General Discussion (dev branch)

[Mr. Charles 22]

Bipod on RPG 

[roberthammer 582]

1 hour ago, Mr. Charles said:

Bipod on RPG 

 

It might look silly but the bipod really helps if you aim with the PGO7 sight , mainly in prone position or any supported position

 

even modern launchers can use a bipod like the Carl Gustav Launcher

[lex__1 422]

5 hours ago, roberthammer said:

There been couple of things cut from the Apex - like the newest CG M4 launcher and M4A1 rifle

 

that PGO7 sight was supposed to be with the RPG7 so i don't why that was cut as well

I made these tickets after the release of Apex.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T121840

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T121841

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T121842

[xxgetbuck123 945]

6 hours ago, roberthammer said:

There been couple of things cut from the Apex - like the newest CG M4 launcher and M4A1 rifle

 

that PGO7 sight was supposed to be with the RPG7 so i don't why that was cut as well

 

Fuck that's a nice lookin M4 and Carl G. The question is though, is that RPG7 the one we currently have in Apex, just missing the bipod and scope? Or is it a completely different model? 

[roberthammer 582]

14 minutes ago, xxgetbuck123 said:

Fuck that's a nice lookin M4 and Carl G. The question is though, is that RPG7 the one we currently have in Apex, just missing the bipod and scope? Or is it a completely different model? 

 

Same model , it just misses the bipod and sight attachments

[x3kj 1247]

Maybe they save it for tac ops DLC or whatever? A possibility... Or they where not satisfied with the look, or the model technicalities didn't meet their specs, or LODs where not created by the outsourced company and they don't have any artist free to complete it.

Though the bipod is questionable, atm deployment does not work for launcher weapons - so they would have to implement that, which is unlikely to happen i think.

 

I know one time a company payed for a model from an external artist that happened to be me and it was in the game for an expansion... they just totally forgot about it for some reason.

[HaseDesTodes 62]

did you guys realize the RPG-7 model is from the DayZ SA?

i guess it might not be a noticeable problem to transfer it to A3, but i don't think there were plans for it.

[Alwarren 2767]

16 minutes ago, HaseDesTodes said:

did you guys realize the RPG-7 model is from the DayZ SA?

i guess it might not be a noticeable problem to transfer it to A3, but i don't think there were plans for it.

 

I am quite sure the AK is from DayZ SA as well, as is the MP-5k.

[HaseDesTodes 62]

yes it's probably the same model.

BUT the discussion about the RPG/bipod on an A3 launcher is based on a rendered image from a different game. that's all i wanted to express.

i'd really like prone position with launchers and RPG-7 with PGO7 sight and bipod, but i don't think we should assume this is coming because of the DayZ RPG image.

[lex__1 422]

 

It is necessary to change a way of breakage of an awning.
Big loss for cars and health.

Awning (canopy) - a guillotine. https://feedback.bistudio.com/T120795

 

[roberthammer 582]

8 hours ago, HaseDesTodes said:

yes it's probably the same model.

BUT the discussion about the RPG/bipod on an A3 launcher is based on a rendered image from a different game. that's all i wanted to express.

i'd really like prone position with launchers and RPG-7 with PGO7 sight and bipod, but i don't think we should assume this is coming because of the DayZ RPG image.

 

It is the same model , it has the same texture 

 

and it would be nice if they added Prone position to Launchers , a proper prone fire position that is

[lex__1 422]

3 hours ago, roberthammer said:

 

It is the same model , it has the same texture 

 

and it would be nice if they added Prone position to Launchers , a proper prone fire position that is

Such tickets probably can be found more than I found

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T66890

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T70958

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T80372

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T80523

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83601

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T122700

This ticket I was doing stabilizing the AA \ AT launcher (in the body position sits \ stands)

There is no instrument of decrease  in inertia and reducing the effect of fatigue, at missiles launch of NLAW and Titan.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83141

[Alwarren 2767]

4 hours ago, roberthammer said:

and it would be nice if they added Prone position to Launchers , a proper prone fire position that is

 

Absolutely, I never understood why the launchers cannot be used from prone position, more so since the fixed Metis launcher in Arma 2 is fired from prone...

[lex__1 422]

8 minutes ago, Alwarren said:

 

Absolutely, I never understood why the launchers cannot be used from prone position, more so since the fixed Metis launcher in Arma 2 is fired from prone...

+100% With all the possibilities and the existence of animation

 

[oukej 2910]

On 8/28/2017 at 5:14 PM, Vasily.B said:

On 8/27/2017 at 2:25 AM, wiki said:

-In the showcase "combined arms", the Blackfoot doesn't fire anymore.

It just comes, fly by the camp and hovers behind it. It no longer circle above nor fire at the enemy.

Thats beacuse bug i reported long time ago. Bug is very easy to fix, its beacuse allowfleeing is now 1 for all units. Choppers rather to fly little away from threat and hover nomatter what instead attack target that is shooting to it. 
Allowfleeing 0 is taking problem down, but as You have stated, in missions not done by us, its impossible to change this value. So....

Please BIS, change allowfleeing 1 to allowfleeing 0 at least for attack helicopters, or modify their pathfinding, so they will hover somewhere further (2 km away), so nobody would shoot them off.

Blackfoot in the mission has fleeing already disabled. On my playthroughs it attacked normally. Could've been caused by the recent AI skill changes. Does is still happen for you? What difficulty/AI level are you using?

 

 

On 9/13/2017 at 6:08 PM, das attorney said:

Can you guys look at fixing targetKnowledge please?  It doesn't update the positional error at all.  At the moment, I'm having to trawl through nearTargets to find the value.

