give them a go, see how they turn out. I hope Blu can test the helicopters together with Grim and see if they're more capable nowadays.
We understand their frustration.
Frustration is not confined to the AAC.
We want to include them more.
We thank them for their patience.
whenever we have a pilot available they should be put into flying
Pilots should fly. No argument there, I don't think from anyone.
However, this view is overly simplistic, again disregarding our situation.
All of what you suggest is only possible with adequate attendance, on both ends, ground & air.
This is currently rarely the case, particularly on Thursdays.
I understand, I still hope we can re-develop the Air assault doctrine and play it more frequently, I feel like Mechanized is a nice touch every now and then, but doesn't have the core gameplay loop as interesting as infantry only is.
I absolutely LOVE Air Assault.
Just so ya know
Honestly I think phasing out RHS completely will be a bad move, it provides so much in the way of infantry equipment and ground vehicles that it will essentially put us behind the curve when compared to other groups. Losing the weapons and equipment will severely limit the amount of gear sets that are available to mission makers and in my opinion result in stagnation when it comes to infantry game play. RHS has become sort of a standard for Arma coop, talking with friends and looking at youtube videos I cant see a single group that doesn't use RHS in some manner, infact I would say that our group is already limited as we only use two out of four of the RHS mods( RHSUSAF and RHSAFRF ).
I think the loss of RHS will be damaging to new recruits as well, one of the main reasons people would want to join GOL over other groups is that we play a wide variety of factions, but without RHS are ability to do this will be limited and we will be stuck playing with low texture models from CUP. People like variety, there are some arma groups I know of that have dozens of different mod presets, totalling over 100GBs in size and are able to comfortably fill 70+ players per operation.
My suggestion is to use both.
I know the mods are big and jadajada blabla etc... but serioussly, both mods offer a lot of good things, but also bring in some broken things. A big variety of items, vehicles and gear offers more to play around with.
Within one year we changed around completly and ditched some items, now again we want those back but ditch other items. It doesnt make any sense, except ditching the BTR.
Right, some arguments for RHS + CUP, now others will come up complaining about pack size, favouring one of the two.
This can go around in circles forever. Thankfully, council votes on this stuff. If all of us would have to make up our minds on this...
Nuff said.
There will be a period when we are using both. The proof will very much be in the eating of the pudding.
i dont give two sh1ts about pack size, quality or variety, what i care about is frames and performance this should always be the priority. My two pence
Took the liberty of listing our options with the respective consequences.
-Use RHS + CUP
-Best out of both worlds
-Best variety
-Best options for mission makers, including balance, performance, quality
-Biggest Modpack
->>All missions remain playable
-Keep pack as is with RHS only
-Lowest variety
-Greatest potential performance impact
-Least options for mission makers
-Same Modpack size
->>All missions remain playable
-Reintroduce CUP, phase out of RHS
-Decent middle ground variety
-Lowest quality for player assets (weapons, clothing, vehicles)
-Best performance potential
-Smallest pack size
->>All Missions lost
So in other words.
More mods give more options but bigger mod pack?
I hope we didn’t pay for this research...
😉❤️
On a serious note, is it fair to say that better mission housekeeping would mitigate against some of the performance issues?
On a serious note, is it fair to say that better mission housekeeping would mitigate against some of the performance issues?
That's been my main point over the past two pages.
No, modpack size doesn't necessarily impact performance.
Quite the opposite is true. Example:
Had I had CUP vehicles for Kolembrody Bridge, our modpack would have been bigger. But I would have been able to use lower quality models for enemy tanks and vehicles. This would have certainly made overall performance better.
The mission could have been completely independent from both RHS packs we use, as friendly forces were only given BI assets.
Even so, with only high quality performance hogging russian RHS vehicles at my disposal, I think I proved that you can indeed make a mission with enemy forces at battalion (!) strength that performs quite decently.
Even if we had no mods at all, it's possible to create a mission that runs like a sack of nuts. If you don't balance, don't manage spawn zones, don't count your units, don't use spawn delays, and put in 500 simulated props, you will get bad FPS and a server that's struggling to keep up. Regardless of what kit or vehicles those enemy units are using.
