Jump to content
🛡️FORUMS ARE IN READ-ONLY MODE Read more... ×
Bohemia Interactive Forums
🛡️FORUMS ARE IN READ-ONLY MODE

biggerdave

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    663

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Everything posted by biggerdave

  1. biggerdave
    So, the start-up instructions in the Weisel interior got me thinking... Hold Space to Start Vehicle? The current "engine on" command is bit arcadey, it'd be a neat feature, have variable start-up times for various vehicles, have stalling as a potential damage state (so, an interesting form of temporary immobilization) - I guess it'd probably need to be implemented sort of like the advanced flight model for helicopters, since most 3rd party addons wouldn't immediately be compatible, and probably wouldn't be to everyone's tastes, but could definitely add a lot to the simulation, IMHO.
  2. biggerdave

    Arma 3 Aegis

    biggerdave replied to AveryTheKitty's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE

    Realistically, the NLAW is intended to complement the Carl Gustav in rifle sections to deal with stuff that the Gustav isn't able to (landing helicopters, fast moving vehicles, winged mythological beasts, etc). Whereas the Metis isn't in the traditional rifle platoon, but attached as needed. (Of course, intended role and actual role (thanks to the entire budget being spent on doomsday devices) are very different things...) IMHO, the Vorana feels like it should have replaced the Titan for CSAT, rather than serve some weird "heavy-light anti-tank" role. Though I can see why BIS didn't do that, considering how much stuff it would break! (No one's going to haul that thing around as a rifleman in case they might run up against armour... well... no one playing with stamina on anyway...) I'd just change the names, rather than having some "light AT" or "heavy AT" dichotomy, so, like- Rifleman (AT, PCML) Rifleman (AT, MAAWS) Missile Specialist (AT, Titan) Missile Specialist (AT, Vorona) etc. (LAW, as in, M72? Would only really fit Guerillas or maybe SOF, IMHO. The NLAW is the replacement for the M72's replacement, it'd be like swapping an Abrams for a Sherman!)
  3. biggerdave

    Arma 3 Aegis

    biggerdave replied to AveryTheKitty's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE

    Rather than completely removing your version of the Kamaz Grad(?) maybe rework it into a short(er) ranged unguided system? So, more of a counterpart to the SPGs than MLRS.
  4. biggerdave

