General Discussion (dev branch)

[kremator 1065]

^^ of course you DID realise it was a alpha then beta. No?

[danil-ch 165]

Backblast? Or trail?

Backblast effect.

[instagoat 133]

Backblast? Or trail?

RPG-42 should not have a trail, it burns out inside the launch tube and is ballistic after that. But it also does not have a muzzle and backblast effect right now. The noise it makes is also wrong, it sounds like a rocket launch. The OFP LAW is more like how it should sound, interestingly.

[progamer 14]

Backblast? Or trail?

Doesn't have a trail because all the fuel is used up while it's still in the barrel.

[nodunit 397]

Hi, I must change this flare, because, I can use only one of type flare for all light source (except Sun and Moon.) Flare was good for power light source, but for street lamps and small light source it was too significant. For me is this problem still open a will be try it change. My idea is option choose own a texture for each light source seperatly. For this time I use the "universal" flare for all light source. Thanks for feedback.

Since beacons are about hiding and unhiding, there is a potential workaround with an alpha texture using an emissive material, with diffuse set to 0 so it will not be effected by any shadows and thus appear eternally illuminated while effecting only the assigned vehicle or what have you.

Of course that leaves the rotational problem of a flat or oddly shaped image so that might not be great for non flat surfaces.

Edited August 6, 2013 by NodUnit

[HKFlash 9]

RPG-42 should not have a trail, it burns out inside the launch tube and is ballistic after that. But it also does not have a muzzle and backblast effect right now. The noise it makes is also wrong, it sounds like a rocket launch. The OFP LAW is more like how it should sound, interestingly.

Doesn't have a trail because all the fuel is used up while it's still in the barrel.

I know. Was just making sure they kept the trail off.

[schlonz75 1]

Same here, it just sounds wrong. Too many echo repetations imho.

Added a note with a link to a short clip to this ticket

[Vasilyevich 20]

"Fixed: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11604 (animation loop gets correctly terminated when the condition evaluates to true)"

Is still broken! for example:

[this,"REPAIR_VEH_KNEEL","FULL"] call BIS_fnc_ambientAnimCombat;

does not work.

- Vasil

[maturin 12]

RPG-42 should not have a trail, it burns out inside the launch tube and is ballistic after that. But it also does not have a muzzle and backblast effect right now. The noise it makes is also wrong, it sounds like a rocket launch. The OFP LAW is more like how it should sound, interestingly.

What's the point in reminding them. The projectile isn't going to have an actual ballistic flightpath until ACE 3 fixes all the bullshit, anyway.

[instagoat 133]

What's the point in reminding them. The projectile isn't going to have an actual ballistic flightpath until ACE 3 fixes all the bullshit, anyway.

What? It already -does- have a ballistic flightpath. Aside from effects, it works like the ACE rpg now, unless I am missing something?

[Steakslim 1]

What? It already -does- have a ballistic flightpath. Aside from effects, it works like the ACE rpg now, unless I am missing something?

You haven't missed anything that I'm aware of. I tried them out the other day and they work much like how ACE had them.

[L3TUC3 32]

On the point of the FT, I also find it rather puzzling to see how it's currently used. A glorified poll mechanic for feature requests. It only appears to be used for actual issue resolving sparingly.

Anyway, I am not supplied with any lists of resolved issues. If they had time to do that, they could probably close the tickets themselves.

If it's not even (linked to) the one the devs use, then what's the point? It appears most items are happily ignored, others turn into great big flamewars or it's a derp reporting a lack of dayz in A3.

As I remember it the A2 tracker sort of born out of community need to resolve bugs with addons and somehow discern if it was a problem with the base game. Afaik the devs hardly used it unless an issue was deemed serious enough by Dwarden or another mod to need dev attention. The beta patch threads on the other hand were much more popular as it gave a slightly easier way to give and read feedback on patches as a whole, not just singular issues or the entire breadth of all patches.