Summing up: How you build your scenarios is a far more important factor determining the performance in any given mission than the mods used or the size of the modpack.
Would it be at all possible or indeed helpful to make a list of CPU /GPU heavy assets in RHS to avoid using by mission makers? On top of their improved housekeeping?
Would it be at all possible to make a list of CPU /GPU heavy assets in RHS to avoid using by mission makers? On top of their improved housekeeping?
I don't believe it would. If so, that would be a hell of a lot of work and experimentation.
It's something that generally applies, and accumulates.
RHS AK has better quality than CUP AK -> will use more performance.
Give player RHS AK -> limited performance impact
Give all 300 enemies RHS AK -> more significant performance impact
Give player 1 RHS IFV - Limited performance impact
Give enemy mech battalion 10 RHS BMPs - more signifant performance impact
That's essentially how scientific this gets.
Sweet Christ.....
Good housekeeping it is then.
Can confirm that the unpacked CUP Vehicles mod folder has 5.76GB.
Otherwise not much is changed from when we last used this.
Variety is still great, filling lots of gaps.
Textures still look like they're from the late 90s. Did Arma 2 really look this terrible?
Interiours are still missing for most AFVs of all types.
Didn't have time to test AI behaviour yet, which would be a very important point.
https://steamcommunity.com/sha…iledetails/?id=1908099028 For all you zeus I suggest this
Having made and tested this op, I can give a little report on CUP vehicles.
Surprisingly, many gaps in capabilities for OPFOR vehicles have been closed with new additions (e.g. CUP's own variant of the 80A), giving the addon much better balance and even better variety than expected.
We've already seen MTLBs in action, now prepare for the return of the Vodnik!
Quality is still very meh, so personally I wouldn't want to crew these. Usually you don't get 3D interiours, and the whole experience is rather lackluster. Practical though. They work.
In combination with the framework, CUP vehicles show far less anomalies than vanilla and RHS ones.
At least they'll follow their bloody waypoints for a change! And reliably. They are a bit dumb and may get stuck for a couple of minutes, but that may have to do with the map.
Even combined mechanised and motorised infantry squads will indeed act on their waypoints.
This is the real gamechanger. Having functional modded vehicles of varying types opens up an array of options for mission makers to create scenarios we haven't seen for years. The ability to stick them together with their own infantry support will make for more challenging and "realistic" combat.
The models of CUP vehicles are of significantly lower quality and I get the impression that when large numbers of them are placed at the same time, the performance impact is reduced compared to their RHS counter parts. But that will be very difficult to prove.
Happy Filth. Thanks for making this available to us.
Anyone interested in some Africa themed maps?
https://steamcommunity.com/sha…iledetails/?id=1446500688
https://steamcommunity.com/sha…filedetails/?id=694603075
look good i am up for it wy ken then trow out same of the realy old map's that no 1 is making missions on or like VT5 that dus not even hef smof groud
Can we look at the beta version of tfar? It would solve some problems we have right now and add some things for mission makers to experiment with.
beta version of tfar
I thought we were looking at ACRE2, are we no longer?
By the looks of things Tfar have taken some of the aspects from ACRE2 and implemented them
Anyone interested in some Africa themed maps?
https://steamcommunity.com/sha…iledetails/?id=1446500688
https://steamcommunity.com/sha…filedetails/?id=694603075
Angola maps look nice, Southeast Angola is pretty flat but Chongo looks interesting. I like that it has some vegetation unlike Takistan, I am making a mission in Takistan but it would definitely suit Chongo.
Anyone interested in some Africa themed maps?
https://steamcommunity.com/sha…iledetails/?id=1446500688
https://steamcommunity.com/sha…filedetails/?id=694603075
Will take a look at these, i've been hoping to find something more IFV friendly.
Will take a look at these
Cheers man, can't spare the time atm, personally.
