ARMA 2: Community Configuration Project (A2CCP)

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Is there a way to make TAB switch from target to target,without showing the box when autoguideAT is off but also without detecting targets beyond objects drawing distance ?

[Muecke 114]

I have found some difficulties with being tank commander when AutoGuideAT OFF:

1. When AutoGuideAT OFF then there is no green diamond marker on target which tells you that gunner is ready to shoot. If commander does't see his tank cannon barrel (during zoom) then he doesn't know if gunner still turning the cannon or he is already aimed to the target. Could be better if gunner will say "Ready" at the moment when he finished his aim to the target (at the moment when green diamond is shown with AutoGuideAT ON).

2. If you give order to the gunner using radio then he starts complete your order after the sound with order finished - "Attack that tank". Sometimes this phrase is long and there is a big delay between when you give order and when gunner starts to complete order. The gunner has to start complete the order when player pressed the button without waiting when speech with order stops to play.

3. When you want to give order using radio and icons at the bottom of screen then it is hard to know to whom you have to give this order. For example, if you are in BMP3 you see three identical "gunner" icons. If you have many tanks under command in Warfare game then some crew members might be mixed so you are unable to identify if this is your gunner or from another tank. We need to highlight player's crew somehow.

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/29024

I can understand completly what you mean Vipera. When AutoGuideAT Off is active you have to switch your behave.

Maybe its better to shoot by yourself then. The diamond was nearly a 100% hitchance but if you have a human gunner and you ask him for if he has the target locked.

He would presumably say "i guess so". Thats why we let ai shoot all the time they are better and we dont need skills at all.

You will need more time now and drive slower need report of targets from other ai or players.

Same as your enemy but now it depends on who has the higher skill and not who tabs first and ctrl+LMB.

[Groove_C 267]

Read my following post

Edited December 7, 2012 by Groove_C

[Tonci87 163]

Myke;2261640']I wont disagree to you' date=' Guess Who. The problem is, seany tries now for several days to get some statement about the found issue, it's not like he just came up yesterday with it. In this special case the chamge/fix seems to break another feature which is quite simply not acceptable. So a clarification on about how the plans are to solve this new issue isn't asked too much if this intends to be a "community" project, else it would have to be renamed to "A2PvPCP".

But all we get so far is silence.[/quote']

^this!

Somehow I don´t see much "cummunity" in this Project

[[frl]myke 14]

.kju, please, take a look on my recently created tickets as I consider these bugs as visually very irritating and they are as well config related as CCP requires it.

Wrong FFAR and cannon muzzleflash firing positions for some planes and choppers

=> https://dev-heaven.net/issues/66865

I'm affraid that those (at least some/most) can't be fixed config-only as the cause seem to be misplaced memory points in the model. So one would have to adjust models to fix those. But i can be wrong though.

[sickboy 13]

^this!

Somehow I don´t see much "cummunity" in this Project

• A2CCP: How can you participate
  
• https://dev-heaven.net/issues/29024#note-8
  

[[frl]myke 14]

Sickboy, may i quote your DevHeaven post:

However I do agree that linking FCS capability to this difficulty setting is perhaps not very ideal, aka you would enable 'arcadish' behavior for all AT weapons, just to get the FCS working.

AFAIK there are also issues with the FCS. But I do believe the situation is one of the 'lesser of two evils' cases. I suppose it's either this, or the horrible auto lock (TAB) issues.

Unless BI would make engine adjustments to accommodate both requirements, which I personally find unlikely to happen for ARMA2OA.

"The lesser of two evils" is probably a subjective POV. Means we should have confidence that the person(s) who decides which is the lesser doesn't follow own personal preferences but is open to discuss with people which might have concerns.

And about the "ways to contribute", may i also quote DevHeaven:

You can provide input both here in the tickets and also in the BI forums on existing tickets and open discussions (more info)

So inputs/questions/issues raised here in the forums should have same weight as in devHeaven.

From my point of view, this isn't A2CCP anymore but A2PvPCP.

:EDITH:

As for the term "community" in the A2CCP, if someone from the community has a question, i expect that someone honestly answers him and not just ignore him because the question might not be comfortable.

Edited December 7, 2012 by [FRL]Myke

[sickboy 13]

Ability to provide input says very little about what is done with that input, and in what timespan. If people really want to contribute, then i'd say go ahead and actually contribute! :)

Also i'm pretty sure the tab-lock topic, and the down and up-sides have been discussed to death for years around the BIF, the CIT, and now also the A2CCP.

In any case, i'm not very involved lately, especially not re the A2CCP. But I do recognize this situation where work is left to only 1 or a handful, while everyone else has only opinions to add.

Lastly, whatever comes out of the CCP or any other change, you can mod and change (back) to your liking.

