General Discussion (dev branch)

[zukov 490]

IMHO the new fijian bodies are a bit saturated  .....  😃

[kecske 46]

Quote

Added: WY-55 ammo box hidden selection and applied the correct ammo box to the LDF variant

Could the AAF variant receive the faction-appropriate texture now?

[Jezuro 452]

On 6/29/2019 at 2:34 PM, FoxFort said:

Sorry If I missed it. 

Will Warlods on Livonia map allow us to have Spetsnazs vs NATO warfare? instead of CSAT only?

 

We've updated the Livonia scenario to utilize NATO Woodland vs Spetsnaz units. This version will be released in the next dev branch update next week.

Note that this means the selection of infantry available to request will be limited to a few basic units and both factions will be using Pacific camouflage for vehicles (Spetsnaz will operate CSAT hardware). LDF forces will take the role of the Independent faction.

[FoxFort 341]

58 minutes ago, Jezuro said:

 

We've updated the Livonia scenario to utilize NATO Woodland vs Spetsnaz units. This version will be released in the next dev branch update next week.

Note that this means the selection of infantry available to request will be limited to a few basic units and both factions will be using Pacific camouflage for vehicles (Spetsnaz will operate CSAT hardware). LDF forces will take the role of the Independent faction.

That's cool. 

Does that mean Chinese CSAT or MiddlEast CSAT will be operating along Spetsnaz? Well I'm mostly interested if CSAT side will have AI with 3 different voices (Chinese, Farsi and Russian) at the same time on one side? (sounds like a mess) 

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

4 minutes ago, FoxFort said:

That's cool. 

Does that mean Chinese CSAT or MiddlEast CSAT will be operating along Spetsnaz? Well I'm mostly interested if CSAT side will have AI with 3 different voices (Chinese, Farsi and Russian) at the same time on one side? (sounds like a mess) 

 

It means that Spetsnaz will use CSAT vehicles (probably the Green Hex ones), since the Spetsnaz faction doesn't have any of their own. 😞

[ISparkle 49]

4 minutes ago, AveryTheKitty said:

 

It means that Spetsnaz will use CSAT vehicles (probably the Green Hex ones), since the Spetsnaz faction doesn't have any of their own. 😞

One can only hope that it is on the dev's wishlist or plan currently.

[joostsidy 685]

12 minutes ago, FoxFort said:

 if CSAT side will have AI with 3 different voices (Chinese, Farsi and Russian) at the same time on one side? (sounds like a mess) 

If communication between units is required, they will use Spanish as a lingua franca.

[Jezuro 452]

Only Spetsnaz soldiers will operate on the OPFOR side, controlling CSAT vehicles. Just to be clear, we're talking specifically about Warlords scenario on Livonia.

[lex__1 422]

BIS !!!!! When will your attention be on these tickets?
Put in order at least management from the commander that it would not block control of the tank.

Both tickets were created on the release-candidate version of Tank DLC.

Tank DLC was released with the killed management, after 1.5 years you are not able to put it in order? Are you able to answer these tickets? Both tickets were created on release-candidate Tank DLC. In which section of the forum is it still to inform or create a separate topic on them to get a response to the tickets?

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T127310

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T127626

The management of the tank and the crew has a close relationship, causes a chain of problems and totally creates a poor experience of management and interaction with the tank and crew.

1. I do not know what was supposed to be done initially, but clearly the interrelation of the two tank control systems does not work correctly. Control of the tank from the commander and commands to the driver of the tank easily blocks one of the two control systems. It seems that the control from the commander automatically turns on this type of control, and there is no reverse switch - the result is that the driver will not execute commands about traffic.
2. If earlier the teams about turning left / right created a small turning angle, now it is 90 degrees. This is a lot for accurate tactical positioning. Thin \ exact Control from the commander causes a problem from point (1.)
3. The waypoint for the crew has no way to reset. Waypoint itself can be removed. But the remote waypoint remains in the memory of AI, which constantly causes the AI to move in the direction of the already invisible waypoint. When the driver of the crew gets control of the tank, he immediately goes to the last (invisible) control point. When the driver of the crew receives control of the tank, he immediately seeks in the direction of the last (invisible) control point, contrary to the last voice command to the crew "stop". This problem forces the player to perform extra extra crew commands, or to refuse to use waypoints.

[FoxFort 341]

Interesting, kudos to you for using AI commands to navigate vehicle traveling.

 

As soon BIS made it a option to command vehicle like you are driver, regardless of your position and not use constant voice commands which clogs the comm channel (and kills command and control time) I deleted voice commands and just use my WASD.  

[lex__1 422]

1 hour ago, FoxFort said:

Interesting, kudos to you for using AI commands to navigate vehicle traveling.

 

As soon BIS made it a option to command vehicle like you are driver, regardless of your position and not use constant voice commands which clogs the comm channel (and kills command and control time) I deleted voice commands and just use my WASD.   

