• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

135 Excellent


About Uro

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
  • Youtube
  • Twitch.Tv

Recent Profile Visitors

245 profile views
  1. Disable BattleEye in the launcher, it will be blocking the dll.
  2. Bumping to due to no official response and licenced data packs still being unavailable.
  3. Heya, the links on the licensed data packages page has a bunch of broken download links https://www.bistudio.com/community/licenses/licensed-data-packages
  4. @rksl-rock was working on the QE Class Carrier some time ago. There is a gallery of their models of the HMS Queen Elizabeth on their website - http://www.rkslstudios.info/index.php?/gallery/album/39-hms-queen-elizabeth-cvf/ I don't know if it is still on ongoing project though, you could send him a PM to inquire further.
  5. I never said the language used in some instances on this forum is superior, I said some of the comments I had witnessed on the Steam forums were pretty vile. So please do not misconstrue my comments for your own devices. Anyways irrespective of language used, I am pretty sure the OP and others within this thread would want this thread kept on topic for reasons of clarity to others.
  6. I've been following the revelations regarding the current situation with some intrigue - mostly garnered from various postings on reddit, the arma 3 discord and some of the linked steam workshop/forum pages regarding this. I must say some of the comments on the Steam Workshop are pretty vile, those people should really go and take a good long hard look at themselves. Anyways, following the claims of using BHI Studios content without permission I thought I'd compare the two, so I downloaded SW Opposition and compared it to the previously released BHI Imperial Assault mod and here are the results: I'm pretty sure you can come to the same conclusion I did, that they are most definately using content from BHI Studios Imperial Assault mod. Also note the weapon reticles near the end, they have simply rotated the texture 180 degrees' and are trying to claim it is their own content. If this is what they deem as creating their own content, god help us all.
  7. I've pm'd @TeTeT a link that contains the relevant ILS stuff for setting them up on a terrain, the principles should be the same so here's hoping it's of use :)
  8. There is some truth in that analogy,. however the people who witness that person get pulled end up more aware and less blind to their own actions. Seem's BI mass hit on these offending items has brought some people their eyesight back and maybe, just maybe, it will proliferate down the ranks and make more end users aware of what is (and isn't) uploaded to the workshop by the genuine author(s), as well as what is and isn't ripped/stolen content and what they can expect to happen to those workshop submissions in the future that do contain any offending content. It may have irked a lot of people,. but the workshop and the people who frequently upload offending content have needed a kick in the ass for a long time and I say may it long continue.
  9. I dont think it is closed by a long shot. This issue will continue to be prevalent to Arma and modifying Arma until a decision or method is divulged by BI on the future of modding and monetisation in regards to content creators. Currently it stands as this: Server operators can monetise anything they want provided they have permission(or not) from mod authors and are on BI's "monetised servers list". Content authors only have one option: to release their content freely with no thought towards recompense and have to live with the fact that server operators can profit from their work under the watchful eye of BI. BI have a community of helpful, creative people making endless content for THEIR GAME for FREE and they don't even bat an eyelid when a highly contentious topic arises(this one) about "monetisation" and how out of balance it is in Arma. Modifying Arma at the end of the day sells hundreds of thousands more copies of the game on BI's behalf than would happen with just the base game. The same can be said for thier previous title, Arma 2. Sure it had a large milsim following, but without the well known and highly publicised modification DayZMod, would BI have sold half as many copies of that game in its' later life as it did? So BI wins and so do server operators, content authors lose, every time. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy being creative, but something severely stinks with the current setup and unless something is done to rectify it this community will continue to bleed content authors until there is nothing left due to the way they are unfairly penalised, whether intended or not.
  10. I'm still waiting, ~9 months and counting..
  11. Nice to see you officially announce this Miro :) Your tools have come far since I first caught eyes on it in Skype and for your dedication to it I applaud you! I couldn't agree more, having the terrain mesh available within a 3D Modeling program offers great benefits to those looking to create/recreate specific structures or to just be able to create a model first time without having to adjust either the model or terrain mesh once in-engine. On this front I too have been experimenting, albeit with L3DT for handling the initial raw heightfield with texture mask and (via a custom plugin) exporting the raw data into FBX file format. The end result is a terrain node mesh that I can drop into 3dsMax and use to model structures onto, it's kinda neat and super useful from a modeling perspective.
  12. Sort of, think its being lost in translation :D This image will give you a better idea I have extracted the terrain mesh, along with the satellite mask into a uvmapped FBX model, which I can use in 3dsMax (should work in any 3D app) to super-impose my models ontop of, so when I port them into Arma there is zero messing around with the model itself, because it was created using the terrain mesh as a guide :)
  13. @eggbeast I could create you a texturemapped FBX terrain node 3D model for your artists to model onto. This could be useful for some of the terrain specific buildings, fort, walls, bridges etc. This would allow them to create assets that fit the terrain and minimise post-modeling tweaks required with structures to achieve desired results. Send me a pm if this would be useful to you.
