Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Defunkt

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2558

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by Defunkt

  2. Posted

    I generated some all-in-one dumps of the config tree for the new Eden update.

     

    NeoArmageddon, who provided a workaround for a recent breakage in the script to generate these via his MapBuilder FileIO extension (Thanks!), suggested I should post them up;

     

    http://ionwerks.net/arma/arma3-eden-allinoneconfigs.7z

     

    There are four dumps;

     

    Vanilla Only: arma3-156.134627.aio.cpp

    w. CUP Terrains: arma3-156.134627_cup-1.0.1.aio.cpp

    w. RHS Escalation: arma3-156.134627_rhs-0.4.0.1.aio.cpp

    w. CUP & RHS: arma3-156.134627_cup-1.0.1_rhs-0.4.0.1.aio.cpp

    • Like 3

  3. Posted

    how do you disable/ close error messeges i currently cant play because a black bar with writing covers my whole screen when i try and run any mission in the editor even a mission with just a single civilian placed down any nothing else 

    Sounds like you're launching Arma with -showscripterrors (as everybody should IMHO) and you're running one or more mods that are broken (as a result of the new update if you didn't get this before).

  10. Posted

    Wasn't the whole point of this system in order to allow smaller, more frequent updates? It seems to be just falling back to where it was previously with the only releases being large releases.

     

    Like most repository systems rely on branches etc to avoid issues like this so new public builds can be pushed out to solve new issues without needing to send unfinished content along with it. I mean most of the issues that have come from the past two builds are config tweaks which could have easily been hotfixed using any other system.

    I imagine it mostly exists to simplify the logistics of pushing builds for internal iteration and the fact that it also feeds the public release process is merely a useful by-product.

     

    It's all very well being able to branch and merge but somebody still has to prioritize and execute those changes and then they would have to be tested separately removing test time from other features in the main branch. I can entirely understand why RHS don't want to get side-tracked by hot-fixing, especially given it's a hobby rather than work for which they're paid

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    It's not a conflict.  I've tried using JUST RHS and nothing else.

    And are you sure all the other players on the server are using RHS and nothing else? It sounds like a server where a wide range of mods might be permitted or even a free-for-all.

     

    Also, if you want people to take your request for help seriously you need to be analytical about narrowing down possible causes. Don't say it happens with only RHS and then follow that up by posting an RPT file which shows you're running a whole lot of other mods. One discounts the other.

    • Like 3

  15. Posted · Edited by Defunkt

    Just delete/rename mod.cpp, you'll probably still have the jigsaw icon for each loaded mod but it looks preferable/tidier to my mind. If you want to decrease the number, look at combining mods into fewer folders (perhaps by functionality or interdependence).

    You could probably also remove them (completely) with a mod that alters the main menu UI.

  17. Posted

    Some people are missing the point.

    I think the point that's most missed is that just to run Chernarus is going to take 7GB. If you add the next 4 largest terrains (as somebody else suggested would be 'standard') it's going to be 8GB. Reducing an 8.5GB download to 8.0GB just doesn't seem like it's worth giving up the ability to say "Got the CUP Terrain-Pack? - You're good to play everything we're running on this server."

    Not arguing, the modder will of course do as he sees fit (and as I think he always meant to) and it won't cause me any bother personally, I just don't think the case for saving on download size stacks up.

  18. Posted

    IMHO CUP, certainly the terrains, is bound to become a de-facto community standard. I don't think the potential confusion (missing/mismatched addons) and additional work required to maintain separate packages is really warranted by what will ultimately be fairly insignificant savings on download size (compared to the inevitable size of the core files required to run even one terrain). It's liberating for server-ops and mission makers to know that if you've got CUP you can run X/Y/Z.

    I think the only thing that's functionally important to keep separate is the @CUP_Terrains_AiA shim.

  20. Posted

    The problem right now is that we're in the CUP thread and it's going way offtopic. I personally find it highly inappropriate of MistyRonin to post a feature list of another (similar) mod in the >CUP< thread. I mean, can't we give the BIS forum mods a break? The way it's seemingly heading would indicate otherwise.

    And who started the discussion about other mods?

  23. Posted

    Putting aside for a moment that they're really unlikely to hand-paint a higher resolution satmap for two already released terrains, NK's proof-of-concept multiplies the satmap texture size by (on average) 20-times. If this were applied to the whole of Altis the satmap textures would bloat from a trim 200MB to a whopping 4GB, if the game is streaming this stuff for a player in an aircraft that's going to absolutely kill performance.

    I also can't see them creating new whole island 'logic maps' for the released terrains, nor do I think there's any real need. Opteryx pointed out that the issue didn't really exist in A1 because each surface type had its own 'mid-detail' texture. A much simpler improvement would be for them to revise the terrain shader to re-introduce this capability. I still doubt this would be retro-actively applied for released terrains.

    ---------- Post added at 01:34 ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 ----------

    I would add that, I have posited an alternative improvement which, while not a complete fix, could yield a really significant improvement for next to zero effort; http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?192262-A-readily-attainable-improvement-to-middle-distance-terrain

    ---------- Post added at 01:43 ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 ----------

    Or maybe they're cooking up some enhanced terrain rendering for Tanoa (fingers crossed).

  24. Posted

    Weird how the max alive at once keeps getting bigger for you though. In single player it works perfect for me. It's just in MP when one dies it spawns another for every player, but that's easily fixed.

    When I get home tonight I'll check the script and probably redo it completely and more efficiently.

    Locality in Arma MP is a bitch.

  25. Posted

    You might want to make it so that only isServer can spawn zombies.

    It does sound like a locality oversight but there may be good reason to allow the clients to spawn at least some of the zeds in as much as it will distribute the workload.

    I'd suggest two thresholds, one for the server (in fact two, zeds-maximum combined with zeds-maximum-per-player) and one for the clients. Then mission makers can tweak the way the spawners scale for more players and how the work should be distributed.

×