roguetrooper

It would be great to have the Take-On-Helicopters policemen for Arma. It would add something less military (but still weapon-wielding, so to speak) to the game. And the models, especially the one with the black helmet, look quite good. From my humble point of view it should be easy to add... (same engine, compatible as it is, etc). Might be added to (editor) faction civilian-special. Btw, doesn't one of the new ACR infantry unit have the same model? Haven't got pictures of both in front of me right now...

Sorry for being off topic and especially for being a smart arse and not contributing to a solution, but the first thing after having dowloaded the BAF (and PMC) file was to burn it and its code to a CD :Oo:

Why should I be ashamed of myself? This is just some piece of code a beginner might play around with. Anyway, 90% of all infantry bullets fired in a war don't hit their target or are meant to be a suppresive means. AI will hit you with these settings, just not in the first second right after they discovered you, and will, btw, not just standing around themselves like wooden trainings targets (-> which would be even more annyoing than Robin-Hood-AI). Also, extended firefights are more interesting (ingame) than sniper-like ecounters using assault rifles.

To have good acting AI without the aiming skills of Robin Hood or Matthew Quigley and without having to use any mod, you can place a trigger on the map: * axis 0 - 0 * timer 0 - 0 - 0 * non-repeating * condition: true (instead of the default "this") * code: {_x setSkill 1.0;_x setSkill ["endurance", 1.0];_x setSkill ["spotDistance", 1.0];_x setSkill ["spotTime", 1.0];_x setSkill ["courage", 1.0];_x setSkill ["reloadSpeed", 1.0];_x setSkill ["commanding", 1.0];_x setSkill ["general", 1.0];_x setSkill ["aimingSpeed", 0.5];_x setSkill ["AimingShake",0.5];_x setSkill ["aimingAccuracy", 0.2];_x allowfleeing 0;} forEach allunits; The red values are the decisive ones (especially the bold). See also http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setSkill_array

The map cutouts are not that dramatic. Anyway, I'd prefer BIS to put their highest attention to Arma III than to anything else, so that it can be released as soon as possible (without making it a Starship Troopers game... because of bugs everywhere).

The whole chat/information system is insufficient and looks like a pre-alpha placeholder version. "you cannot play/edit this map because it is based on content that has been deleted.chernarus" Spamming such phrases to everybody in the chat window is annyoing for those people and the person who is actually affected, can not deal with it at all. "Huh? I've never deleted anything.", "What does deleted.chernarus mean?" Instead of spamming non-understandable lines of text in the chat window to EVERY client, the affected person should receive a local dialog (not in chat area) with a proper explanation: Example: "You can not play this map. You need 'Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead' to be installed on your computer". (exchanging the missing content in the ' '). That insufficiency also counts for the whole connecting/disconnecting informations: disableChannels[] = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6} is a beginning, but by far not enough. Also the decision between having 1.) no system messages at all or 2.) have system spam annoying everybody isn't that good. Instead of spamming 2-6 lines of text to every client, there should only be a single-line serverwide information when a person has actually made it into the game: "player x has connected". Done. And not: 1. player x is connecting 2. player x has connected 3-5. you can not play/edit... 6. player x has disconnected Nevertheless Arma is a great game, BIS is busy with more important things... and no, I can not do it better :o Edit: Lol, up to now I even didn't get the meaning of those degrade-messages: "Illegal copies may degrade" "Legal copies do not degrade" I thought it to be something like "Go and buy a legal copy. Don't be afraid - they will not get off (like milk outside a fridge or whatever)." Didn't know that this message means "illegal copies will suffer graphical punishment during gameplay"...