    Vehicle Interiors - Feedback

    biggerdave replied to bis_iceman's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    Random question, but isn't the Marid a Turkish vehicle? (I know it is IRL, but is it in the ingame lore?) What's the logic for the control panels being in Russian?
  5. biggerdave
    Oh, that makes sense. (But, why, though? I mean, is it better than the default mouse controls? 'cause I've always felt like the mouse steering has been a bit off since ArmA.1 compared to OFP)
  6. biggerdave
    So, I was dicking around with control settings, based on Belbo's comments about mouse turning (still not idea what he's going on about, btw? There isn't mouse turning for commanders, at least on my instance?), and, it appears I owe you a minor apology, but, still; You need to have the command move (under the command settings) bound differently to the driver commands - so, if you have both driving and commanding bound to the same keys, you get sort of a "hybrid" command structure, that's a bit weird (so, you get the audio cues as if you're using the old method, but it controls like the rework, albeit slightly less precise). I've currently got it set up with WASD as direct control, and arrow keys for command controls (maybe numpad would work better?) - what's important is that you delete the common bindings, so, what you've got set for "command forward" and what you've got set for "accelerate" aren't the same! (ie, if you've bound W to move forward, you need to delete the binding for W to command forward) Ideally, yeah, there definitely needs to be, at the very least, an option to disable the direct controls for commanders, so you can bind them the same. (and maybe, while we're on the subject, a button for the commander to say "point the gun exactly here" (so we don't need to deal with the AI not being ""aware"" of the target you've just directly pointed them at) and "point the front armour exactly this direction", in lieu of trying to micromanage direction) (Turning behaviour is still the same between the two, though!)
  7. biggerdave
    Didn't you just say you didn't want to talk to me anymore? =p (Like, the time stamps of those two posts are only 4 minutes apart! I literally spent more time than that making this post!)Then again, I guess when you don't proofread you have more time for changing your mind, right? Your point seems to be that turning under the old system involved just tapping the turn button and then hoping that your tank faces the right direction. I mean, you could have done that, I guess, but that's definitely not how it was intended to be used. Go boot up OFP, put yourself in as a tank commander, and hold down the A key, see what happens. (Spoiler alert, your tank is going to spin around on the spot until you let go of the key)
  8. biggerdave
    Oh god, we've got to referencing paragraphs by number... this is going to be one of those threads, isn't it? Microdelay: How many commands begin with "Fo-" "Ri-" "Le-" "Ba-" that are likely to be used by tank commanders to their drivers? A full delay isn't realistic and again, realistically, tank crews can pre-plan their movements to prevent any delay in terms of commands being executed. Map commands: I'd say that's entirely relevant. You've just said you want a system where you don't have to constantly have hands-on-keyboard, and there it is. One click on the map, and off you go, then, as a commander can freely plan your next move or just wander off and make some tea (or, if you're a hardcore sim-er, you'll use the kettle in the decommissioned scorpion tank you've turned into the ultimate simulation PC!) Holding down a forward button vs. Pressing a forward button and then a stop button: Are both abstract systems. Neither one is more realistic than the other, because, realistically, you don't command a tank with a keyboard. It's completely meaningless to equate the two. Perhaps you "feel" one is more realistic, but, that's just like, your opinion, man. (you've said Coddlefield uses "hold down" commands, but pretty much all the dedicated tank simulators use "hold-down" commands, as well) Stopping the tank turning manually: Was never a feature in the old system. The tank would turn while you held the "turn right" key, and stop when you let go. It's exactly the same. Stopping the tank completely: Can be done in the new system with the "handbrake" command (I think it's "X" by default? I've remapped it to "Shift-S"). Also, you realise you're now complaining that the new system works too much like the old one, right?
  9. biggerdave
    Right, but again, like I said, realistically, Tank commanders don't micromanage their crews. There's a lot of things that the AI simply can't understand that you'd expect between a tank commander and their driver (ie, "forward" might mean "follow the road a bit", not "just go straight directly forward until I tell you otherwise"). Is it realistic to have "steering wheel" control over the driver? No. But it's more realistic than a bunch of very abstract "direct" commands. I don't get your point about it being uncontested? Insubordination would not be a fun mechanic for the AI. Delay isn't realistic (and more importantly, it isn't fun!) - this is why WGL/ACE disabled it under the old system. Commanders and Drivers do understand each other. Tank crews train together for this exact purpose. (Moreover, even untrained crews can preplan their movements, to prevent delay) Again, a simple command, such as "bring us up behind that wall" is completely beyond the capabilities of the AI (and that's not even a complaint about the AI, it's a simple fact that machines can't easily process that kind of instruction from a person). It is near impossible to execute under the old system, but probably the easiest thing for an actual tank crew to perform. Or, an even better example "as soon as we fire, get us back behind cover" - a very simple instruction for a human driver, but with an AI crew under the old system, you'd potentially have about a 2-5 second delay trying to get the AI to perform this action - not ideal in a combat situation! And you can still give grid reference commands by using the map or command view. (I haven't tried it yet, but I imagine the "next waypoint" and "take formation" commands still work too) The only thing that's really changed is the micro-management commands. And, in the old system, you gave commands with the keyboard, too, so...? I honestly don't follow that last point? Turning vehicles feels identical in the new system, the only difference is it doesn't spam the message log, and you get the arguably more realistic "stop" when stopping turns than the old "forward". (Did this change between the dev branch and release?) If a system "feels" realistic, but it's impossible to perform actions that are completely trivial for real crews, then it's not a realistic system.
  10. biggerdave
    ...I'm sorry, the old system was "realistic"? How exactly? The only thing that's changed is the micro-management controls. Realistically, tank commanders don't micromanage their crews, rather than saying "go forward exactly 5 meters, then turn exactly 30 degrees left, etc. etc.", you'd get something like "Bring us up to that wall", "once we fire, pull us back to cover". Since you can't expect the AI to be able to follow commands like these, we've just been given more direct control, rather than the clunky system that's been in place since OFP to pretty much everyone's chagrin. You still have proper commanding with the map/command view, if you want to sit back and let the AI do the driving.
  11. biggerdave
    Flags don't need any configing. Just whack the .paas in a pbo and you're good to go. You can use "setflagtexture" to apply the new flag texture to any of the existing flagpoles. If, for whatever reason, you want to create an actual flagpole you can place in the editor, this is the basic code: class MyNewFlag: FlagCarrier { author="My Name"; class SimpleObject { eden=0; animate[]= { { "flag", 0 } }; hide[]={}; verticalOffset=3.977; verticalOffsetWorld=0; init="''"; }; editorPreview="\A3\EditorPreviews_F\Data\CfgVehicles\Flag_NATO_F.jpg"; scope=2; scopeCurator=2; displayName="My New Flagpole"; hiddenSelectionsTextures[]= { "\A3\Structures_F\Mil\Flags\Data\Mast_mil_CO.paa" }; hiddenSelectionsMaterials[]= { "\A3\Structures_F\Mil\Flags\Data\Mast_mil.rvmat" }; class EventHandlers { init="(_this select 0) setFlagTexture '\MyAddon\Whateverfolder\MyFlagTexture_CO.paa'"; }; }; For a billboard, you just need a new hiddenselection, you can either apply this to the billboard object in the editor using the "setobjecttexture" command (again, simply including a new texture in a pbo doesn't need any configing), or, if you need to make a new class (ie, for an object to be placed on a custom terrain): class MyNewBillboard: Land_Billboard_F { author="My Name"; displayName="My New Billboard"; hiddenSelectionsTextures[]= { "MyAddon\Whateverfolder\MyBillboardTexture_CO.paa" }; }; Just a final caveat, if you're not too familiar with the pbo format, you'll need to include a very basic config if you want to binarize your addon, so, something like this: class CfgPatches { class MyAddon //This should match the name of your PBO, for convience's sake, but it's not that important { units[]= {}; weapons[]={}; requiredVersion=0.1; requiredAddons[]={}; }; };
  12. biggerdave

