Arma 3 weapons config guidelines

[pettka 694]

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Weapon_Config_Guidelines

Feel free to use it according to our modding license :icon_twisted:

It roughly describes new features for weapons in Arma 3, You still would need to know the basics from A2/OA.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Dwarden

[roberthammer 582]

Great ! - thank you for this :)

[nanucq 22]

You made my day, thank you so much !

[ardvarkdb 104]

Very nice. Thanks for the info!

Edited March 11, 2013 by ardvarkdb

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Are all of the new model.cfg 'source' controllers for weapons listed in the article?

I see there are:

• hasOptics
  
• ammoRandom
  
• zeroing
  
• zeroing2
  

But the article linked at the end of the guide; Arma 2 Weapon to Arma 3, also has one not listed in the guidelines:

• hasSuppressor
  

Just wondered if there were any more sources that were developed that we should know about, like for example a reload2, isEmpty2 or reloadMagazine2 source which would allow simulation of weapon function in the second muzzle (e.g underslung GL), along the lines of the separate zeroing and zeroing2 for the primary and secondary muzzles.

[Messiah 2]

On a similar note, can the hide animation for the muzzle flash when using the 'hasSuppressor' source be further checked against what the suppressor slot is using? I.e. whilst the intention of this proxy was for presumably for suppressors, it could go further in being able to switch between different flash hiders, or even attach a bayonet, in which case being able to check what 'suppressor' was actually attached, would be very useful.

[Alwarren 2767]

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Weapon_Config_Guidelines

Feel free to use it according to our modding license :icon_twisted:

It roughly describes new features for weapons in Arma 3, You still would need to know the basics from A2/OA.

Sorry if this is a dumb question: I can't seem to get the unhideValue to work correctly. Do we need a newer binarize program for that? When I look at my binarized M4 in Eliteness, I also don't see the unhideValue entry in the model.cfg.

Or am I overlooking something?

[pettka 694]

Sorry if this is a dumb question: I can't seem to get the unhideValue to work correctly. Do we need a newer binarize program for that? When I look at my binarized M4 in Eliteness, I also don't see the unhideValue entry in the model.cfg.

Or am I overlooking something?

It's not a dumb question at all. It is obviously caused by an older version of binarization which doesn't take such things into account. It's going to be easier with new tools, but I cannot promise You any date obviously as we are working on them continuously :icon_twisted:

[Alwarren 2767]

It's not a dumb question at all. It is obviously caused by an older version of binarization which doesn't take such things into account. It's going to be easier with new tools, but I cannot promise You any date obviously as we are working on them continuously :icon_twisted:

Thanks for the reply, so that is why I couldn't get the magazine to re-appear. I hope you get to release those soon, I'd really like my magazines to be reloaded correctly ;)

[charon productions 10]

Deleted

Edited March 25, 2013 by Charon Productions
Inappropriate forum section - apologies

[PuFu 4600]

The forum has no section for Arma3 config editing issues, so i think i rather ask here than opening another thread.

It has:

http://forums.bistudio.com/forumdisplay.php?170-ARMA-3-ALPHA-ADDONS-Configs-amp-Scripting

[liukang168 1]

Which lod do I place the new proxies? Visual lods and memory?

[Messiah 2]

visual, shadow, geometry, fire geometry, anywhere you want the various items to be either visible, cast a shadow, be able to be shot, etc. No different to using proxies in other types of addons :)

[liukang168 1]

visual, shadow, geometry, fire geometry, anywhere you want the various items to be either visible, cast a shadow, be able to be shot, etc. No different to using proxies in other types of addons :)

Just asking, cause for some reasons the attachments just dont want to show up. I post some pics in a new thread later, my ftp is currently busy. Link will follow:

As promised:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?152925-Custom-weapon-attachments-don-t-work&p=2371213#post2371213

Edited April 12, 2013 by liukang168

[roberthammer 582]

Have anybody idea how to make a custom weapons to use iron sight zeroing? like on MX etc

I have this in my custom class

    
discreteDistance[] = {100,300,400,600,800};    
discreteDistanceInitIndex = 1;
weaponInfoType = "RscWeaponZeroing";

It is not working and i have no idea why - in OA it worked simple and easy :/

[shammy2010 15]

put "discreteDistanceInitIndex = 1;" to "discreteDistanceInitIndex = 0;" It seems to work for me which is strange that setting the value to 1 will not work

[PolyG 69]

Don't want to feel like a Bump but I'm having model.cfq issues along the reload animation; I'm using the M320 snipers animations and I can't figure out for the life of me how to get the bolt to move when he pulls it in the animation.

