Preacher1974

There appears to be a bug in custom keybinds. When I configure a set of custom keybinds as per the instructions at https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3:_Modded_Keybinding, the new keybind section appears in the menu, but the keybinds themselves incorrectly appear in the "Editor Camera" section (ie the existing section listed immediately before my new section). The issue is occuring with build 148052 (and the build previous to that too).

Priority should be a modern object-oriented lightweight scripting language such as Lua or Python, or at the very least Java as promised early in A3's development. Acknowledging BI's finite resources, have BI expose more of the engine internals to scripters and (with a new scripting language) let the community work on fixing some of the harder problems such as AI.

Does anyone know what the new ArmA 3 radio filter effects are all about? Is this a filter for in-game VOIP (eg a simple version of ACRE), or is this for the AI radio responses? Or something else? The release notes for the beta mention "new setup of radio filter effects", but I don't see any in-game options pertaining to this.

Does anyone know how to use the RVEngine.sleep() function? I've tried it in the body of the main static method called by jCall, and also as a regular method in a class instantiated by the main static method called by jCall, but I get a "generic error in expression" error accompanied by a "suspending not allowed in this context" .rpt file message. I understand that when using .sqf this error applies when you try to execute a script with the call command instead of the spawn or execVM command. I'm assuming that jCall is equivalent to call which is why I'm getting the message. Is there a Java equivalent to execVM or spawn that I should be using (or another way to utilise RVEngine.sleep())?

I'm trying to run two instances of the ArmA client (and a dedicated server) on my laptop so I can test out multiplayer scripting. I can run two instances in windowed mode with different user profiles no problem, but as soon as one of the windows loses focus (ie if I click on the other instance) the game pauses in the inactive window. Does anyone know of any way to keep two instances running on the same PC so I can observe the behaviour of multiplayer scripts in real time?

We are considering using MM with ACE2. Do we need to disable any ACE mods that might conflict with MM (eg ace_sys_countermeasures)? Also, I believe there are conflicting keybinds - what are they and does anyone have any suggestions for alternative keybinds? Thanks!

SNKMAN, is it possible to use Kronsky's Urban Patrol Script and or the BIS taskPatrol function with GL4? eg, will the patrolling units break out of their patrol scripts if called as re-inforcements?

I did some testing and whilst they seemed to work, I couldn't see any flares. Perhaps I wasn't looking properly.

Do you know how to use the ACE countermeasures? Are they manual, and if so what is the keybind? Ta.

Is there a document somewhere that lists all of the init.sqf parameters that can be used in ACE to modify ACE behaviour? (eg ace_sys_tracking_markers_enabled = false;).

Has anyone come up with a script or addon yet to disable space-bar scanning. It ruins the immersion in AI-disabled co-op play. We don't want people to be able to tag the location or distance of ANY unit.

Does anyone know of any way yet to synchronise markers that have been placed by players with JIP clients? I'm not talking about synchronising the state of markers that are built into the mission, but markers placed by players. Thanks!

OK. I think some of you guys missed my point. I'm talking about starting from scratch from a features perspective and not being constrained by backwards compatibility. The end result would probably contain a lot of existing code (as yes, it's not commercially feasible to start coding from scratch). I'm sure BIS could completely break backwards compatibility with only relatively minor code changes - THAT'S what I'm referring to.

Assuming there is an ArmA 3, what do people think about the question of backwards compatibility vs new features. BI have built ArmA 1 and 2 on top of OFP, enabling relatively easy porting of scripts and units/vehicles between games. The downside is that ArmA 2 inherited a lot of the limitations and clunkiness of OFP amd ArmA 1. I swear the muzzleflash is still from OFP, for example. Personally, I would rather BIS just start with a clean slate and sacrifice backwards compatibility for a new engine that eliminates a lot of the limitations of the ArmA 2 engine and introduces new features such as ragdoll physics, possibly a new scripting language (LUA?), new weapon interfaces, better damage models, etc. I know that Arrowhead will go partly this way, but I reckon that BI should go further and just start planning the feature set from scratch without worrying about backwards compatibility. As a point of clarification, I'm not necessarily advocating coding a new engine from scratch but modifying features of the current engine enough to essentially break old addons and code. An alternative approach to recoding might be for BIS to license another mature engine and customise it for ArmA. Please vote and discuss :)

Nice work Protegimus. One question though: what should the UltraAI setting be configured as when using your mod?