ARMA 2: Community Configuration Project (A2CCP)

[[frl]myke 14]

Guess who, guess what....you don't have to pint me to read the first post. Even more as it clearly states:

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

If a bugfix requires new features.....guess what, Guess who.

:EDITH:

Or would this break the balance for the almighty PvPscene? ;)

[kotov12345 10]

ace or not - not big deal for me.Lase is useless as sabot more or less fly straight and when sabots gone you can not fight against anything except jeeps ,infantry and noobs anyway.Don't need to download 1gb which updates every-week to play game,which became realities one way but unplayable by other aspects.We play many pvp games with 120 players battles and I remember only 1 time we use this mod and server crashed over 15 min.Unfortunately the main problem is every programer and coder only create game he wanna play.When he create it he stop play it and leave customers his product.Customers see game other way around and disappointing and arguing but it have no effect.Same happens with every mod I play wgl fdf warfare pr aas and ace no exemption.Vanilla version is also mod ,but created early than others and way it present a game is point of view of creators.Question is,Can creators of the game will change their view about how game will looks like from gunner or from what ever point of view ?I'm sure you know the answer.The 2013 in couple of weeks and another game soon.So relax.You can change game.Pray for more patches :)

After playing with latest beta I think there most terrible things happens with you in game, when you see enemy tank pointed to other direction from you fire and destroy you or when you sit in bushes and enemy infantry 200m from you running and suddenly kill you without stop or pointing to you.I noticed such facts recently when play pr mod - but thought it is pr bug until start noticing it in everyday vanilla warfare maps.Funny things but arma2 without oa haven't got such bugs. At least I'm not remember while playing aas maps on arma2ru servers.

Biggest config problem for me is friend or foe recognition.In real automatic recognition is only available for air units.I know you will start arguing.Blah Blah blah.What ever.I only hope a3 will have different system.

Edited December 18, 2012 by kotov12345

[Vipera 10]

Automatic recognition now is what AI crew member says to you. When you see a red dot on your tank radar it means that your AI crew member has spotted a target, he recognized that this is an enemy and tells you where and how far target is. What is a problem with this? And when you want to tell your AI gunner "aim that closest target" you hit Tab and highlight that target. I think this is a good way to communicate with AI crew members until they will be able to recognize your speech in real time.

Added: When we play on PvP only server than we definitely do not need Tab feature. In this case your human crew member should do his job on his own without magic radar.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Vipera

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Ok lets look at the choices we have

1) Leave it as it is and play with a bad system that nobody likes

2) Disable Tab Lock for Gunners only and play with a "half fixed" thing

3) Implement a perfectly good, stable, tested and working alternative FCS.

I´ll take number 3 anytime!

CCP is a half project in itself ... no one is going to develop alternatives !

[Guess Who 10]

Myke;2265575']Guess who' date=' guess what....you don't have to pint me to read the first post. Even more as it clearly states:

[b']If a bugfix requires new features.....guess what, Guess who.

[/b]

:EDITH:

Or would this break the balance for the almighty PvPscene? ;)

Don't do this Myke, it's beneath you ...

For clarification: I dont't play PVP, I don't even play online. My point of view is clearly SP. And I'm not for changing the "tab lock/radar" system at all.

To answer your question: If a bugfix requires the implementation of a new feature it's up to BI or (maybe) a mod to do it, not A2CCP. Full stop. And that's why someone sometimes has to quote post #1.

[-=seany=- 5]

I was just trying to come up with a nice solution for everyone. But....if we are getting into technicalities, Isn't the removal of TAB lock a feature? Being able to TAB lock isn't a bug either...so...?

If you think it would be good to see a full FCS implemented GuessWho, then why bother to go off on a tangent about what is a feature and what is not etc? Why not just support it, go with it and see what happens?

Anyway, since KJU ignored me yet again, I'll just submit the suggestion to the CCP Devheaven. Maybe he will give some input there?