This is N'Ziwasogo with Apex objects https://steamcommunity.com/sha…iledetails/?id=2084904847
The maps look good, allowing us to have a larger scope to make missions in is great, I do like the look of N'Ziwasogo. I'd like to ask those interested about TFAR and ACRE, really want to get this sorted as the version of TFAR we use now is over 4 years old. I've read a couple discussions about people updating to TFAR Beta which is more in-line with ACRE today, I'm aware some may be sceptical at the thought of it being beta, and you'd be right in that there are still a handful of bugs in it, but I feel a slight bit in the dust working with this version we're using at the moment. I'm aware that people are interested in using ACRE and that it has been tested, and it is the most up to date. Gonna throw this poll in here to help decide which direction we should go.
slight bit in the dust
As you know personally I'm completely comfortable with that. You'd have to make the case why we need to invest time and energy, why we need to take a risk, changing to a different system now. It's served us well for four years. What's wrong with it now?
What benefits are there to switching to ACRE or the new TFAR, are there issues with our current TFAR version that im not aware of? Im all for switching to a new version provided the effort is worth it.
Edit: Looking at this it looks like quite a list and a bit of a wall of text, cleaned it up a bit. So here's a few benefits/differences I've found between the New TFAR and ACRE and our Current TFAR. The current TFAR doesn't support the new Contact DLC radios that were introduced a while back and I see a few people using them in missions when they don't work. TFAR also includes radio antennas/towers which can be situated around a map to boost radio range, could be used as an additional objective or something for a mission maker to look at. Especially in maps like takistan and mountainous terrain. TFAR now also includes AI hearing so AI do hear us when we speak. ACRE does this as well and is better however. But I can't complain about better quality Also ACRE and TFAR beta now use the same proximity chat which I believe is a bit more refined, however I think ACRE chat is easier to understand apparently. Intercoms are introduced in TFAR so direct communication between crew members (Driver, Gunner, Commander or Pilot, Co-Pilot) is a lot easier than shouting over the engine. This however is better in ACRE as they've been refining it for longer. For those who like ACE interaction, both now use it. ACRE using it primarily whereas TFAR as an optional extra. Of course ACRE's radios sound more realistic and I believe that guzzen has accounted for ACRE use in the framework already, so really a plug and play in that regard. As for the version that we're using it's quite limited in what we can do on the backend of the addon, not everyone would see an effect from this however for those interested in scripting/mission making and customising the radios are a lot more friendly. To regard the fact that TFAR is in "beta" I've found 1 minor bug that doesn't really affect us largely. If you're curious, 1 option in the ACE interaction doesn't work and it's to turn on the speakers, however speakers on SW and LR backpacks don't seem to work even in the current version. Also after looking around I'm finding that people are picking up these versions more. Addressing the matter of time and effort, after looking there isn't much to do, the framework is quite flexible and it seems it covers pretty much any of the changes with only a couple of lines to be updated. If there's anything else that people are concerned about then please do ask, I'm aware that some may see this as unnecessary and a waste of time, however I see the change improving gameplay in a few different ways as I mentioned above.
So from what you're saying it sounds like ACRE is preferable in many ways if we do consider it necessary to make a change, as work has already been done on it.
And forgive me if I consider the reasons you give for that necessity quite minor. Sure, would be neat. But again: making a switch means time, effort and quite a bit of risk.
Consider for instance on the subject of time and effort:
the framework is quite flexible and it seems it covers pretty much any of the changes with only a couple of lines to be updated
While that may be true the expertise on the FW is extremely limited. GuzzenVonLidl right now is solely responsible for it and the only person working on it. The current version of our framework will soon be one year old, with many necessary changes pending since many months. Updating a couple of lines can be considered a serious obstacle in light of this.
And this does not take into account the required gear changes for instance for ACRE and the training and learning efforts demanded from the whole group if we make that change.
Frequent updates will give us even more to do. We also run the risk of installing broken updates.
Sure, I can get behind the idea that we should get with the times with regards to comms.
But we should also get with the times in terms of ACE.
Is this really a priority right now?
I leave that to Council to decide.
It's all a bit of a moot point anway since we'd need someone to do the work. The repo update, the FW changes, the training.
https://steamcommunity.com/sha…4892496&searchtext=Trench Trenches from our laughing experience watching random arma 3 twitch streamers. Could be cool for defensive scenarios, ~20 Mb. Will be nice for defensive positions for the enemies as well, more quickly made defenses rather than sandbags and stuff
IIRC, ACRE has no stereo support (i.e. left ear or right ear only) and was limited to one channel per radio.