[Alwarren 2767]

Don't want to feel like a Bump but I'm having model.cfq issues along the reload animation; I'm using the M320 snipers animations and I can't figure out for the life of me how to get the bolt to move when he pulls it in the animation.

Did you put the bolt into a named selection, AND mention that in the bones list on top of your model.cfg? Usually, that's the problem. Other than that, you would be better off posting your model.cfg.

[pettka 694]

There has been quite a huge change in the way weapon attachments are handled - in a way community seems to like according to Feedback tracker. japapatramtara has managed to implement the last proposed solution - to create a class compatibleItems with separate parameters for each attachment type and 0/1 value to deny/allow use of said attachment. To provide an example, this is how settings for PDW could look like:

	class WeaponSlotsInfo: WeaponSlotsInfo
	{
		class MuzzleSlot : SlotInfo
		{
			linkProxy = "\A3\data_f\proxies\weapon_slots\MUZZLE";
			compatibleItems[] = {
			"muzzle_snds_L"
			};
		};
		class CowsSlot: CowsSlot 
		{
			class compatibleItems
			{
				optic_Nightstalker = 1;
				optic_tws = 1;
				optic_tws_mg = 1;
				optic_NVS = 1;
				optic_DMS = 1;
				optic_SOS = 1;
				optic_MRCO = 1;
				optic_Arco = 1;
				optic_aco = 0;
				optic_ACO_grn = 0;
				optic_aco_smg = 1;
				optic_ACO_grn_smg = 1;
				optic_hamr = 1;
				optic_Holosight = 1;
				optic_Holosight_smg = 1;
			};
		};
		class PointerSlot {};
	};	

As you may see, both the old and the new solution works fine, only possible issue is in case there are both of them, the new one would take a precedence. I am just a messenger, the programmers are to be praised for this :icon_twisted:

Edited October 8, 2013 by pettka

[Alwarren 2767]

As you may see, both the old and the new solution works fine, only possible issue is in case there are both of them, the new one would take a precedence. I am just a messenger, the programmers are to be praised for this :icon_twisted:

While the new system is way better than the old one, I still think that it isn't the right solution. The problem is that this means any attachment can be put on any weapon, or the weapon itself needs to (again) cope with individual attachment. While the guns in the game currently have all Picatinny rails, this is not going to be true for e.g. Russian guns with Dovetail mounts.This isn't how attachments work in reality. I would really have liked to see something like this since it models how attachments are used in reality (i.e. the rail on the weapon determines whether I can mount it or not).

I still forseee trouble with this method. Some attachments will work on weapons that they shouldn't work on because they are not specifically excluded, and some won't work although they should. With a rail system, that issue would not exist.

In any case, though, I am happy that we don't need extra configs anymore.

[samatra 85]

Great to see more progress with weapon attachments. First first days of alpha I had this suggestion in mind:

Few thoughts about weapons with accessories: I think that weapon classes that inherit base weapon and have attachments on them should serve only as virtual weapon classes and actually add base weapon class with attachments attached to it instead. Probably this should be defined by special config value which also will point to base weapon class name.

For example, when you execute: player addWeapon "srifle_EBR_Hamr_point_grip_F"; it should actually add you "srifle_EBR_F" with attachments listed in "LinkedItems" of "srifle_EBR_Hamr_point_grip_F" class. This way we can get rid of confusion of having weapon class that lists attachments in its name while actually attachments might have changed. Say right now you can have "srifle_EBR_Hamr_point_grip_F" with class name suggesting that you have Hamr and Laser pointer on while you actually took them off.

What do you guys think about it?

[roberthammer 582]

Ye nice to see this update - btw > http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?163021-Magazines-should-be-a-proxy :icon_twisted:

[twisted 128]

:cc:salut BIS.

[antoineflemming 14]

How about class incompatibleItems? You'll have more items compatible than you will incompatible. Not only that, but what about classes of sights? That way you can restrict weapons to certain types of sights

[da12thMonkey 1943]

How about class incompatibleItems? You'll have more items compatible than you will incompatible. Not only that, but what about classes of sights? That way you can restrict weapons to certain types of sights

The boolean value for any given attachment parameter in class compatibleItems already defines whether it is compatible or incompatible with a your weapon and its children.

attachment_class = 1; <-compatible item

attachment_class = 0; <-incompatible item