    AI Discussion (dev branch)

    biggerdave replied to klamacz's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    Gonna be honest, I completely forgot vehicles were even in the game when making that post XD AFAIK, the only difference between Safe and Aware for infantry is they keep their weapons lowered and tend to move slower. (maybe they have lights on if they have them, which, tbh, kinda useless since they're pointing them at the floor. Good job illuminating that tiny area next to your foot!) As far as I can tell, Engage is a direct order, not a mode (like "Fire") - though, I'm only guessing that because you can spam it, while if a soldiers already in a mode, trying to issue the mode change order again won't produce any chat message. Yeah, ideally you'd want to be able to go from "sneaky" to "light'em up" with a single command (navigating through menus is a PITA, definitely not convenient when under fire!). Completely overhauling the system right now would probably break pretty every mission that uses waypoints, though... hopefully the next game has it completely overhauled... but dammit! I want fixed AI for the game I've actually brought! =p
  13. biggerdave

    AI Discussion (dev branch)

    biggerdave replied to klamacz's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    The problem is, as a squad leader, pretty much all the commands you can give to adjust your AI soldiers behaviour do nothing. Aware/Safe/Combat/Stealth are all virtually identical, since the AI will always transition to Combat mode when they know about enemies (regardless of how up-to-date that information is, or where the enemy are). Engage At will/Engage/Disengage don't do anything, since the AI always attacks targets of opportunity (sidenote, has "Engage" ever done anything?). Open Fire/Fire/Hold fire are the only ones of that much use, and even then, the AI will leave "hold fire" mode under... some condition? (As best I can tell, it's when the enemy spots them, which seems to suggest the AI can read the minds of the enemy?) I think the various bandage solutions applied to OFP's "AI wrangling" has kinda just made everything the same: the default behaviour (Aware/Disengage) isn't the "default behaviour". Since the AI are (quite rightly, IMHO) being expected to seek cover and engage targets of opportunity without explicitly being told to, but rather than make "Combat/Engage at will" the default behaviour, "Aware/Disengage" has been modified to make it what "Combat/Engage at will" used to be, which in turn has just made "Combat/Engage at will" useless. IMHO, it'd be best to move back towards how the AI handled these things in OFP, with some slight updates: -Aware has your soldiers keep a rigid formation, and prioritize following orders over everything else. -Combat becomes the new default, and behaves how aware does right now (so, keep formation when you don't know about the enemy, run around all tactical like when you do) -Stealth stays the same -Disengage doesn't attack targets unless told to. -Engage becomes the new default, attacks targets of opportunity, and doesn't use launchers unless told to. -Engage at will attacks targets of opportunity, and freely uses suppressive fire and antitank weapons without being told to.
  14. biggerdave

