pedeathtrian

Do we have a command or function to get maximum limit of view distance we can set with setViewDistance? Different numbers appear in comments (10 km, 15 km), also, in ports this distance is decreased, AFAIK, to 6 km (?). I can use the (productVersion select 6) to get the platform, but then what values do I use? If somebody gives me values and says they're not the subject to change, that'd be fine too. Why these values? According to BISim::setFog they affect the view distance limitation made by fog. I experimented with different view distance and fog settings and got somewhat similar (exponential downfall) character of view distance dependency on fog value (same rules might apply in BISim and Arma). However, view distance set by setViewDistance does not have any influence on fog effect and only works as cut-off. Thus I need the limit(s). Thanks.

Undefined variable in code clock does not cause error, it cause return of nil. Which in turn causes if to stop evaluating condition and neither then-statement nor else-statement is executed. Code blocks can't be the first in if condition though and must evaluate to boolean type or nil; nil or boolean value can be placed the last to ensure that. So you can get this combination working if maybeundef1 and maybeundef2 represent boolean types if defined: if (true && {maybeundef1} && {maybeundef2} && {some code returning nil or boolean} && {finally do some stuff; nil});

Update. In short: Beer-Lambert part in my previous post incomplete, code DOES NOT work properly. I conducted some experiments: measures aimed at determining u constant. I set up uniform attenuation with zero fogDecay and different fogValues, then measured critical distance at which the same object switches from almost to completely invisible, assuming approximately equal amount of optical depth () reached for all cases. should be somewhere close to 5 (the rule): . That (assuming u is const too) should have given me , but it hadn't, that is, to my surprise and disappointment, even for uniform fog, transmittance DOES NOT conform to . Expression should still stand true, but tau is clearly more complex than I thought before. Most likely it has form where is optical depth calculated by code from my previous post, u and v are unknown functions on variables: z coordinates of points, fogValue, fogDecay, fogBase (and maybe more). v most likely adds or substracts, since one does not simply multiply on already logarithmic value. Not more than one function of u and v can be const. I have no ways even to tabulate those functions separately, not saying to find their equations. There should be some physical processes simulated by Arma other than absorption which (probably) covered by . Any thoughts? =)

Fog explained SQF. /* Author: pedeathtrian Description: Returns optical depth between two points See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law Parameter(s): 0: POSITION 1: POSITION (positions are in ASL format) Returns: NUMBER */ // takes two positions in ASL format; params [["_pos0", [0,0,0], [[]], 3], ["_pos1", [0,0,0], [[]], 3]]; private _z0 = _pos0 param [2, 0, [0]]; private _z1 = _pos1 param [2, 0, [0]]; private _l = _pos0 distance _pos1; fogParams params ["_fogValue", "_fogDecay", "_fogBase"]; _fogValue = _fogValue min 1.0; _fogValue = _fogValue max 0.0; _fogDecay = _fogDecay min 1.0; _fogDecay = _fogDecay max -1.0; _fogBase = _fogBase min 5000; _fogBase = _fogBase max -5000; private _dz = _z1 - _z0; if (_dz ==0 || _fogDecay == 0) then { // covers _l == 0 too _fogValue * _l } else { private _cl = -_fogDecay * _dz; private _d = -_fogDecay * (_z0 - _fogBase); // lim [(exp(x)-1) / x] = 1 as x->0 if (abs(_cl) > 1e-4) then { _l * _fogValue * exp(_d) * ( exp (_cl) - 1.0) / _cl; } else { _l * _fogValue * exp(_d) } } What have to be done now is determining suitable threshold value which is by your taste is acceptable for AI to "see" the target. Create some foggy setting and notice the returned value of function when you think AI should notice target. Write it to mission data, compare to that value. Better skilled AI might have slightly greater threshold for tau. Test mission. Any questions? =)

I guess using extension (like this one) is not an option?

That being said, permissions are important thing to check since read-only is not enough, you need write permissions on mod directory. See T123021.

