[Release] GOM - Aircraft Loadout V1.35

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

2 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

good stuff!

 

i feel like the remote targets options are a bit of scope creep though, beyond simple vehicle loadouts stuff.

 

also maybe make for resources 'simple object' compatible, so we can have simple object service-truck props nearby.

 

something like this:

 

_simpleFuelVicModels = [
    '....\.p3d',
    '....\.p3d',
    '....\.p3d'
];
_simpleFuelVics = (allSimpleObjects []) select { (((getModelInfo _x) select 1) in _simpleFuelVicModels) && ... };

 

Simpleobjects can't be destroyed or interacted with,

you can simply disable the resource management for that specific type to have unlimited amounts of it and place as many simple objects as you want.

About the sensor handling, since there's currently no other way to change these settings mid-mission and they are in the same way related to aircraft like refueling,

repairing or changing the livery I don't see a problem with it being in the menu.

 

7 hours ago, lawndartleo said:

 

I hate to be a n00b but can you please expand upon this explanation for the less scripting inclined among us.  Thanks!

 

How you implement this into your server is up to you, I'm just providing the interface and a set of functions to add/remove this action to the player.

A basic how to is in the first post however, 1.3 will bring some more examples and a demo of how an aircraft service area can be set up for MP and dedi.

I'm sure if you google for "arma 3 initPlayerLocal.sqf" or "arma 3 filter by uid" there will be plenty of results.

 

Cheers

[Diaverso Carrasco 1]

Can you create an example mission?

Thanks

[Teuf 1]

I suppose this is basically shedding light on it now. Grumpy designed this iteration for Single player missions stuff, not MP.  That's why there is such erratic behavior for the aircraft on having dialogs and the inability of other players to interface properly with the GOM script.

 

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

19 hours ago, Teuf said:

I suppose this is basically shedding light on it now. Grumpy designed this iteration for Single player missions stuff, not MP.  That's why there is such erratic behavior for the aircraft on having dialogs and the inability of other players to interface properly with the GOM script.

 

 

I already explained to you via PM how the way this action can be added to players/objects will be overhauled in 1.3, same for dedi compatibility and also how it will showcase a dedicated server compatible aircraft service zone,

and I showed you in the same conversation how you could use the aircraft loadout dialog with respawned aircraft using the vanilla respawn module (tested and working).

And this is how you respond?

Not cool dude.

 

Cheers

[HallyG 239]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

 

I already explained to you via PM how the way this action can be added to players/objects will be overhauled in 1.3, same for dedi compatibility and also how it will showcase a dedicated server compatible aircraft service zone,

and I showed you in the same conversation how you could use the aircraft loadout dialog with respawned aircraft using the vanilla respawn module (tested and working).

And this is how you respond?

Not cool dude.

 

Cheers

It bemuses me how people can be so rude to people who have dedicated their own time to making and maintaining a script from which others benefit... I think the quote in my bio is quite an apt summary for this.

Anyways I thought I'd share my appreciation; keep up the good work.

[BlindNavigator 4]

Nicely done Grumpy! I've implemented this in my jets missions, works good so far!

[Teuf 1]

Grumpy...that post was just explaining that the MP functionality was erratic based on the INFO you gave me. Just a heads up for the guy that asked. What's with the salt. Info is info..was it a freaking secret or something?

 

[Teuf 1]

BTW..those directions didn't work for the respawn...so I just dropped it back into the huffer. I'm sure I missed something somewhere.

 

[lawndartleo 109]

Just curious... is there a technical reason to limit this to AIRCRAFT and not have it be a "full service station" for all vehicles types?  Not that other vehicle types would have loadout options but rather just the repair/rearm/refuel options available.

 

 

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

5 hours ago, lawndartleo said:

Just curious... is there a technical reason to limit this to AIRCRAFT and not have it be a "full service station" for all vehicles types?  Not that other vehicle types would have loadout options but rather just the repair/rearm/refuel options available.

 

 

Well there's already my vehicle tuning dialog in my sig.

 

Cheers

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

Aaaand 1.3 is out.

 

Cheers

[Guest]

The Armaholic mirror has been updated with the new version:


GOM fnc aircraftLoadout v1.3

[sammael 366]

WOW. Is that mean I can release all LGBs at the same time ?

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

16 minutes ago, sammael said:

WOW. Is that mean I can release all LGBs at the same time ?

The shriekers all on the same pylon priority seem to fire all pylons at once. So with 10 pieces of 7x shriekers mounted you could fire 10 shriekers at once.

Bombs seem to work differently, no idea why since that defeats the pylon priorities purpose.

At least from what I tested I couldn't drop more than one gbu at a time using the 2x gbu pylons on the wipeout. Maybe the black wasp handles this differently.

