ArmedWarrior

rep+ x2 + using the latest version ("1.4.0 Early Access") 🏆🎖️ sry for being this l8 😔

well if those are just typos then nvm, just wanted to make it clear, thx 👍

On armaholic ( http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=35067 ), it seems there are 2 additionally required mods for the latest version of this mod besides RHS (there is a mod called "Volkswagen Transporter T5 Czech police" and another called "Project Bulgaria: Core") but they are not included here & on steam workshop page. Can anyone share steam urls for this 2 other ?

Deleted.

wow Taunus problem has been solved it was my own custom env nevermind ! I already love Taunus (met it with the first time) and I am glad Liberation continues and is in good hands. Keep it up Wyqer.

I'll just wait next taunus and see. thanx for your patience neway.

I swear on whatever u want that I didn't touch the mission, didn't even extract the pbo lol

my recent theory is that I have the latest CUP version, which is 1.3.0, while taunus map requires CUP 1.2.0 . ... which theory could only get proven by re-downloading 1.2.0 ... taunus map should be adjusted to the latest CUP, that's the final conclusion.

sure I wouldn't jump into this without CUP terrains (complete), all other maps I've tested work (e.g. Tanoa, Chernarus), only this has the issue. thanx for your answer anyways trying to check everything on my end then.

ok it's only one single vehicle class and - as I guess - it's the required bwmod ? here's the exact error message : ... 10:43:47 Reading mission ... 10:43:47 mpmissions\__cur_mp.xcam_taunus\mission.sqm/Mission/Entities/Item66.type: Vehicle class Land_BarGate2 no longer exists 10:43:47 Mission kp_liberation.xcam_taunus read from bank. 10:43:48 Roles assigned. ...

I have downloaded it from either of these, not from the steam link: ... X-Cam-Taunus version 1.1 download links https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-4tmlxBez6DU01zWXVBbDRrNkk https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6v24Dm6_9lxTkllZWhURldCdFE/view?usp=sharing http://server.grenzschutzgruppe.de/file/Taunus_V2.7z Steam link: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=836147398 ... looking into the exact errors gimme some time ...

let me look into it

ok nevermind guess I misunderstood it ... but I am still getting those "no longer existing vehicles" when loading the map it should be caused by something else then ...

well the zip file I got it from is named "Taunus_V2.7z" may be its a kind of "alternative versioning" ?

the server finds "no longer existing" vehicles in mission.sqm (2) when loading current version of X-Cam-Taunus. appearently it's because currently downloadable version of X-Cam-Taunus is v2.7 while the required version is v1.1 ... or may be something else ? what are the future plans of following X-Cam-Taunus updates ? (sorry if this has already been asked)

BECTI Warfare as a mission type has never been dead. It's just rather playable with trustable participants only and/or with strong and expert server admin-ing or in coop or SP - admitting it's been hosted on too few servers nowadays. BECTI Warfare is still the true and genuine Arma, if you don't know/like BECTI, you don't know/like Arma. http://www.jammywarfare.eu

@7akata, guess you are just confusing your own arma profile with dedicated server arma profile. I also host arma on dedicated server and I always backup lib mission stats by saving the variablefile belongs to dedicated server profile, which - assuming that the default profile paths are used and dedicated server arma profilename is "Server" - should be the file "C:\Users\%Username%\Documents\Arma 3 - Other Profiles\Server.vars.Arma3Profile" . I have even created a particular batch file with 4 different options to manage the variablefile of any of my arma 3 profiles ... You can even save lib mission stats while the server is running. @Dexious, thanx for sharing your tanoalib on github, I will try it asap. @Applejakerie, I've starred & watching your tanoalib on github.

@Applejakerie , I'm about to test your Lib version and while I was adjusting it to "my taste", I've noticed that stringtable.xml is not yet fully "Tanoa-ized". I've made a scratchy fix of this, you can check it out here: http://pastebin.com/6sSaBLsb. Note : OPFOR - BLUEFOR references are still present in non-english strings.

