General Discussion (dev branch)

[Electricleash 133]

2 hours ago, Alwarren said:

Okay, there is a thing that is bugging me, which is actually already in the current released patch, and that is this thing.

'snip'

Very much agree, While useful knowing your vehicle position at the beginning of a mission, I think it should be preceded by the 'on foot' role; MEDIC, TEAM LEADER etc.

[2nd ranger 282]

I've suggested before that there be a class icon next to the slots in the lobby. This would also help in situations where mission makers add custom unit names.

 

[Sniperwolf572 758]

3 hours ago, Alwarren said:

Okay, there is a thing that is bugging me, which is actually already in the current released patch, and that is this thing.

In a nutshell, if you put a squad of infantry on the skids of a Hummingbird helicopter and you will get four variations of "MH-9 Hummingbird Passenger (Right Bench 1)" instead of, you know, useful information like "Combat Life Saver", "Grenadier", "AT Missile Specialist" on the multiplayer slot-in screen.

 

Now I am told that this is indeed INTENDED behavior, with the argumentation that e.g. you would need to know who the pilot or commander etc is, and "it has been default before Eden".

 

I find this argument weak at best. The information what kind of seat I am sitting on (especially in vehicles like the Prowler that only has driver and FFV seats) is completely irrelevant. In the days of yore (i.e. pre-Eden), there was no way to put a unit into a vehicle at the start of the mission except for pre-configured vehicle crews, and there it made sense since the crews were all crewmen anyway, but now, this is a mess of FFV seat names that convey zero meaning and leave everybody guessing what exactly they are signing up on. Ideally, both the position and unit type would be displayed, but this strikes me as picking the worst of all possible solutions - namely changing the 2 year old default behavior  and thus making all missions that have a team start in a vehicle a quiz show. 

 

Frankly, I have no idea why this was changed NOW, after Eden has been around for nearly 2 years. 

 

 

I completely agree with you, unit type AND position (Grenadier - <Vehicle> Cargo, Crewman - <Vehicle> Commander) if in vehicle should be indicated. 

 

However to nitpick, apart from the 3den update, I'm not sure this has changed recently..

Before 3DEN we never had the ability to actually affect the classes of the crew itself, and you used to put units in crew positions via scripting, therefore the units were out of the vehicle before mission start and shown correctly.

It's probably a pain in the ass and defeats the entire purpose of 3den, but I guess it can be replicated if critical by placing units outside the vehicle and scripting them into position?

[dragon01 902]

I think that this was intended for cases in which you have, for example, a tank, in which case unit classes are less important than who is the commander, gunner and driver. 

 

My proposition is that units in "cargo" or "FFV" positions should have their class displayed, while units operating the vehicle itself (commander, gunner, driver/pilot) should have their role.

[Alwarren 2767]

37 minutes ago, Sniperwolf572 said:

I completely agree with you, unit type AND position (Grenadier - <Vehicle> Cargo, Crewman - <Vehicle> Commander) if in vehicle should be indicated. 

 

Agreed, that would be the preferred solution (or maybe on line two, where it says "AI" or the player name there is plenty of wasted space there). In absence of that, though, the prior state was IMO much more intuitive. Granted, when you have three crewmen, you will usually have trouble identifying who is who, but the number of tanks are much more limited than the number of infantry, and I usually write "Curb Stomper Commander" or something like that in their description field to identify them in the slot screen.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Sniperwolf572 said:

However to nitpick, apart from the 3den update, I'm not sure this has changed recently..

Before 3DEN we never had the ability to actually affect the classes of the crew itself, and you used to put units in crew positions via scripting, therefore the units were out of the vehicle before mission start and shown correctly.

It's probably a pain in the ass and defeats the entire purpose of 3den, but I guess it can be replicated if critical by placing units outside the vehicle and scripting them into position?

 

Well, yeah, as I said, we have Eden now since two years, a metric shit ton of missions that have been done with it. All of these missions are somewhat broken now. That is why I don't understand the change, even if it is a bug and prior to Eden it was normal to show the vehicle position, Eden surely changed the playing field, and this behavior has been around for a long time.

 

[Komachi 10]

3 hours ago, BlindNavigator said:

Thanks, how do one easily find parent classes?

 

 

Sweet!

You can use BIS_fnc_returnParents function or inheritsFrom script command.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Love the effort put into Showcase VTOL. 
Showcase Jets, eat your heart out.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Was very sad to see the removal of the WIP Mine Detector panel. Even in its current form its still supremely better than the nothing we have now.

 

I assume as a result it will not be making it into the 1.70 patch?

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Misplaced Tanoa airport light (bottom left corner of image)

 

[ivan keska 45]

Anyone able to eject from the planes strait into the ground and survive? Because that's a thing, also kinda funny how if the plane doesn't matter you can just rocket eject into the ground.

[pettka 694]

5 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

Was very sad to see the removal of the WIP Mine Detector panel. Even in its current form its still supremely better than the nothing we have now.

 

I assume as a result it will not be making it into the 1.70 patch?

