Arma2TS

[Boxter.dk 10]

I believe that what ever is going to be released at some point in time, is a Beta. What the dev team is doing now is alpha testing there creation. And it will be finished when the team feels it is good enough for a wider audience.

I don't know why this can be so hard to understand for anybody :)

In the group where I'm playing we have been following this very close. We also hope for a release very soon so that life as a Tatical ArmA gamer becomes even more fun.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Boxter.dk

[h3killa 10]

can you release a beta ?

Ok, asking everyday will not speed up development. In essence it will only take longer because the devteam has to respond to your "requests" everyday. It will be done and ready when its done and ready.

[noubernou 77]

Ok, asking everyday will not speed up development. In essence it will only take longer because the devteam has to respond to your "requests" everyday. It will be done and ready when its done and ready.

This.

Yes. 1.0 will be a Google style 1.0, it is beta, but a beta that we hope is very stable, even if it does not contain every feature under the sun (which we hope to have soon).

We feel that time taken now in ensuring a smooth and stable product will lead to a better experience for not only you, the end users, but for us as developers. :)

Believe us, we want to get it out ASAP too, we have put in probably 200 hours in the last two and a half weeks. Its been an insanely demanding schedule and we want to see our results come to fruition and use!

[m1n1d0u 29]

it's not you or the dev team but perfectionism kill the addon , if you do all work in one release we don't have the pleasur to wait other udaptes =)

[noubernou 77]

it's not you or the dev team but perfectionism kill the addon , if you do all work in one release we don't have the pleasur to wait other udaptes =)

We are aiming to provide a strong base to expand on. Its not perfectionism but trying to release something that doesn't piss everyone off, including us when idiots start bitching and moaning because of one bug and then write off the whole project because they are to lazy to keep sticking with it. Them not having anything right now is better than them having something that confuses and annoys them.

[m1n1d0u 29]

oki nice to hear that and have a discution with you , only one question i think lot of person want to know that : is it like a2ts version 1 (Blackwater france version) a pbo contain all the object can work with a2ts (like : prc-119 ACU , prc-119 MARPAT , prc-119 olive .... ....) or a config for all type of vehicule or object (like : Tank , Radio Backpack ...) ?

[noubernou 77]

oki nice to hear that and have a discution with you , only one question i think lot of person want to know that : is it like a2ts version 1 (Blackwater france version) a pbo contain all the object can work with a2ts (like : prc-119 ACU , prc-119 MARPAT , prc-119 olive .... ....) or a config for all type of vehicule or object (like : Tank , Radio Backpack ...) ?

We have our own radio objects, but we also compat with ACE2 radio rucks (only the 119 at the moment).

Vehicles do not have radios included yet, but if you have a AN/PRC-148 or AN/PRC-119 then there is nothing stopping you from using it inside a vehicle.

An advantage to using the AN/PRC-119 in a vehicle is that you can use it on PA mode (this method of operation will be refined in the future, such as only certain vehicles will allow PA mode).

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

The ACE AH-1W models aren't compatible with the current A2T version as far as the LRR goes.

[DZR_Mikhail 14]

Guyz, Am I getting something wrong? But I saw it's already version 1.0 at the dev-heaven site. Have it already been released? If yes, where it can be downloaded?

[noubernou 77]

Guyz, Am I getting something wrong? But I saw it's already version 1.0 at the dev-heaven site. Have it already been released? If yes, where it can be downloaded?

Yes, just because we reached the 1.0 milestone in terms of features doesn't mean its the release date. ;)

We are running through what is essentially alpha tests with a few groups right now before we release. One of the main developers, Jaynus though is away this week on real work so there is a bit of a snag there right now. :( Soon though!

Just to tease, its basically all there, just working out some rare and random bugs (but ones that we know people will run into).

[m1n1d0u 29]

if you haven't prc in a vehicule the pluggin don't work ? but in a vehicule you have already a prc in (like hummer and other tank )

[sickboy 13]

Heya, there's a bug in the a2ts initialization.

In config.cpp PostInit, you are using call, then inside the init.sqf you have sleep 1 in the header.

This will halt PostInit processing until after Briefing.

[12009.1,0,"WARNING: PostInit did not finish in a timely fashion"]

Source, rpt: http://dev-heaven.net/issues/10971#note-2

Please remove sleep 1, or change the "call compile preProcessFileLineNumbers" in config.cpp to "execVM".

Edited June 3, 2010 by Sickboy

[Tonci87 163]

We have our own radio objects, but we also compat with ACE2 radio rucks (only the 119 at the moment).

Vehicles do not have radios included yet, but if you have a AN/PRC-148 or AN/PRC-119 then there is nothing stopping you from using it inside a vehicle.

An advantage to using the AN/PRC-119 in a vehicle is that you can use it on PA mode (this method of operation will be refined in the future, such as only certain vehicles will allow PA mode).

Does this mean that we will be unable to spek to chopper Pilots and so on?

[le_culto 0]

Heya, there's a bug in the a2ts initialization.

In config.cpp PostInit, you are using call, then inside the init.sqf you have sleep 1 in the header.

This will halt PostInit processing until after Briefing.

[12009.1,0,"WARNING: PostInit did not finish in a timely fashion"]

Source, rpt: http://dev-heaven.net/issues/10971#note-2

Please remove sleep 1, or change the "call compile preProcessFileLineNumbers" in config.cpp to "execVM".