Along with some other customizations I've made in several Liberation versions there's one I decided to share here as I always thought time management part is incomplete. In parameters, you can set daylength by setting up a time acceleration to the corresponding value and then there's a switch you can further accelerate the nightpart of the day with. The issue is that while you actually make the whole daylength shorter with turning the shorter nights switch on comparing to the daylength you expect from parameter settings, night (vision) part of the day will still be too long (according to my taste) in most of the daylength setups. To resolve this "inconsistency" I've entirely changed the code in the file "...\scripts\server\game\manage_time.sqf" to the following: private [ "_accelerated_time" ]; while { true } do { if (GRLIB_shorter_nights) then { _accelerated_time = GRLIB_time_factor * 3; if (daytime > 18 || daytime < 6) then { if (_accelerated_time > 100) then { _accelerated_time = 100; }; setTimeMultiplier _accelerated_time; } else { if (_accelerated_time > 100) then { _accelerated_time = 20; } else { _accelerated_time = GRLIB_time_factor * 0.6; }; setTimeMultiplier _accelerated_time; }; } else { setTimeMultiplier GRLIB_time_factor; }; sleep 10; }; While this code exactly compensates daylength shortening that results from turning shorter night switch on it makes daylight part of the day even longer comparing to night (vision) part. This correction should work with all versions of Liberation. Note: using this code any value of GRLIB_time_factor parameter greater then 100/3 (~33.33) will be limited out so the shortest day that can be set up is ~3/4 hour long.

I've detailedly tested this through a whole night marathon "session" and I didn't find any remarkable issues. An adult, accurate and precise job. We owe you, @thecapulet .

A kind of "topping" of liberation would be if a team vs team (BLUEFOR vs OPFOR, players on both sides) version would be created of it. I already have a basic imagination of this but - although I got some deeper experience in arma scripting - I am far from pro mission builders and I (currently) have minimal experience in using mission editor so I thought I'll just put a short description of my vision over here. I think the best way of implementation would be a kind of "splitting" the current FoB conception into two basic FoB types. One would be a so called "defendable-only" FoB while the other would be normally defendable and attackable. Both teams would have both types. Here's what I detailedly mean: Defendable-only FoBs: All the FoBs created by human players would belong to this type.Players of the opposing team should be disallowed to kill / destroy anything within FoB range.Player-controlled AI, AI crew of player-controlled vehicles etc. of the opposing team should also be disallowed to kill / destroy anything within FoB range.Only AI of mission-controlled attack waves would be allowed to kill / destroy anything within FoB range as it is currently in cooperative version. Owners of the FoB (both players and AI) should also fight down such attacking AI waves within a timeinterval in order to defend the FoB as it is in cooperative version. Apparently such attacking AI waves should be periodicly launched by mission engine on "defendable-only" FoBs of both sides.Apparently FoBs of this type could only be created far enough from the nearest capturable sector/location to prevent FoB range from blocking units of the opposing team in capturing the sector. Both Defendable and Attackable FoBs: Such FoBs should be created by mission engine as it's done for OPFOR side in cooperative version.They would be fully functional as "defendable-only FoBs" are but they would be normally attackable and destroyable by any unit of the opposing team. Apparently there should be no additional AI attacking waves on such FoBs as they would only be needed to keep "consistency" of current mission-structure. Apparently there should be mission-controlled AI of both sides to defend captured sectors/locations. The number of them might be a subject of an additional mission parameter.

+1 like sir, looks interesting :681:

maxping sitrep ... maxping sitrep ... we've lost him ... ok ok its apparently understandable it wouldn't just be disabled with no reason but I'm sure it has a pretty low odds that a ping limit based kicking feature would be the mostly used feature of the consol. For example - as for myself - currently I would only use it for this ... afraid I'm 1 of the great majority ...

I've just started to study BECTI-Zerty-OFPS, I only have a clean, modless install of Arma 3 v1.56 and I could get BECTI-Zerty-OFPS work. The only thing you need to do is to make a pbo version of the whole content of the zip fixing all missing end-statement semicolons in the corresponding script files, makepbo will show you where. As it's described in the steamcommunity link AI commander code is not tweaked any way as this is intended to be a multiplayer scenario. The only option to adjust any AI presence is that AI setting in parameters menu where you can decide wheather AI are enabled on none of the sides, NATO, OPFOR or both respectively but that only affects town/non-team AI presence as far I could see it. Still need to test it though. Thanks for the links @spanishsurfer anyways, keep up the good job guys, I am interested in CTIs.