Without the necessity of addons, you can have an automated reloading (not realistic of course): Assuming the mortar's name is "mortar1", place a trigger on the map with: axis 0 repeated timer 60 - 60 - 60 condition: (local mortar1) and (alive mortar1) and ((count (magazines mortar1) == 0)) code: {mortar1 addMagazine "ARTY_8Rnd_81mmHE_M252"} forEach [1,2,3]; This example will add three magazines to that mortar 60 seconds after it has no more ammo. What mortar uses what ammo: http://www.armatechsquad.com/ArmA2Class151656165165341654165165165165f/OA/Weapons/static/ Or you can add an action menu to the mortar when it is out of ammo: Name the mortar mortar1 Put in its init-line: 0 = this addAction ["Reload","mortar.sqf",mortar1,1,true,true,"","( alive mortar1) and (count (magazines mortar1) == 0)"]; create a file mortar.sqf with that content: _obj = _this select 3; if (count (magazines _obj) > 0) then {exit}; {(_obj) addMagazine "ARTY_8Rnd_81mmHE_M252"} forEach [1]; exit; Doesn't work for clients in multiplayer. Making things work properly in multiplayer can really be a pain in the ass in this multiplayer game :-/ Might have to use a trigger with adding and removing the action.

There should be a variable to define whether a death in MP causes negative score (addscore -1). Currently the deaths are not counted for a player's scoring. When a unit has killed 5 other units and got killed 3 times, he has nevertheless 5 instead of 2 points. At the moment you need a workaround to "fix" this. By triggers (if !(alive unit) then { unit addscore -1 }) or by something else. It would be fine do be able to define that negative scoring in the description.ext (instead of creating 64 triggers for a map with 64 playable units...) Such as these variables: Debriefing = 1; RespawnDialog = 1; AIKills = 1; DisabledAI = 0; there might be CountDeaths = 1;

Mkay, this thread is going into the wrong direction. I just suggested (in this thread you are allowed to suggest things that do not exist already ingame) a description-variable, that allows to adjust an automated minus scoring, a counterpart to the already existing description.ext-variable AIKills = 1;, that simply works for both players and AI. Almost everything can done in a clumsier way. BIS countinously adds new bigger or smaller commands/functions that make mapping and scripting easier. The results those new commands provide (at least partially) mostly could have been achieved by clumsier workarounds before. Nevertheless BIS added them for convenience. That's all. Suggestion forum. Not scripting forum. BIS may read this. BIS may ignore or schedule it. Just suggesting a simple-command-counterpart for "AIKills = 0/1". Done.

How can you release a unit (player and AI) that lies with lifestate "unconscious" (according modules on the map and sync'ed) on the ground by SCRIPT/COMMANDS? (not by first-aid-module-sync'ed units) I've tried a trigger with timer 10 seconds condition: (local player1) and ((lifeState player1) == "unconscious") activation: player1 setCaptive false; if ((local player1) and ((lifeState player1) == "unconscious")) then {player1 setDamage 0.87; [color="#FF0000"]player1 setUnconscious false[/color];}; No success so far.

That is exactly the same what Myke suggested. Got it already the first time (no offense, thank you for the hint :) ) But as I stated meanwhile, this single line in the file init.sqs attaches that EH only the local player and not to playable/respawning AI units. This method does NOT work for JIP'ing players playing a unit that has not been present as AI before: in init-LINE: this addEventHandler ["Killed", {(_this select 0) addscore -1}]; Those methods don't count -score at all or add to many -score at once: in init-LINE: this addMPEventHandler ["MPKilled", {(_this select 0) addscore -1}]; in init-LINE: this addMPEventHandler ["MPKilled", {if (isServer) then {(_this select 0) addscore -1}}]; in init-LINE: this addMPEventHandler ["MPKilled", {if (local (_this select 0)) then {(_this select 0) addscore -1}}]; The only method I found so far that works reliably under ALL circumstances as desired is to create x different triggers for x playable units with repeatable condition !(alive playerX) activation playerX addscore -1; This works for * playable (i.e. respawing) AI * hosting player * client player who already joined in lobby before map runs * JIP'ing client player OK, even creating 64 triggers with slightly different content takes only about three minutes with copy and paste (triggers and content). I just thought a simple description-definition would just be fine, such as "CountDeaths = 1" (or 0)

And how do you create those eventhandlers for the 63 remaining AI units (for as long as they are not played by JIP'ing humans) without 63 triggers or other 63 means that would have to be compatible with presence from start, JIP'ing, locality and all that. However, the suggestion is legit and would add automated convenience to mapping although it concerns only a detail of subordinate relevance in comparison to other tickets. You wouldn't have to worry about a missing detail in 64+ init lines or wherever. You'd just have to add a single line consisting of a few letters in a single file that covers all occurances and cases. And since (+)scoring is automated without the necessity of further scripting, why shouldn't (-)scoring also be?

