Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

d3nn16

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    319

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by d3nn16

  2. Posted

    I started playing this game last week and had fun until I came across some bugs. I am not sure I will continue if I find there are bugs that prevent finishing the campaign.

     

    So after spending a lot of time trying to find Feedback Tracker "tasks" related to Old Man bugs and learning how to create a dashboard, I share with you the public "Old Man Dashboard" in order to:

    • allow players to quickly find existing bugs and avoid creating duplicates
    • allow players to track progress made by Bohemia devs in solving the 'game breaking' bugs (I propose all game breaking bugs should have the highest priority which is 'Immediate', not 'Urgent')
    • allow Bohemia devs to prioritize their work on the 'game breaking' bugs as indicated by the players

    Please let me know what you think about the dashboard and I will update it if needed.

     

    URL: https://feedback.bistudio.com/dashboard/view/123/

     

    Query details for "New":

    • Keyword: "Old Man"
    • Tags: Arma 3
    • Statuses: New, Feedback
    • Updated After: 2020-04-13
    • Description: these bugs should be prioritized as soon as possible
      • priority 'Immediate": 'game breaking' issues that make it impossible to finish the campaign
      • priority 'Urgent': 'quest breaking' issues that allow finishing the campaign even though some quests cannot be completed

    Query details for "In Progress"

    • Keyword: "Old Man"
    • Tags: Arma 3
    • Statuses: Acknowledged, Assigned, Reviewed, Confirmed
    • Updated After: 2020-04-13
    • Description: BIS devs should use Confirmed if they managed to reproduce the issue

    Query details for "Waiting"

    • Keyword: "Old Man"
    • Tags: Arma 3
    • Statuses: Need more info
    • Updated After: 2020-04-13
    • Description: BIS devs should set this state if they need more steps for reproducing the issue

    Query details for "Closed"

    • Keyword: "Old Man"
    • Tags: Arma 3
    • Statuses: Duplicate, Resolved
    • Updated After: 2020-04-13
    • Description: for 'Resolved' issues, BIS devs should indicate a possible fix release date

     

     

    EDIT

    I created 2 new public dashboards in Feedback Tracker to make life easier for bug reporters who don't want waste their time learning how dashboards work

     

     

     

    • Like 1

  3. Posted

    Hello,

     

    I tried play around with server side scripts inside the configuration file and I succeeded in crashing my ArmA Linux server.

     

    This is the part of the config that crashes the server: 

    onDifferentData = "systemChat format [""EVENT=|ON_DIFFERENT_DATA| - USER_ID=|%1| FILE_NAME=|%2|"", _this select 0, _this select 1]; kick (_this select 0)";
onUnsignedData = "systemChat format [""EVENT=|ON_UNSIGNED_DATA| - USER_ID=|%1| FILE_NAME=|%2|"", _this select 0, _this select 1]; kick (_this select 0)";
onHackedData = "systemChat format [""EVENT=|ON_HACKED_DATA| - USER_ID=|%1| FILE_NAME=|%2|"", _this select 0, _this select 1]; kick (_this select 0)";

     

    This is the error output by the server when started with the above configuration: 

    systemd[1]: Started MACE Server.
mace[463]: 18:37:27 SteamAPI initialization failed. Steam features won't be accessible!
mace[463]: 18:37:27 Cannot register unknown string STR_3DEN_CAMERA_NAME
mace[463]: 18:37:27 Cannot register unknown string STR_DIFF_SCENE_ONLY
mace[463]: 18:37:27 Cannot register unknown string STR_DIFF_SCENE_AND_MAP
mace[463]: 18:37:27 Error context _this select 0);';
mace[463]: 18:37:27 ../lib/Network/networkServer.cpp ClearNetServer:NOT IMPLEMENTED - briefing!
mace[463]: File /home/steam/mace/main.cfg, line 23: '.kick': '(' encountered instead of '='
mace[463]: 18:37:27 Extensions:
systemd[1]: mace.service: Main process exited, code=exited, status=1/FAILURE
systemd[1]: mace.service: Unit entered failed state.
systemd[1]: mace.service: Failed with result 'exit-code'.

     

    It looks like chaining commands with semicolon separator is not accepted, eg systemChat ...; kick ...

     

    By the way, the commands alone work, ie

     

    this works (no crash and does what it should do) : 

    onDifferentData = "systemChat format [""EVENT=|ON_DIFFERENT_DATA| - USER_ID=|%1| FILE_NAME=|%2|"", _this select 0, _this select 1]";
onUnsignedData = "systemChat format [""EVENT=|ON_UNSIGNED_DATA| - USER_ID=|%1| FILE_NAME=|%2|"", _this select 0, _this select 1]";
onHackedData = "systemChat format [""EVENT=|ON_HACKED_DATA| - USER_ID=|%1| FILE_NAME=|%2|"", _this select 0, _this select 1]";

    this works also : 

    onDifferentData = "kick (_this select 0)";
onUnsignedData = "kick (_this select 0)";
onHackedData = "kick (_this select 0)";

    So any possibility to call multiple commands for an event ? How ?