The documentation is barely existant, all I found about it was:

can be used to make weapon fire in different order or to force burst of all weapons of same type

Which could be a bug not being able to fire all gbus at once if they share the same pylon priority.

Well I guess a ticket is in order.

 

You could fire as fast as you want and release them in short succession as a temporary solution.

 

Cheers

 

[sammael 366]

7 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

Bombs seem to work differently, no idea why since that defeats the pylon priorities purpose.

 

 

already tested. Not working . Also in demo mission there is no player by default. Only playable character

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

Working fine here hosted on dedi and local mp server. Are you loading the mission in the mp editor?

Just tested the wipeout with 2x gbu per pylon, 1x gbu per pylon and the black wasp with all mk82s.

Could only release one at a time, ticket is out.

 

Cheers

[gamelord1994 10]

experiencing some issues with the 1.3 release

 

- when changing a pylon's loadout on a falcon it keeps informing me that it's not possible to set a tail number for the vehicle.. even tho i'm installing weapons

- sometimes i become unable to install new weapons until i respawn, i can however still fit saved presets but no new weapons.. 

 

screenshots:

(resource view showing everything is available in abundance) http://prntscr.com/ff8dsg

(pylon view showing that the install option is grayed out) http://prntscr.com/ff8e5h

unsure what is causing this though.. 

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

Interesting, does this happen on a new mission as well? If so, please send me a repro mission via PM, gonna take a look into it!

 

Cheers

[gamelord1994 10]

we use it in a modified version of a liberation map. and i admit my knowledge of the arma3 code is subpar so it's a quite botched implementation i'm surprised i got it to run in the first place..

i set up a git with the files available here though incase you wanne look into it i push any changes i make to the code there - -snip-

 

edit: would love to learn more about arma3's coding and any suggestion's/pointers on how i could possible improve my botch work would be appreciated

 

edit2: (removed git link for and sent it through pm now)

[gamelord1994 10]

my friend found an additional bug, the repair option seems to only check a vehicles hull not the components.. this causes means if there's a jet with damaged landing gear on the uss freedom it's basicly doomed as we can't repair the gear but if you use the launcher with damaged gears you just explode 

[Teuf 1]

I had to revert back to the old 1.24, Functionality of 1.3 is completely greek to me, particularly limiting the Huron boxes I used on the carrier to a certain weight of weapons, fuel and what not. I put in into my MP game and it just broke. I'm not fluent in the coding and where to put things for this to be a viable option for me. I've attempted to ask outside of this forum for assistance and the only answers I seem to get are just another big string of code which I have no idea where to put it. I surrender.

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

4 hours ago, Teuf said:

I had to revert back to the old 1.24, Functionality of 1.3 is completely greek to me, particularly limiting the Huron boxes I used on the carrier to a certain weight of weapons, fuel and what not. I put in into my MP game and it just broke. I'm not fluent in the coding and where to put things for this to be a viable option for me. I've attempted to ask outside of this forum for assistance and the only answers I seem to get are just another big string of code which I have no idea where to put it. I surrender.

You don't need to be fluent in coding to set 3 variables to false. Just reading the comments in the files usually does the trick.

Take a closer look at the parameters file.

 

No idea how I could make this easier than:

1. providing a separate file holding all parameters to adjust
2. usage guideline comments inside the script and on the forum (I even assist via PMs)
3. a mission file with multiple commented examples and
4. as easy to set up with a simple copy and paste while being dedi and local MP compatible.

Probably take some smaller steps first.

 

Cheers

[R3vo 2654]

The description says

Quote

Note that it is advisable to repair an aircraft before refuelling it, since a damaged aircraft can leak fuel down to a certain level.
This is vanilla A3 functionality and nothing I can do about here.

 

Would it be possible to add a check whether or not the fuel tank is intact?

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

26 minutes ago, R3vo said:

The description says

 

Would it be possible to add a check whether or not the fuel tank is intact?

 

If the damage of the aircraft is 0.2, the fuel will drain down to 0.8.

If the damage of the aircraft is 0.8, the fuel will drain down to 0.2.

I could add a check to block the refuel button if the aircraft is not at 100%, but this would prevent players from refueling an aircraft that's still in working order and only leaking fuel to a level where it's still operable for short flights.

-> jet with damage of 0.6 will still fly but fuel will only fill up to 0.4 before the leaking starts again. With 40% of fuel you can still fly and deliver some ordnance.

Curious about more opinions on this.

Adding a block to the refuel button is a non issue but if it's practical is another question.

I could probably add a check that only allows refueling up to a point before the leak begins, if that'd make any sense.

 

Cheers

 

 

[sarogahtyp 1108]

That makes sense. Nobody would refuel more if the fuel is draining. That should be prohibited for safety reasons...

sent from mobile using Tapatalk