    Premium Content Suggestion

    biggerdave replied to AveryTheKitty's topic in ARMA 3 - DLC

    No, this is definitely something weird on your end. The icon is shown if an object is defined in a modfolder, not whether it's a premium asset or not - hence why, if you install something that adjusts base classes, like ACE, you get the ACE icon next to some base content. The only thing I can think of that might caused what you're seeing there is that something overwriting those vests and doesn't have a properly defined icon (though, then it should still sort properly?) or you've moved the character_F_mark.pbo file from the marksman directory to the base addons folder for some reason (maybe some "tools" might do this? Though, what this would achieve is beyond me)
  15. biggerdave

    Arma 3 Aegis

    biggerdave replied to AveryTheKitty's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE

    Maybe some kind of futuristic mashup of the AK12 and 107? There was a very cool looking prototype AK12 with the counterbalancy device, that would be pretty to have ingame. (Top in the picture below) (Minor Bug, it seems IDAP's Kamaz seems to be getting a bit too into the spirit of the season, and has picked up a Ghostly Gunner - only seems to effect the covered variant, maybe an issue with how the BM-21 inheritance works?) Yes, I did notice this a month ago, and yes, I did wait until Halloween to report it just to make that joke. *Shades Descend* Deal with it.
  16. biggerdave
    Hellfires don't work quite how you'd expect. There are two variants, the K variant can only lock onto laser targets - most helicopters have designators for this, but as far as I can tell, it's an uphill struggle trying to get the AI to use them properly. The L (longbow) variant locks onto radar targets, but be aware the only US helicopter that can mount hellfires AND has a radar is the Apache - I believe you can use the data-link added in jets to have another vehicle spot targets for you, though?
  17. biggerdave

    Armaholic, how did this pass under your radar?

    biggerdave replied to haleks's topic in ARMA 3 - GENERAL

    The obvious solution would be for content creators to get together and demand Armaholic remove their work from the site unless something is done.
  18. biggerdave
    Lib_truck_Base is definitely Iron Front - the classname is using the old Libmod tag.
  19. biggerdave
    It'd be pretty neat if we could define a character's nationality in their identity, then flag patches on uniforms would dynamically adjust - sort of like how faces (or clan patches) work right now.
  20. biggerdave

    Arma 3 Aegis

    biggerdave replied to AveryTheKitty's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE

