vaaf_rup

Hmm, I wonder if it's the fact that I'm calling it in an external script with execVM that makes the difference?

Accept that the AI are low on ammo, so that is why they're complaining. I was just confused that they reported both "low ammo" and "out of ammo". I have tried both of these suggestions with the following script modification: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">// equips a standard running man removeAllWeapons _this; _this addMagazine "SmokeShellRed"; _this addMagazine "15Rnd_9x19_M9SD"; _this addWeapon "M9SD"; _this selectWeapon "M9SD"; and it doesn't make a difference to the weapon behaviour; i.e. the pistol is still unusable until I cycle F. You can check it out for yourself: join the mission "Running Man" on the public server "VAAF Public Server 2 (ruprecht)". Any more ideas?

Hi all, I'm trying to get a bunch of helos with AI pilots to groundstart and sit there until they receive an order to move. For example, I create a helo named HB_1. Over the top of it I create a trigger with BLUEFOR activation, with the following in the "on act": <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">foo = HB_1 execVM "heloGroundStart.sqf"; So when the AI pilot is ordered to mount the helo: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> PB_1 assignAsDriver HB_1; (units GRP_PILOTS) orderGetIn true; he triggers the script. This works. The script looks like this: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> // ensures that helos start their engines without taking off _helo = _this; _helo engineOn true; doStop _helo; _helo flyinheight 0; Now the weird thing is, with a group of 9 helos all setup the same - the AH-6s all start their engines, the UH-60s do not. Then, some of the AH-6's climb to a 100ft hover, and others sit turning and burning on the ground. What gives? How do I make them all groundstart and sit there?

Hi I'm editing a mission which involves a script, which I'm debugging. Problem is: once I've previewed the mission, ArmA seems to lock all the files in the MPMissions/[missionname] folder (even non-ArmA files like TODO.txt). That means if I want to tweak anything, including my script, I have to shut down ArmA completely. Is this a common thing and is there any way around it?

So does anyone know how to do this in ArmA with SQF syntax? I've tried directly porting the script over, I've tried using triggers and engineOn. Sometimes the helo starts up and stays still, others it starts up and climbs to a 100ft hover Any ideas?

Thanks for that. And also thanks for BAS f - great tool for we newbies.

Ah ok - if you alt-tab out of ArmA it solves the problem. I was editing files over the network from another machine with ArmA running.

... as are flight simulators, driving simulators, train simulators, fishing simulators etc. But simulators are not the same as games. Mario Kart is a game, not a go-kart simulator. Falcon 4 is a jet combat simulator, not a jet combat game. Bohemia don't market ArmA as "A new game from the creators of operation Flashpoint". They market it as "A new COMBAT SIMULATION from the creators of operation Flashpoint". There is a difference and it is not just semantic.

If we were talknig about Mega Chopper Combat Extreme on the Wii then I would agree with you. However this software is being marketed as a "combat simulation" and not as a "game". The opinions here, from many people educated and experienced in real-world helicopter flight (which, by their own marketing, Bohemia is attempting to "simulate") is that the helicopters behave in a manner that does not truly simulate what a helicopter does when you apply control inputs. It is not about harder/easier (in fact, real helos are in some respects easier to fly than even the best simulation) it is about whether or not the publisher actually wants to treat the helos as part of the simulation or whether they are intended just to be a "gamey" diversion. Having spent a lot more time in ArmA since my initial post on the topic, I have of course learned to "play the game" better and can control the helos with a lot more precision. But I stand by my comments that the model leaves a lot to be desired as a "combat simulation". A decent simulation is one where a real-world operator is immediately at home without having to learn to compensate for the sim's deficiencies. I am a real-world helo operator and this was not the case with ArmA.

I've done the training, I've searched the forum, but I can't get a straight answer to 2 questions: 1. How to I order subordinates to move to a specific point on the map (not necessarily in my line of sight, possibly a long way away?). i.e. without using the move-to icon to point and click. 2. Possibly related - if I double click on the map I can create a named point. What are these used for other than just a reference for yourself? Can they be shared or used as movement/fire targets? Thanks in advance.

I've created a mission with a 5-man squad, with all 5 in a group (blue lines going to one leader). The leader is a higher rank than all the others. He gets the command pictures at the bottom, yet the AI troops in multiplayer don't follow orders. Any ideas? I've tried the "How do I....Get people to join my group or an AI's group?" post too, no joy. Also I have an ammobox in the mission that I've emptied with removeAllWeapons this; Yet it is still full with the default kit in the mission. Any ideas? Thanks

Fast, helpful, accurate. Responses don't get any better. Thanks man

Thanks, I'll check it out.

"You cannot play/edit this mission; it is dependent on downloadable content that has been deleted". I am trying to view, in the editor, a mission my buddy created. I get this error when I try to load it. The mission, he says, doesn't use any plugin content other than the Australian troops one, and I have that. He does have other plugins installed, but should that cause me an error if none of that content is referenced in the mission? Surely we don't have to have exactly the same plugins installed, even if they're not referenced in the mission? Any ideas? Oh and it would be really helpful for the error to state which plugin(s) are missing. That couldn't be too hard, eh?