I saw your post about this problem in another thread too, but since it is not related to that problem I will respond here. At first, lines 418-419 of your log are just warnings, notice the W letter: thread 00000004][W][38551]; errors are marked with 'E'. 'I' stands for info. However, error messages are not quite informative too, since they most likely show errors that happen when things have gone pretty bad already. Notice also (line 404) temporary directory 'C:\tmp\arma3z8I967\' mentioned in your log, which is most likely corresponds to '/tmp/arma3z8I967/' on your system. After every Arma3 crash instance of similar temp directory remains in your /tmp and occupies space here, hence you have less and less time Arma 3 working on every next run. Remove those dirs and you will at least have every crash to be 'first crash' after 30-35 minutes with no need to reboot system. I can't help other than that, but you can also check this feedback tracker howto: search for relevant issues and create a new ticket if not present. Don't forget to attach memory dumps along with RPT log, that might help (check the howto entry 'How to report Game Crash' on this part).

Just finished performing these steps again (after switching from legacyports to main branch): 1. Cleaning download cache in Steam 2. Manually deleting Steam's depotcache directory contents. 3. Downloading 4.8 GiB from main branch 4. Checking files' validity (just in case) NO full reinstall of Arma 3 this time, sorry (I don't have time for this shit) 5. Bad version 72 in p3d file 'a3\vegetation_f_exp\clutter\grass\c_grassbunch_hi.p3d' Nothing changed. I mean not a single bit (I still have list of shasums from the time of my previous post, Jan 2nd; all sums identical, now and then). I don't know what BIS fixed in ports version, it's not in my Steam copy of Arma 3.

Yep, landing Su-25 is challenging. Its landing speed is 210 kmph, make sure you're close. The closer the better. Watch your vertical speed too. Flaps full down for more lift on low speed. Mind the ground effect (more lift near the ground). When you're on the ground, notice the angle your aim makes with the horizon. That means when you aim the horizon on landing, your nose is significantly pitched down. Crash guaranteed. Ideally land on three points, or at least on the back two with lower vertical speed. If you were counting for all of the above you'd have at least 5 of 10 landings done without damage. However, I'd say problem exists. Even landing autopilot 9/10 takes damage on soil airstrips. Not much though, usually couple of percents.

These actual .torrent files we use right now provided by PuFu are made from mod directory, so yeah, partial download is possible. Rehash on update is one of intended BT uses. BT also guarantees bitwise identity of data when finished. So no risk unless you accidentally mess with destination directory and overwrite old one which is still in use. In case of RHS 0.4.2 you could get this numbers just by rehashing 0.4.1.1 directories: 724.0 / 4088.8 for @RHSAFRF and 648.0 / 3935.7 for @RHSUSAF. Not that much as if with delta patching (which is indeed the most effective way) but still something.

First, thank you all RHS Team and all involved community members for your hard work bringing the best Arma 3 mods out there. Second. Please, consider continuing of using BitTorrent as distribution platform. Thank you!

What I've tried so far with main branch: 1. Cleaning download cache in Steam 2. Manually deleting Steam's depotcache directory contents. 3. Full reinstall of Arma 3 (with above steps performed too) Nothing helped, I was still getting bad version 72 error, until switched to legacyports branch. So I decided to find the difference between those branches. Here are lists of shasums of differing files: legacyports: main branch: Steam server used for download: Russia - Novosibirsk There are people in ports users community who are - using Linux - using main branch of Arma 3 in Steam - had no problems with Apex and/or Tanoa I found at least two (and I heard of more), and both of them confirmed they have exact same file ./Expansion/Addons/vegetation_f_exp.ebo in main branch as I have in legacyports (checksum f1a1992bee936b1eae89ce6bc1fef8a32f3e94dc). So I guess there might be some Steam/distribution issue messing the files in branches. That explains BIS QA Team had no problems with main branch either (they might get correct files for main branch).

It's not dev branch you use, it's legacyports one. Access code Arma3LegacyPorts

This contains no useful information about your problem. See details of your crash report (in crash report dialog).

