Game needs an attachment system

[wamingo 1]

Which begs the question, why are you playing THIS when you want to be playing THAT?

Because people want the best of all worlds :)

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Because people want everything in the world :)

Fixed it for you.

[[frl]myke 14]

halfway done :D

[Yoma 0]

Allthough i don't really think an attachment system is needed, it would be nice if someone made an advanced ammocrate script.

What i would personally like:

-big list of all stuff with quicksearch filter (type what you want,filter get's applied, select it)

-A second tab where you can do base weapon type selection, (Rifle, MG, Pistol, AT, Nades, "tools"), select main class of weapon (e.g. G36, M16,...)

-after base type selection list up the variants of the weapon in question for further selection. Add checkboxes "optics", "magnifying optics","night optics" for further easy filtering...

Generally: avoid users having to scroll endlessly... a minimal but in my opion welcome change could be "paging" so you can just click next if you need to...

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Its possible with that engine! How much clearer can i get?

The reason I said it's not possible, is it's been tried before. The mod that did it ended up using 2 different rifle models, one with the sight, and one without. Then they used a script to switch back and forth between the two.

[[frl]myke 14]

@Darkhorse 1-6

You're right, this is also my approach. But you have to admit that a "dirty" solution is better than no solution at all. Finally, for the end-user it doesn't matter if the attachements are really attached or the whole weapon is switched. Just take a look at this quick and dirty "proof of concept":

qAERHbZ5YEc

Ok, at first you might think it is a simple scipt which is hardcoded to switch weapons. But it goes far deeper.

First, in the config is defined what attachements can be applied, those attachements are defined as inventory objects.

So the scripts check what attachements the actual weapon can take, then it checks if the player has the attachement in his inventory.

Based on that, weapon changing is done...or denied.

Will release this proof of concept in a few in the Mods & Addons: Discussion forums, offering it to whoever is interested to make a full addon out of it. The way i did with actionmenu is dirty, i would prefer a nice dialogue which i lack of skills to do it, Besides that, i'm always short on time. :D

:EDITH:

There you go: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=102386

Edited July 9, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[Montanaro 0]

I just realized, doombuggy was the kid who was deathmatching in the zargabad life server.

Doesn't surprise me that he wants MW2 features in ARMA. =)

btw interesting video. It's essentially like scrolling through the gear boxes, except it's easier and you don't need to be near a gear box. I also tend to think it's a bit cheesey, because it would allow people to switch in the middle of battle. Oh I can't hit him, I'll switch to my acog.

[[frl]myke 14]

@Montanaro

I see your point but please keep in mind that this is only a test to see if it works at all. The case you mentoined will be not as "cheesy" as you may think by watching the vid. First, because a final addon surely wouldn't work with action menu but a onscreen dialogue, like the gear menu. And second, while changin attachements, a animation would be played which makes the player vulnerable for a reasonable amount of time.

So the possibilites to exploit the system will be nullified by some "penalties" while using it.

[Montanaro 0]

It would have to regulated that's for sure.

[MavericK96 0]

Great work, Myke. One question, though: when changing weapons, does your magazine default back to full rounds, as it would seem like it would when switching out weapons? I could see this being exploited as an "infinite ammo" cheat.

[[frl]myke 14]

@Maverick

yes, this is an issue but i would consider it a minor issue due to 2 facts:

- first, changing attachements will take longer than changing magazine.

- second, i learned that whenever you have time to, replace your mag with a full, even if only 1 or rounds are fired. That said, i guess when you got time to change attachements you would also change magazines.

And it doesn't give infinite ammo. Let's assume you have 2 magazines with 30 rounds each. You fire 15 rounds and then change attachement. At the same time your weapon reloads with the second magazine and the one with the 15 remining rounds goes back into your inventory. So final roundcount will not change.

[MavericK96 0]

Good point, I forgot how the magazine system worked, in that the gun itself does not contain any magazines but you have to add them all manually to your inventory. Thanks for the clarification. :cool:

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Infinite ammo exploit happens only for scripted (as in aMags = []; aMags = magazines player) storage of contents, not when an actual container is used.

[frederf 0]

As much as this could be silly and "MW2" like some good thinking could make this a valuable and appropriate feature in the ArmA2 universe.

• Temporarily store the active magazine in a hidden container during the change.
  
• Restrict equipment changes to proximity of an "armory" building.
  
• Introduce random aim error for sights changed with non precision rails (if in the field.)
  
• Require packaged part in personal or armory inventory for equipment change.
  

As it is right now it's not possible to limit the total number of rifles while providing a broad variety of configurations to the players. With a configuration system you could limit the 5 player team to 2 M249s total but still allow them the freedom of M134, CCO, RCO, PEQ-2, flashlight, etc. equipment combinations.