This remains the only active option to control the tank - WASD. If you completely abandon the use of AI tank crew control assistance - this control option is not always convenient when you need to open a map or UAV control terminal, chat, etc. - the tank is stopped and has no control.
A player loses a part of vehicle mobility due to inactive / blocked control methods or is forced to perform extra permanent dislocation actions inside the crew in order to regain control of the tank from an order.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

15 minutes ago, lex__1 said:

This remains the only active option to control the tank - WASD. If you completely abandon the use of AI tank crew control assistance - this control option is not always convenient when you need to open a map or UAV control terminal, chat, etc. - the tank is stopped and has no control.
A player loses a part of vehicle mobility due to inactive / blocked control methods or is forced to perform extra permanent dislocation actions inside the crew in order to regain control of the tank from an order.

 

You can still click on the map and tell your driver where to go.

[lex__1 422]

58 minutes ago, AveryTheKitty said:

 

You can still click on the map and tell your driver where to go. 

Voice commands to the driver are blocked, if the commander had previously controlled the tank. Voice commands are played but the driver does not perform them. He will go to the designated waypoint. But read above, about emerging or related problems of waypoints section (3.). The ability to reset the control point for the crew is not, only the replacement of the crew. The player gets the need to constantly give new waypoints, so that AI has the right directions and does not start to turn the tank in the old direction or that the driver does not leave at that moment when the commander leaves the tank.

For example, I am an engineer and commander of a tank. The tank was damaged, I give the command to stop. I get out of the tank for repair. The driver will begin to move the tank in the direction of the last waypoint, or will begin to do it as soon as it receives repair of the tank undercarriage.
This large, tangled chain of undocumented actions and consequences is more like a mess than a control.

[killzone_kid 1331]

do you have custom bindings? @lex__1

[lex__1 422]

13 minutes ago, killzone_kid said:

do you have custom bindings? @lex__1

If you apply and use the waypoint for the crew, when the voice commands stop working. Yes, it returns the work of voice commands, but we get the problem associated with waypoints, which can not be removed or circumvented.

 

 

[killzone_kid 1331]

So have you tried with default vanilla bindings?

[lex__1 422]

59 minutes ago, killzone_kid said:

So have you tried with default vanilla bindings? 

If you reset the user control settings, or create a new profile, then in the control of the vehicle and in commands for the crew, the keys corresponding to both methods of driving are set. That is, you lose one of the ways to manage. This does not eliminate the problems arising from management. Voice commands are reproduced in the chat, but in fact - this is a manual control from the commander. This does not affect the problem with the waypoints, the problem is reproduced.

If you assign custom settings for driving and in crew commands, both ways of driving are available. They work well when used separately. But there are problems with the cross-use of both methods of driving a vehicle or with waypoints.

It is necessary to fix the tickets that I mentioned above.
1. Resolving the last-waypoint AI memory retention problem
2. Elimination of the problem of cross control in both ways (command / vehicle control) of driving a vehicle.

[FoxFort 341]

I was kinda hoping that some "Aliens" material would be released before this "extended" weekend (in Czechia) 😕

[stburr91 1009]

2 hours ago, FoxFort said:

I was kinda hoping that some "Aliens" material would be released before this "extended" weekend (in Czechia) 😕

 

I don't expect any of the "aliens" material until the campaign is added, which is generally one of the last things added. 

[D_Donskoy 50]

On 7/3/2019 at 6:02 PM, Jezuro said:

Only Spetsnaz soldiers will operate on the OPFOR side, controlling CSAT vehicles. Just to be clear, we're talking specifically about Warlords scenario on Livonia.

Please, can we get CSAT vehicles in Russian camo!? 

[tortuosit 486]

OK guys, there is this "First Contact" campaign, where it tells me, I should load the DLC via Launcher blahblah. Well I load things via a command line, e.g. Global Mobilization is loaded via "-mod=GM;..." - there is Enoch folder now, but thats just the Terrain I guess.

Or is First Contact Campaign not out yet?

 

[soceris 56]

It has not been fully completed yet, wait a couple more days and it might be playable.

[lexx 1385]

I'm really curious what these other changes are that make it potentially conflict with "the greater sandbox".

[tortuosit 486]

Thx. OK, since I was absent from ArmA for ~ 2 weeks: Did FPS go down radically? For my standard tinkering mission on Livonia my FPS are ~30 instead of 50-60, which I was used to. Of course when there's no firefights and all the things we know.

 

Really just losely asking, may be whatever problem on my side, also mods may have progressed in a negative way.

EDIT: probably on my end, because no specific mentioning of fps lately here @ thread.

[nkenny 1057]

@tortuosit

I had the same impression a few patches back, i.e., two-three weeks ago. Was not in a position to make a proper test of it.