A.C.E. Advanced Combat Environment - Public Beta *2*!

[Trracer 10]

badger;1555279']Trracer no' date=' it is only with Tanks, APS and armor vehicles.

[b']ACE Team, please return the ability to repair tanks with repair trucks, as soon as it possible!!![/b]

Nah, I could live with that. But if it's for realism purposes then I think it should be removed for all vehicles (aircraft and ground vehicles). Maybe refueling and rearming times when near a fuel/ammo truck (and vehicle ammo box) could be longer too. As it is now, you can park a tank/arty gun near an ammo truck/box and have unlimited, almost instant, rearm.

[jasonnoguchi 11]

Voted negative to the tank repair. Never seen tanks being repaired out in the field by some trucks before in RL. Sorry but no "tank medics" in my world.

Put up a request for some kind of crosshair when in grenade throwing mode... right now, grenade throwing, especially "Precision Throw" is anything but precise as there is no indication where it might be going. (of course unless you take the aim in your primary weapon and then switch to grenade for the throw, which is not realistic either). Vote if you like.

[JSj 12]

I remember having a dot that could be used for aiming when using grenades. It was just a tiny dot and easy to miss, but it was there. But maybe it's removed now?

[jasonnoguchi 11]

Yup, was playing just 5 mins ago and didn't see it.

[JSj 12]

I just tested it, and it is still there. A small green dot.

EDIT: Maybe it depends on your settings if you can see the grenade aiming dot. I have the ACE nocross function active in the config file, and crosshairs enabled in the game difficulty settings.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Johan S

[Trracer 10]

Maybe this can open for vehicles like the M88 Recovery Vehicle and M1 Grizzly for armored recovery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M1_Grizzly_2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AGT1500_engine_M1_tank_and_M88_Recovery_Vehicle.JPEG

I would model them, if I could :)

[Nonkel Mich 10]

For the grenade;

You could use an animation with the left arm raised in front of you so your fingers are the aimpiont, just like you would throw a grenade in RL.

I have a problem with the eject button on the a 10.

I can push it but it says; eject.sqf not found.

However the ai does eject from A 10

Anyone the same problem or is it just me?

Tanks;

You could use a trailer or a recovery tank to drag the disabled tabk to a recovery piont

[jasonnoguchi 11]

@Johan, I am playing with all crosshair off... maybe you are right, I need to enable the default crosshair? Any ACE dev to confirm this?

@Nonkel_Mich, animations are a no-no-no-out-of-bounds-sacred-zone in Arma2 modding. Nobody does it, not even ACE2.

[-HA-badger 0]

Sickboy im trying to understand ace_sys_vehicledamage now. But I cant find where you removed ability to repair.

So if it is removed from tank (not repair track), all is simple: just remove it only when tank is burning or have a critical dammage.

But if this ability is removed from repair track by watching at class of repairing vehicle (I think that it is so) i mast have some "flags" for damaged vehicle, but i cant find them in you scripts now.

---------------

I think that big dammage, like turret penetration cant be repaired in field Also burning vehicle can not be repaired. But why i can not repair damaged truck or wheel?..

Edited January 27, 2010 by [HA]badger

[JSj 12]

@Johan, I am playing with all crosshair off... maybe you are right, I need to enable the default crosshair? Any ACE dev to confirm this?

Could be it, also make sure to look really carefully. It's not a crosshair or a circle, just a small dot that is easily missed.

[Trracer 10]

Ammo trucks are a bit flawed anyway, since they don't rearm magazines for the commanders MG for example, will only reload 100 round if the MG is totally empty.

A quick rearm/refuel/repair point could be made with 3 triggers, something like:

detected bluforce timeout 60 sec (or more)

activation thisList select 0 setVehicleAmmo 1;

make 2 more for damage and fuel.

... Just drive into the trigger and you have a repair/arm/fuel point. It still won't fully rearm the commanders MG tho.

