sgtfuzzle17

Just in case anyone here knows, is there a good way to write the current sectors captured/owned by factions to profilenamespace? I'm setting up a custom Warlords mission for my unit's server to run through the midweek period but unfortunately am pretty green when it comes to scripting. Does anyone here already have any persistence systems sorted out?

On the chance this mod is still getting developed, two questions: What sort of state is the Leopard in? Also, I've been having an issue where I'm unable to aim/slew the TOW launcher on the Wiesel 1A2 TOW variant. I can turn out, enter the launcher and see all of the zoom/thermal levels, as well as fire the missile, but aiming/slewing the launcher doesn't work.

@Von Quest Posted this in the FUSE thread but I figure I'll post it here as well for visibility as this appears to be the more active thread. Is there any other documentation out there for the IED system? Some of the stuff in the notes included is worded somewhat confusingly at times. Also, is there any way to dynamically spawn the IEDs throughout a map dynamically? Alternatively, is it possible to use multiple variable names in the target object parameter of the IED module?

@Von Quest Hi, just wondering if there's any way to set up FUSE to work with dynamically spawned IEDs? I generally work with sandbox missions but I love the defusing system you're working on. If that isn't possible, can I use an array of variable names for the target object to enable multiple or does it only accept one?

Really liking the new I-TGT system in the works; those gifs are very enlightening. Will there be any way of distinguishing which weapon stations actually release first? For example, if I load an F-16 up with 4 GPS guided bombs and want to drop them on seperate targets but they're not on sequential pylons (say, 4, 5, 7, 8), will they just release from lowest to highest numbered station? Or will there be a way to control which station drops first?

@firewill Should have clarified; wasn't trying to say "these planes can only mount these missiles in a very specific configuration"; I'm aware they can do that. Was more asking if you would consider setting them up to require the HTS in place of a targeting pod for SEAD operations similar to the way you need the ADLP to use camera guided cruise missiles.

@firewill are there currently any plans to make SEAD a task better suited to planes specifically designed for it/enforce any limitations on the existing quite easy implementation of it? This version of the F-16 for example was fitted with specialty equipment in place of the LANTIRN pod to enable proper SEAD operations with AGM-88s. I figure something like this would improve viability of the forthcoming Prowler you've mentioned in your Patreon posts.

Just to clarify, are they just easier to evade, or are they doing less damage now as well? Damage-wise they felt fine before, but better evasion and needing to get better locks and positions is a good thing. On a related note, have you considered tightening how on-bore the missiles need to be to pull a lock? More of the time they just vaguely have to be "in-front of the plane", whereas realistically you'd need to have the nose almost pointed at them.

@firewill as a feature update, would it be possible at any point to add a radar screen to the MFDs, similar to how we have MAP and TGP modes? Even if its just a mirror of the existing radar screen and not a sim-style recreation of a real life radar screen, anything that reduces reliance on base Arma's HUD and adds immersion is a good thing. Edit: just to clarify, I'm not suggesting anything like hard disabling the existing radar system, just an addition of it to the MFD panels we've already got. From what I can see on this Biki page, it should be doable (although I have no idea the amount of work involved).

@firewill would you consider at any point adding just a standard AGM-84 Harpoon without I-TGT functionality for use as a pure anti-shipping missile rather than the cruise missile hybrid role it serves now?

Will this change at any point? RIOs literally only being able to monitor radar is kind of a shallow experience when radar is as simple as it is in Arma 3.

@firewill Quick bug report here, not sure if intended/haven't gotten to it yet. None of the F-14 variants have the tickboxes for backseat (RIO in this case) weapon control. Is this something that's meant to be coming soon™ or not on the cards?

@firewill Awesome, thanks. Are we able to use this to build whitelists as well? Also, is there a readily accessible list of all weapon classnames floating around anywhere?

To start off, I'm a massive fan of the Support framework - not enough missions make transport/logistics pilots really feel like they have a meaningful impact on the battlefield in my opinion, and I'm not a huge fan of the needless level of complexity involved with getting ALiVE working properly. However... Since we got the mission framework, it seems to have the hardcoded limitation that getting out of your chopper outside the base/leaving the base in any manner other than a helicopter results in a "returning to base, out of bounds" message. Now, I get that the mission is geared towards support objectives (they've specifically stated in the past it was designed this way so that when it was released alongside the Helicopters DLC, there would be a mission purely focusing on the logistics capabilities those new vehicles brought to the table) - it does it better than anything else. But the inability to have even a small player squad operating alongside a larger, busier air wing kind of sucks, especially when its due to a single option that could be as easily turned off as a single attribute in one of the modules. Is there any chance of getting in contact with Bohemia and seeing if they'd make this change? Alternatively, if people know a way around this limitation please let me know so I can implement it.

@DSabre I was more looking for something that fully takes them out of the list. If there's no solution like that around, all good.