Why was this method of separate release threads for dev builds not continued but instead lumped into a giant thread? We're coming up on 500 pages and it's probably annoying as it is to distill any worthwhile information from it now unless you've been keeping up with it every day.

If anything both devs and volunteer reporters have not been conditioned to use the forums and FT properly.

[blu3sman 11]

What? It already -does- have a ballistic flightpath. Aside from effects, it works like the ACE rpg now, unless I am missing something?

Aside from initial "hump" in trajectory, the flight path is pretty much good old straight line, especially past 500 meters. Yes, it has some drop, but thats very far from ballistic. Just shoot rpg up about 30 degrees and see where it self-destructs

[thr0tt 12]

Mods: A3

Distribution: 0

Version 0.75.108570

Fault time: 2013/08/06 23:56:19

Fault address: 6400EDB7 01:000DDDB7 C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Arma 3\PhysX3_x86.dll

file: ZM co 50 InvadeAnnex 288z22 (__CUR_MP)

world: Stratis

Prev. code bytes: 44 D9 04 43 89 5D F4 8B 45 E8 8B 55 E4 8B 4D C0

Fault code bytes: 89 04 8A 8B 17 89 57 04 8B 0E 8B 55 D0 89 4E 04

Registers:

EAX:3FFFFFFA EBX:3133C040

ECX:00000000 EDX:90DFC058

ESI:5ABE4064 EDI:43900064

CS:EIP:0023:6400EDB7

SS:ESP:002B:2D4DFEA4 EBP:2D4DFF38

DS:002B ES:002B FS:0053 GS:002B

Flags:00010246

=======================================================

Not had this before, new feature when game crashes ? :|

[Fireball 16]

On the point of the FT, I also find it rather puzzling to see how it's currently used. A glorified poll mechanic for feature requests. It only appears to be used for actual issue resolving sparingly.

If it's not even (linked to) the one the devs use, then what's the point? It appears most items are happily ignored, others turn into great big flamewars or it's a derp reporting a lack of dayz in A3.

Why was this method of separate release threads for dev builds not continued but instead lumped into a giant thread? We're coming up on 500 pages and it's probably annoying as it is to distill any worthwhile information from it now unless you've been keeping up with it every day.

If anything both devs and volunteer reporters have not been conditioned to use the forums and FT properly.

To me, it was clear that if it was open to general public as an official way to report issues and feature requests along the vote mechanism, that it would require a HORDE of moderators to keep it clean. Now, we're only like 5 moderators here, plus a few devs and QA employees who like to look at stuff there. But the avalanche of chaotic tickets with unclear reports, most not even bothering to search for already existing tickets (pardon the generalization), keeps rolling in - you'd expect a wonder if it could all be tidied up constantly. But this has actually become clear within the first 2 weeks of the FT opening to public. I'm not saying "it's OK like that" - I'm just saying, it would require more volunteer moderators, because noone is going to pay someone who's exclusively sifting through such an easily abusable tool like the FT (same as with the BI forums), mostly in vain. Looking at all that, you'll also know why the FT isn't linked to their internal bugtracker.

For those who know me, I'm available in Skype in the official channels (and obviously also in PM here) and if anyone has a good ticket let me know and I'll take a look and might promote it to those who are concerned, if it passes my review (bug tickets only, of course) - I'm the cherrypicker :dance1:

Also if you would like to become a FT moderator and be of help, instead of complaining here, you can contact one of the moderator team (e.g. me; the others gonna hate me for that) or Dwarden with your application. Please include your nick on FT tracker and we will verify your eglibility and come back to you, maybe ;) - trolls will be ignored. :icon_twisted:

[progamer 14]

To me, it was clear that if it was open to general public as an official way to report issues and feature requests along the vote mechanism, that it would require a HORDE of moderators to keep it clean. Now, we're only like 5 moderators here, plus a few devs and QA employees who like to look at stuff there. But the avalanche of chaotic tickets with unclear reports, most not even bothering to search for already existing tickets (pardon the generalization), keeps rolling in - you'd expect a wonder if it could all be tidied up constantly. But this has actually become clear within the first 2 weeks of the FT opening to public. I'm not saying "it's OK like that" - I'm just saying, it would require more volunteer moderators, because noone is going to pay someone who's exclusively sifting through such an easily abusable tool like the FT (same as with the BI forums), mostly in vain. Looking at all that, you'll also know why the FT isn't linked to their internal bugtracker.

