Vigil Vindex

Not as long as they have clear attribution, and the share alike licence stipulates that any derivative work must adhere to a similar licence to allow me to copy back any improvements on the work back into my own work which I could then sell if wished to. ---------- Post added at 07:17 ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 ---------- EULA isn't worth the paper it is written on, hasn't it been proven that if you don't read it they can't claim you have agreed to it? I am sure I read about it a while ago in some EU court. Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States PS. Still thinks it's sad we are having to debate licencing and law when we now have cool new toys to play with and should be talking about how to get mods working and such. /sadface

On the topic of licences, the link to the relevant steam workshop licence is here: http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ The section of concern I guess would be user generated content: I would argue that this: Could be interpreted as stating that existing laws will be adhered to, so if I include the CC BY SA licence in any work I put on Steam Workshop, I could still insist that the requirements of the licence are still to be upheld. In any event, any kind of case regarding IP laws would have to be taken to court. Is this really what the problem is all about?

All this talk about licences and "agreements" is a distraction from the real issue, that some people are so determined to hate on steam and want to make as loud a protest as possible by boycotting anything to do with steam. I don't see anyone using any recognised licences, just arbitrary "agreements" that aren't enforceable by law. That's why most developers use some derivative of the creative commons licences when publishing their work. The only people going to lose from all this drama is the players and the community. I will say it again, if I give you an ice cream, it's your ice cream, I can't tell you how to eat it.

What I really mean is what I wrote. The whole wasteland attribution debacle wouldn't be happening if people released their work with appropriate licences, not some quasi-licence that changes on the whim of the authors mood that week. Whatever happened with wasteland, if they didn't give proper attribution and release their derivative work for others to use then yes they have done something wrong, if it was initially released with a proper licence. If they copied it, changed a few variable names and tacked their name onto the end of the attribution list then that is fine. Really all we are arguing about is if you get your name in the attribution list.

It's irrelevant if I have published work for the community or not, just because you have published work doesn't mean your opinion is any more valid than mine. I happen to have chosen not to publicly release my stuff because I am not ready to do so. But when I do release anything it will be under the Creative Commons Share Alike licence detailed here: http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/CC-BY-SA I recognise the right to attribution, and I dislike people that take peoples work given for free and try to make financial profits from it, hence my choice of licence. As long as attribution is given and its not for commercial use I see no problem. And in regards to the issue at hand, I don't think any of the above is being broken by sharing a mission on the steam workshop.

I think people who claim to be helping the community by releasing missions/scripts for them to use, and then applying arbitrary restrictions on their use is pretty shady. It's like I give you an ice cream, then once you have it in your hand I tell you that you can't eat it. Sounds like trolling to me. We now have a really cool new feature to enjoy and here we are debating the licencing issues. It's actually much simpler than it needs to be, if you are into contributing to the community and releasing things on the web, don't get upset when people do stuff with a copy of your work. PS. Can we get back to discussing how to effectively handle addon dependencies in the workshop?

I am interested to know what specs and fps the devs get, so we have some sort of baseline where we can expect at least 30fps+ minimum.

Do you mean the complexity of the proposed new rain system is deemed to be too much work to tackle at the moment? How complex is this new rain system intended to be? PS. I think rain is mostly an atmosphere builder than a game mechanic, obscure visibility and have some awesome sound effects and its pretty much done. Unless we are wanting to simulate things like moisture on surfaces for vehicle handling etc.

Can you tell us what spec you are using to play on ultra and not get crap fps in a3?

In regards to dependency management, I would be inclined to use Node.js NPM as an example of how this could be managed with a simple file in the mission and a registry of mods, their versions and urls. { "name": "scenario-name", "author": "author-name", "game_type": "ctf", "version": "0.0.1", "dependencies": { "arma3": "1.2", "cba": "1.0", "ace": "1.0" } }

Can the string table stuff be moved into the VAS folder?

Is the headless client stuff being looked at as a possible remedy to the problems with AI performance?

This is going to be so cool!

I have to wonder why the AI has been left to cause such disruptions. If the previous Arma games taught us anything it was that the AI has a huge impact on the game. Why the AI was not front and center on the priority list is a mystery to me.