[Guess Who 10]

I was just trying to come up with a nice solution for everyone. But....if we are getting into technicalities, Isn't the removal of TAB lock a feature? Being able to TAB lock isn't a bug either...so...?

Not in my book. But different play style/type results in different povs.

If you think it would be good to see a full FCS implemented GuessWho, then why bother to go off on a tangent about what is a feature and what is not etc? Why not just support it, go with it and see what happens?

I'd say, everyone would be happy to see such a feature implemented, me included. Still it's not in the scope of this project. And that is my whole point. The CCP was initiated to get that small annoying stuff done that bothers everyone, that is doable by small config changes/fixes, that would never get fixed before Arma 3 comes along otherwise. Leave the big stuff to BI or mods like ACE.

Anyway, since KJU ignored me yet again, I'll just submit the suggestion to the CCP Devheaven. Maybe he will give some input there?

I'm sure, he didn't ignore you. But if you look at DevHeaven and at the change lock you may notice, that a lot of stuff is done already. And that does not come from hanging around here. Best is to make a ticket and provide information, facts, sources or even better configs. Believe me if I tell you that kju won't ignore you.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

I was just trying to come up with a nice solution for everyone. But....if we are getting into technicalities, Isn't the removal of TAB lock a feature? Being able to TAB lock isn't a bug either...so...?

If you think it would be good to see a full FCS implemented GuessWho, then why bother to go off on a tangent about what is a feature and what is not etc? Why not just support it, go with it and see what happens?

Anyway, since KJU ignored me yet again, I'll just submit the suggestion to the CCP Devheaven. Maybe he will give some input there?

Kju has enough scripting skills to make that,maybe we should convince him of submitting the feature to BIS devs :P

[kotov12345 10]

there a lot of nice solutions was offered for last years to resolve problem.While we are waiting 1.63 to see changes in mp games 1 more:

Restrict TAB with fixed distance which optionally changeable somewhere in server settings for example with 1km:

a)why 1km - simple - ai tanks not firing on their own on large distances,or firing but often missed.

b)AA launchers not works efficient enough for longer distance.see ticket somewhere.

c)Logically to detect enemy on shorter distances more more likely.

d)We can keep close range for TAB exploiters and 1-2km range for veterans /gunners who firing manually,as currently object drawing only for 2km with 4km VD.So every player with VD 2km or more can do tab if they want.

e)Removes Tunguska exploit

f)removes many problems like unrealistic Javelin range or KA52 over power missiles.

g)seany still can use his favorite key :)

If you still not happy we can set with 2km maximum.As most maximum object drawing distance currently set by most servers

Edited December 19, 2012 by kotov12345

[-=seany=- 5]

g)seany still can use his favorite key :)

And here is me thinking I had explained what my problem was to death...obviously not..

I'll make it really simple

Tab lock On or Off :- I could care less.

Loss of Vehicle Fire Control system :- I care a lot

-----------------

It is an interesting point about locking into the fog with Tab lock off though, I'll grant you. With TAB lock gone it could be a lot harder for a gunner (in AH64 for example) who knows there is a target out there (in the Fog) to actually lock onto it. That would be when I would most use TAB lock. But, like I said my main problem is with loosing the FCS, I don't really use Tab lock that much, not online anyway.

Edited December 19, 2012 by -=seany=-

[Brainbug 10]

May I "promote" https://dev-heaven.net/issues/68220? A2 vanilla G36 and M4 ACOG (the black ones) don't allow switching to secondary (reflex) sight, like the OA variants do (which is quite helpful for CQB).

I just wrote a demo addon to show that it is not a model issue but just needs a config fix. If a few more people vote the ticket up, we could get this bug squished in no time.

[Beagle 684]

May I "promote" https://dev-heaven.net/issues/68220? A2 vanilla G36 and M4 ACOG (the black ones) don't allow switching to secondary (reflex) sight, like the OA variants do (which is quite helpful for CQB).