Some older related post and replies to it: this and this. From https://dev.arma3.com/ports: It's not that mods authors pursue compatibility with Windows only, but more like BIS pursue compatibility of their tools with Windows version of Arma only, so that not only modders' content is incompatible with legacy ports, but even their (BIS) own content is incompatible too! Modders have little to no control of compatibility there. From https://dev.arma3.com/ports: Assuming branch is not meant to be used at all, I hope non-branch Apex content gets fixed soon.

Yes, Tanoa worked. Campaign missions start, editor opens Tanoa, etc.

Ugh, ok. I made Tanoa great again. In Steam I opted Arma 3 to legacyports branch (using Arma3LegacyPorts as password) -- something I never did since first installed legacy port client (though I did it for dedicated server) in September of 2015 -- had to redownload some 4.7 gigs, then everything worked like a charm.

Yes, verified the cache before reporting. Started without mods.

Apex is out, but the (second) problem still persists, it's only version 72 now, not 71. That is, Tanoa is not playable on legacy ports. We still require -world=... option to start the game. Other than Tanoa, update is playable, I could use new weapons in Virtual Arsenal, etc. If required, rpt-file, crash report, crashdump (.dmp) and .bidmp files are available in archive.

Why do you think this branch will be publicly available? Has "port_158" branch become available? And yeah, "legacy" 1.62 branch is not for ports.

That is not C++: there's no extends syntax in it. That is not Java also which has that extends syntax but does not have destructors. Of course that is not C also (because of classes and inheritance). It may be some other language, looking a bit like Java and C++, having files named after C (to be more confusing I guess), and usable nowhere else in the Universe except under DayZ hood. Knowing proper C++ has limited use here.

find and chmod commands are to be used in server's command shell, which you seem to not have. chmod's FileZilla equivalent is selecting a "folder" (or multiple folders at once), then selecting context menu item "File permissions...". Dialog will popup, select permissions there as follows (sorry for dark theme): 777 is usually overkill, I'd suggest 775 for directories only and 664 for files only (so you need two runs of changing permissions). Anyway, it seems to me that permissions is not the problem: most likely server runs with the same username as you use to upload files. Therefore they all should be readable. Unfortunately, I couldn't find an easy way to recursively rename subdirectories and their files in FileZilla.

Seems like ArmA runs with expansion addon enabled. Try forcing no-mod run with -mod="" launch option. Apex is not available for Linux/Mac ports yet. UPD. OR, alternatively, use -world="Altis" instead of -mod="". Most likely you will have first error, but not the second; also you will probbaly get to main menu, then go to Configure -> Expansions menu end try to disable "expansion" there.

If they did it, they didn't do it in one night. Imagine you work in WTC on floor 99. One day company on floor 100 moves to office in another building on another street, or even city. Some other company moves in. They don't like what is left by previous owners, so they make some repair. They drill walls, do some replanning, etc. Why on Earth would you care? Some discomfort though... How on Earth would you know the same thing happened on 89/90 floors week ago, and the same will happen next week on 109/110? You don't even go there. Like, never ever in your life. Why would you care about building owner is closing lift 1 (of 10 or 20 or whatever they had) for maintenance for a week? Sure lifts need maintenance. Lift 2 is the next. Why would you care if they paint stairs in west wing (east next week) and it stinks like some weird shit, but it's ok, since the whole stairway is sealed, so little to no smell in offices? Not saying there could be service rooms, ventilation shafts, etc. And all this concentrated in central part of the building where all bearing constructions located. You can mine every room in your own building if you have time. I don't say it was exactly this way. My point is it's not that impossible.

That was my point exactly. Buildings do not crumble unless you make them to. I mean not old building in which you make hole with a finger, but ones in good conditions. If you have a controlled demolition it's not that hard to control the direction, speed (with which it goes along the required direction) and many other parameters of that demolition. Check out open-pit mining explosions. Starting chained explosion from specific point is as simple as including or excluding elements into/from electrical circuit, that is as simple as turning some switches on/off. Now, what floor was damaged in WTC building 7? It wasn't attacked by planes, so it never had that amount of fuel to "soften bearing construction" up to building collapse (of whatever reason they come up with). Finally, it doesn't necessary have to be explosives. Thermite could do the trick. Or couple of other ways of damaging steel.