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).

Does anyone else think that the artillery round flight times are very high? I've been doing some testing and to shoot a round halfway across the map it can take 4-5 minutes for the round to come down. I thought in real life that artillery operators can use different charge strengths, whereas ArmA 2 seems to have only one which puts the shells in orbit before coming down.

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?

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 :)

I have a Core2Quad 2.83GHZ server with 4GB of RAM running Windows 2008 x64 on a 100Mb internet connection. I can't seem to get more than about 25fps on the server for missions (even with only 1 player connected). Looking at the Windows performance monitor, I can see all 4 cores are utilised, but no core seems to go over 50-60%. So given that there doesn't seem to be a CPU bottleneck, why can't I get the server's maximum framerate of 50fps (48/48fps in reality)? I've tried every arma2.cfg network setting known to man, but it doesn't make a difference. Here is the screenshot of a mission with one player not doing anything, and getting 23fps.

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.

Z Special Unit ( http://www.zspecialunit.org ) is a mostly-ArmA clan based in Sydney Australia and is currently recruiting. Our focus is on custom co-op missions designed by a number of in-house mission designers. The clans owns a quad core server hosted in a Sydney data centre with a 100Mb connection. ZSU aims to strike a balance between realism and accessibility to "regular" players when gaming. We use some military ranks, tactics and terminology to enhance team effectiveness and add a bit of drama, but in no way do we attempt to emulate a real military organisation. Some clans require extensive mandatory training before allowing people to join and/or play, and many attempt to simulate real military organisations to an extreme level of detail. Whilst there is definitely a place for this style of gameplay, ZSU aims to provide a more relaxed-but-structured gaming environment with scheduled co-op games that are open to anyone who would like to join the clan and play. Although we use a simple rank system to reflect people's experience and contribution to the clan, this has no impact on game-play. We use a volunteer system for mission roles, with no restrictions on which roles you can or cannot choose. All that is required to join is to agree to some simple rules around chain-of-command, voice comms and considerate behaviour, all of which are required so that we don't run around like an ineffective bunch of Rambos on the battlefield getting annihilated by the AI. So please go ahead and check out http://www.zspecialunit.org !!

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

They've fixed the weird flickering textures issue with buildings, but I seem to have lost about 5-10fps. Anyone else get a loss of framerate?

Sumrak, awesome work. I have just one problem. I get the following error when connecting to my server that uses signed addons: I redownloaded the patch file but still get the error. Looks like the sig file is broken.

Is there any word on whether Operation Arrowhead will use DirectX 10 or 11. It's such a shame that the game currently isn't using the capabilities of most graphics hardware out there by being restricted to DirectX 9.

So you're saying they are not modifying the engine... Why did BIS then state in http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=84463 that they would be modifying the engine? Will they somehow automate the inclusion of ArmA II content for those that have it to encourage people who own it that Arrowhead will be just a huge expansion pack for them? BIS: This is difficult to say now, as Arrowhead will feature a newer and enhanced version of ArmA II engine. And What are the reasons to release it as a standalone game instead of an ArmA II addon? BIS: At least two reasons there are, which one of these is our wish to make it easier to get the game for players who didn't buy ArmA II previously and that some of the new features require to change both exe and data in order to work properly (e.g. thermal imaging).

That's where I'm coming from. For a given unit of quality DirectX10 or 11 should be more efficient. ---------- Post added at 08:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 AM ---------- They are changing the engine this time (as well as the data) so they COULD introduce it if possible.

I'm curious as to people's thoughts on selling mods and scripts for profit. I ask this not from the perspective of a modder and a scripter (as I can't do either), but as a customer who wishes he could buy them. MS Flight Simulator has a thriving ecosystem of 3rd-party commercial mods - why can't ArmA have the same? Does anyone know if BI's license prohibits people from charging for custom-made content? ArmA's modding community is amazing and I'm grateful for what people produce, especially things like ACE which is just awesome. The only problem with many great mods is that they are made in people's spare time, often with limited bug, regression, and compatibility testing and usually no support. I (and many others) would LOVE to be able to pay people for their hard work, and know that in return we will get a well designed, well tested and supported product. And DON'T say that I should just donate to mod makers (which I have done anyway in the past), as you're missing the point. I've heard that this has been raised in the past and met with a highly emotional negative response, which I find irrational and puzzling. If you don't like something, just don't buy it and move on with your life. Thoughts?

Thanks for the great info Gaia, however I can't get it to work. I've tried adding your code to the ALICE module init line, as well as trying it from the init.sqf and it doesn't work. When running it from the init.sqf, I've used the following code (where myALICE is the name of the ALICE module) that I normally use before passing parameters to modules: waitUntil {!isNil {myALICE getVariable "initDone"}}; waitUntil {myALICE getVariable "initDone"}; hint "ALICE inialised"; When I use the above code, it never actually initialises and doesn't show the hint message. Does initialisation for ALICE work differently than for other modules? When I remove the "waitUntil" lines, the code runs without errors, but the civilian death counter doesn't work. I've got another radio trigger that displays a hint with the Civilian death count but it doesn't increment when I kill civilians. I've also tried adding the Functions module since we are using a function in the ALICE config. Any ideas why it's not working? Cheers!