I just wrote a demo addon to show that it is not a model issue but just needs a config fix. If a few more people vote the ticket up, we could get this bug squished in no time.

The most funny thing is that the G36 secondary sight worked back in ArmA II 1.0

[-=seany=- 5]

So, I posted the Suggestion on the DevHeaven CCP to include Q1184's FCS and KJU has basically dismissed it by moving it to the main Arma CIT, where it will most likely just sit gathering dust...nice.

Why wait for me to post the report, then move it? He knew I was going to make the report and could have easily said here on the forum that there was no point and it would just be moved...but no..ignored..again.

Well I guess that's as much as I can do, he wont engage or discuss in the way he is supposed to be doing for this project. He is deciding on what is and is not discussed for inclusion based on his own biased views, with no explanation on reasons for changes or discussion of compromises raised by others. Or even fully explaining/acknowledging when a change to be implemented will break some thing else (such as the AutoGuideAt change breaking the FCS), just say nothing and hope no-one notices and if they do, ignore them. Not exactly what I'd call professional project management.

Sorry to anyone else who actually cares about how others play the game, I tried. I can only hope the BIS developers flag the change when they are implementing the CCP additions officialy

Here is the Ticket for anyone interested:

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/68092

[Guess Who 10]

May I "promote" https://dev-heaven.net/issues/68220? A2 vanilla G36 and M4 ACOG (the black ones) don't allow switching to secondary (reflex) sight, like the OA variants do (which is quite helpful for CQB).

I just wrote a demo addon to show that it is not a model issue but just needs a config fix. If a few more people vote the ticket up, we could get this bug squished in no time.

Voted up. Not that I think it is needed. As I see it, you already fixed the config so it will be in.

[Tonci87 163]

So, I posted the Suggestion on the DevHeaven CCP to include Q1184's FCS and KJU has basically dismissed it by moving it to the main Arma CIT, where it will most likely just sit gathering dust...nice.

Why wait for me to post the report, then move it? He knew I was going to make the report and could have easily said here on the forum that there was no point and it would just be moved...but no..ignored..again.

Well I guess that's as much as I can do, he wont engage or discuss in the way he is supposed to be doing for this project. He is deciding on what is and is not discussed for inclusion based on his own biased views, with no explanation on reasons for changes or discussion of compromises raised by others. Or even fully explaining/acknowledging when a change to be implemented will break some thing else (such as the AutoGuideAt change breaking the FCS), just say nothing and hope no-one notices and if they do, ignore them. Not exactly what I'd call professional project management.

Sorry to anyone else who actually cares about how others play the game, I tried. I can only hope the BIS developers flag the change when they are implementing the CCP additions officialy

Here is the Ticket for anyone interested:

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/68092

sadly, this

[sickboy 13]

So, I posted the Suggestion on the DevHeaven CCP to include Q1184's FCS and KJU has basically dismissed it by moving it to the main Arma CIT, where it will most likely just sit gathering dust...nice.

Why wait for me to post the report, then move it? He knew I was going to make the report and could have easily said here on the forum that there was no point and it would just be moved...but no..ignored..again.

Well I guess that's as much as I can do, he wont engage or discuss in the way he is supposed to be doing for this project. He is deciding on what is and is not discussed for inclusion based on his own biased views, with no explanation on reasons for changes or discussion of compromises raised by others. Or even fully explaining/acknowledging when a change to be implemented will break some thing else (such as the AutoGuideAt change breaking the FCS), just say nothing and hope no-one notices and if they do, ignore them. Not exactly what I'd call professional project management.

Sorry to anyone else who actually cares about how others play the game, I tried. I can only hope the BIS developers flag the change when they are implementing the CCP additions officialy

Here is the Ticket for anyone interested:

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/68092

https://dev-heaven.net/projects/arma-2-ccp/wiki

The focus of the project is config tweaks.

Q11 FCS is definitely not a config tweak, it's an advanced scripted system, requiring CBA, and is part of ACE.