[Banderas 0]

@The RPG-7VR can penetrate 600-700mm even after reactive armor due to wiki, in an optimal distance it should penetrate the m1a1 aswell.

One has to note that these penetration values are based on RHA (rolled homogenous armor) values, which type of armour is very rare since the end of WW2. Most modern tanks's armor are made of different materials composed together (see Cobham armor or Combination K) from cheramic plates through fiberglass to depleted uranium (latter's tensile strength is much higher than steel), and other tricks like empty. air filled layers in the armor.

Furthermore most of these compositions are classified, so we can only guess how much punishment they can take. I highly doubt a single PG-7VR could penetrate the front of an M1A1 Abrams, side very unlikely too (although not impossible), the back and top armors might be able from close distance, but I'm not sure.

Once again I have to refer to what I've read about the Battle of Grozny in the First Chechen War, Chechen soldiers made coordinated attacks on unescorted Russian armor from side-back-top, an tanks, even IFVs needed several close-range RPG hits for the crew to bail out (I know they most probably weren't use too many PG-7VRs)

EDIT: on the GAU-8A debate: the 30mm round probalby won't penetrate the front side of a tank, but with an A-10 you most probably will attack from the upper portion :rolleyes:

Edited January 27, 2010 by Banderas

[Vipera 10]

When i connect to ACE server i receve error message: "No entry 'bin\config.bin/CfgWeapons.ACE_Put'"

What does it mean?

[JSj 12]

A quick rearm/refuel/repair point could be made with 3 triggers, something like:

detected bluforce timeout 60 sec (or more)

activation thisList select 0 setVehicleAmmo 1;

make 2 more for damage and fuel.

... Just drive into the trigger and you have a repair/arm/fuel point. It still won't fully rearm the commanders MG tho.

That's a great idea. It would be much more realistic to have stationary rearm/refueling points like this than having support trucks following you around giving you practically unlimited ammo and fuel.

[jasonnoguchi 11]

My new realism suggestion (some of you will kill me for this)...

Never seen foot soldiers or non-pilots jump into aircrafts and fly like pilots in Real Life? Well, then don't allow it to happen ingame too. Lock aircrafts by default from non-pilot class and lock tanks from non-crewman class.

Vote at http://dev-heaven.net/issues/show/8578

Rejected in a jiffy...sigh... 3 positive votes for yes in just 5 mins... surely that means something...sigh... who in the world would ever choose a pilot or crewman class character to play with at all?

Just disappointed that if this is a crap suggestion, please let the public vote say it is, not a dictatorial, communist style REJECTION without listening to what the people has to say. Disappointing.

Listening to what your users want is part and parcel of being a good modder. If I am wrong, let the public say I am, not just one dictator style NO.

Edited January 27, 2010 by jasonnoguchi

[sickboy 13]

It is dictatorial. Is the public working on the mod, are you? No they are not. We are.

Time to sign up and type scripts instead of suggestions all day ?

This attitude is really starting to piss me off. Keep at it guys, maybe one of these days there won't be a public discussion thread or bug tracker at all.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Sickboy

[Sneaker-78- 0]

Aint this better to do for the mission makers,

Domination has that option to only allow pilots in the choppers.

[JSj 12]

Confirmed by testing now. If you have crosshairs enabled in the diffiuculty settings, and the ACE nocross function active in the config file, you can see the tiny green dot for aiming with when you have grenades selected. It is not visible if you have crosshairs disabled in the difficulty settings.

[jasonnoguchi 11]

Aint this better to do for the mission makers,

Domination has that option to only allow pilots in the choppers.

Yes, it may be so, then let the public vote my suggestion away, thats what the voting is there for. An outright rejection like this is totally communistic. Furthermore, the interesting thing is that for the 5 mins it is there, it already had 2 other positive votes! doesn't that say something?

Anyways, this will be my final post on the ACE2 thread. I know I will not be missed. Good riddance and good luck to the rest of you who sincerely wish to help the mod improve... they don't need it!

