Vigil Vindex

I wish there was a way to script the creation of playable units, some way to execute some sqf prior to the lobby screen being shown. As far as I know it is not possible as we rely on mission.sqm and description.ext for defining playable units and player numbers. But I still think it would be handy.

I think this could be a good idea if it is limited to BIS authored and unmodded competitive missions and perhaps servers. We already have the tools to make this ourselves. But without some constraints I think it would lose meaning as it would be too easy to manipulate the stats by for example spawning lots of unarmed AI and killing them.

I am missing these options too. I really hope they let us define the revive options via description.ext and sqf. The respawn templates system is great, it would be cool if they implement something similar for configuring revive and spectator.

Thanks! It's a shame custom animations can't be embedded in the mission.

No repackaging, just including the files in the mission from the Github download. Perhaps AUR is working but without the animations. I just included the config in description.ext and it shows no errors. When I tried adding AR in the same way I got these errors: CfgMovesMaleSdr.BlendAnims: Member already defined. CfgMovesBasic: Member already defined. CfgMovesMaleSdr.BlendAnims: Undefined base class 'BlendAnims' Warning Message: Config : some input after EndOfFile.

I think the custom animations from AUR are working, or at least I get no errors with just AUR. I think the problem is that CfgAnimations has classes duplicated between AR and AUR. I.E. when I include CfgAnimation from AUR it works. When I add CfgAnimation from AR I get errors.

I've been using your other mods as scripts and they all work perfectly. However I tried adding this mod just as a script and ran into problems with animation classes being duplicated between this and the AUR stuff. Any idea on how I can fix this?

