Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About LuizBarros99

  • Rank
    Private First Class

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. LuizBarros99

    ToH Terrains - Seattle & South Asia

    Hey, I am very "beguinner" in relation to understanding how mod work in ArmA 3. Because of that I can't quite comprehend why can't you just replace as many assets with assets that can be found in game or in CUP Terrains mod? I think it would be a lot more functional solution if its possible.
  2. I'm thinking about making a trigger that the condition is basically "one of the logistic items/entity" being alive, by basically doing a "alive 'x'" for each of the entities, so that if at least one of them is not destroyed, then the trigger is still activated (and the spawn should hopefully still work)
  3. This worked like wonders when using the trigger synced to the spawn module. Thanks for giving me the heads up to make it as a trigger sync-ed to the spawn module.
  4. I'm testing using something like "alive INDLOG_01 or alive INDLOG_02 or alive INDLOG_03 or alive INDTRUC_01 or alive INDTRUC_02 or alive INDTRUC_03" as the activation condition for the trigger, and synce it to the spawn modules. Now I will test it.
  5. Yes, it would be about what you did. The only minor issue that I ran into is that there are multiple logistics entities, but I can only set a single owner for a trigger. See the picture as a reference:
  6. If I need the trigger to become disabled in order to "turn off" the spawn point, I bet that I could just copy the trigger and replace the "!alive" with "alive". So that once the units are no longer alive the trigger deactivates, and (hopefully) also deactivates the spawn point synced to it EDIT: Now I realised that I would need to change the condition from an "alive 'x' && alive 'y'" condition to something like an "alive 'x' or alive 'y'" condition, as having the "&&" would cause the spawn to be disabled as soon as the first unit gets taken out...
  7. Oh, so when the trigger is active it allows to spawn, and once deactivated it disables? Or is it the other way around?
  8. OMFG, That is EXACTLY what I was after! (RN it is nearly midnight, so tomorrow I will test it more in depth, specifically trying to make it work with multiple sectors in a similar fashion to the mission I made in my STEAM WS) Also onto something else, how could I do something similar, but a lot simpler for PLAYER spawns? To be precise: The scenario that I have is that once the "logistics things" of an airbase are destroyed, this causes the conditions of a trigger to be met and it gets triggered to activate a "set Task status" module. But I would like to have this same trigger also disable the player spawn. I bet that if I were to properly comprenhend the system that you made, I would likely be able to get this done. But I am still very unfamiliar with all of the ArmA modules (specially the logic ones). Not to mention that I am still almost analphabet in relation to scripting. Which talking about it, I could imagine this being done with the "On Activation" parameter, but I would have to try countless options such as stuff like "deleteVehicle" and the Var name of the spawn module.
  9. Hey, I am wanting to do mothing quite a lot more overly complicated than this, which would be to: 1 have the AI spawn only work if the sector is captured by its team (I.E. if "X side" does not own the sector its AI can not spawn in a given point) 2 have the AI spawn only work if there are no entities of other (hostile) sides (I.E. BLUFOR AI can only spawn in said point if there are neither GUER nor OPFOR units present in a given area [likely needs to be done with a trigger for each side/faction]) It is because I once had a mission where I fought a constant CSAT VIPER spawn point right in front of me, less than 150 meters away, with at least around 8 Viper soldiers appearing every spawn (which was at most every 30 seconds apart from each other), and on top of that I was still blamed for myself ending up going down... So I kinda of got some PTSD from this terribly awlful experience.
  10. LuizBarros99


    BUT... I will double check BC b4 of that "undieying zombies thinggy" I placed a single CSAT guy with a Zafir, and he mowed down 3 zombies in the exact same prison cell he was in... (and the undying zombies REALLY did not die: I pounded them with so many ordinance from ZEUS...)
  11. LuizBarros99


    All I know is that I tried today with Ravage with ZEUS, and I had a CSAT Viper Operative empty all of his ammo into a zombie and nothing (the Coef was set to 1). He even hit them DIRECTLY with multiple magazines of the 50BW ( I even remote controled him at one point to give him more ammo/health, since he was emptying all of his ammo, and the zombie was only beating him with impunity...)
  12. LuizBarros99

    Jets DLC Official Feedback

    Well, it would technically make the game more realistic, and likely actually slightly reduce the speed at which aircraft fly, since aircraft would be made like ~50-100km/h slower at sea level. And if they really want to go fast, they would have to climb to higher altitudes, which takes some time, makes them show up on radar and other electronic sensors like a xmas tree. Not to mention that this likely makes the aircraft almost unable to attack ground targets if it is at very high altitudes. (I said that I find this to be "LIKELY", it since I am not sure if it is even possible to get soldiers, vehicles, houses, etc. to show up from distances such as 8+km altitude, which can even cause some LoS distances as big as 25km if the aircraft is high enough and the target is not directly under the aircraft) Likely an aircraft at such altitudes would be FORCED to rely on only lazer guided munitions to be able to reliably kill anything. Not to mention that this likely will actually make "ground striking" lesser effective, since the aircraft will be limited to only said weapons, AND will take longer to reach a "striking position" at like 15km altitude and also will likely take longer to RTB from said altitude, unless if we are talking about stuff like operating a fighter aircraft at over 100km away from his air base. (which THEORETICALLY is plausible) What this would affect more would be in fact "Fighter vs Fighter" engagements.
  13. LuizBarros99

    Jets DLC Official Feedback

    Hey, I was testing the jets flight model and I got baffled with how terrible they behave at altitude! Literally a MiG-19 from 1950's will out perform (in nearly every "flight perfromance" way that I can think of) a To-201 Shikra from 2035 when above 8km altitude! That is how bad the fighter Jets flight model is right now. What I am pretty sure is the likely cause of the issue is likely the lack of a "Reheat"/Afterburner being modeled, and from superficial looks of things, the jet engines are modeled as just "simple conventional turbojets" in the sence that they do not have an apparent afterburner. I am able to assume this conclusion because nearly every "good fighter jet" that has an afterburner will have a FASTER level flight speed at higher altitudes, with the previous example MiG-19 fighter jet being able to nearly reach 1500km/h at about 10km altitude. And on top of that, still be easily capable of climb past 15km while still being at least transonic, if not even supersonic! And we are here talking about one of the very first supersonic fighters in the world! So lets see how fighter flight performance evolved in about 80 years: The To-201 barely climbs any better than a MiG-19; It is only faster than the MiG-19 when bellow about 8km; It is able to reach 1500km/h on the deck (actually good achievent here, since the MiG-19 is barely supersonic on the deck!); It is unable to even maintain level flight at 14km, while the MIG-19 can easily go supersonic even at 16km altitude (Again, that is the reason why I think that it does not have an afterburner modeled!) This suggests to me that the flight performance of the To-201 is just BARELY any better than that of a 1950's jet fighter! So can we see the ArmA 3 fighter jets tweaked to be able to only reach about some ~1450 km/h at sea level, but then made able to reach at least about 2500 km/h at high altitudes such as at 10-20km altitude? This is because those are the speeds achievable by the Sukhoi Su-27, Mikoyan MiG-29, and McDonnel Douglas F-15 Eagle, all 1970's-1980's fighter jets! Remember that ArmA 3 is supposed to take place in 2035!
  14. LuizBarros99

    [WIP] Los Santos map

    Will there be any updates to the map? It has many aspects that could be massively improved upon