---------- Post added at 15:12 ---------- Previous post was at 15:10 ----------

not just ignore him because the question might not be comfortable.

You're making imo guesses based on your opinion but write them as if they are facts. Only the two people involved in that can judge/answer that.

[Tonci87 163]

Well they are facts, still no one has given him a reply.

[[frl]myke 14]

then i'd say go ahead and actually contribute!

I did. Kju asked if i could provide a fix for the FAB-250 issue on the MI-24 and i delivered as requested. My mother teached me to say thanks when i get something. Obviously not everyone had a mother like mine. Doesn't help to keep people motivated.

Lastly, whatever comes out of the CCP or any other change, you can mod and change (back) to your liking.

From a patch i expect to fix things. There are usermade addons to change systems to personal likings. If the PvP community needs this changes, then by gods sake, make a PvP addons pack. Changes that are only made to please a few people don't belong in a official patch.

And before you jump on the "Myke is just against PvP", to see that to raise the PvP community at this point in time is most unlikely to happen, regardless what patches brings, isn't exactly rocket science.

:EDITH:

You're making imo guesses based on your opinion but write them as if they are facts.

I have facts but not allowed to publish them.

[sickboy 13]

Am I right that you are saying you are somewhat attacking this project/kju now because someone omitted a thanks?

Aww ;-) Well thanks Myke for contributing! I'm fairly confident there will be an official thank you by CCP team/BI to all contributors upon completion/release.

I don't see why the tab-lock fix would be considered just for PvP. The tab-lock is just as wrong for any other game mode, incl Coop.

In any case, I've said what I wanted to say so far and will leave you guys to it. IMO others could do the same, as to me it seems to be an issue between Seany and CCP team/BI :)

[[frl]myke 14]

Am I right that you are saying you are somewhat attacking this project/kju now because someone omitted a thanks?

Nope, you're wrong. It was suspicious to me already before that.

Aww ;-) Well thanks Myke for contributing! I'm fairly confident there will be an official thank you by CCP team/BI to all contributors upon completion/release.

Keep your sarcasm for yourself, you know pretty well this has nothing to do with it. If i ask someone to do me a favour and he does it for me, good manners are a short thanks and writing this "thx" in the ticket wouldn't have delayed everything else for weeks. Either you have manners or not. Personally i prefer to work with people who have them. Simple as that. If your work relies on contributors, showing manners can significantly help.

The tab-lock is just as wrong for any other game mode, incl Coop.

No, it's not but since

I've said what I wanted to say so far and will leave you guys to it

i wont waste your time any longer. Just this: i've spent a lot of time with studying different FCS and having TAB lock on certain weapon system id by far closer to reality than not having it.

[Tonci87 163]

OK, for the sake of bringing this forward:

Is it possible to disable TAB-Lock but to keep the visual indicator that the Gunner is on target?

[sickboy 13]

Myke;2261763']Just this: i've spent a lot of time with studying different FCS and having TAB lock on certain weapon system id by far closer to reality than not having it.

Then why don't you argue about that instead of all this beating around the bush?

I would argue that such systems can probably be counted on one hand, perhaps even just 2 fingers :)

Edited December 7, 2012 by Sickboy

[[frl]myke 14]

Then why don't you argue about that instead of all this beating around the bush?

Because i know that it wont be considered anyway. It doesn't fit into a PvP concept so no chance for it. generally i have better things to do but as a Moderator it buggers me when a forum member has a valid question and just get's ignored. That's why i backed up seany a bit.

[sickboy 13]

Myke;2261781']Because i know that it wont be considered anyway. It doesn't fit into a PvP concept so no chance for it. generally i have better things to do but as a Moderator it buggers me when a forum member has a valid question and just get's ignored. That's why i backed up seany a bit.

I see. Well so you already made up your mind then in regards to the matter.

In any case, i'm not sure if I agree such 'task' belongs to a Moderator's job, rather it's a personal matter IMO, but it's not really for me to judge.

Thanks for elaborating.

[Tonci87 163]

Guys please lets get back to the important stuff ok?

I don´t think that this project has only PvP in mind since there are many improvements that can be applied to SP or Coop as well, almost all in fact.

Now back to my question. Do you think that it is possible to keep the visual indicator (or to add a new one?) when your Gunner is on target?

[Tonci87 163]

@Groove-C

You´ll get infractions if you don´t stop repeating the same stuff over and over!

[[frl]myke 14]

@Groove-C

You´ll get infractions if you don´t stop repeating the same stuff over and over!

Indeed, even more as there is a answer and explanation.

[Muecke 114]

I don´t like in what direction this seems to be growing.