We are now focusing on the panels for vehicles, still, we would like to give even infantry panels some love after 1.70 is out. Our Top Men are already thinking about what to do next.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

57 minutes ago, pettka said:

We are now focusing on the panels for vehicles, still, we would like to give even infantry panels some love after 1.70 is out. Our Top Men are already thinking about what to do next.

 

fantastic :)

[BIS_Dantes 183]

2 hours ago, ivan keska said:

Anyone able to eject from the planes strait into the ground and survive? Because that's a thing, also kinda funny how if the plane doesn't matter you can just rocket eject into the ground.

This is already fixed and should be published in one of next versions. 

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

What's the new vtol = 4 mode like?

 

Also I noticed in showcase VTOLs I could see aircraft beyond my object distance. Heli was at 3.6 km, object distance was 2 km. Terrain distance was 8 km.

[pettka 694]

6 minutes ago, Nightmare515 said:

What's the new vtol = 4 mode like?

Vtol = 3 requires vectoring to land while vtol = 4 doesn't. A good example of 3 is Blackfish, while Xi'an is rather vtol = 4.

[SuicideKing 233]

7 hours ago, pettka said:

We are now focusing on the panels for vehicles, still, we would like to give even infantry panels some love after 1.70 is out. Our Top Men are already thinking about what to do next.

To be very honest I'd much rather see the mine detector making beeping noises than a "mine radar". And look, I know someone's going to say "but that's how it works in modern mine detectors!" or "in 2035 mine sensor panels are standard!" and well, yeah, maybe. But having beeping noises just makes the whole thing feel more dangerous than a straight up panel.

 

Maybe make two additional mine detector classes, one that makes beeping noises, and one that has the mine sensor. There was reportedly a conflict with some mods that use MineDetector for other things, and adding new classes should solve that.

 

 

[DnA 5138]

That's one of the reasons we don't deem the current implementation finished yet. SFX feedback is planned; especially for when you don't have the Info Panel opened, but do have the detector in your inventory. For further discussion of this specific topic, please may I forward you to this thread? Keep your notes coming! :-)

[BlindNavigator 4]

18 hours ago, Komachi said:

You can use BIS_fnc_returnParents function or inheritsFrom script command.

Thanks again, I also found the in game config viewer and saw the canopy in there. 

 

I miss the motorcycles in Arma II, and this is the closest we have in A3:

["Ejection_Seat_Base_F","Motorcycle","LandVehicle","Land","AllVehicles","All"]

Anyways, this will remove all scrap for anyone interested:

 

cleanUpPlaneParts.sqf

    {
    if (vehicle _x isKindOf "Ejection_Seat_Base_F" OR vehicle _x isKindOf "Plane_Canopy_Base_F") then 
    { 
      deleteVehicle _x;
    };
    } forEach vehicles; 

 

[MADBUG 10]

I don't really know where to write about this but this "problem" is still in dev branch so...
NLAW. Flight path of it rocket launched locked in most times so low that it nearly hits the ground and sometimes it really hits the ground. I tested it in VR versus Marid that stayed at 600m distance and in half the cases rocket hits the ground. To decrease chance of hitting the ground nearly to 0, before launching rocket you need to raise launcher as high as possible without losing lock. That is really uncomfortable.

[dna_uk 30]

6 hours ago, pettka said:

Vtol = 3 requires vectoring to land while vtol = 4 doesn't. A good example of 3 is Blackfish, while Xi'an is rather vtol = 4.

Is this decision set in stone then? Loosing the ability to land the Blackfish without vectoring is going to completely ruin some community missions.

[ski2060 167]

You read that backward...
Blackfish will require vectoring, while Xi'an won't.

Blackfish cannot land normally, the props are too large.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

6 hours ago, ski2060 said:

You read that backward...
Blackfish will require vectoring, while Xi'an won't.

Blackfish cannot land normally, the props are too large.

 

Isn't meant to land normally. Just like the Osprey

[dna_uk 30]

13 hours ago, pettka said:

Vtol = 3 requires vectoring to land while vtol = 4 doesn't. A good example of 3 is Blackfish, while Xi'an is rather vtol = 4.

Seems today's update also doesn't allow me to adjust the vectoring angle of the Blackfish from 72° while it's grounded, making vertical take off impossible. Is that intended?

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

10 hours ago, dna_uk said:

Seems today's update also doesn't allow me to adjust the vectoring angle of the Blackfish from 72° while it's grounded, making vertical take off impossible. Is that intended?

 

I'd love to know the answer to this.  Surely it cannot be though as you can literally adjust it to 90 degrees as soon as the wheels are off the ground.  This kinda shoots down any theory that the V-44 is supposed to do rolling take-offs and should still be able to do a straight vertical lift-off.

 

Edit: okay been playing around with these changes some more and definitely not a fan.  For example the VTOL showcase mentions to either take off vertically or taxi to the runway.  You can no longer taxi in the Xi'An.

 

Fixed

[dna_uk 30]

9 hours ago, dna_uk said:

Seems today's update also doesn't allow me to adjust the vectoring angle of the Blackfish from 72° while it's grounded, making vertical take off impossible. Is that intended?

Fixed as of today's dev branch update.