(I hope you guys get that my problem (sad most of you still don't see the core of the issue) isn't with the rejection but the attitude behind it. I had lots of my suggestions rejected by many modders... too bad I have a burning passion for the game and the potential in these modders, but I never had a problem with being rejected, only the style it is done and the attitude behind it. In fact, i would be amused and happy to see that suggestion go deep into negative votes and then kicked in the ass in a fun way by the modders. Everyone has their "soft spots". For me, its obviously anything that's done in a dictatorial way and for sickboy, its obviously the "disappointing etc etc" term. In a way, we hit each other's spot. Anyways, this thing has gone far enough. I have removed sickboy's quote from my signature and my presence from this thread. I know I won't be missed.)

Edited January 27, 2010 by jasonnoguchi
Final words and clarification of the whole event

[*tcf*jackal 10]

I understand where you are coming from Jason, but that would break many an existing mission. I can understand why it would be rejected.

It should be left to the mission designers to restrict the classes (easily done) which can use certain vehicles. Defining restrictions in the mod itself would make ACE too inflexible and could be a major PITA for mission designers.

I dont think using phrases like "dictatorial" or "communist" is very helpful. I know you're just making suggestions to improve the mod and thats great to see. But there is a right way to do it. Just my opinion. Just remember how much the ACE devs have had to put up with already. Their time is precious, so I wouldnt be so quick to take offence if they havent responded how you would like. They are approaching the release of 1.0 so perhaps dont have time.

Its great to see everyone so passionate about a community mod :)

EDIT, Jason I just read your latest reply. Bang out of order. Its people like you who make talented mod makers throw in the towel.

Edited January 27, 2010 by *TCF*Jackal

[mrcash2009 0]

@Jason ... I don't think you have done yourself proud in the last few posts mate, I have had rejections too (with things I think are worth having too and I don't disagree to a point) you wont be the first nor the last on that score, but that's cool its not my show, you can have a point but make do with what comes, also you might realise BIS reject what we want, and people actually paid for that.

For someone who has been here about 3 months and has racked up more posts than I have in 2 years maybe you should take a chill pill and realise that you are not the one creating and coding it.

Hate to sound personal but, me thinks your getting post fatigue :)

ACE2 isn't a one man show and a much larger project than GL4 of which you are getting great feedback, treat them separate mate, I would :)

Edited January 27, 2010 by mrcash2009

[HateDread 13]

I'm with Jason - there was no need to speak to him like that.

But hey, I only make suggestions, not scripts, right? I don't have any value or opinion...

[strongbird 10]

the Fastrope box in ACE with like 14 m 26 m 36 m what are the Unit names of them i want to add them manualy cant seem to find it

[Banderas 0]

@jasonnoguchi

Sorry but I vote no on this one. A module, maybe, but no way to do it default.

No need to go rampant if they reject a suggestion, decision is theirs. So far I added about a dozen suggestions on dev-heaven, two of it were accepted and made, the rest were rejected, big deal, search for other things. Getting many votes for a suggestion doesn't mean it is good idea -in my view the much-talked ACOG-CQB sight, suggestions for ACR rifle and such are getting many points, but are unnecessary.

@HateDread

You have, even I had (M1028 Canister addon and M1A2 TUSK added to US Army faction were my suggestions). Only you don't have to take everything too personally, and listen to the cons of your pros, in an acceptable manner.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Banderas

[HateDread 13]

Guys, whilst I don't agree with Jason's suggestion, the reaction to it was unnecessary.

The point of a discussion thread is to discuss. Some of the guys have been discussing it... good, that's the sorta thing you do. But at what point does discussion = personal attacks? Sickboy's comment obviously offended Jason, and rightfully so. It appears as an attack, not a rejection.

A simple "Thanks, but no thanks, Jason. That wouldn't exactly work. And please try to refrain from over-posting suggestions - there's only so much we can handle. Thanks." would have worked.

I just don't see how Sickboy's hurtful comment was justified.