     

    Thanks for any help,

    Regards

     

  4. Posted

    I'm hosting an ArmA game server and website for a community called MACE.

    On the website I have a page that tracks top player scores for specific missions (http://www.macegame.eu/tag/scoreboard/).

    I want to display the squad logo of each player in the list when available but I encountered a problem.

    The game server will dump info returned by the script commands getPlayerScores and squadParams in the server logs (player name, player score, squad name, squad website and squad picture) which is later used by the website scripts to generate the scoreboard page dynamically.

    The problem is the output of the squadParams command : 

    [
	[
		"MACE",
		"Multiplayer ArmA Combat Engine",
		"armamacegame@gmail.com",
		"http://www.macegame.eu/",
		"c:\users\neutrino\appdata\local\arma 3\squads\mace\dr3uvhu2db.paa",
		"MACE"
	],
	[
		"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx",
		"eRazer",
		"",
		"",
		"",
		""
	]
]

    The picture info returned by the script is "c:\users\<windows user name>\appdata\local\arma 3\squads\mace\dr3uvhu2db.paa" but I would like it to be the URL of the logo on ArmA 3 Units page for MACE which is https://units.arma3.com/groups/img/1143/DR3UVHU2db.png

     

    Please let me know if this new feature will be considered for a future implementation.

     

    Thanks & Regards

  5. Posted

    I found a solution but it only works because I created the addon that contains the functions I want to override :-)

     

    My Addon - function ZDB_FNC_COUNTDOWN 

    if (not ("notfound" isEqualType (uiNamespace getVariable ["CUS_FNC_COUNTDOWN", missionNamespace getVariable ["CUS_FNC_COUNTDOWN", "notfound"]]))) exitWith {_this call (uiNamespace getVariable ["CUS_FNC_COUNTDOWN", missionNamespace getVariable "CUS_FNC_COUNTDOWN"])};

    Explanation : the addon function must do the work of checking whether the overriding function exist (with similar name but different tag : CUS_FNC_COUNTDOWN instead of ZDB_FNC_COUNTDOWN).

     

    Mission that uses addon can override function ZDB_FNC_COUNTDOWN by declaring the function CUS_FNC_COUNTDOWN

  6. Posted

    Hello

     

    I installed the dev build version of the Linux server using steamcmd and 'app_update 233780 -beta development validate'.

    And installed dev build version of the Windows client using steamcmd and 'app_update 107410 -beta development validate.

     

    When I start the dev build client on my Windows machine I see correct version 'Development Build version 1.81.144316'. But when I go to the server list I see my server with a red cross and its info card shows 'version: 1.80'. I disabled addon check in server config file (verifySignatures=0, onDifferentData = "", onUnsignedData = "", onHackedData = "", BattlEye = 0). In the server logs I see incorrect version 'Arma 3 Console version 1.80.143869 x86'.

     

    Does this mean it is not always possible to test the latest dev build on a Linux server? Do I need to wait until the Linux Server Dev Build 1.81.144136 is released?

     

    Thanks for any help

  11. Posted

    IMO the best method for this huge translation task is crowd based translation.

     

    Here is one website (I didn't have time to test it for my own addon but looks promising) that does this: https://crowdin.com/

     

    To put it short: you can make your translation project public and any crowdin user can put their own translations or vote for existing translation. And there is a button for downloading the translations that have most votes (that's what I was told, I haven't checked).

     

    Let me know if this sounds good for you.

  12. Posted

    Hello

     

    Are you trying to make a PvP (or other) mission from scratch and you lose your time searching for script examples and debugging ?

    STOP!

     

    After you get Zengin addon you will stop scripting and start designing the gameplay of your dreams ;-)

     

    Subscribe to Zengin on Steam workshop and get free sample mission based on Tanoa island with new Apex factions, units, vehicles and weapons: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=698138607

     

    Cheers

    eRazer

     

    Note: documentation is not available yet but I'm ready to help in case you want to use it for your missions

  13. Posted

    Hello,

     

    I am creating an addon (that includes a bunch of scripts used for making missions) and I am trying to make everything as overridable as possible by the mission maker that will use my addon.

    Examples :

    - stringtable.xml is overridable

    - CfgXXXX or custom configs are overridable (based on tests I've made)

    - sqf variables are overridable

     

    I couldn't find a way to override functions defined in CfgFunctions (i know functions not defined in CfgFunctions are overridable just like variables but I don't want to use that method).