I have been trying to improve my template for making functions. I wanted my functions to have optional arguments and not be tied to a numerical index so I can have a bit more flexibility in how I call the function with arguments. So I switched to making all my arguments arrays with an alphabetical index. I am more or less happy with it so I thought I would post it here and see if I can get some feedback on what can be improved, if I am doing anything wrong, or I am missing out on some best practice I am not aware of. One thing I am not sure about is the part at the end where we set all the variables to nil. If I pass an object or group to the function at the end can I just set the private variable that refers to it to nil and not worry about it trying to delete the group or object outside of the function? I'm also unsure about BIS_fnc_param and the length validation. On the wiki it sounds like it only checks array sizes. Does it work on string and number sizes too? - https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/BIS_fnc_param Also on line 62 where we iterate through the arguments and log their values I am using _forEachIndex and logging "_param index = value". Is there a better way so I can log the variable name instead? As for the createMarker function itself, I haven't used the new Polyline markers yet so it probably doesn't work for those. I am defining MISSION_ROOT in description.ext as explained by Killzone Kid here - http://killzonekid.com/arma-scripting-tutorials-mission-root/ __EXEC (MISSION_ROOT = __FILE__ select [0, count __FILE__ - 15]) /* Name: fn_createMarker.sqf Description: Creates a marker. Authors: vigil.vindex@gmail.com License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Created: 2016/08/24 Updated: 2016/08/24 Version: 0.0.1 Dependencies: n/a Arguments: index name (default) TYPE {Required} min,max "values" d debug (false) BOOLEAN {N} false,true "Disabled","Enabled" n name ("Name") STRING {Y} * "Name" http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/createMarker p position ([0,0,0]) ARRAY {Y} * "[x,y,z]" http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setMarkerPos r rotation (0) SCALAR {N} 0,360 "Degrees" http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setMarkerDir s size ([1,1]) ARRAY {N} * "[x,y]" http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setMarkerSize t text ("Text") STRING {N} * "Text" http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setMarkerText a alpha (1) SCALAR {N} 0,1 "Alpha" http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setMarkerAlpha b brush (1) SCALAR {N} 0,10 "Brush" http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setMarkerBrush c colour (0) SCALAR {N} 0,25 "Colour" http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setMarkerColor sh shape (0) SCALAR {N} 0,3 "Shape" http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setMarkerShape ty type (14) SCALAR {N} 0,168 "Type" http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/cfgMarkers Returns: OBJECT on success. FALSE on failure. Usage: _marker = [["n","Marker1"],["p",[0,0,0]]] call vv_fnc_createMarker; */ if (isNil "_this") exitWith {["%1 Function called without arguments.",time] call BIS_fnc_error;false}; if !(_this isEqualType []) exitWith {["%1 Function called without arguments array.",time] call BIS_fnc_error;false}; private ["_debug","_name","_position","_rotation","_size","_text","_alpha","_brush","_colour","_shape","_type","_brushes","_colours","_shapes","_types","_return"]; { if (_x isEqualType []) then { if (_x select 0 isEqualType "") then { switch (toLower (_x select 0)) do { case "d": { _debug = [[_x select 1],0,false,[true]] call BIS_fnc_param; }; case "n": { _name = [[_x select 1],0,false,[""]] call BIS_fnc_param; }; case "p": { _position = [[_x select 1],0,false,[[]],[2,3]] call BIS_fnc_param; }; case "r": { _rotation = [[_x select 1],0,0,[0],360] call BIS_fnc_param; }; case "s": { _size = [[_x select 1],0,[1,1],[[]],2] call BIS_fnc_param; }; case "t": { _text = [[_x select 1],0,"",[""]] call BIS_fnc_param; }; case "a": { _alpha = [[_x select 1],0,1,[0],1] call BIS_fnc_param; }; case "b": { _brush = [[_x select 1],0,1,[0],10] call BIS_fnc_param; }; case "c": { _colour = [[_x select 1],0,0,[0],25] call BIS_fnc_param; }; case "sh": { _shape = [[_x select 1],0,0,[0],3] call BIS_fnc_param; }; case "ty": { _type = [[_x select 1],0,14,[0],168] call BIS_fnc_param; }; }; }; }; } forEach _this; if (isNil "_position") exitWith {["%1 Function called without required argument.",time] call BIS_fnc_error;false}; if (_position isEqualType false) exitWith {["%1 Function called without required argument.",time] call BIS_fnc_error;false}; if (isNil "_name") exitWith {["%1 Function called without required argument.",time] call BIS_fnc_error;false}; if (_name isEqualType false) exitWith {["%1 Function called without required argument.",time] call BIS_fnc_error;false}; { if (isNil _x) then { switch (_forEachIndex) do { case 0: { _debug = false; }; case 1: { _rotation = 0; }; case 2: { _size = [1,1]; }; case 3: { _text = ""; }; case 4: { _alpha = 1; }; case 5: { _brush = 1; }; case 6: { _colour = 0; }; case 7: { _shape = 0; }; case 8: { _type = 14; }; }; }; } forEach ["_debug","_rotation","_size","_text","_alpha","_brush","_colour","_shape","_type"]; if (_debug) then { { diag_log format ["# %1 # %2 # %3 # _param %4 = %5 #",time,__FILE__ select [count (parsingNamespace getVariable "MISSION_ROOT")],__LINE__,_forEachIndex,_x]; } forEach [_debug,_name,_position,_rotation,_size,_text,_alpha,_brush,_colour,_shape,_type]; }; _brushes = ["BDiagonal","Border","Cross","DiagGrid","FDiagonal","Grid","Horizontal","Solid","SolidBorder","SolidFull","Vertical"]; _colours = ["Default","ColorBlack","ColorBlue","ColorBrown","ColorGreen","ColorGrey","ColorKhaki","ColorOrange","ColorPink","ColorRed","ColorWhite","ColorYellow","ColorEAST","ColorWEST","ColorGUER","ColorCIV","ColorUNKNOWN","colorOPFOR","colorBLUFOR","colorIndependent","colorCivilian","Color1_FD_F","Color2_FD_F","Color3_FD_F","Color4_FD_F","Color5_FD_F"]; _shapes = ["ICON","RECTANGLE","ELLIPSE","POLYLINE"]; _types = ["Empty","hd_objective","hd_marker","hd_flag","hd_arrow","mil_arrow2","hd_ambush","hd_destroy","hd_start","hd_end","hd_pickup","hd_join","hd_warning","hd_unknown","hd_dot","mil_box","mil_triangle","mil_dot","mil_objective","mil_flag","mil_arrow","mil_ambush","mil_destroy","mil_start","mil_end","mil_pickup","mil_join","mil_warning","mil_unknown","b_unknown","o_unknown","n_unknown","b_inf","o_inf","n_inf","b_motor_inf","o_motor_inf","n_motor_inf","b_mech_inf","o_mech_inf","n_mech_inf","b_armor","o_armor","n_armor","b_recon","o_recon","n_recon","b_air","o_air","n_air","b_plane","o_plane","n_plane","b_uav","o_uav","n_uav","b_naval","o_naval","n_naval","b_med","o_med","n_med","b_art","o_art","n_art","b_hq","o_hq","n_hq","b_support","o_support","n_support","b_maint","o_maint","n_maint","b_service","o_service","n_service","b_installation","o_installation","n_installation","u_installation","c_unknown","c_car","c_ship","c_air","c_plane","group0","group1","group2","group3","group4","group5","group6","group7","group8","group9","group10","group11","respawn_unknown","respawn_inf","respawn_motor","respawn_armor","respawn_air","respawn_plane","respawn_naval","respawn_para","loc_Tree","loc_smallTree","loc_Bush","loc_Church","loc_Chapel","loc_Cross","loc_Rock","loc_Bunker","loc_Fountain","loc_ViewTower","loc_Lighthouse","loc_Quay","loc_Fuelstation","loc_Hospital","loc_BusStop","loc_Transmitter","loc_Stack","loc_Ruin","loc_Tourism","loc_WaterTower","loc_Power","loc_PowerSolar","loc_PowerWave","loc_PowerWind","flag_NATO","flag_CSAT","flag_AAF","flag_Altis","flag_AltisColonial","flag_FIA","flag_EU","flag_UN","flag_Belgium","flag_Canada","flag_Croatia","flag_CzechRepublic","flag_Denmark","flag_France","flag_Georgia","flag_Germany","flag_Greece","flag_Hungary","flag_Iceland","flag_Italy","flag_Luxembourg","flag_Netherlands","flag_Norway","flag_Poland","flag_Slovakia","flag_Slovenia","flag_Spain","flag_UK","flag_USA","select","waypoint","selector_selectable","selector_selectedEnemy","selector_selectedFriendly","selector_selectedMission","KIA","Minefield","MinefieldAP"]; _brush = _brushes select _brush; _colour = _colours select _colour; _shape = _shapes select _shape; _type = _types select _type; _return = createMarker [_name,_position]; _return setMarkerText _text; _return setMarkerSize _size; _return setMarkerDir _rotation; _return setMarkerAlpha _alpha; _return setMarkerColor _colour; _return setMarkerShape _shape; if (_shape == "ICON") then { _return setMarkerType _type; } else { _return setMarkerBrush _brush; }; if (_debug) then { diag_log format ["# %1 # %2 # %3 # _return = %4 #",time,__FILE__ select [count (parsingNamespace getVariable "MISSION_ROOT")],__LINE__,_return]; }; {_x = nil;} forEach [_debug,_name,_position,_rotation,_size,_text,_alpha,_brush,_colour,_shape,_type,_brushes,_colours,_shapes,_types]; _return;

