Dedicated Client / Headless Client feedback (dev branch)

[loud 11]

Any news on release?

[zx64 10]

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=18365 is still an issue, so those using HC for their missions should double check the actual skill settings with skillFinal. You can work around this by conditionally using different values to setSkill.

[goomer 10]

Wouldn't it be possible to just have a launch parameter to make ArmA3 automatically spawn a HC process (i.e. -hc ) and then, at the start of each mission, have Arma3 check whether the HC is running and if so, intelligently offload some of the work to it, without the mission designer having to customise his missions for HC?

That is an excellent idea. I support this.

[cyruz 103]

Wouldn't it be possible to just have a launch parameter to make ArmA3 automatically spawn a HC process (i.e. -hc ) and then, at the start of each mission, have Arma3 check whether the HC is running and if so, intelligently offload some of the work to it, without the mission designer having to customise his missions for HC?

That is an excellent idea. I support this.

You're both over thinking this, it shouldn't require any user input at all. It should be handled internally by the application that spawns it's own thread and moves the AI handling, HC was a crutch to fix something they couldn't do in A2, I still want to see this handled better in A3 without a band aid solution.

The fact that you either need to understand how to transfer units or spawn them directly on the HC isn't really acceptable as it alienates a huge amount of casual mission makers who aren't interested in have to script this kind of stuff. Not going to touch the fact that the documentation is still shit and linking to 3rd party guides for A2...

[doveman 7]

You're both over thinking this, it shouldn't require any user input at all. It should be handled internally by the application that spawns it's own thread and moves the AI handling, HC was a crutch to fix something they couldn't do in A2, I still want to see this handled better in A3 without a band aid solution.

The fact that you either need to understand how to transfer units or spawn them directly on the HC isn't really acceptable as it alienates a huge amount of casual mission makers who aren't interested in have to script this kind of stuff. Not going to touch the fact that the documentation is still shit and linking to 3rd party guides for A2...

Er, that's basically what I said. The only "user input" I mentioned would be to add -hc to the launch parameters, so that it's an option in case it doesn't work for some people or they don't want to use it for whatever reason, although I suppose that could be reversed to -nohc to disable it and have it enabled by default.

[cyruz 103]

Er, that's basically what I said. The only "user input" I mentioned would be to add -hc to the launch parameters, so that it's an option in case it doesn't work for some people or they don't want to use it for whatever reason, although I suppose that could be reversed to -nohc to disable it and have it enabled by default.

Why would you ever need to disable this feature, no other game would give you the option disable offloading processes to additional threads, that serves literally no purpose unless you can supply an example why you would want to do this. It's just as useful in SP as it is in MP.

[doveman 7]

Why would you ever need to disable this feature, no other game would give you the option disable offloading processes to additional threads, that serves literally no purpose unless you can supply an example why you would want to do this. It's just as useful in SP as it is in MP.

Er, for debugging purposes or to compare performance with and without HC :rolleyes:

[cyruz 103]

Er, for debugging purposes or to compare performance with and without HC :rolleyes:

Pointless, stop thinking of HC as a bolt on, what I'm proposing if it be integrated in to the core application (client/server) which wouldn't require you to do your own debugging as, you know, it would work and you wouldn't need to turn shit on and off. Break the mindset of it being a separate optional part, it shouldn't be and if it has negative performance impacts it should be fixed or remove completely not left for people to turn it on and off at random.

Options are good, it's one of the many great thing about Arma but this isn't one of those things. The logic of turning it off because it performs badly is the equivalent of pulling two plugs off a v8 to give you a v6 because it runs better, if that is the case, the manufacturer shouldn't have built it that way.

Clumsy metaphors aside if it was implemented well, you'd never want to disable it.

[Levia 10]

Any idea if this implementation will be in 1.34 Helicopters DLC release?

[papanowel 120]

Any idea if this implementation will be in 1.34 Helicopters DLC release?

I really doubt it, it is way too early to add it.

[R3vo 2654]

You're both over thinking this, it shouldn't require any user input at all. It should be handled internally by the application that spawns it's own thread and moves the AI handling, HC was a crutch to fix something they couldn't do in A2, I still want to see this handled better in A3 without a band aid solution.

The fact that you either need to understand how to transfer units or spawn them directly on the HC isn't really acceptable as it alienates a huge amount of casual mission makers who aren't interested in have to script this kind of stuff. Not going to touch the fact that the documentation is still shit and linking to 3rd party guides for A2...

I absolutely agree, if we get a solution now, it should be a proper one, without the need to script for hours again for mission builders. If a virtual client unit is placed on the map, the game should automatically detect it and move the AI calculations over to its own thread.

[loud 11]

I really doubt it, it is way too early to add it.

Why? Wasn't HC already implemented in arma3.exe? This doesn't work the same way?

[papanowel 120]

Why? Wasn't HC already implemented in arma3.exe? This doesn't work the same way?

I'm talking about the new way of HC is handle not the old one that requires a different setting (read first post).

Anyway, it's my guess nothing more, nothing less.