    Also, I would like to be able to override the function by using the exact same name (eg BIS_FNC_ABC => BIS_FNC_ABC, etc) so the change has no impact on the scripts calling the function.

     

    Does anyone know if it is possible and how?

     

    In the test I made I did the following:

    - created a test addon in which I added a CfgFunctions block with 1 function

    - created a test mission in which I added THE SAME CfgFunctions block with 1 function as in the addon (I only changed the "file" attribute to make it point to the functions folder inside the mission folder)

    - Started game with test addon enabled

    - I called the function during the mission with debug console and the radio message displayed was the one from the addon not the one I put in the mission function file

     

     

     

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    I'm planning to convert a mission framework (a bunch of scripts and functions) into an addon (this way it's easier to update multiple missions that are sharing scripts).

     

    The reasons I want to encrypt:

    - prevent others from just copying the scripts, add their logo and whatnot then say it's their addon

    - the framework is completely extensible as it is now (you can add whatever script you want and turn off/on existing scripts) so there is no need to modify anything inside the "engine scripts" only in the parameter files

    - if however there is something to be corrected/improved about the "engine scripts" then I want to know it and improve my addon for everyone not let someone else do it only for himself

    - encryption is first step for players to win some money with player made DLCs if they wish to do so, this can even incite companies to start developing complete games using the ArmA engine (makes me think of DayZ)

  17. Posted

    I saw in SITREP00121 that there will be some modifications to the #include behaviour. Please take into account what I posted in the Feedback Tracker about it. The issue is resolved in 1.50 (didn't have time to test), so I am just trying to make sure it will not be broken by future updates (possibility of referencing files relative to the root folder of the mission (or through relative path ..\..\..\etc), eg file <mission root>\functions\fn_myfunc_1.sqf includes file <mission root>\includes\file_1.sqf, where fn_myfunc_1.sqf is a function file referenced in CfgFunctions)

  18. Posted

    Hi,

    I am trying to use kbTell to send a message over side channel whenever a player is hit by friendly fire (not killed).

    So I want to reuse the radio message that is used by AI when you fire at them:

    Alpha 1-1 4: 2 - Cease Fire -

    I did a full search on all the Arma addon files without finding the special .bikb file that would contain the "Cease fire" message definition. Instead I found that this message is defined in \a3\dubbing_radio_f\config.bin. So I figured out I just need copy the classes to a bikb file in my mission folder:

    sentences.bikb

    class Sentences
{
class __2_1___Cease_fire_1
{
	textOrig = "%2.1 — Cease fire";
	text = "$STR_A3___2_1___Cease_fire";
	wordsClass = "Normal";
	speech[] = {"XMIT","%2.1","CeaseFire"};
	gesture = "";
	class Arguments {};
};
class __2_1___Cease_fire_4
{
	textOrig = "%2.1 — Cease fire";
	text = "$STR_A3___2_1___Cease_fire";
	wordsClass = "Combat";
	speech[] = {"XMIT","%2.1","HoldFire"};
	gesture = "";
	class Arguments {};
};
class __2_1___Cease_fire_5
{
	textOrig = "%2.1 — Cease fire";
	text = "$STR_A3___2_1___Cease_fire";
	wordsClass = "Combat";
	speech[] = {"XMIT","%2.1","DoNotFire"};
	gesture = "";
	class Arguments {};
};
class __2_1___Cease_fire
{
	textOrig = "%2.1 — Cease fire";
	text = "$STR_A3___2_1___Cease_fire";
	wordsClass = "Normal";
	speech[] = {"XMIT","%2.1","CheckYourFire"};
	gesture = "";
	class Arguments {};
};
};

class Arguments{};
class Special {};

startWithVocal[] = {};
startWithConsonant[] = {};

    My questions:

    - Is this the only way of reusing the standard radio messages with kbTell?

    - Is "%2.1" a special code (what I find strange is the .1 after %2)? When AI says "Cease Fire" it replaces %2.1 with the ID of the shooter in the group (eg: Alpha 1-1-4: 2 - Cease Fire -, where 2 is the ID of the shooter)

    Thanks

  21. Posted

    Hi Tom

    Vehicle customization is something I already tried to figure out while developing a PvP mission. Here are the things most of the players I've been working/playing with are interested in (mainly for allowing balance of a PvP game):

    - Radar:

    it is too powerful and it can allow, through the green/red color of the squares identify where the enemies are spawning (extrapolate the FOB position from the direction they are coming from with vehicles),

    => suggestion 1: add option to remove the green/red color from squares in the radar so vehicle driver/pilot has to identify the target visually (making spotting harder, more balanced and also more realistic I guess)

    => suggestion 2: to go further with radar improvements, it would be nice to only show the squares on some portion of the radar (eg: 30° only in front of the helicopter, and when targets go out of this section the white dot disappears)

    Note: already created a thread about the radar issue.