Now that we have the Opus codec for VON it would be nice if we could have support for playing Opus files in the game also. The quality of Opus compared to Vorbis at low bit rates is impressive. Both can be packaged in the .ogg container format. Lower audio file sizes, better quality, and faster decoding would all be a plus for mission makers who want to add custom voice overs, music and sounds to their missions.

I don't think I could resist buying more Arma content. That being said, since there is "no magic bullet" for performance during the lifetime of Arma 3, I will be very sad if the performance, particularly in MP AI scenarios, is not tackled as a priority for Arma 4. Until then I will be happy to support BIS by purchasing Arma 3 content. My hope is for us to eventually fill these wonderful maps with a convincing AI population.

So far only really found three missions that I play regularly: Escape - https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/180080-co10-escape/ Liberation - https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/183734-mpcti-coop-liberation-beta/ Patrol Ops - https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/158714-a3-patrol-operations-official-thread/ All of them are MP Co-Op and dynamic.

The exact same thing I think to myself when I see Capitalists twisting ethics and philosophy to protect their profits and limit the freedoms of others.

Stealing is when you deprive someone else of their property by taking it yourself. In the intellectual and digital world we have the ability to copy, to create a replica in our minds or in digital form which we can alter to create new things or to observe. As for ethics, I consider it a greater act of unethical behavior to deprive one of ones right to experience, interpret and to recreate ones experiences.

I really hope BIS get around to making an official benchmark like A2+OA. It will really help with troubleshooting and testing if BIS provide an officially supported and consistent test that we can use to give meaningful feedback and data. DxDiag.txt and a text dump from the benchmark of the results and graphics settings would be really great for submitting to threads like this, and probably help define the minimum and recommended hardware requirements in reality.