 

Here is a test mission  (just follow the blue arrows, then the red ones and watch the hintbox):

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1kzYgzONxC0TkphNFByc0VDbzA

Thanks for the heads-up! Same behavior is on Stable. Any idea since when you are experiencing it?

 

 

On 9/15/2017 at 10:06 AM, R3vo said:

Are the physics changes already noticeable on dev or do they need to be configured first for all tanks?

The improvements and fixes in the PhysX library itself and related engine work affect all the content, including mods, right away.
But we've also added some new properties

On 9/14/2017 at 4:11 PM, DnA said:

EXE rev. 142969 (game) 

• Added: New vehicle config parameters tankTurnForceAngSpd, accelAidForceCoef, and accelAidForceSpd

and at the same time we've revisited most of the tank handling configuration. The configuration is yet to be dev-branched.

[das attorney 858]

3 minutes ago, oukej said:

Thanks for the heads-up! Same behavior is on Stable. Any idea since when you are experiencing it?

 

It's been like that for quite a long time - I filed this report on Manifest but it must have fell by the wayside or perhaps the repro at the time wasn't clear.  It's a really handy little command - would be nice to see a fix  :)

 

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T117302

[R3vo 2654]

2 hours ago, oukej said:

The improvements and fixes in the PhysX library itself and related engine work affect all the content, including mods, right away.

But we've also added some new properties

and at the same time we've revisited most of the tank handling configuration. The configuration is yet to be dev-branched.

 

Looking forward to those changes. Thanks for the info.

[Vasily.B 529]

3 hours ago, oukej said:

The improvements and fixes in the PhysX library itself and related engine work affect all the content, including mods, right away.
But we've also added some new properties

and at the same time we've revisited most of the tank handling configuration. The configuration is yet to be dev-branched.

Oh, man, its finally happens! Please, after releaseing update, try to create documentation what need to be changed for current vehicle configuration. I'm really happy man now, keep up the good work!

[razazel 619]

On 9/15/2017 at 4:54 PM, das attorney said:

Hi, I keep getting this pop-up error when opening a mission:

 

22:36:53 Warning Message: Cannot open object a3\weapons_f_exp\acc\acco_pgo7_blk_f.p3d

 

Hi, would you mind providing repro steps or a repro mission where this happens? (PM me the mission if you wish)

[2nd ranger 282]

Quote

Tweaked: The most obvious "hand to face" idle animations are no longer used for player characters

 

Oh thank god

[Igor Nikolaev 511]

Quote

Tweaked: The most obvious "hand to face" idle animations are no longer used for player characters

I think it shouldn't be completely  deleted. Reduced chance of appearing could be better.

[dragon01 902]

It will be removed from players only, the AIs still have it. It's not something you'll miss much, really (quite the opposite, in fact).

[das attorney 858]

On 9/19/2017 at 10:28 AM, razazel said:

Hi, would you mind providing repro steps or a repro mission where this happens? (PM me the mission if you wish)

 

 

Hi,

 

Just to be clear, I know that the weapon shouldn't be in game, but at the time this script was wrote (over a year ago), the only scopes available were for primary weapons.  So there seemed no need to check for if any scope fits a launcher or not.  As you can see from code below, it checks for the scope property, and makes sure the class has a model and picture.  So in theory, it should filter out any base classes or classes not supposed to be in game.

 

I presume someone has either added "optic_PGO7_blk_F" recently, or it was "scope = 1" and someone has recently changed the "scope" property to 2 for whatever reason (perhaps it is to be added in tanks dlc etc).  Idk, anyway, this error is new as I've been running it for about a year with no pop-up error up until now.

 

Here is a script that collects scope classes.  The error is when a subsequent script tries to add it as an attachment.

// fnc to collect all scopes in game - fnc does not sort primary from secondary
//  as there was no need because all scopes previously were for primary weapons
_scopes = [];
_cfgWeapons = configFile >> "CfgWeapons";
for "_i" from 0 to count _cfgWeapons - 1 do {
    _cfgEntry = _cfgWeapons select _i;
    if (isClass _cfgEntry
        and {getNumber (_cfgEntry >> "scope") == 2}
        and {getText (_cfgEntry >> "model") != ""}
        and {getText (_cfgEntry >> "picture") != ""}
    ) then {
        _class = configName _cfgEntry;
        if (isClass (_cfgWeapons >> _class >> "ItemInfo")) exitWith {
            if (getNumber (_cfgWeapons >> _class >> "ItemInfo" >> "type") == 201) then {
                _scopes pushBack _class
            }
        }
    }
};

// so then, error would arise when it assumes all scopes are for primary weapons and it tries
// to add "optic_PGO7_blk_F" as a scope to a primary weapon
// for example:

player addPrimaryWeaponItem "optic_PGO7_blk_F"

// BUT, you can easily get this same error by trying to add item to correct launcher

player addSecondaryWeaponItem "optic_PGO7_blk_F"

 

Seems to me it should be scope = 1 if it isn't supposed to be in game (and doesn't have a model that will load in-game).

 

Hope that clears it up for you.

[Igor Nikolaev 511]

4 hours ago, dragon01 said:

It will be removed from players only, the AIs still have it. It's not something you'll miss much, really (quite the opposite, in fact).

I will miss it, it really ties me with the good old Alpha days and gives me some kind of nostalgia feeling. Agree, it was sometimes annoying, but wasn't that annoying like boot-checking animation, that was very frequent to me, more than sun-shielding.

[SuicideKing 233]

I wrote some stuff on AT weaponry available to infantry and some suggestions to improve the infantry vs vehicle experience given the constraints of the current game assets.

Request for expansion of infantry AT assets in view of Tanks DLC