    Found the issue, and, it is literally the weirdest thing I've ever seen. So, I took the code from the linked thread, and stuck it in a pbo with a different classname, then, determining the issue with something you had in the code, rather than something you didn't, by the highly scientific process of randomly commenting out lines until it works, I have discovered that this line: cursor = gl; Is the problem. The only thing I can think of why this might be causing issue is it's something BIS built into the arsenal to prevent vehicle weapons/underslung GLs from showing up? Here's the code I used that works, in case I've got this wrong: (I changed some other stuff in case it was causing problems, but I'm pretty confident it's the cursor line that's the problem, comment it out, it shows up in the arsenal, uncomment it, it doesn't) class XM25_Fix: Rifle_Base_F { author = $STR_A3_Night515; _generalMacro = GL_XM25_F; baseWeapon = XM25_Fix; scope = 2; displayName = "XM25 Fix"; model = "\A3\Weapons_F_Aegis\Launchers\XM25\XM25_F.p3d"; picture = "\A3\Weapons_F_Aegis\Launchers\XM25\Data\UI\gear_XM25_CA.paa"; UiPicture = "\A3\Weapons_F\Data\UI\icon_gl_CA.paa"; weaponInfoType = "RscOptics_punisher"; modelOptics = "\A3\Weapons_F\Acc\reticle_cdtes"; magazines[] = {5Rnd_HE_Grenade_mag}; //cursor = gl; handAnim[] = { OFP2_ManSkeleton, "\A3\Weapons_F_Aegis\Launchers\XM25\Data\Anim\XM25.rtm" }; reloadAction = GestureReloadKatiba; recoil = recoil_default; maxZeroing = 1000; shotPos = "Usti hlavne"; shotEnd = "Konec hlavne"; modes[] = {Single}; class Single: Mode_SemiAuto { reloadTime = 0.25; dispersion = 0.00116; recoil = M240Recoil; recoilProne = M240Recoil; minRange = 50; minRangeProbab = 0.1; midRange = 500; midRangeProbab = 0.7; maxRange = 1000; maxRangeProbab = 0.05; }; class Library { libTextDesc = "Rabblerabble"; }; initSpeed = 210; descriptionShort = "Rabble"; inertia = 0.8; aimTransitionSpeed = 0.8; dexterity = 1.2; class WeaponSlotsInfo: WeaponSlotsInfo { class MuzzleSlot{}; class CowsSlot{}; class PointerSlot{}; mass = 140; }; class OpticsModes { class Sights { opticsID = 1; useModelOptics = true; opticsPPEffects[] = { OpticsCHAbera1, OpticsBlur1 }; opticsFlare = true; opticsZoomMin = 0.1875; opticsZoomMax = 0.0625; opticsZoomInit = 0.1875; distanceZoomMin = 100; distanceZoomMax = 100; memoryPointCamera = eye; cameraDir = look; visionMode[] = { Normal, NVG, Ti }; thermalMode[] = {0,1}; opticsDisablePeripherialVision = true; discretefov[] = {0.1875,0.0625}; discreteInitIndex = 0; }; }; DLC = Aegis; };
  21. biggerdave

    Arma 3 Aegis

    biggerdave replied to AveryTheKitty's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE

    Hmm... have you tried baseWeapon = "GL_XM25_F"; instead of baseWeapon = GL_XM25_F; AFAIK, it shouldn't make a difference whether it's a string or not (in fact, I pretty sure you don't even need to define baseweapon if you're inheriting from Rifle_Base_F), but stuff like this sometimes works. The only other thing I can think of is that it might be, since you're using the same style of classname as BIS, there's still some remnant of the old XM25 that's conflicting with your code? (I wouldn't think it is that, though, since you'd effectively be completely overwriting any old cfgweapons references to the XM25, unless there's some code in the arsenal that explicitly removes it? That would really be weird, though.) Maybe try adding this to the end: class XM25_TestNew: GL_XM25_F { displayName = "New Test XM25"; baseWeapon="XM25_TestNew"; }; If "New Test XM25" shows up in the arsenal, then it's definitely something weird with the classname. (On the plus side, that means you can fix it without breaking compatibility by just using GL_XM25_F as a base class)
  22. biggerdave

    Arma 3 Aegis

    biggerdave replied to AveryTheKitty's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE

    That... doesn't sound right? I had a quick look up, and the only source I could find for this seems to be the daily mail, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt. The mail is basically a nazi rag, they have a history of printing made up gung-ho stories about "them" running absurd hollywood style ops that read suspiciously like adverts for CoD - reading this article, it definitely sounds like bullshit, their "source" is a "top-secret report", they parrots the usual nonsense about 5,56 vs 7,62, oh, and look, they've even got a random unrelated picture of Prince Harry in uniform because presumably they couldn't shoehorn Princess Diana into this somehow... The MoD has a massive hard-on for ammo commonality, and, IIRC, SAS were using M16A2s back when everyone else still had SLRs, so... the idea that they'd throw that out the window and start using some brand-name rifle (not even the L129?) because it "does more damage"... yeah... (I mean, if they were mentioning that in hills of Afghanistan insurgents are outranging our troops with our old .303s, yeah, and that's the exact reason we've got the L129, but "does more damage"? "But it doesn't kill them outright!", well, golly, that is a problem, since insurgents regenerate health when they're behind cover!) Anyway, that's enough ranting (I'm sorry, it's just "papers that actually supported Hitler back in the 30s" are one of my triggers ) It's not a huge issue, just something I found a bit weird. XM25 bug definitely looks like an inheritance issue, couldn't say for certain, since I haven't looked at your config, but I've seen this exact bug before, and the problem was that I was inheriting from another weapon, and not defining a new baseweapon, so the engine just assumes you're trying to define a variant with a new scope or something and doesn't add it into the arsenal. So, what I imagine you've got is this: class NewGun: OldGun { displayName="New Gun"; //Some more code }; And what you want is this: class NewGun: OldGun { displayName="New Gun"; baseWeapon="NewGun"; //Some more code }; It might just be that there's a typo (ie, you've got "new_Gun" instead of "NewGun"), but I'd bet my bottom dollar it's baseweapon that's the problem. (I've never been particularly good at gambling, though, so I'm probably wrong!) (Is doing stuff just because it was in the pre-alpha such a great idea? I mean, it seems to me this stuff was changed for a reason)
  23. biggerdave

