Today's new Steam update to Beta

[malau 10]

Thanks.

Arma 2 OA (with BE) runs fine from Steam, no problems, no errors.

The only server I play on is at 62.210.52.9:2302

It is an Overpoch Origins Taviana server.

[opusfmspol 280]

Received this error on JIP. The error does not appear for host:

Error in expression < = ["GUE", "RU", "INS", "CIV_RU"]; if (_faction in _westArr) then {_hq setIden>
 Error position: <_faction in _westArr) then {_hq setIden>
 Error Undefined variable in expression: _faction
File CorePatch\CorePatch_SOM\data\scripts\init.sqf, line 184

I'm running two machines with beta on LAN, local hosting, not dedicated.

The mission is a BIS Warfare CTI using all custom init scripts, with a SOM synched to each leader.

The SOM's are running custom phase scripts for the supports, but rely on their init and FSM paths from beta.

The JIP machine received an error for each SOM in the mission.

Only guessing, but does the Corepatch SOM init need to wait for player to become local?

I know Warfare's client init does, at one point it has:

if (!Local player) then
{
WaitUntil {Local player};
};

[goliath86 11]

Received this error on JIP. The error does not appear for host:

Error in expression < = ["GUE", "RU", "INS", "CIV_RU"]; if (_faction in _westArr) then {_hq setIden>
 Error position: <_faction in _westArr) then {_hq setIden>
 Error Undefined variable in expression: _faction
File CorePatch\CorePatch_SOM\data\scripts\init.sqf, line 184

I'm running two machines with beta on LAN, local hosting, not dedicated.

The mission is a BIS Warfare CTI using all custom init scripts, with a SOM synched to each leader.

The SOM's are running custom phase scripts for the supports, but rely on their init and FSM paths from beta.

The JIP machine received an error for each SOM in the mission.

Only guessing, but does the Corepatch SOM init need to wait for player to become local?

I know Warfare's client init does, at one point it has:

if (!Local player) then
{
WaitUntil {Local player};
};

Thank you for reporting OpusFmSPol! I have fixed the issue and will be included in next beta branch ;)

Thank you again!

[malau 10]

How long till the fix is live ?

[malau 10]

I notice there is a 154.9mb update today, where can we see a changelog for the update ?

[Dwarden 1125]

corepatch stuff remastered ;)

also, there is now Arma 2 beta branch, so opt-in if you opted-in for Arma 2: OA beta too

[malau 10]

I moved the problem to a thread specifically for the new update.....

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?191781-The-new-156mb-Steam-update

[opusfmspol 280]

I added an observation to the thread above. With the new update, if a mission being run in beta A2 has borrowed scripts that define functions relying on Corepatch filepath, Corepatch filepath errors will occur.

[opusfmspol 280]

The Warfare scripts for Server_SupportUpdate in A2 and Arrowhead don't match. The A2 script contains an incorrect fix causing error, but the Arrowhead script contains the correct fix, no error received.

I started rebuilding the Secops-Warfare mission from scratch in editor, relying only upon scripts from current beta release. To insert custom phase scripts the WF Server_SupportUpdate was borrowed from the A2 .pbo. When the support update began running, this error occurred and no supports became available (used a funds trigger to afford the supports):

Error in expression <le "mainScope";[color="#0000FF"]_side =[/color] [color="#FF0000"]side[/color] [color="#0000FF"]_mainScope getVariable "side";[/color]_sideText = WFSideTe>
 Error position: <getVariable "side";_sideText = WFSideTe>
 Error getvariable: Type Side, expected Namespace,Object,Group,Control,Team member,Task,Location
File C:\Users\<redacted>\Documents\ArmA 2\mpmissions\betaTestBasicSOMWF.Chernarus\Server\Functions\Server_SupportUpdate.sqf, line 60

I found in Arrowhead expansion's .pbo, the line was correct there, so I borrowed from it instead. No error occurred and supports became available.

(The correct line is _side = _mainScope getVariable "side"; )

I checked with another basic editor placed mission, no scripts, and confirmed that running the mission in A2 the error occurs, but running in Arrowhead it doesn't.

[goliath86 11]

Thank you OpusFmSPol! I will correct it ASAP ;)

[opusfmspol 280]

mrtinkerjeep on Steam discussions pointed this out, and I can verify it having encountered it myself....

Running A2 Beta alone without OA, the "Harvest Red" Campaign failed at start of mission: "Manhattan".

On the previous mission, "Razor Two", this pop-up message occurred at start:

Script ca\modules_e\uav\data\scripts\uav_action.sqf not found

The UAV terminal in the mission was unusable.

When starting "Manhattan", this pop-up occurred repeatedly and the mission would not launch:

"You cannot play/edit this mission; it is dependent on downloadable content that has been deleted. ca_modules_e_uav."

It appears something in the A2 campaign is looking for OA content?

[goliath86 11]

mrtinkerjeep on Steam discussions pointed this out, and I can verify it having encountered it myself....

Running A2 Beta alone without OA, the "Harvest Red" Campaign failed at start of mission: "Manhattan".

On the previous mission, "Razor Two", this pop-up message occurred at start:

The UAV terminal in the mission was unusable.

When starting "Manhattan", this pop-up occurred repeatedly and the mission would not launch:

It appears something in the A2 campaign is looking for OA content?

Thank you for reporting OpusFmSPol!

I've found a dependency on OA modules.pbo inside the mission.sqm of "Manhattan" and I've fixed it but I can't find any reference at "uav_action.sqf" or "modules_e" script inside any of the files of the "Razor Two" mission folder. I will further investigate on it ;)

EDIT: founded the errors and fixed for the next beta patch! ;)

Thank you OpusFmSPol!!

Edited May 29, 2015 by goliath86

[gagi2 50]

if server is running anything Infistar then I'm not surprised because it can't handle any config deviation

wonder why are admins crazy to run it at all ...

if you would have added some nice admin features like infistar had (a bit more than what arma provides like kick ban and mapchange for example).... and some decent antihack tools

we wouldnt need a third party tool... would we?

[Dwarden 1125]

that's the irony there, his "antihack" is using all what's already there (script-wise and BE) ... so not sure if you can even classify it as tool

[gagi2 50]

no but it gives us a nice interface for all this stuff...

[malau 10]

I don't see why BIS can't just rip Infistar's code and incorporate it into Arma ? After all, isn't that what people say that Infistar did to others to create his antihack in the first place ?