[doveman 7]

I absolutely agree, if we get a solution now, it should be a proper one, without the need to script for hours again for mission builders. If a virtual client unit is placed on the map, the game should automatically detect it and move the AI calculations over to its own thread.

Which is what I proposed. I don't know why Cyruz keeps going on like he's suggested something different/better. :confused:

[BinaryMan 1]

Which is what I proposed. I don't know why Cyruz keeps going on like he's suggested something different/better. :confused:

Because he has proposed something different and I agree with cyruz. There should be no user input for headless client functionality at all. No script, no module, no editor change, or mission config change. It should just be handled by engine automatically. Headless client needs to be developed so its functionally better than the game currently is or abandoned. Being able to not use a feature which makes the game better or having to enable a feature which makes the game better is stupid.

Why would you ever need to disable this feature, no other game would give you the option disable offloading processes to additional threads, that serves literally no purpose unless you can supply an example why you would want to do this.

Edited November 5, 2014 by BinaryMan

[doveman 7]

Because he has proposed something different and I agree with cyruz. There should be no user input for headless client functionality at all. No script, no module, no editor change, or mission config change. It should just be handled by engine automatically. Headless client needs to be developed so its functionally better than the game currently is or abandoned. Being able to not use a feature which makes the game better or having to enable a feature which makes the game better is stupid.

Well to quote myself:

"I was wondering if the need for the user to setup HC and mission makers to customise their missions for it couldn't be eliminated, so that everyone can benefit from it?

Wouldn't it be possible to just have a launch parameter to make ArmA3 automatically spawn a HC process (i.e. -hc ) and then, at the start of each mission, have Arma3 check whether the HC is running and if so, intelligently offload some of the work to it, without the mission designer having to customise his missions for HC?"

so the only difference is that I suggested there should be a launch parameter to enable/disable this feature, for debugging or comparison purposes (which might be particularly useful whilst it's in development and needs testing to find and eliminate any bugs, maybe once that's done, this could be eliminated), whilst Cyruz thinks there shouldn't be this option. I certainly didn't suggest there should be any script, module, editor or mission config change.

[cyruz 103]

Well to quote myself:

"I was wondering if the need for the user to setup HC and mission makers to customise their missions for it couldn't be eliminated, so that everyone can benefit from it?

Wouldn't it be possible to just have a launch parameter to make ArmA3 automatically spawn a HC process (i.e. -hc ) and then, at the start of each mission, have Arma3 check whether the HC is running and if so, intelligently offload some of the work to it, without the mission designer having to customise his missions for HC?"

so the only difference is that I suggested there should be a launch parameter to enable/disable this feature, for debugging or comparison purposes (which might be particularly useful whilst it's in development and needs testing to find and eliminate any bugs, maybe once that's done, this could be eliminated), whilst Cyruz thinks there shouldn't be this option. I certainly didn't suggest there should be any script, module, editor or mission config change.

During development is different to when it's completed and or public. I'm not outwardly saying you're incorrect by having switchable options for stuff like this, what I'm saying is in reality you'd want it to be so core to the engine that you wouldn't ever need to do that, like turning off Physx simulation etc. Not being switchable also means that if (when) it breaks it gets a priority fix as you can't get around it.

[loud 11]

Why aren't there anymore updates about this given? Having a biki article that isn't correct with stable branch isn't really helping.

[Dwarden 1125]

it's being worked on (factually cause I just had another set of discussions what to improve with programmers ;) )

we trying to address some of the seamless to use and deploy and other automatic approach issues

also stuff like automatic mission init

[R3vo 2654]

it's being worked on (factually cause I just had another set of discussions what to improve with programmers ;) )

we trying to address some of the seamless to use and deploy and other automatic approach issues

also stuff like automatic mission init

Fantastic news, thanks for the information.

[kremator 1065]

we trying to address some of the seamless to use and deploy and other automatic approach issues

also stuff like automatic mission init

Make ... it ... so!

[das attorney 858]

More Headless Client weirdness. Units spawned on HC shoot at empty air and hit it!

Ticket: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=21599

Vid:

[cyruz 103]

More Headless Client weirdness. Units spawned on HC shoot at empty air and hit it!

Ticket: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=21599

That reminds me of this:

https://dev.withsix.com/issues/62500

Do you have this in your server.cfg?

localClient[]={127.0.0.1};

[nics 10]

Hi all,

I wonder how I can get access to the Arma 3 dedicted server dev branch for Linux.

The command (quoted a a lot in the context of Windows installations)

steamcmd.sh +login <steamlogin> +force_install_dir /home/nic/arma3 +'app_update 233780 -beta development' validate +quit

just gives me a binary which is binary equal to the stable version (1.34.128075), the one from Nov 4th.

It looks like headless client functionality hasn't been implemented in this version yet, the documented HC-startup commands always start another dedicated server instance.

Since you BI-guys explicitly mentioned Linux support in the beginning of this thread, I can't wait to get access to it.

Does anybody know how to get the dev branch for Linux?

Thank you

Nic

Edited November 9, 2014 by nics

[loud 11]

Is this dying a slow death?