As much as I am frustrated with the performance issues of Arma 3, I accept that we need to work with what we have. I have yet to find a game that does what Arma does, which is probably quite telling despite the numerous popular engines that are out. If the cost of having such a sexy looking forest environment is less buildings with functional interiors so be it. I often forget that BIS is an independent studio and publisher, and like all companies have to work within budget and time constraints where shrewd decisions have to be made and costed to determine what is feasible or not. I do hope that Arma 4 will be targeted at resolving the problems of AI, MP, and incorporate the new work being done on the Enfusion Engine etc so that we can have the "magic bullet"(s) that solve performance issues that limit options for adding more complicated environments and AI etc. If continuing to purchase DLC for Arma 3 will support this I will be happy to do so while enjoying the splendid content we do get. We can always mod in buildings ourselves if need be, all the work going into making the new server browser and steam workshop integration is going to make it easier for the mod scene. Also the task overhaul is part of what I hope is a series of overhauls to game systems that are common to mission making requirements such a respawn, revive, AI spawning and patrols etc, again making it easier for mission makers to have a working base line instead of relying on third party scripted solutions that can lead to poor performance too.

The only thing I used the C++ configs for was quickly enabling and disabling third party scripts that made changes to the config, scripts that make use of RscTitles, CfgSounds, CfgRadio, and CfgFunctions in particular. I copied the technique from the MSO missions. It was basically using ifdef, ifndef, define and include to switch stuff on and off cleanly for both config side (description.ext) and in script side (init.sqf). It is basically a framework for making lots of different script mods play nice with each other by refactoring them into isolated modules that can be enabled and configured through the mission params. The only use case it never covered was stringtable.xml manipulation, always had to just merge manually all the strings from the third party script mods that had them, never figured out a way to do it cleaner.

I think the DayZ render engine is something Arma 3 could certainly get, but I doubt it would be the "magic bullet" we have been told we can't get for the lifetime of Arma 3. I think the AI and MP engine is what is holding us back from high FPS. Whenever I am in the editor and it is just me in single player or even MP by myself with no AI my FPS is 60+. As soon as AI join it dips, and when that AI starts to see some action when me and my friends start to engage them the FPS both server side and client side tanks. I don't think the DayZ render engine will solve this problem, but of course more FPS is always a boost. If Arma 4 doesn't have infinite (200+ :)) AI in MP with silky smooth 120fps I will be so salty.

I haven't found any tunnels or trenches in the jungle areas. I would like some tunnel rats action. And a motorbike or bicycle would be awesome.

Still waiting on an official benchmark like in A2. I think it's interesting BIS was confident enough to have benchmark in previous games but not in A3. And how many years has Dwarden been pushing out performance binaries now? What is the results of these performance binaries? Are they in the stable branch yet or are we still testing? I think a benchmark would help give us a consistent test to gain insight to how useful the performance binaries are and how to move forward.

As far as I know the audio codec currently used for VON is Speex (http://www.speex.org/). In light of the fact that Speex has now been replaced by Opus (http://opus-codec.org/), as noted on the Speex website, I thought I would make a thread to inquire about the possibility of upgrading the VON audio codec to benefit from the new codec. This page offers a comparison of codec performance: http://opus-codec.org/comparison/

Since RHS is officially recommended as an addon that is supported it might be handy to have a parameter so that people running the server can choose to have RHS enemies or CSAT. Editing an SQF file might be a bit too technical for some. Perhaps 3 settings, vanilla with no mods, RHS, and custom. That means you only have to manage the classname for vanilla and RHS, and people who want custom can still edit to their preference.

Can't help report bugs or fixes without being able to play it. Can we get a link to download?

Think about all the dev hours BIS have put into Stamina and Weapon Sway which adds nothing but frustration to infantry play. Yet here we have a community modder adding something that is not only really really fun, but opens up so much more options for infantry game play. I really have to wonder about the management decisions that have chosen to focus so much work and effort on something that in the end is just annoying, especially when you look at what this modder has added. Really impressed with your work, BIS should be paying you top dollar, because you just made the game 10x more interesting and enjoyable. If only BIS put in the same amount of thought and effort.

I thought making financial gain from BIS's work is prohibited? So how is any person sharing a mod on Steam Workshop considered stealing or unfair on anyone? Everyone, creators and consumers, are here because of the grace of BIS to allow any sort of modding to happen without legal action being taken. I think it is a bit disingenuous for modders to get their knickers in a twist about "their" content when it is only on the back of BIS and their generosity that any mod gets allowed in the first place. If modders are restricting use and access to "their" content to the detriment of end users what is the incentive for BIS to continue to allow modding? BIS allow modding for the benefit of the community. If the content creators start placing walls around who can do what and how then it is divisive and counter-productive, and gives BIS a headache trying to manage all the butt hurt.

Anyone else tried the Arma 3 v1.54 release candidate yet? I tried it earlier and it wouldn't let me load up Liberation. Checked the server RPT file and it had entries relating to string table errors and syntax errors.