:(

[Vipera 10]

Thats why we let ai shoot all the time they are better and we dont need skills at all.

You will need more time now and drive slower need report of targets from other ai or players.

Same as your enemy but now it depends on who has the higher skill and not who tabs first and ctrl+LMB.

If you are talking about PvP then Yes, I agree to play with the new rules because other player has the same difficulties as me. But if I play against AI tank then I do not want to be beaten everytime because AI doesn't have problem with finding and aiming targets as I have without TAB. Or do you want me to jump out from the tank every time when new target is spotted and let my AI gunner to make his job better without my command? If you want to remove features from the player then you have to think how compensate it by reducing AI abilities.

[fraczek 4]

[...]

Exactly.

Also, may I remind you all of Maruk's several quotes when he announced the initiative?

only fixes of obvious bugs or missing definitions are within the scope of this initiative

Upgrade A2 content to OA standards

NOT break existing missions/campaigns (at least official content)

Simple change (easy to understand and evaluate the consequences)

Player acceptance

Suggestions via DH CCP project or BI Forums

(emphasis mine)

These changes are IMNSHO definitely not about upgrading A2 to OA and not breaking existing campaigns. SP campaings are gonna suffer, even official ones - how about Arrowhead's SP tank campaign, where you have plenty of tank action with AI subordinates? All the BLUFOR armour in OA campaign has advanced FCS as well, which will be nonexistent now whenever one decides to not play in veteran mode with AutoguideAT off.

Also, to some of the naysayers in this thread:

Writing "If you don't like it, write it better" is directly breaking spirit of BIS "Player acceptance" as a need of CCP.

Writing "You should have complained before" is certainly not valid either.

Not everybody of us on the forums is a talented modder with deep insight of how the engine works. But we can certainly be allowed to take part in evaluating the proposed changes. Especially as it directly concerns us, and this is supposed to be a community project, after all?

As much as I dislike the tab-lock radar, it is not A BUG to be removed on a whim. It is a FEATURE. Perhaps unbalanced, perhaps one that could have been done better, but still an integral part of the game. As such, it should have no place in CCP. You can after all easily change the configs as part of a standalone Addon, NOT something that will be part of official BIS patches.

This is akin to parts of ACE becoming official. While I would certainly love that, I can't imagine playing the SP campaign and SP missions which were not designed with it in mind. And I can imagine the uproar from other players.

Another thing, there are conflicting reports about this in this very thread. One time, you say that right-clicking to select target will not be affected, elsewhere, you say it will disappear as well. Questions like "is it possible to remove the tab-lock radar without removing the FCS" were ignored. Not everybody of us on the forums is a talented modder with deep insight of how the engine works. But we can certainly be allowed to take part in evaluating the proposed changes.

So, while I am certainly glad CCP brought plenty of enhacements, obvious bug fixes and removed many errors, this I feel is a bit beyond the scope CCP should IMO adhere to.

As this is potentialy a very deep change to how the game works, I certainly feel we should have a bigger discussion about its inclusion in CCP, along with detailed explanation of how it is gonna work and how it is gonna affect existing game. I see neither (and don't tell me about the old tab-locking threads, yes, but we are discussing its inclusion in CCP, and these turned into a flamewar quite quickly)

Edited December 7, 2012 by fraczek

[Tonci87 163]

If you are talking about PvP then Yes, I agree to play with the new rules because other player has the same difficulties as me. But if I play against AI tank then I do not want to be beaten everytime because AI doesn't have problem with finding and aiming targets as I have without TAB. Or do you want me to jump out from the tank every time when new target is spotted and let my AI gunner to make his job better without my command? If you want to remove features from the player then you have to think how compensate it by reducing AI abilities.

Wrong.

I think everybody agrees that Tab Lock is crap? Now you or your funner have to visualy identify the target. (AI has to do that too btw.)

[andersson 285]

Crap or not, I think the question is game changing or bug fixing?

Change game with addons, fix bugs with A2CCP please.

[Vipera 10]

Wrong.

I think everybody agrees that Tab Lock is crap? Now you or your funner have to visualy identify the target. (AI has to do that too btw.)

Maybe Tab Locks seems as a crap but this is a tool to simplify communication with your AI gunner. Lets try a simple mission in editor. Put a tank with you as a commander. Put enemy tank around you which will spawn in random location around your tank. Start mission and try to hit enemy tank without Tab. Enemy tank controlled by AI will find you faster and shoot at you. Helicopter guided missiles will be also unusable because you cannot see what your gunner will lock when you tell him to lock target using radio. You will tell him to lock one of the tanks from list by radio but you don't know if you aim the tank you want because you cannot see target highlighted. Manually target selection by right mouse click is hard from helicopter because of lack of yaw maneuver on helicopters.