    Arma 3 Aegis

    biggerdave replied to AveryTheKitty's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE

    Some bugs I've noticed: M1014 reload animation bugs out while prone (uses the standing animation, but the fire-geo is all messed up?) XM25 doesn't appear in arsenal (incorrect baseweapon? It shows up if you start with the heavy grenadier class) CSAT Specop autorifle has an incorrectly defined weapon C130 landing gear clip through their bay doors when raised (also, I noticed that the 16th cargo position is always ordered to disembark by the AI? I might just have loaded them incorrectly in the editor, though) Some of the finer details of the BAF faction kinda feel a bit off right now, IMHO - the fennek doesn't really fit (we haven't used anything like that since the Fox), the Hunter would be more appropriate (we don't use the Oshkosh M-ATV, but we do use stuff that's similar enough). The ACOs used by standard troops don't really fit either (AFAIK, it's been standard practice for all infantry to have something like a SUSAT for quite a while now). The SCAR-H's for SF troops are also a bit contradictory to the British doctorine, since it's generally encouraged to keep the majority of small arms using the same calibre, SCAR-L's would be more appropriate (or 416s, since British SF generally use some variant of AR-15, but I'm not a huge fan of BIS's implementation of 416s, so...) Regarding SF loadouts, I'm not sure the Tavor's beefy enough for NATO - the 5,56 round tends to be a bit ineffective against CSAT troops at longer ranges. Likewise, the revolver isn't really suitable as a sidearm for CSAT (doesn't mount a silencer, small magazine size) - it'd be really neat to have a 6.5mm AR for NATO, and something like a Stechkin for CSAT (maybe port ArmA.2's UZI? There's already a good bit of Israeli kit in CSAT's arsenal) Finally, I'm not too keen on the new desert helmet for CSAT... it'd be nice to have the old brown hex helmet back, and keep the desert version as a variant (maybe add some randomization, like with the NATO helmets, so they spawn with either standard, desert or black helmet? It'd also be kinda neat to have a matching version of the fatigues for maps like Takistan where the brown hex is a bit too dark) Anyhows, just my 2 cents. I cannot stress how much I am really loving the mod as a whole.
  24. biggerdave

    Laws of War DLC Assets

    biggerdave replied to DnA's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    Some issues I noticed: IDAP EOD specialist doesn't have any means of disarming mines (Well, aside from the Mk.1 foot...) No method of aiming the anti-mine drone's "weapon" (unless I'm missing something? - by the by, it'd be neat to have this for the military factions as well) Cargo Van is unable to transport go-karts Command Mobility Vehicles. (minor, but given we have a redstone karting skin for the van it seems like this isn't intended behaviour?)
  25. biggerdave
    There seems to be a lot of issues with people uploading other people's work onto the steam workshop without their consent, typically in cases where this hasn't been done for various licence reasons. Would it be possible to have a function somewhere like cfgpatches to prevent this? ie: class CfgPatches { class SomeGenericAddonName { units[]= {}; weapons[]={}; requiredVersion=0.1; workshopAllowed=False; }; }; EDIT: Now that I think about it a bit more, a variant of .pbo that the publisher can't upload without the private key would probably be a better solution.
×