+ Even so, converting/adapting such a system, if you would get the permissions for including it with the game even, is not a small task either.

+ With 1.63 probably close-by, there would seem to be no time to deal with it either

= Out of scope, and thus moved to the CIT. Nothing strange going on here.

+ Anything you don't like about the CCP, or the original game, some DLC or expansion, or some other change in some patch, you can mod (back) to whatever you desire. It's not as if there's anything new there.

Lastly, I do not see any saints here, your methodology IMO also leaves something to be desired.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Sickboy

[-=seany=- 5]

https://dev-heaven.net/projects/arma-2-ccp/wiki

The focus of the project is config tweaks.

You realise I suggested this as a final compromise (of many) I have given to fix a problem caused by the CCP?

Q11 FCS is definitely not a config tweak, it's an advanced scripted system, requiring CBA, and is part of ACE.

+ Even so, converting/adapting such a system, if you would get the permissions for including it with the game even, is not a small task either.

+ With 1.63 probably close-by, there would seem to be no time to deal with it either

= Out of scope, and thus moved to the CIT. Nothing strange going on here.

And KJU ignoring me when I ask about these very issues in this thread helps how? That is why I asked here on the forum, but he wouldn't even respond to that. So I went ahead and made the ticket.

+ Anything you don't like about the CCP, or the original game, some DLC or expansion, or some other change in some patch, you can mod (back) to whatever you desire. It's not as if there's anything new there.

You are really going to tell me that it is ok to make a Change that inadvertently breaks another feature and the way fix that broken feature is for us to use a mod? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? And exactly how will that work online then?

Maybe the people who want to get rid of TAB lock so badly should be the ones using a MOD....?

I don't see why a compromise can't be reached, but anyone who doesn't like me objecting to this change doesn't want to know about compromises..

Why not? I don't know, maybe I have just rubbed you all up the wrong way with the way I defend my corner/argue my point. Maybe beacuse once, I flagged a change KJU wanted and Suma agreed it was problematic and removed it. KJU pretty much blamed me for that...yeah right....As if I could really change the mind of a developer....I wish.

Sickboy, I'm pretty sure you are savvy enough and open minded enough to know that the issue I'm raising about the broken FCS is worthy of discussion and possible compromise by the project leader? Ignoring helps no one and may even come back to bite BIS. Others may feel the same way I do who don't even use these forums, or know about the CCP.

It is simply bad practice to introduce a change that inadvertently breaks something else and then stick your head in the sand and ignore it. As an excellent project manager and programmer yourself, I know you realise this.

your methodology IMO also leaves something to be desired.

I have done nothing but try to highlight a valid problem I found in a civil manner and been dismissed, repeatedly. IMO blatantly ignoring some one is the height of arrogance. And anyone who thinks this is being blown out of proportion, you can blame KJU for that. If he had of discussed and acknowledged the problem 10 pages ago, we could have gone with out all this "arguing". Which I, believe or not, hate.

Anyway, like I said. I have done all I can.

Edited December 21, 2012 by -=seany=-

[PuFu 4600]

https://dev-heaven.net/projects/arma-2-ccp/wiki

The focus of the project is config tweaks.

Q11 FCS is definitely not a config tweak, it's an advanced scripted system, requiring CBA, and is part of ACE.

+ Even so, converting/adapting such a system, if you would get the permissions for including it with the game even, is not a small task either.

+ With 1.63 probably close-by, there would seem to be no time to deal with it either

= Out of scope, and thus moved to the CIT. Nothing strange going on here.

+ Anything you don't like about the CCP, or the original game, some DLC or expansion, or some other change in some patch, you can mod (back) to whatever you desire. It's not as if there's anything new there.

Lastly, I do not see any saints here, your methodology IMO also leaves something to be desired.

+1

@seany: what problem you talking about here?