    - Vehicle faction and score attributes

    score is actually an important thing for players (even veteran ones) as it is a measure of performance. In my PvP mission you can get "support points" (which is an alternative scoring system) based mainly on what vehicles you kill, so the score bonus a player gets from destroying an enemy vehicle is important for mission makers.

    => suggestion 1: allow customizing the score value a player gets from destroying a vehicle (the input for this customization should be a list with vehicle classes - eg b_mrap_01_f - and vehicle generic classes - eg Tank, Air, Car)

    => suggestion 2: allow customization of the faction attribute which is used for determining wheter the vehicle that was destroyed is friendly or enemy. In my PvP mission I used independent vehicles for both BLUFOR and OPFOR in order to balance the gameplay so when player destroys firendly vehicle he gets positive score instead of negative score. This happens also with ammocrates which are an important asset a player can paradrop near his position. if enemy destroys it he will get a negative score because the "faction" attribute is "Default" which is same as "Civilian" and results in negative score whatever side you are on

    Note: a feedback ticket was created for the "faction" attribute

    - Camouflage

    as stated in previous topic I used independent vehicles for both blufor and opfor sides to balance the gameplay, but this can lead to some confusion for new players that will not be able to quickly determine whether the vheicle is friendly or enemy

    => suggestion: allow customization of camouflage, if possible, introduce a simple camouflage system that is independent of vehicle type (eg if I use a independent Kuma tank on OPFOR side I can change the camo to look like the OPFOR Varsuk tank)

    - Thermal

    the strider and hunter vehicles with MG/GL turrets have a screen in the cockpit that is always set on thermal view even if I use the disableTIEquipment command to disable TI on the turret optics

    => suggestion 1: allow possibility to disable the TI on the cockpit screen in strider/hunter or other similar vehicles created in the future

    => suggestion 2: possibility to disable the thermal without disabling the night vision capability as shortly mentioned in this feedback ticket

    - Auto Locking

    the current auto lock system (where you press one button and any ground vehicle, be it empty or with crew can be locked without any effort from any distance) is not acceptable for PvP and probably for other kind of missions

    => suggestion: alow customization of the allowTabLock attribute so mission maker can disable/enable the feature for any air vehicle

    - Weapons

    => suggestion 1: possibility to remove gunner turrets, remove/replace any weapons (ex useful when trying to balance vehicles on both sides, eg removing AT missiles from the APC to make it similar to the oppposite side counterbalancing APC), change magazine maximum rounds count

    Note: I could do all this things by script but in some situations there are some visual glitches, eg if I replace AA missiles with AT missiles on blackfoot helicopter the missile compartment doesnt open when gunner switches to AT missles so it looks like the missile are fired from nowhere

    Another visual glitch is when a player adds AT missiles to his plane (any model) one by one, you can see the missiles positions are not consistent with their default positions (the ones you can see when plane has full ammo from start)

    => suggestion 2: possibility to remove the cannon from the ghosthawk/huron armed helicopters if the weapons is removed. This is to quickly give a visual indication to players that they don't have any weapons available on these helicopters (otherwise they may feel frustrated to see the cannon and not be able to shoot with it)

    If you need to put a priotiry on all the elements listed above, these are the top priority elements for me:

    1) Radar

    2) Auto Locking

    3) Thermal

    Note: the idea of vehicle customization should also propagate to infantry weapons. I would be particularly interested in the possibility to disable thermal view on some missile launchers or rifle scopes, as well as disable auto locking and replacing manual locking with "manually guide the missile with your launcher optic" locking (I don't know atm what is the config attribute for this)

  23. Posted

    Hi

    In the 1.40 release notes I see:

    Added: Actions for raising and lowering turret. Please note that you need to select a preset again to map these to their default values or set them manually.

    I remember reading something about this in the Development Branch Changelog some time ago. Even after setting the keys in my arma profile file I can't make the 'turret' or periscope on the strider raise up.

    Anyone tried this? Did I misunderstood this functionality?

    Note: The keys to set in your profile are keyTurretElevationUp and keyTurretElevationDown

  25. Posted

    Hello,

    I am creating this poll because in the PvP mission I created many players don't seem to know how to use the Advanced Flight Model. Now I would like to know if whether I should enable it or not in my mission, so this will depend on the answers you give me.

    Pool options:

    A) No - I usually fly with helicopters a lot but the Advanced Flight Model is too much for me, I enjoy the game more without it

    B) I don't know - I don't usually fly with helicopters and they don't interest me much, for me it's the same whether it is enabled or not

    C) Yes - I usually fly with helicopters a lot and I prefer the Advanced Flight Model over the simple model, I enjoy the game more with it

    Thanks in advance for your feedback

×