roguetrooper

Watching the guided video, I would say ArmA III is the real Unreal... :eek: (I think you got me)

You should not kneel down automatically when you open the map. (What's actually the reason for this?) Couriously, when you don't have a weapon, you don't kneel down. Mkay, as for realism, the character should even holster his weapon (or on back) while the map is opened :D Might be an option for the difficulty settings. A not deactivatable auto-holster would be quite annoying in many situations or kinds of (MP) maps/gameplays.

(I'm not speaking of the fact that different channels already have different colours.) Is it possibly to dye chat text (globalChat etc)? The text is created dynamically, contains variables and thereby can not be prefigured in description.ext. Maybe with the help of html colour code built into _txt = format ["blabla ?

_man setObjectTexture [1,'#(argb,8,8,3)color(1,0,0,1)']; gives the unit a red vest (if applicable to that unit). Is it possible to remove the colour that has been defined with setobjecttexture and return to the default (camo) colour?

Searched and googled but haven't found: is there anywhere a list of pbo-names?

Are there personal weapons that are contained within ArmA2, but not in OA? (original game only, not concerning mods or whatever).

The disadvantage of this method is, that the client can try to enter and that there will be all the glorious connection chat of what mods the client is using and all that. Though he is kicked out immediately, you have that nasty spamming chat and unneccessary data transmissions (client downloading the map). Edit: hmmm, is it? Don't know. Nevermind...

By my own experience a player who is missing A2 or OA can join (and play on) a server that does not contain anything from the missing pack. When the client/joiner receives a weapon (scripted addweapon) that his ArmA is missing, then even at the server an error window shows up and of course the client does not receive the weapon. My additional question: What happens on the client when (1.) the server adds a weapon to a weapon box and the client is missing that weapon (not the box type). (2.) the client opens this box to grab out a weapon? Do (1) or (2) provoke an error message window on the server and/or the client? script to (re)fill the box: if !(isServer) then { exit }; _box addweaponcargoGlobal ["MP5A5", 10]; Note: this is not meant to ask how to keep out a client that is missing something, since it has been answered before (and I am using Deadfasts' enforcer). But since it is only the personal weaponry in my certain map that might provoke missing-errors and since everything else on the map is contained within A2-standalone and OA-standalone, it might be useful to allow everybody to join the map (greater player pool). Oh BIS, behold, thy addon politics is payneful :(

Edit: solved (Unanswered threads should be deletable by owner :D )

When I perform the check if (isNull objectname) then { } or if (isNil "objectname") then { } then in the file arma2OA.RPT an error message line is created: Error: Not defined variable in expression: <objectname> The problem is, though it has no influence on ingame functionality, that this error message creates a rpt-file of hundred thousands lines when the map runs a while since the check is performed in an endless loop quite often for many objects. How can this check cause an error? I mean, it is MEANT to check the existence of an object. Why does the check for existence cause an error when the object is not existing? :confused: and :mad: At this step within the script the object in question is not used for anything yet, it is just "looked at". Is there a (scripting) way to check for the existence of objects that does NOT cause an error line in the rpt-file, no matter if the object exists or not?

Most of the script files I create, ARE sqf and thus, containing sqf-stuff (colons and 'if' and such)...

I might need to rephrase my question. 1. You want to check if an object is existing, since you can not predict if the object will exist at a certain point of time. You need to know if it exists, since something else depends on the result. 2. Therefor you need a command that checks the presence of an object. 3. This command can return two values: true (object is existing) or false (object is not existing) 4. Why then does this command, which is meant to tell you either "yes, object is existing" or "no, object is not existing" come up with an error message, when the object is not existing? The non-existence is a possible/logical result of the check. The non-existence is not a logical (or whatever) error. I understand that there might be an error message when you want to place a non-existing 'player2' player2 setpos [x,y,z] since 'setpos' can not apply coordinates to something that does not exist. I understand that commands at all that need an object, return an error when they are confronted with a non-existing or invalid object. But I really fail to see the logic for "tell me if object exists" ---> "beeeep! error! object not existing" That's the decicive point here for me. I might be too penetrant on this issue... but that's what a forum is for :D

So seemingly there is no way to prevent the file arma2oa.rpt to have an error-line added each time the game checks for the existence of an object that is not existing? You might want to reproduce my issue: [1.] Clear the file arma2oa.rpt [2.] Place two soldiers onto an empty map. Name them player1 and player2 [3.] Script a loop: #start ~1.0 _exist1 = false; _exist2 = false; if (!isNull player1) then { _exist1 = true }; if (!isNull player2) then { _exist2 = true }; hint format ["check1: %1\ncheck2: %2", _exist1,_exist2]; goto "start"; [4.] Run the map a few seconds [5.] Open the file arma2oa.rpt When you have set player2 as non existing (0%) in the editor, the file arma2oa.rpt has a set of lines added each second: (German version) Error in expression <if (!isNull player2) then { _exist2 = true };> Error position: <player2) then { _exist2 = true };> Error Nicht definierte Variable in Ausdruck: player2 When you have a lot of things in your map that are not present all the time and have their existence checked every second, you have an inflated arma2.rpt with ten/hundred thousands of lines after an hour gameplay or so.