I think the worrying thing is that there is now a long list of things being dropped from the game, and only some of it is being promised after release. I personally felt I had reasonable expectations for Arma 3, I expected it to meet or exceed Arma 2 OA, in all aspects. I expected Arma 3 to have at least some of the functionality provided by ACE and AI mods like TPWCAS/LOS and Zues etc. As it stands just now I don't think I can say Arma 3 has met those modest, imo, expectations. I do appreciate the improvements that have been made, the new dx11 physx graphics, the improved movement, and new content models and textures, and the inventory overhaul are all great to see.

I was hoping the HC could be rolled in with the dedicated server. I thought I saw that mentioned at some point.

I am not a fan of the trading cards, but I respect Valve for experimenting and investing time and money into creating these experiments. They are doing good things here, some of the money goes to the devs and the gamers and that is a new and good thing I think.

No complex on my part, just an affinity for some drama in my vocabulary. I was responding to those who talked about the undefined variables rather than the presentation of the error messages. The point was that there is a separate stable and dev branch for a reason. People playing on stable expect to play, not get spammed with verbose logs smack bang in the middle of their screen. I have no problems with change or with the additional checks for undefined variables, these are good things. We just need a better way of being presented with error logs when we need them, which is currently not the case.

^^This +99999999 I don't see any justification for forcing error messages in end users faces for the supposed sins of mission developers. These error messages would be better directed to the RPT file. ---------- Post added at 09:16 ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 ---------- It is a problem, people are making threads about it voicing their irritation by it. That's a fact, it's not a matter of opinion or perspective. We can get all moral about it and make it out like BIS is on some crusade to improve mission developers code, but really all they are doing is shaming them for trivial mistakes and forcing it onto the end user, who don't get any benefit from seeing all those error messages in the first place. These errors should go to the RPT. Any mission developer that cares will be checking the RPT anyways.

I am trying to get an array returned from an external script call and then iterate over those values however I am getting an error where the forEach is receiving a script and not an array. Example code below: init.sqf private["_array"]; _array = [] execVM "createarray.sqf"; { diag_log format ["# %1 #",_x]; } forEach (_array); createarray.sqf private["_array"]; _array = [0,1,2]; _array RPT error: Error foreach: Type Script, expected Array Any ideas on what I am missing? I checked the wiki here for execVM: http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/execVM I thought this used to work, perhaps it has changed recently and I missed it. How do we capture return values from script calls such as this? Solution: Thanks, I got it working with the following code: _array = [] call compile preprocessFileLineNumbers "createarray.sqf";

I'm going to tell you a story Tonic, it's about an arma fan, who was looking forward to A3. When the alpha came out we had trouble with ammo crates. It caused frustration, he felt let down. Then you released VAS. This allowed us to play the game and have fun. The exact words of this arma fan to me was "a couple of days after the alpha is released and the community is putting out stuff that works better than the game devs stuff". At first it made me frown, and then it made me smile. This is the nature of the arma beast, its a complicated creature, with many facets to get lost in. The game devs try their best, within their constraints, and the community give it their love and effort. This is what makes arma special, where these contributions meet is gaming nirvana. You have a hand in that. And I hope that is never lost in trying to overcome the trials and tribulations of the process of change and progress. Best wishes, and many thanks for your work.

I've not seen any info on how BIS is intending this to be handled. Not seen any docs or discussions. Hope something gets ironed out soon.

Is it possible to just add the Chernarus map and nothing else and have it work with the existing A3 content? Or is it an all or nothing deal?

Is there a github repo with BE filters that we can use for A3 in general? Or any other place where there is information on these fitlers?

The fact that it is only recently that a new programmer has been brought on-board to tackle the AI is a bit strange to me. I was hoping that BIS would have a programmer putting a fair share of their time into the AI on a regular basis, not having to hire new staff to fill that need. And I have to wonder, as a programmer myself, what kind of state your documentation is in for the AI code. I've worked at places where there is good docs and its easy to drop in and start work on other peoples code, but I've also worked at places where code docs are non-existent and new devs are left having to sift through spaghetti with no good overview of how the code interacts with the rest of application, which takes serious time and effort, and can even stop progress all together if its a critical system, such as the AI. I remembering seeing some AI FSM docs on the wiki but it looked like it wasn't being actively worked on some time ago.