General Discussion (dev branch)

[POLPOX 778]

11 minutes ago, reyhard said:

I'm afraid there is no easy fix for it - several attempts were made in past but all failed since it would require weapon remodeling

This is a stupid opinion - is this even possible that hide a part of ghillie suit that collide with the view when the first person view? Update the game engine or change the suit's model?

[reyhard 2082]

13 minutes ago, POLPOX said:

This is a stupid opinion - is this even possible that hide a part of ghillie suit that collide with the view when the first person view? Update the game engine or change the suit's model?

Everything is possible but at this stage it's highly unlikely that it's going to be fixed since ratio of work to potential benefit to platform is very low

[lex__1 422]

42 minutes ago, reyhard said:

I'm afraid there is no easy fix for it - several attempts were made in past but all failed since it would require weapon remodeling

This is not reproduced with other machine guns. If a new simulation is needed, then this must be done. In CTI mode, this is the only machine gun available on the OPFOR side, in the early stages of the game 1,5-2 hours of play. This creates an imbalance in the game.
But I like the argument - that there is a lot of work to fix this from Nov 2 2014  )))

[reyhard 2082]

28 minutes ago, lex__1 said:

This is not reproduced with other machine guns. If a new simulation is needed, then this must be done

It's all about position of scope - just take a look how close it is to the head. No other machinegun/rifle have it that close so in order to fix it, i.e. stock would have be to remoddeled and then whole model moved forward but then it could make whole weapon look dumb, since from some rough test it would need to be moved by 30cm forward. Creating new "simulation" or any other engine change is not an option since most of the programmers are working on other projects already as it was already communicated in few last SITREPs. There is no reason to be sarcastic about that ;)

[lex__1 422]

2 hours ago, reyhard said:

i.e. stock would have be to remoddeled and then whole model moved forward but then it could make whole weapon look dumb

But the problem also does not look chic

2 hours ago, reyhard said:

It's all about position of scope - just take a look how close it is to the head. No other machinegun/rifle have it that close so in order to fix it, i.e. stock would have be to remoddeled and then whole model moved forward but then it could make whole weapon look dumb, since from some rough test it would need to be moved by 30cm forward.

The problem occurs when Zafir is installed on a bipod.

If the Problem occurs on a bipod, then it is necessary to solve this ticket.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T81982

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T81992

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T82167

 

 

[Sgt. Strongest Military Ever 19]

I gotta question why you would ever be using the Zafir with a ghillie suit in the first place...

[lex__1 422]

2 hours ago, Sgt. Strongest Military Ever said:

I gotta question why you would ever be using the Zafir with a ghillie suit in the first place...

 

In most situations, the suit helps to be hidden, avoiding rapid detection in PvP contact.
Yes, it is possible the introduction of new rules will correct the problem . Tie each suit class to a specific weapon class.
We will continue to seek ways to justify any existence of problems?

 

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

1 hour ago, lex__1 said:

In most situations, the suit helps to be hidden, avoiding rapid detection in PvP contact.
Yes, it is possible the introduction of new rules will correct the problem. Tie each suit class to a specific weapon class.
We will continue to seek ways to justify any existence of problems?

 

 

 

 

On another note, I'm on dev currently and was just shooting things randomly in the VA when I noticed that ballistic vests currently offer 0 protection.  I tested this further by using a silenced 9mm on a Blufor soldier wearing the Carrier Rig (special) and shot him dead in 1 shot.  Same results with the GA Carrier Rig GL.

 

However when using the CSAT fatigues which have some small degree of ballistic protection the target doesn't die in 1 shot.

[x3kj 1247]

4 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

However when using the CSAT fatigues which have some small degree of ballistic protection the target doesn't die in 1 shot.

Fatigues overrides HP of the character directly (as in replace the values for new ones),  Stuff in the vest/helmet slot provides "addon" HP. Maybe they broke the "addon" part with the introduction of the new component system?

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

19 hours ago, Sgt. Strongest Military Ever said:

I gotta question why you would ever be using the Zafir with a ghillie suit in the first place...

 

there are no drawbacks of movement/agility constraints when using the ghillie suit, so why not?

[xeno 234]

On 2.3.2018 at 8:57 AM, POLPOX said:

If you use #(select) script command in #define, it causes an error.