Thanks! Anyone got any ideas on the refusal to follow orders?

Thank you - though it seems to be listing plugins that are *installed* but not necessarily *used* in the mission. Is this normal?

I'd echo that it's not so much that experienced pilots or sim geeks can't fly it, it's more that it's constantly irritating. e.g. my first flight experience: OK, pull in some collective, bit of left pedal (or, in my case, left twist because there's no multi-controller support). Wait, nothing's happening. OK, bit more collective. Hmm, still nothing. Maybe something's wrong with my controller? Lots of collective - ah, there it goes. Mental note - large control inputs required. OK, touch forward on the cyclic. Hmm, nothing's happening. Oh wait, large control inputs remember? Bash cyclic forward, ah there we go. Pull in collective and pedal to compensate - oh wait, I'm going up. That shouldn't happen. Oh no - the collective is just an up/down control in this game! That sucks. OK, huge cyclic and collective inputs, no secondary effects, collective is just an up/down control, let's go fly. 10 meters - that's a bit high, I'm getting a nosebleed. Get back down with a little bunt. Oh, nothing's happening. That's right, use collective. Oh dear, this is dreadful. Off we go, cruising into the sun. Ooh, nice effects with the light flicker through the rotor. Shame they didn't put that much effort into the flight model! Flying to waypoint, bit of a hill coming up, back on the cyclic. BACK ON THE CYCLIC!!! Ah, remember, use the up/down lever. Hang on, it's not working. Oh right, use LOTS of up/down lever. That's better. The loadmaster can get those leaves out of the wheel struts. Still, at least you can't pedal turn at 150 knots...

Exactly.

... and we end up with yet another "combat simulation" that's dumbed down for the timmies. Yay, let's all just pack it in and get a Wii. It would be nice, just once, for a publisher to say "hell, if you don't want to spend the time to learn to fly it, then sit in the back". Or even have a timmy FM for the missions on the easy setting, and the real FM for the veteran missions. *shakes head*

I thought I'd throw in my $0.02 as a 400+hr pilot with most of that on UH-60, UH-1H, OH-58 and AS350BA: Firstly, the FM is bad. Better than any other FPS I have played, but still bad. The developers either a) don't have anyone involved who's ever been in a helo, let alone flown one, or b) have deliberately dumbed down the FM. I suspect the latter. Specific faults: - It is still stuck in the world of stick=lateral translation, throttle=up/down, pedals=turn. This is wrong. The stick (cyclic) tilts the lift vector. The collective increases rotor thrust. The pedals increase or decrease tail rotor thrust. If you point your nose at the ground in a real helo and pull an armpit of collective, you will NOT GO UP. Helos at speed with a set collective pitch fly just like aeroplanes, in that the cyclic input will cause RAPID zoom climbs and RAPID descents without collective input. - As mentioned above (and I've read the whole thread) collective input is ridiculously underpowered. An empty blackhawk, even one with full fuel, absolutely leaps into the air. Conversely, a light helo will jump into the air when empty, but will struggle a bit with a full weapon load and/or full passengers. - the helicopters feel like they want to fly, and you have to wrestle them to crash. Real helicopters feel like they want to crash, and you have to wrestle them to fly. This is to my mind the thing that makes the FM feel the most wrong. Stability augmentation in the blackhawk will smooth that out to some extent, but in the little bird you're on your own - just you and a machine that wants to crash, burn and die. - The whole issue of rotation about the CoG is missing the mark. The rotor disc is the thing that flies, the fuselage is just along for the ride. The CoG is below the rotor, so it is a pendulum. The rotation point will in effect move up and down on a line from the rotor hub to the CoG. Though this is probably too complex for a game FM. e.g. In a high-altitude hover, pushing forward on the cyclic will cause rotation about the CoG as the fuselage lags the rotor system. In a cruise, pulling aft cyclic will cause rotation about the jesus nut as the fuselage continues on its merry way while the rotor system slows. - Tail rotor effectiveness does need to be tweaked, but it's nice to see that you can't pedal turn at 150 knots. - Controls need to be more sensitive. I'm whacking my X52 stick around like I'm stirring pancakes, whereas I should only need an inch or two of movement in all but the most abrupt manoevres. Maybe this is a setting that can be changed in the setup, but I haven't found it yet. - To those that say that this is a game so FMs don't matter, I say to you that the publisher is advertising ArmA as a combat simulation. If your grunts could do rocket jumps and felt like they were wading through mud whenever they moved you'd be bitching too. The helo FMs feel like an afterthought. - devs: get yourself a copy of MS Flight Sim and the Hovercontrol 412 and make the Blackhawk and Cobra fly like that. Make the little bird more agile and unstable. MSFS is not perfect, but it's close enough to satisfy your claim that this is a combat sim, not a game. Right now (at least as far as the helos are concerned) it's a game. Oh, and we need multi-controller support for rudder pedals.