I have read the according wiki pages before and their explanations are quite theoretical. As I said, ingame the check works fine and as intended and there is NO error message. I only want to prevent that stupid error line in the rpt-file which gets bigger and bigger while the map is running. When I use if (isNil "objectname") then { } while the object IS existing, there is no error line. When I use if (isNil "objectname") then { } while the object is NOT existing, there IS an error line. In both cases the activation { } is performed properly. I only want to get rid of the rpt-error-line.

Thanks. Is there a scripting command to check if a (MP) player/client has (1) ArmA only or (2) OA only or (3) both? (Since a player with OA only can seemingly join a server that runs an OA-map with OA-objects only, but using ArmA2-only weapons.) I have thought of a more complex method to check if a client owns Chernarus-stuff: 1. Make the server at start create a Chernarus-only object/unit (not placing it in the editor, because an OA-only player could not join at all due to the mission.sqm). 2. Use a trigger with condition isNil "objectname" . A client without Chernarus returns true and thereby the information that Chernarus-only stuff is not available.

The player is in the exlusion list. Though the problem is solved by a workaround, it is indeed an interesting issue.

I have this code: _keeplist = [thing1,thing2,thingx]; { if !(_x in _keeplist) then {deleteVehicle _x} } forEach (position center nearObjects 275); This deletes all objects (except the natural ones - buildings, trees etc) within a radius of 275 meters around "center", except the objects defined in _keeplist. This is exactly what I want and it works fine. Problem: When the player has opened his inventory menu, and the code gets executed, then the inventory menu also gets deleted (closed). - Though it can be opened immediately again. Is there a possiblity to exclude the inventory menu/dialog from the clearance? Such like { if not (_x iskindof "DialogORWHATEVER") then {deleteVehicle _x} } forEach (position center nearObjects 275); I had a look at http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_CfgVehicles#Static_Class_Vehicles to find out what might serve as a dummy object or so for the inventory dialog, but found nothing so far. Any idea how to prevent the deletion of the opened inventory dialog? Edit: Found workaround: added condition _x distance player > 1. That prevents the inventory from being deleted.

Is there any possibility to identify players in MP who spawn stuff (bombs, vehicles etc) by their own scripts that are not part of the map? Are these processes logged in a file or so?

Is there any possibility to remove the names of players who have disconnected from a MP match from the score board (pressing tab)? Maybe a command that could be executed by "onPlayerDisconnected"?

What does it mean when you host a server (not dedicated) and see someone connecting and instantly disconnecting without any other system message inbetween? name connectING name connectED name DISconnected Neither does it seem to be a client's behaviour that is missing content nor does it seem to be a user who is disconnecting by himself. When the client is missing content than there is usually a system message anteceding the message <name disconnected>. So what does this combination of system messages might indicate?

Thanks, but the text contains variables, such as A.I. and player names and unlimited numerical values and is composed on the fly. Edit: Hmkay, my example above may have led to another conclusion, sorry. (which was only meant to show that I am focussing on the command "...chat" and not "titleText" and such).

Couldn't think of a self-explaining topic name... When a multiplayer game is being loaded (also when you play alone as server) there is a black screen with "Receiving..." The annyoing thing is that while you have this black screen the map is already running (AI moving around and shooting). As player you are stuck in that black loading screen, but your avatar is already in a "running" world... ready for being killed. Is there any possibility to check if the player is actually in control of his avatar?

Indeed, the code waitUntil {!(isNull (findDisplay 46))} does not prevent the receiving-screen issue. Since I am so fed up with that screen in MP (i.e. with what it causes), I am using this in my MP maps: the last lines of init.sqf: ~0.001 _inv1 = [nil, player, "per", rHideObject, [color="Red"]true[/color]] call RE; STARTDIRECTION = round (direction player); STARTPOSITION0 = round (position player select 0); STARTPOSITION1 = round (position player select 1); STARTPOSITION2 = round (position player select 2); STARTVALUE = STARTDIRECTION + STARTPOSITION0 + STARTPOSITION1 + STARTPOSITION2; and ingame a trigger with: * single activation * condition: STARTVALUE != ( round (direction player) + round (position player select 0) + round (position player select 1) + round (position player select 2) ) * code: inv0 = [nil, player, "per", rHideObject, [color="Red"]false[/color]] call RE; This is meant to: * when the player char is created, he is made invisible and not shootable * as soon as the player gives the faintest input after the receiving-screen (barely touching the mouse or a movement key), he is made visible The receiving-screen is such an annoying bug in MP (at least all deathmatch types). Sitting in front of a black screen unable to do anything for 15 seconds while the world around you is already running. :mad: Can't the devs implement some code like 1. waituntil { receiving-screen is gone }; 2. put player into the world;

Does anyone know if it is a feature or a bug that rain can not be disabled in multiplayer mode? A trigger with * multiple activation * condition: rain > 0 * activation: 1 setrain 0 does its duty in singleplayer, i.e. it prevents rain. The same trigger does not prevent rain in multiplayer. :( Is the setrain command working as intended at all?

Some people think this would be "modern" or "cool" or whatever. Seemingly they do not recognize that such kind of text is like spitting at someone.