General Discussion (dev branch)

[HaseDesTodes 62]

@dragon01

yes, it should all work (don't ask me how). if you make loops, or triggers keep in mind, that the VLS has some seconds cooldown, and from what i noticed ignores all fireAtTarget commands during that time.

i just do my 10 min tests and leave the rest to the pros. :)

 

[dragon01 902]

Well, obviously it ignores them. Reload time should be shorter, but it makes sense that it is considered (that said, there might be a separate command to instantly reload, which could be used there, as well). And the last thing we want is for that loop to fire once per frame (or whatever "tick" the game uses for things like that). There would have to be a wait at the end of the loop, so that it runs after every reload cycle is complete. 

[the_one_and_only_Venator 163]

4 hours ago, oukej said:

Sadly no, we're sorry. The feed panels have been removed from the UCAV Sentinel and the VLS (should be on dev branch soon).

 

Could you please leave it as it is? Probably just change that it isn't selected by default?

Because if putting in a regular playable AI it still works perfectly fine.

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

10 hours ago, oukej said:

 

 

I will not take that opinion from you :) Yet we've - B01 and us - tried to answer requests of our players. Like we did in most if not all previous updates. The requests we're still able to fulfill at this point, with A3 technology as it is. Long range anti-air, smaller vessel to accompany the carrier, with interiors, ...
Moreover a lot of effort is simply a labor of love that goes way beyond initially planned work. And comes for free. Arma is also a platform - as a platform it needs a variety of building blocks. And we believe that in some cases it's better to release a rough building block (or a working example) rather than keep it in a drawer. Out there it can inspire someone, someone can use it as a foundation for his or her own jewel and do something extraordinary. Perhaps someone might have been missing exactly that one building block.

 

 

Well, it is easy for you to say that masses of new weapons are the major wishes of the community and not quality in terms of reliable functionality.

BIS does not offer a kind of reliable information/opinion gathering platform (no, your forum is not the one, your tracker could be used as such, but isn't) so you answer the requests of those players where the wish fits what you had in mind anyway, that's it.

 

And no, it is not "for free", you cross-finance that with cash I gave to you since 2002. Or maybe with cash from somewhere else which you must get back from me when trying to sell A4 or the next pay - DLC.

That cash is missing for other developements.

 

That "releasing a building block" is the 1st real commitment by BIS that they basically abadonned all kind of quality assurance.

I would agree with you if it would mean BIS would release fully functional models/examples and the community would adapt configs and would model all different types of tanks of one perfect working example tank.

But that is not the case. Your building blocks are so buggy that it is hard to see any real value add.

And there are many "old" building blocks to be fixed, do that before you add new buggy building blocks.

 

BIS dragged down A3 to a quality level (IMHO) where it is hard to use it for any "serious gaming". It became a buggy shooter with excellent modding capabilities.

 

 

[oukej 2911]

2 hours ago, The Man Without Qualities said:

Well, it is easy for you to say that masses of new weapons are the major wishes of the community and not quality in terms of reliable functionality.

...

That "releasing a building block" is the 1st real commitment by BIS that they basically abadonned all kind of quality assurance.

Sorry, but here you've just turned my words upside down in a false implication so it only

2 hours ago, The Man Without Qualities said:

 fits what you had in mind anyway

Not what I said.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

Suggestion: I might be missing something but I can't find the F/A-181 Black Wasp II or UCAV Sentinel in Showcase NATO. Nonetheless, I think adding the destroyer and the carrier to the sea area or somewhere else might be a good idea with a teleport map whiteboard thingy between them.

 

Also I would take a look at the Fenghuang's Jian missiles since their turning radius is um... very sharp - be sure to aim them somewhere on the ground.

[dragon01 902]

2 hours ago, The Man Without Qualities said:

Maybe you did not got my point. You say it, "it was never designed for...".

That is why I say "Then don't try to abuse this engine for something it was never designed for."

If you do that, you're forever stuck rehashing OFP. Which is, admittedly, still the core of ArmA experience, but in this day and age, people wanted more from the game. The ships are not designed to be a centerpiece as far as gameplay is concerned, but rather to enable more interesting scenarios for planes and infantry. Previously, when making missions where you attack an entirely hostile island, you were stuck with "off-map" arty support and ArmA2-style scripted missile strikes, now you can have them in a far more immersive way. 