  14. I have been keeping an eye on this thread to see how it develops and I feel it's now turned onto a more constructive path thanks to post authors presenting good well thought out ideas and steering the topic into more of a constructive direction. With that said there does seem me to be an obvious path to utilise if monetisation were expanded to include monetised community content. First I want to point out the relevance of the Skyrim monetisation situation, whether you agree or disagree with it, its relevance is really quite important. It demonstrated publicly what happens when monetisation is added without any kind of active participation from the Developer. The game developer, Bethesda, took a back-seat and let the mod-makers tough it out without any kind of QA or scrutiny in place for items added to their platform. This was never going to end pretty or well on all fronts. Valve quickly reaslised this and shut it down, which argueably ruined any chances for any other Developers looking to utilise this functionality for their own IP. With that being said, if you look at the way Valve implements community made content into their own IP (CSGO, Team Fortress for example), people submit their content and upon acceptance Valve take an active role in supporting and implementing that content into their games, internal QA/Scrutiny being part of that process. This weeds out the sub-par content and makes sure that submitted content is available in a game-ready state without risk of IP infringement due to the QA process. For any kind of monetisation the main developer, in this case Bohemia, need to play a central role in any and all processes, they own the original IP upon which content is based and created for. It doesn't make sense for them not to take an active role, making sure anything made available in this way meets game ready specifications, adheres to any game-updates, does not breach anyone else's IP and is presented properly on the delivery platform, in this case Steam. In an ideal world we would have a "Community created DLC" section on Steam, where monetised mods would sit along-side the regular Workshop content. This sounds to me like one of the more plausable ways forward that has been touched upon in this thread so far regarding any sort of mod/addon monetisation and the systems already exist within the Steam platform for DLC presentation, purchase, authorisation/activation and delivery as demonstrated by the Workshop. This idea would however require action and active participation from BI, after all it is thier IP that we create our content on and they should be playing a major part in all processes regarding any sort of monetisation. With this being said it is also community created content that expands the scope of their IP further adding to its original value. If this idea were to get implemented there would need to be a few measures and caveats put in place to prevent abusing the system, such as the following (this list isn't exhaustive but covers some of the bases): Registration Fee - This could be one time fee or annual fee payable by the content author(s) to BI - this would go some way to initially covering BI's time used in producing a contract, licencing, publishing and also the time spent on screening the Community DLC to make sure all parts are up to game-ready specification and expected standards as well as monitoring that they adhere to updates in the base game and don't infringe on anyone elses IP. It would also weed out infringing content from the word go, going some way to ensuring only original content is available as community content DLC. Agreement - Authors sign an agreement with BI to fully support their DLC for the lifetime of the game or until such a time as it is no longer practical to do so after which the mod would become, for example: a lite version available on the regular Worksop (People who had purchased the full version, would keep that version, after all they paid for it). Also factoring in losing any retained payments for breaches of agreement would ensure compliance, as mentioned in the next point. Author Payment - Payment for purchases would be based on a retainer system (monthly/quarterly/biannually), this would ensure that people dont just submit content, take the money and run as well as provide assurances to people who have purchased any content that it will continue to be updated for game compatability. This retainer would remain in situ as part of the agreement between the authors and BI to ensure longevity and full support of the DLC for the lifetime of the game. Mod Value - Dependent on the features, scope and size of the mod (With this I don't just mean visible content, code based content can create a vastly expanded game experience as well). With that being said I wouldn't recommend nor want to see any value put onto a mod that breaches the current official DLC/Expansions' price ceiling, perhaps using a tiered system where DLC's are priced by scope/size. This is probably a decision best left to BI themselves to discuss and liase with the community regarding any sort of valuation of content. Developer share/costs - Valve/Steam would get their share (which imo was far too much in the Skyrim situation and would need reviewed), it is their platform that enables you to market and make available for purchase content, as well as all the backend content & user valiation features amongst others. BI would set their share of each purchase, which would go towards supporting the operating costs of the Community DLC system. The remainder would go to the content creator(s). The structure of this is on par I feel since both Valve and BI openly support modding, by enabling Community DLC to be a "thing" they are entitled to their shares for enabling and supporting a system that rewards users for content that expands the content and scope of their IP, in this case the Arma franchise and the Steam platform. DLC/Mod protection - Community DLC items would be available through Steam and Arma's current DLC, Workshop and Store systems, this combined with existing Steam account validation/authorisation to only give access to those who had purchased the DLC. The system would need to expand it's reach to encompass anything made purchasable as Community DLC possibly also adding in some sort of EBO file format style protection in addition to the above would go some way towards this. Out of all of these the most labour intensive part is going to be the QA/scrutinisation of content. This would be done by BI initially and later could be expanded to make use of registered authors who are already part of the monetisation scheme. These people would already be vetted by the registration system and this would give BI a pool of people to aid reviewing submissions, perhaps as part of a contractual obligation within the registration agreement. By opening up this concept to a small number of authors initially to see how it fares and how the system performs overall would be beneficial from a starting point, where any changes if required could be put in place. These ideas are all part of a vision if monetisation were to be expanded outside of servers as per the current situation. Each part would obviously need expanded upon, with T+C's drawn up, EULA's changed etc, also bear in mind trying to keep the process as streamlined as possible. This also serves to highlight how difficult implementing something like this could be in the wider scope of things regarding IP, Copyright, Legality etc. I expect some of you will uttely hate this concept and baulk suggestion of such a system, but remember, this is only an idea and the ball would need to be picked up by Bohemia and Valve for it to even happen. Ultimately the however, the situation regarding modding and monetisation in Arma as it stands just now is far from ideal and could ultimately be quite dangerous to modding in general, as could the monetisation of content, but idly standing by letting the status quo continue is not good for it either. I am not trying to paint anything as the golden egg here, but we have to cover all bases and discuss their viability in an ongoing process in a constructive manner. Simply saying something will not work without bringing valid reasoning or being unwilling to discuss the possibility of any ideas brought to the table, whether your are for or against them, in an open-minded fashion will hamper any reasonable discussion and serves only to stifle debate on this topic.