#define	DEFINE_TEST	player setPos [getPosATL player select 0,getPosATL player select 1,(getPosATL player select 2) + 1] ;	//Works well
#define	DEFINE_TEST	player setPos [getPosATL player # 0,getPosATL player # 1,(getPosATL player # 2) + 1] ;	//Error

 

And the following causes also an error:

[1,2,3,4,5] # {_x mod 2 == 0}
"Test" # [2,2]

Both work fine with select

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Can we please reduce the Action Menu priority of the new "Unload Incapacitated" user action? It should be down the bottom, at least under all the "Get In" actions.

 

Reason:

 

In MP when soldiers run up to a vehicle, they spam the space bar trying to board it. Result is that they will inadvertently unload any incapacitated units inside at inappropriate times. For gameplay reasons, technical actions like this should be a lower priority.

 

More importantly, its available to vehicle passengers. This could lead to inadvertent selection, such as when trying to press the eject or get out option in combat.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Marshall APC still not liftable by Blackfish VTOL on Dev. Is this just the way it is now, or is a fix coming?

[R3vo 2654]

1 hour ago, xeno said:

And the following causes also an error:

[1,2,3,4,5] # {_x mod 2 == 0}
"Test" # [2,2]

Both work fine with select

 

[0,1] # true does also not work.

[teabagginpeople 398]

2 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

Can we please reduce the Action Menu priority of the new "Unload Incapacitated" user action? It should be down the bottom, at least under all the "Get In" actions.

 

Reason:

 

In MP when soldiers run up to a vehicle, they spam the space bar trying to board it. Result is that they will inadvertently unload any incapacitated units inside at inappropriate times. For gameplay reasons, technical actions like this should be a lower priority.

 

More importantly, its available to vehicle passengers. This could lead to inadvertent selection, such as when trying to press the eject or get out option in combat.

Second this.  Definitely the last option in the menu. That way the only people that are intentionally assigned to do it will use it properly.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

 

[R3vo 2654]

7 minutes ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

 

Hey, AI might not be able to drive anymore, but if we put the new camo-nets on top of the tanks at least we won't see the misery ;)

 

On a serious note: Will the voice protocol for when a player commands a tank be changed? It still sounds like this: Left, stop, right, stop etc. Very annoying.

[tortuosit 486]

12 hours ago, R3vo said:

Hey, AI might not be able to drive anymore

 

I still have some hope future generations can effectively use AI in ground vehicles. We have to use air vehicles. Personally, I tried cars within the Alive-Framework for player extraction, they start from a base but too often do not arrive and prefer to perform some kind of modern dance at obstacles.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

16 hours ago, R3vo said:

On a serious note: Will the voice protocol for when a player commands a tank be changed? It still sounds like this: Left, stop, right, stop etc. Very annoying.

 

You can disable this by changing the AI commands in the key binds menu.  By default the Command Left, Command Right etc are bound to the same keys as driving if you unbind those you can still drive the vehicle from the commanders slot but you avoid the annoying radio messages. :)

[R3vo 2654]

24 minutes ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

 

You can disable this by changing the AI commands in the key binds menu.  By default the Command Left, Command Right etc are bound to the same keys as driving if you unbind those you can still drive the vehicle from the commanders slot but you avoid the annoying radio messages. :)

Thanks for the hint!

[f2k sel 164]

Sorry not sure why it triple posted.

 

 

 

[f2k sel 164]

oops.

[f2k sel 164]

20 hours ago, R3vo said:

Hey, AI might not be able to drive anymore, but if we put the new camo-nets on top of the tanks at least we won't see the misery ;)

 

On a serious note: Will the voice protocol for when a player commands a tank be changed? It still sounds like this: Left, stop, right, stop etc. Very annoying.

 

Had the same today but it only hapend when I used the "forceFollowRoad" command it just hapend on a straight road with no junctions just started to spin.

[BIS_Dantes 183]

On 3/3/2018 at 10:29 AM, fn_Quiksilver said:

Marshall APC still not liftable by Blackfish VTOL on Dev. Is this just the way it is now, or is a fix coming?

Hi, this will be fixed.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

1 minute ago, Karloff said:

Hi, this will be fixed.

 

great news!