[lex__1 422]

13 hours ago, oukej said:

And we believe that in some cases it's better to release a rough building block (or a working example) rather than keep it in a drawer. Out there it can inspire someone, someone can use it as a foundation for his or her own jewel and do something extraordinary. Perhaps someone might have been missing exactly that one building block.

 

I agree with you, but if not to look at how some "rough blocks" have "openings". "Rough blocks" sometimes incorrectly perform work, or are used not properly. It gives a low-quality idea in a game. "Openings in rough blocks" are often used in an inadequate way. It turns a comfortable interesting game in dishonest, because of use by dishonest players of the forbidden actions over mistakes in a game. Some mistakes open not legal opportunities of blocks, or inappropriate missions in this type.
I understand that all similar questions, about such players, have to be directed to administrators of servers. But there are many bugs which use it is hard reliable to confirm or prove.
You have some tickets on these questions. How it is possible to correct difficult them in the current Arma3?

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T127351

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T126934

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T85691

 

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T82570

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T127626

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T127272

Quote

Multiple tickets of one question

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T69532
https://feedback.bistudio.com/T79829
https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123251

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T127272

 

[R0adki11 3949]

Where appropriate this thread has been cleaned up, can i remind all forum members to abide by our forum rules particular this rule:

 

Quote

Offensive content, flaming, privacy:

Material that is overly sexual, graphic, obscene, racist, or otherwise overly discriminatory is not permitted on these forums. Any material which constitutes defamation, harassment, abuse or slander, towards developers, staff or users, is strictly prohibited; this includes the Personal Message service, do not post private messages or user pictures. Flamebaiting is not allowed. Please do not post any personal or identifying information such as postal addresses, IPs or UIDs.

 

Any further issues, may result in members having a vacation from the forums.

[twistking 204]

16 hours ago, oukej said:

[...] Arma is also a platform - as a platform it needs a variety of building blocks. And we believe that in some cases it's better to release a rough building block (or a working example) rather than keep it in a drawer. Out there it can inspire someone, someone can use it as a foundation for his or her own jewel and do something extraordinary. Perhaps someone might have been missing exactly that one building block. [...]

 

well, after the latest few patches and updates arma for the first time of it's development seemed like a "complete" game to me (apart from those few little remaining bugs and problems, that will hopefully also ironed out still).

However for the major part of armas development cycle, it did not feel "complete" at all, but like a clusterfuck of unfinished blocks thrown together and stirred up every month with more unfinished blocks thrown in the mix. for me many, many aspects of the "game" started to make sense only this year... not talking about assets, but mostly functionality, mechanics, performance... those little improvments that maybe did not even make headlines in the dev blogs.

 

i obviously still enjoyed the game a lot throughout the whole process, but there were times where frustration was equally a part of the experience.

 

so my main wish for a next arma game would be a development process, where you maybe start with less blocks, but have them fully working and interacting and then deliberately add blocks to complete the picture...

also for arma 3 i really hope, you can still iron out those remaining little bugs and annoyances (vehicles turret lock, stabilization toggle  PLEASE!), since i expect, that we will have to get another year or two out of arma 3 before we will get to experience the enfusion powered future of milsim-sandboxing!!!

 

keep up the good work!!!

 

[anthony45 3]

can you add the computer artillery for mk41 vls the same as the mk45 hamer thank you

[the_one_and_only_Venator 163]

1 hour ago, anthony45 said:

can you add the computer artillery for mk41 vls the same as the mk45 hamer thank you

 

That wouldn't make any sense since the missiles were changed from an unguided ballistic artillery missile to a data-link lock on terrain following cruise missile.

So it wouldn't actually do anything unless you add for example the sandstorm mlrs weapon by scripting.

[D_Donskoy 50]

17 hours ago, HaseDesTodes said:

 

simple solution i found:

create a target that doesn't interfere with the surroundings; i used a game logic i placed in the editor for my test.

place a VLS 

run this:

west ReportRemoteTarget [TARGET, 3600];

TARGET confirmSensorTarget [west, true];

VLS fireAtTarget [TARGET, "weapon_vls_01"];

i tested this in the editor, and it worked fine for me.

