Namikaze

Unless I'm reading something incorrectly, the system you're referencing was used for OFP. Was it converted to ArmA at some point? Is it still a valid method? Even so, the A.C.E. team has a forum for suggestions and such that gets responded to a lot more/better than these. I'm sure that if you posted your suggestion there, it would engender a better response. I would wager that the A.C.E. team has gone over these choices repeatedly, and given that A.C.E. is a rebirth of WGL, they are probably going to stick with the WGL method instead of CAVS.

Wow! That water looks like it has a soft edge, which is fantastic. Is that really a soft edge, or is it just my wishful thinking?

This same topic has been discussed, put down, and brought back up again only about half a dozen times already. Firstly, ACE is intended to be a full conversion. There has never been a (public) plan to make an ACE "light". Secondly, ACE isn't designed to be modular. You can't just take an aspect of ACE and move it over to something else. Thirdly, if you want to use a custom addon with ACE, it has to be ACE-compatible. This is by design because of the previous two statements. Also, putting your whole post in bold is a whole lot like putting it in all caps.

I'm probably just nitpicking here, but you only have two posts, both of which are in this thread. "Your responce is the ONLY one I have ever got for any problem posted." should probably include the fact that you haven't ever posted a problem here before. These forums are far from dead. While certainly not always helpful, even a heart with arrhythmia still beats. As to your question: What you need to do is figure out the building type first. I suggest placing a gamelogic near the building and then doing a nearestBuilding check to find the building. Name said building, rather than using some funky ID code. Then tell the unit you want to fire on the building name. It should work.

Is this really a scripting issue? Isn't this a design issue that should be discussed in the 1.15 feedback thread?

There's no need for such angry words. The problem with all these things is that they are feelings, opinions even. It's very tricky to develop around opinions, because opinions can't be quantified accurately. As far as "realism" goes... this is a game, and always will be a game. ACE Mod attempts to make the game as realistic as feasibly possible, but there are parts of it that have to sacrifice reality for gameplay. I suggest you all cool your jets before replying to each other. Remember that opinions are like <insert orifice here>, everyone has them and thinks everyone else's stinks. It's not worth increased blood pressure over a difference of opinion or a perceived slight.

I'm still confused. Are you talking about keybindings?

What? I don't follow what you're saying. The space bar is your friend! I think what you're asking is how to control units numbered greater than 10 without using the F11 and F12 keys, right? What would you recommend as an alternative? You can't just say "this is stupid, fix it" without giving an alternative solution.

I don't have the answer for you, but I do have a tip to make your life easier. Use "Print this topic" at the top of the screen, and then Control+F to search for the words you want to find. It's way easier than reading through 113 (awesome job) pages to find one sliver of specific information you're looking for.

I'm just taking a stab in the dark (pun definitely intended! but have you tried capitalizing the "O" in "LightOn"?

Being shot at and being shot have key differences in both terminology and implementation. Being shot is fairly easy to check. Just put a "hit" Event Handler on each person in the squad and have them activate combat mode when the EH triggers. The problem you will encounter here is that sometimes a single shot can deal enough damage to kill a person while bypassing the "hit" event handler. Being shot at is a bit more complicated to check for. You would need to check the area around the group for nearestObjects and try to find a bullet that passes nearby. The problems you will encounter doing this would be that the bullets travel so fast you'd have to be checking nearestObjects almost constantly, and doing that will pretty much lock up the game with near-constant loops. Of course, all of this might go out the window if you're dealing with multiplayer, which I have no experience dealing with.

The question everyone should be asking is this: "Why did Bohemia wait so long to hit them with this potential lawsuit over copyright violation?" The answer: because now it hurts CodeMasters a LOT more than if the issue was resolved before development started on OFP2. I applaud Bohemia for standing up for their rights, and you know what? Good on ya for giving them a swift kick in the jimmy when they're "near" releasing OFP2. By waiting so long, CodeMasters has very little recourse now. Either they put the production on hold while a court figures everything out (meanwhile, Arma 2 gets released). Or they pay Bohemia an out-of-court settlement to a tune that Bohemia thinks sounds good. They're basically at the mercy of Bohemia right now, and I think that's a vicious and appropriate tactic to use in this circumstance. Right on, Bohemia!

Right on, good education to know. I know 5.56 rounds aren't as common now as 7.62, and autocannons are definitely the way to go. I did not know about the kevlar "blankets" though, that's a detail that often gets left out of reports that I can find. Also, cool pic... that definitely looks like it's just part of the airframe, so I wouldn't have noticed that it's actually kevlar. The point is that the issue doesn't seem to be so much with ACE, and that's exactly why I jumped on this thing. ACE didn't necessarily do anything wrong here, and it's just silly to start acting as if the problem is related to ACE without further investigation. Forgive me for getting defensive, I only got defensive as a means of "standing up for myself" when Newbie McNewbster started getting defensive. Let's get back to making real bug reports and praising ACE and the fine work of the ACE development team.

Holy crap! Â Jets and helicopters are bulletproof?! Â I suppose the governments of the world could save a ton of money by not bothering to install machine guns on their interceptors now, since jets and helicopters are bulletproof. I don't know about you but i have never seen an ak74 round go through several inches of cockpit glass and knock the pilot unconscious...would be a real feat then again the bullets don't even have the hit the pilot they can be shooting a wing or the engines and it will still knock the pilot unconscious...how about you post something constructive or go run around like a kid insulting people somewhere else. Mate, I'm not going to bog down the ACE thread and derail things. Â I'm just going to point out that in no time did I or anyone else insult you. Â Shooting a plane with an AK should be an incredible feat in and of itself, unless the plane is essentially 10 feet off the ground (which would again be a pretty incredible feat). I was joking because I thought the idea of a "bullet proof" jet or helicopter would be hilarious. Â I mean, a 5.56 bullet can pass right through a helicopter, and I believe that round is also used in many machine guns equipped on jets as well. Â So it makes sense that it would damage the vehicle. Â As to whether or not it's a bug.... Â well, I'll leave that to the experts to decide. As to something constructive... Â gee, check out the Mission Editing forum sometime. Â I've been constructive and helped out people with problems. Â I don't always have the solution, but then no one does. Â So please don't condescend to me. Instead, we see that 2 of your vast 7 posts on these forums are defensive and aggressive, telling the ACE team that this that and the other are "unrealistic" and being sardonic with rhetorical questions.

Holy wall of text, Batman!