Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Everything posted by LuizBarros99

  1. LuizBarros99

    Enemy occupation system (eos)

    @strider42 I also noticed something curious: seats that are capable of "Fire From Vehicle" always get occupied by units from the "_crewPool". This means that the Qilin, the Prowler, and the offroad pickup will be almost entirely always filled with only said units. And as a result, those vehicles are effectively useless for use in the "_MotPool" category. I also have a few significant changes that I have done to portions of code, that I think it could be interesting for me to send you a PBO of the mission for you to unpack and check out.
  2. LuizBarros99

    3CB Factions

    That update looks really awesome. Only significant issue that I noticed was the MiG-21 elevator animation being "inverted"
  3. LuizBarros99

    Enemy occupation system (eos)

    Now for suggestions, I think that it could be interesting a way to have both Attack + Transport helicopters at the same. Perhaps make it similar to how we can have both tanks + transport vehicles (by them being different variables on the parameter that calls the EOS/Bastion system). Also something that could be interesting would be a way to make each enemy "type" spawn on preset locations when using the "Bastion" mode. Basically place a few markers, and list these inside the array like this: [PATROL GROUPS,SIZE OF GROUPS,["MarkerInf1","MarkerInf2","MarkerInf3"]], [LIGHT VEHICLES,SIZE OF CARGO,["MarkerMot1","MarkerMot2","MarkerMot3"]], [ARMOURED VEHICLES,["MarkerArm1","MarkerArm2","MarkerArm3"]], [HELICOPTERS,SIZE OF HELICOPTER CARGO,["MarkerCH1","MarkerCH2","MarkerCH3"]], etc. Finally, maybe create a new thread so that you may appear as the "Thread Starter", and also be able to have the latest version of the script/system on the very first page of thread.
  4. LuizBarros99

    Enemy occupation system (eos)

    I also noticed another error, ships/boats and diver groups seem to not be getting their waypoints properly. Basically the ships/boats were just not moving and seemed to have no waypoints, when I looked at through ZEUS.
  5. This terrain looks really mind blowing. Can't wait to try it out once released
  6. 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.
  7. 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)
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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:
  11. 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...
  12. Oh, so when the trigger is active it allows to spawn, and once deactivated it disables? Or is it the other way around?
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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...)
  16. 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...)
  17. 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.
  18. 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!
  19. LuizBarros99

    [WIP] Los Santos map

    Will there be any updates to the map? It has many aspects that could be massively improved upon
  20. LuizBarros99

    DayZ and it's impact in ArmA

    Just so I can clarify my suggestions (however IDK if this is the correct section to do so though) are mostly related to realism of vehicles and ordnance. To be precise I would suggest a damage modeling for vehicles similar to the one used by a game called "War Thunder", which is the most detailed damage modeling I have seen up to this point. Also I would suggest to have more precisely modeled armor and armor penetration on vehicles. Also effects of destroyed modules should be more accurately portrayed: A destroyed gun should only be either unable to fire, have less accuracy, or even explode if fired. (Explosion and inability to fire should be in case of damage to the gun breech, and lesser accuracy damage to gun barrel) Also crew should be knocked out by penetrating projectiles and subsequent shrapnel effect. Ammo should be modeled, and detonate if destroyed. (except if it is contained in a protected ammo rack like how most NATO tanks have in their turret and some times also in the rear portion of the hull's fighting compartment) And fuel should also catch fire if directly hit. (tanks usually had measures of fighting fires, so this fire would be able to be put out) And most importantly: Mostly be DONE with overall HP system for vehicle destruction. Someone repeatedly shooting frontally like an external track or roof mounted MG turret with APFSDS should not be able to make a 60 ton tank spontaneously explode. However aircraft are pretty decently modeled, only mostly needing slight improvements such as removal of the "overall vehicle HP" and maybe some other refinements.
  21. LuizBarros99

    DayZ and it's impact in ArmA

    I would like to open this topic to ask out of curiosity how drastic was the impact of the DayZ mod and its Standalone game in the ArmA series development and player base growth. Specifically how it brought new players as a consequence increasing the sales of the ArmA series and also the overall community size. This was because DayZ back in the day was an insane success, was like a fever, and everyone wanted to play it, which meant that people needed to have ArmA 2 (I myself learned of the series from DayZ videos). This most likely was what make ArmA's community grow the most, bringing a LOT more resources for Bohemia to invest further in the series development and make the rather insane evolution that they did with ArmA 3 from ArmA 2. As such would like to open a discussion: How much this increase in sales did positively impact the development and success of ArmA 3? And based on this massive increase to the overall community that the DayZ brought, what kind of lovely surprises may we expect from Bohemia for ArmA 4? (I myself have a LOT of personal suggestions that I believe would be great to have in the next game)
  22. The title says nearly it all. When will the terrain builder tool allow to make a simple "hole" on the terrain in order to build underground structures without having to completely improvise by lowering the terrain and masking it with other objects? (Also would be nice some objects to use to make tunnels out of them after the hole is done) This would basically allow to easily create cave systems, tunnel systems. You name it! Oh, and BTW, thanks for the amazing ArmA 3. I can not wait for ArmA 4! (But please at least if it is not possible to implement this tunneling feature in ArmA 3, have it in ArmA 4...)
  23. The teasing intensifies. I can't wait for it to be released.
  24. I meant it like "What down side could it have". While definitely not being an ideal implementation, it would definitely be a lot better than currently not having any proper underground ambient