Have you looked at tfar beta. That has in vehicles intercom. But is predominantly identical to tfar?
We've been testing it so far to try and get it to work, though that is something I know a few commanders would appreciate.
Lythium
The map replicate the tribal areas of Afghanistan, crossed by a large valley that runs over the map. You will find two main cities, aside from the villages or smaller towns, both oriented on north and south of the map with their respective airfields. The map name comes from the main route linking those two provinces in which all the operating of the Spanish armed forces in Afghanistan took place between 2002-2015 to secure the route between Badghis and Bala Murghad.
Steam-Workshop: https://steamcommunity.com/sha…filedetails/?id=909547724
It is simply one of the biggest and most beautiful community made maps fors ArmA. I know it is relativly big since it requieres:
JBad
Building-Mod required for Lythium. Jbad is an addon created by Smokedog and M1lkman for Arma 3 which currently includes many structures and objects upgraded from Arma 2.
Steam-Workshop: https://steamcommunity.com/wor…filedetails/?id=520618345
Why Lythium? The map offers mountains, cities, airfields, bases and a lot for gameplay. I tested it and it works well.
Interactive (U)H-60
An Interactive Helicopter for ArmA. It is an absolute beauty. The flightmodel is realstic and awesome. Every button in the Cockpit is usable. The Navsystem is directly linked to CTab, the helicopter is rearmable and even midair refueling is possible. Probably the best helicopter mod to get.
I've used this helicopter with my other arma group already quit a bit. I can fully recommand that one:
Workshop-Link: https://steamcommunity.com/sha…iledetails/?id=1745501605
Videos: https://forums.bohemia.net/for…0-pave-hawk-rescue-hoist/
I'm testing it out at the moment. The way you interact with switches is a nightmare if you use TrackIR.
Removal Request: PLP Markers
Causes clutter. Eats time.
Don't need this and personally, don't particularly want it.
Have to say, without being able to edit the list, its useless. So agreed.
If we could edit it then it COULD be quite useful. Especially for briefings. Without that. Yukk!
PLP markers is an addon that I have found pretty useful for a variety of reasons, firstly the marker's in the addon can be accessed without taking up space inside the mission file which means mission makers can use them for more than just map markers, they can be referenced on billboards or any other arma object with a texture field allowing mission makers to add a personal flare to objects in the game without bloating the mission file.
Here is a bio hazard sign as an example
These images can also be used in gui's for example I have used them as an icon for custom ace interaction's i've built.
If there is a way we can remove them from the drop down in-game im all for it. But I would like to keep the addon because being able to make custom signs and gui's look nice without filling my mission file with poorly compressed .paa images is a nice bonus.
As a potential solution we could remove the .pac's from the addon pbo and move them into the GW mod, however this may cause some issues with the mod creator as it is essentially stealing their work and putting it into our own addon.
If removal is the chosen course of action, make sure you dont do it before the 19th of July because the first mission in our upcoming campaign has a dependency on this mod.
I see where you're coming from. Markers in vanilla Arma are very limited.
But something that's causing us problems and effort sort of goes against what we're trying to achieve, doesn't it?
Then again, I'm confused about what we're trying to achieve. Heard a lot of talk of simplification and freezing. Now it looks like more bloat, or maybe more cleanup, potentially more adaptation.
I mean I'm fine either way. Fresh SSD installed, RAM upgraded. I'd just appreciate some made up minds. And a marker library that isn't bloated to shit.
If we can look into separating the markers from “editor” and “in game”, great.
More generally, the temperature has dropped to, if not freezing, then certainly a point at which fresh fruit and vegetable will last for a prolonged period without going off.
Unless you leave the fridge door open. At which point the metaphor crumbles.
Unless you leave the fridge door open. At which point the metaphor crumbles.
From where I'm looking, the door is open.
It’s closed. You’re just feeling the warmth from the back of the fridge.
Has Enhanced Movement ever been looked at?
Has Enhanced Movement ever been looked at?
Yea we had it for some time. Unfortunately, people abused the shit out of it.
I think it used to be in the modset a couple of years ago. No idea when or why it was removed.
Let's get this started again.
English