Ungrouped AI units talk to themselves as if they were in a group ("I'm on him" etc). You can hear them when you are in direct-chat/say range to them. This counts both for units that formerly were in a group ( [x] join grpNull) and for units that have never been in a group. This should be scheduled for being fixed (if not already).

Wasn't this bug/feature fixed some time ago? Or was it only scheduled? I'm speaking of the effect that the player character is already created and present in the world (ready to be killed) while the player is actually facing the black "receiving data" screen for quite a time (when JIP'ing).

It would be very handy and useful to have a command "switchMoveGlobal" that broadcasts the animation of a local unit everywhere across the network. Currently you need clumsy workarounds to achieve that effect. Do you (BIS) think it's easily implementable?

Nevertheless 2nd Ranger's hint seems to work. I just don't see the logic in making "switchmove" a local command by default in a game that is focused on multiplayer. I can not imagine any situation at all where such a command is desired to have a local effect only. When a person performs any move, it can/must be seen by every client (from a logical/physical point of view). (I see the logic in e.g. making "setfog" local to achive that two persons with a big distance to each other might be in areas with different weather effects... but such things like switchmove"Local" seem to be a missing).

[objNull, player, rSWITCHMOVE, "ActsPercMrunSlowWrflDf_FlipFlopPara"] call RE; Makes the animation seen on all clients (Needs a functions module placed on the map).

Thanks, Arigato (lol ;) ) Unfortunately, the rolling animation can not be seen by other players in multiplayer, since switchmove is local. When you just execute player switchmove "ActsPercMrunSlowWrflDf_FlipFlopPara"; other players see him sliding a bit forward without even moving the legs at all. A command "switchMoveGlobal" would be really great... Other suggestions: A jump/roll forward while you are moving backwards, looks strange: if ( ! (player getvariable "ARGT_JUMP_READY") || vehicle player != player ) exitwith {true}; [color="#FF0000"]if ((speed player) < 0) exitwith {true};[/color] [...] You may also restrict the minimal required speed to < 15, so you only start to jump/roll when you have a certain speed. Currently there is another problem: When you hold a pistol in your hands, the character switches magically to his rifle when he starts to jump. You can even create fun-deathmatch-maps with very high jumps. You just need to set unit allowdamage false while he is jumping (or at least about to land) to prevent the falling damage.

You can not refer to "player" in the init.sqs, since the "player" does not exist yet when this file is being executed. You might need to add this at the VERY end of the file: ~0.1 player sidechat "blabla"; Note, that this chat will not be seen by other players in multiplayer, since the command is local. When you want all players to see this scripted chat of that player, you need to put a functions module on the map and put this in your init.sqs (I suppose this text only to be a placeholder... why the heck would anybody say this in the first second he joined a game...) ~1.0 _text = "Why do you troll me?"; [nil, nil, rSPAWN, [player, _text], { (_this select 0) sideChat (_this select 1) }] call RE; There needs to be a little delay ( ~1.0 ) because the functions module needs half a second (or somewhat) to initialize (and also to initialize the player unit).

The FIRST THREE _unit have to be replaced by this

I suppose _dikcode == 0x39 to define the key. Is there any list that shows which code represents which key? I use space for free look. Btw, in IronFront'44 you can jump right out of running over fences. Would be great to have this feature in Arma as well.

This area seems to be very interesting and something different from all the current vanilla areas (incl. all official expansions): https://store.bistudio.com/images/screenshots/arma2-acr/arma2_acr_screenshot_9.jpg

I don't know whether I am mad or what. But since Arma 1 the rush/roar/sound of the ocean drives me crazy when I am near the coast (I also don't like that sound on TV). It is such an annoying and terrifying sound that can not be turned down without affecting other sounds. Using "enableenvironment false" is no solution since it also disables wind and birds. A separate slider for the ocean volume would be really great.

Does the current beta file contain the content of previous betas? I have installed main patch 1.60. When I download and install beta 93825, does it include ALL changes made after 1.60 or do you have to install all of the 'hundreds' of betas released since 1.60 one after another?

Will future Arma-commands taken into IF44 by future patches?