For those who know me, I'm available in Skype in the official channels (and obviously also in PM here) and if anyone has a good ticket let me know and I'll take a look and might promote it to those who are concerned, if it passes my review (bug tickets only, of course) - I'm the cherrypicker :dance1:

Also if you would like to become a FT moderator and be of help, instead of complaining here, you can contact one of the moderator team (e.g. me; the others gonna hate me for that) or Dwarden with your application. Please include your nick on FT tracker and we will verify your eglibility and come back to you, maybe ;) - trolls will be ignored. :icon_twisted:

You should add an example ticket or a template of what you should have onto the How to part of the tracker, and when people make there first ticket. So people can see what exactly is needed for a ticket issue to have a chance at being resolved.

[mr_centipede 31]

Can we go back to discussing what has been changed in the dev branch instead of how the feedback tracker should operate?

[instagoat 133]

Aside from initial "hump" in trajectory, the flight path is pretty much good old straight line, especially past 500 meters. Yes, it has some drop, but thats very far from ballistic. Just shoot rpg up about 30 degrees and see where it self-destructs

Uh, no. I think you're not on the dev branch...

The projectile has a perfectly ballistic trajectory. The NLAW and Titan behaves like you say, but those are missiles, not a rocket.

Edit: At least for me, it describes a descending curve when launched in the horizontal from launch to detonation. I couldn't see any sudden abandonment of the projectile of slowing and steepening descent after 500 meters, but measuring this is a little difficult. Just from observing, it seems to be perfectly fine as ballistics go. At 30 degree launch angle, the detonation point is about 1.5 FOV's downward from launch angle. When launching from the south end of the air strip towards the east, I can get the round to impact on the ground when aiming 2 full FOV's above horizontal.

Edited August 7, 2013 by InstaGoat

[progamer 14]

Can we go back to discussing what has been changed in the dev branch instead of how the feedback tracker should operate?

This is the proper thread for feedback tracker discussion: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147351-Arma-3-Feedback-Tracker

Edited August 7, 2013 by ProGamer

[sqb-sma 66]

Aside from initial "hump" in trajectory, the flight path is pretty much good old straight line, especially past 500 meters. Yes, it has some drop, but thats very far from ballistic. Just shoot rpg up about 30 degrees and see where it self-destructs

You're playing on the stable build then, as that hump + straight line movement was due to guidance, which has been removed on the dev build. It follows a ballistic arc now. (RPG)

[Vespa 1]

Grrrr, "Camo" named selection has been deleted from many INDEP uniforms (equip_ia_vest01 / equip_ia_vest02), no more retexturing, most of my units are lost).

PLEASE BIS, correct this , please...

Sorry, selections deleted by mistake. Will be fixed in todays Dev branch update

[instagoat 133]

Sorry, selections deleted by mistake. Will be fixed in todays Dev branch update

There's a couple of Units that in general don't seem to have functioning selections, some of the vehicles as well as some of the Units. Maybe we could make a list?

[pettka 694]

There's a couple of Units that in general don't seem to have functioning selections, some of the vehicles as well as some of the Units. Maybe we could make a list?

Could You, please, link me to a FT issue, I'll assign myself and try to take care of that :icon_twisted:

[petek 62]

Sorry, selections deleted by mistake. Will be fixed in todays Dev branch update

Thanks Vespa

[instagoat 133]

Could You, please, link me to a FT issue, I'll assign myself and try to take care of that :icon_twisted:

I am going to look over all vehicles and units and see which have selections and which don't. I´ll pm you the FT issue asap, probably either before 15:00 or after midnight, so it´ll be "on your desk" tomorrow morning at the latest.