[galzohar 31]

well SABOT is kinetic penetrator while HEAT uses shaped explosive charge ...

so let's consider the SABOT just penetrates the wall with way less overall structural damage than HEAT

As far as I'm aware this is actually not taken into account in Arma? As far as I know it's just a "direct hit damage" and "indirect hit damage" values, where the "indirect hit damage" value of the HEAT/HE rounds is too low to do significant damage to buildings compared to what a SABOT round can do, as opposed to real life where the indirect hit damage is much more significant against such large (building-size) and soft (concrete/clay/whatever weaker than steel) objects.

[samatra 85]

I wonder if kju not accepting new tickets to work because of CCP being included into 1.63 already and no more changes going to be accepted for now?

[OMAC 254]

May I "promote" https://dev-heaven.net/issues/68220? A2 vanilla G36 and M4 ACOG (the black ones) don't allow switching to secondary (reflex) sight, like the OA variants do (which is quite helpful for CQB).

I just wrote a demo addon to show that it is not a model issue but just needs a config fix. If a few more people vote the ticket up, we could get this bug squished in no time.

Voted up. Excellent demo addon!

[wattywatts 76]

Air combat played on veteran:

- player cannot lock FAB-250 nor Mk. 82, which he really shouldn't as they are iron bombs, but AI still can (and AI in Mi-24 with FAB-250 isn't able to use them properly). I think that the best solution would be to make them similar to unguided rockets - one can "lock" them on ground targets, but they would not track them - which would make them useful for static targets and useless against moving ones, as it really is.

- player cannot lock laser target for GBU-12, not with TAB, right-click or when assigning via radio 2-

- since the green squares around targets on HUD are gone, player in jet has to visually confirm the target. Even with long viewDistance and radar one can identify (it also depends on terrain) tank-sized target from quite short distance. Since IFVs and tanks use their cannons/HMGs quite effectively on air targets, it's suicide to fly low/slow/head on to identify something, so I'd like to have target markers back.

- vehicles with divided weapons between pilot and gunner show only pilot's weapons on HUD. As they are already shown on interface, it would make better sense to show gunner's weapons.

[DomZ 15]

Make the ranges of vehicles more realistic.

Currently many land vehicles run out of fuel in one hour instead of 10 hours more like most slower land vehicles.

Currently most cars and trucks only have a range of about 60km on a full fuel tank on roads. Tanks and APCs such as the BMP-2 normally have a range of 200km.

A range of 500km would be more realistic on a full fuel tank for land vehicles.

I assume the fuelCapacity config setting value could changed for many of the vehicles or their base classes.

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/70135

Edited January 3, 2013 by DomZ

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Air combat played on veteran:

- player cannot lock FAB-250 nor Mk. 82, which he really shouldn't as they are iron bombs, but AI still can (and AI in Mi-24 with FAB-250 isn't able to use them properly). I think that the best solution would be to make them similar to unguided rockets - one can "lock" them on ground targets, but they would not track them - which would make them useful for static targets and useless against moving ones, as it really is.

- player cannot lock laser target for GBU-12, not with TAB, right-click or when assigning via radio 2-

- since the green squares around targets on HUD are gone, player in jet has to visually confirm the target. Even with long viewDistance and radar one can identify (it also depends on terrain) tank-sized target from quite short distance. Since IFVs and tanks use their cannons/HMGs quite effectively on air targets, it's suicide to fly low/slow/head on to identify something, so I'd like to have target markers back.

- vehicles with divided weapons between pilot and gunner show only pilot's weapons on HUD. As they are already shown on interface, it would make better sense to show gunner's weapons.

Time to use eyes baby !! :D

I would go further ... thermal vision should get jammed a bit,it's too sharp right now !

[fraczek 4]

Time to use eyes baby !! :D

Such a "helpful" and mature reply. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us - if you can't lock laser guided bombs, how are they to be used? With default Arma HUD not even having a CCIP display ? After all, the magic word is GUIDED bomb... And when an aircraft has GBU fitted, we can safely assume it also has got a LANTIRN or another targetting pod fitted or built-in.