Also trying to give all combinations of an M4 with M203A1, PEQ-2, PVS-14, RCO, CCO, flashlight, short barrel, silencer, TWS, camo paint, EOTech, etc. requires an ungodly list in the container. It really would be best to let ArmA emulate real life for the simplicity and sanity of all. Reality makes the best guide for a milsim game. Put restrictions on it all you like to keep it from being ridiculous but allow reasonable ability.

[PuFu 4600]

while myke proof of concept is something i applaud him for (and something i had on my own personal project list - mission wise - for some time), a proper attachment system would be using proxies on the fly

Someone said (in this thread or Mikes) that the number of section counts would be increased by such a method (proxy). In fact, every scope, GL, or what have you has been modelled separately, and has its own textures, material and UV space. SO it is already a few section counts more, even if it is inside the same p3d.

I guess the game engine would allow it, especially since it allows planes to have different weapons added on the same pods. BUT afaik, for weapons it doesn't work.

PROs:

* as with hiddenSelection method, you can use the same model for more weapons, reducing the size of the file pack.

* additional content (such as scopes, GLs etc) could be easily added my BI or community, without actually needing to redo the whole model, or having access to the MLOD format.

CONs

* section count? although, as said, i doubt that would be the higher than current.

[frederf 0]

Or perhaps hidden selection? Visually changing the weapon model is one thing but changing dexterity, hasLaser (or whatever the real flag is), accuracy, optics, alternate optics ect. is something else. You can't really change performance like that in the config unless maybe if you had all possible muzzles at once and hide/disabled them based on what you didn't have attached. Still doesn't address the laser/flashlight though.

[PuFu 4600]

yeah, i see your point. But i wasn't talking about using the same configs for this weapon, but rather creating a system where those attachments are not part of the p3d, and using those separately:

IE:

class M4: rifleBase;
{
model="/bla/M4.p3d
raiTop="";
railUnder="";
railSide="';
};

class M4_CCO: M4
hasLaser=1;
railTop="/bla/CCO.p3d"
};

I know this is not possible within the current engine, but that is ideally how it should be in my head. Then it would be easier to maintain and use certain method for dealing with all those weapons - say at a weaponBox - (by no means i would want on the fly change of attachments). It would also be easier for us modders to add content, and reduce the numerous pack of M4s released, just for the sake of a handgrip, or a new scope

Edited July 10, 2010 by PuFu

[frederf 0]

If you attach a good long mandatory sitdown period (3+ minutes?) and/or an "armory" building requirement I think that "on the fly" changes should be reasonable.

I forgot that the P3D model and the config are independent. One could have one or a handful of P3Ds with hidden selections all over that could handle 100+ config entries. Script would just have to detect what weapon class it was and set the textures on the selections appropriately. But in all that just saves the P3D model sizes (adds up if there are 100 of them though). Texture sharing between P3Ds is easy.

[MavericK96 0]

Besides, I'd personally like to see Bohemia put some decent descriptions in of the weapons and vehicles that aren't just military gibberish, some of us don't serve in the armed forces you know.

This right here is actually the main reason why I'd like to see an attachment system. Right now it's a bunch of acronyms that, while I understand some of them, don't all necessarily convey to me personally what exactly I'm getting.

The idea of the "attachment system", to me, is more like just a front-end for the weapon selection/gear screen, where you can choose the base rifle and then any attachments that are available. No new models would even have to be added; it would just make the weapon selection a lot more understandable for non-military folk like myself. :cool:

[-Paladin- 10]

it woude be better if the normal player has no choice.

If you see the normal virtual grunt is confused, for the mission designer dont put weapon chages with all weapons inside.

Thats to much for the ppl.

the weapon choice lies in the hand of the team leader for his whole team and he shod be the only one who decides,what gear is taken for the mission.

and if the normal grunt want to change his gear or take a enemy weapon he cant.But if the teamleader gives him the order to do so the option is ther.

problem is solved. weapons can stay like they are and are only change to get gear is before the mission no on the run change.

no ammo no resupply?talk to your co he will give you the right order what to do.

[TKTom 10]

it woude be better if the normal player has no choice.

If you see the normal virtual grunt is confused, for the mission designer dont put weapon chages with all weapons inside.

Thats to much for the ppl.

the weapon choice lies in the hand of the team leader for his whole team and he shod be the only one who decides,what gear is taken for the mission.

and if the normal grunt want to change his gear or take a enemy weapon he cant.But if the teamleader gives him the order to do so the option is ther.

problem is solved. weapons can stay like they are and are only change to get gear is before the mission no on the run change.

no ammo no resupply?talk to your co he will give you the right order what to do.

Script that on an individual mission basis. It's always best to give mission makers all the options and let them choose how to implement it.