 

i think the report can't be decreased to times smaller than the missiles traveling time, as the lock would break.

 

i think that people who can actually write scrips could make something out of this. eg. placing the target when you click on the map, and the firing from the action menu.

or moving the target to some players laser position, so there can me made some adjustments.

 

i guess the clever people here will find a good solution.

or for laser designator.

 

west ReportRemoteTarget [laserTarget player, 50000]; 
laserTarget player confirmSensorTarget [west, true]; 
MK41_VLS fireAtTarget [laserTarget player, "weapon_vls_01"];

 

[SuicideKing 233]

Two bugs:

1.  Darter drone is targeted by SAMs (like the new ones). Massive overkill, and I don't think any military wastes a Patriot missile on a small quadcopter :P
2. Pressing escape while flying aircraft (to adjust controls or something, for example) often causes the throttle to go to zero. This is in MP (self host, can't remember if it happens on a dedicated server, but probably will). Bad for obvious reasons.

Re: earlier rants about the new assets - lot of people wanted the carrier when jets released, and it's been a great asset to have. Expanded the kinds of missions we could make, since there was now a floating airstrip to start from. Similarly, the destroyer is a welcome addition, and something we weren't expecting. Cruise missile functionality was requested by many after oukej showcased an example on twitter. It brings a new dimension to the game, and looks cool as heck. If you really want normal arty from the carrier just place an MLRS on the deck and hide it. /shrug

 

And yeah, while i think a lot of us would like a return to old-fashioned conflicts (like say, the Korean War :p ), I think it's a bit to late to expect a significant change in direction 5 years after the game's first Early Access release. To that respect, the systems that have been introduced despite an old and creaking engine are quite welcome.

 

So while certain things have been frustrating in the past (or even now, e.g. spectator markers vanishing), a handful of people have put in a huge effort in the last several months and have gone back and added much requested features, fixed many outstanding bugs and in general applied a lot of polish to the game. Keeping the conversation here constructive is probably the best way to highlight issues (see work by Madin and Dedmen or RozekPoland for example) and get them resolved. We all have a bunch of things that bother us, so patience and coherence is key. :)

[ski2060 167]

Whom do we have to bribe to get that JASSM configured up and unlocked?

[anthony45 3]

hello how he did ?

 

[SuicideKing 233]

27 minutes ago, anthony45 said:

hello how he did ?

 

hello. the video is from June 29th, which is before the cruise missile was added. the VLS originally had rockets + artillery computer. this was changed later, sometime around the middle of July.

[Rhyder_Morra 74]

uhhhhh why not to add possibility to choose between gun and artillery for mk45 and between mrls and cruise missles for vls to make everyone happy?

 

^.^

 

Spoiler

 

[anthony45 3]

yes it would be good because the mk45 to well computer artillery does it well please add it on VLS mk41

[dragon01 902]

There are no conventional, ship-based ballistic missiles currently in the US service. In fact, as far as I know, the only naval ballistic missiles outside Chinese military are SLBMs. I know you can have a fictional missile, but I don't think something like that would happen IRL.

[anthony45 3]

all I ask is to put ballistic computer on vls mk41 because the laser designer on drone these not easy to guide

[SuicideKing 233]

5 minutes ago, anthony45 said:

all I ask is to put ballistic computer on vls mk41 because the laser designer on drone these not easy to guide

As mentioned many times before in this thread, the ballistic computer does not work with missiles, only shells (the 230mm rockets are defined as shells in the Arma engine).

 

With the drone, you can use ctrl-T to lock the camera to a target or position. Maybe that makes it easier?

[jone_kone 158]

*1000 pages of general discussion dev branch. Thats something. :)

[jone_kone 158]

11 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

As mentioned many times before in this thread, the ballistic computer does not work with missiles, only shells (the 230mm rockets are defined as shells in the Arma engine).

 

With the drone, you can use ctrl-T to lock the camera to a target or position. Maybe that makes it easier?

 

Also, you dont have to use the drone. You can also use the target designator under "turrets". It is colapsible and can be carried as a backpack.

[Lbbde 28]

To be exact, you also do not need a laser target because the VLS can attack any target marked via data link, such as radar-reported targets