Corrected, I used execVM, I think Johnson made a "sleep 1" to allow players to ear each others in the briefing.

http://94.23.41.117/arma/addons/arma2ts/arma2ts_v008.zip

Edited June 3, 2010 by Le_CuLtO

[Sulu_03 0]

When you have problem, to sleep is always the solution ! :p

[noubernou 77]

Does this mean that we will be unable to spek to chopper Pilots and so on?

Reread what you quoted.

[oktane 0]

We have our own radio objects, but we also compat with ACE2 radio rucks (only the 119 at the moment).

This is interesting. New objects would indicate a required addon right? In the past, the original a2ts addon wasn't required, being all script based. So pubbers could still join the server and not have it, and we could tell em how/where to get it. (normally people on TS already had it) Hopefully with these new rewritten versions they can still get on and just have to suffer an error popup (missing xyz classname) rather than getting kicked off the server, so we can still help them out. Pretty sure that's how it would work since it wouldn't be in the mission.sqm's requiredAddons.

For some reason I thought this was going to be included in ACE at some point in the future, I guess that is not the case now. If it was, it helps with the distribution problem a ton, people will automatically have it if they have ace. But I understand the want to keep it separate since non-ace players will want to use it. Hopefully it will be in the six updater repro though, for people to add to their preset. As far as the issues with six not being able to install the TS3 addon, that actually is untrue. All that would need to be written is a little ruby function that gets the TS3 installation dir from the registry (normal & wow6432node) and puts the applicable addon in the install\plugins directory. Just like the other functions that 'Process Keys', 'Create Desktop Shortcut', etc. Sickboy's framework allows for a ton of flexibility there.

[columdrum 11]

This is interesting. New objects would indicate a required addon right? In the past, the original a2ts addon wasn't required, being all script based. So pubbers could still join the server and not have it, and we could tell em how/where to get it. (normally people on TS already had it) Hopefully with these new rewritten versions they can still get on and just have to suffer an error popup (missing xyz classname) rather than getting kicked off the server, so we can still help them out. Pretty sure that's how it would work since it wouldn't be in the mission.sqm's requiredAddons.

New version also uses jay armalib to comunicate between ts3 and Arma2, so even without objects, there still be some addons required ^^, i don't know if that would kick players out or not but i don't see that a big problem. Just put it on the server name, and users should be smart enought to google it ^^.

[oktane 0]

I wish! Don't assume people are as smart as you are mate. :)

And the server name is not a good enough 'bulletin board', very limited number of characters.

But these are usability issues with ArmA itself, I am not here to complain about addon proliferation problems and clutter the thread up. Sorry.

[Defunkt 431]

It would be a huge shame if the new mod did require players to have it loaded to join a server. I think at that point the original release should be continued in its own right (I can help here) and would suggest the new mod go by a new name in case we do have to advertise the solution in use in the server name.

[noubernou 77]

It will be required to use but we feel this mod will be popular enough to justify that.

I am sorry, but for the functionality people want there is no other way.

We might look into in the future making it somehow more able to be used jointly on servers that are and are not running it but that is not our goal or intention right now.

If we do make a version that does not require our objects the functionality would be severely curtailed on servers choosing to run that way.

Edited June 3, 2010 by NouberNou

[Defunkt 431]

There is nothing wrong with your pursuing the functionality that you want but it was my understanding that you were going to pick this project up and turn it into a community standard. It would appear however what you're working on is something with a much narrower vision than the original and I personally feel you've missed the main chance. I have to confess it is a little frustrating both because I half-expected this and because I've been itching to develop the original further myself but thought it counter-productive to have two or more branches, this is the reason I've also tried to encourage the PR team to use yours.

[noubernou 77]

There is nothing wrong with your pursuing the functionality that you want but it was my understanding that you were going to pick this project up and turn it into a community standard. It would appear however what you're working on is something with a much narrower vision than the original and I personally feel you've missed the main chance. I have to confess it is a little frustrating both because I half-expected this and because I've been itching to develop the original further myself but thought it counter-productive to have two or more branches, this is the reason I've also tried to encourage the PR team to use yours.

How is this any less of a standard? Because we require it on servers? Wouldn't that advocate it even more as a standard? If you are advocating for PR to use it as well how would it being client side only be of any benefit to them when the entire mod requires it to be on the client and server?

Do you even know what our intentions or vision are? Please explain them to me so I can understand where we might have gone off the beaten path?

We have a base, its to provide the framework for people to add radio equipment into the game. We have also the directional direct speaking. I do not see how this limits anything.

[Defunkt 431]

None of the nifty features you've added are as useful to me (as a public server-op) as the ability to hook up players who join with the mod to a common channel and encourage others who don't have it to get it for a better gaming experience. The original version included both capabilities and what you've made supports neither, in this respect I consider the original to have a more expansive vision. What you've made will be great for co-op play on a private server with people who already run the same modset and know what voice server and channel they need to join but it doesn't really qualify as a VOIP community standard if it does nothing to support the rather large portion of gamers who'd like to enjoy decent (positional) VOIP on a public server and play against human opponents they may never have met before.

[Delta 51 10]

Keep up what your doing Nouber, the current mod makes public play a bitch as half use and half don't, where as this way their either all using it or not. This version your developing far surpasses the previous with functionality and features, and being an original mod, is something to be welcomed by all the community.