Sniperwolf572

My bad, misunderstood what you were saying.

That is what he is saying. I'm assuming this is how it works: - Mission start - All units in the players group have fatigue disabled - Player controlled units has the fatigue enabled - (This is the teamswitch part) If you teamSwitch to a unit, your previous "unit" gets it's fatigue disabled and your new "unit" gets it's fatigue enabled (because it used to have it disabled as it was AI controlled) The general effect is that the AI in players group always has it's fatigue disabled and the player has it enabled, no matter even if you teamswitch around to control different units. If you don't teamswitch, then there's no need for script to detect teamswitch and make changes which unit has fatigue enabled or disabled.

In the vanilla game during vanilla missions, debug console isn't available with keypress outside the editor. It would make cheating very easy. :) Try turning off addons one by one and see which one is enabling the console by key combo, when you know that, you'll know which addon to look into for turning it off. Some cheat type addons like this one enable the console in SP, so try first with any similar addons you might have

It was much easier to reach the "talent cap" and "blend in" in the OFP days than today, and it increased with every single iteration of the game. Amount of skill/knowledge required to make a bicycle vs a space shuttle have very different caps. Besides, we've seen people come and go and we've seen people develop from being helpless to helpful. I agree with the overall sentiment of what you're trying to say, but it's not as black and white as you have presented it to be.

Either the mission or one of the mods is doing that for you. Try it with one of the BI showcases, if it's still there, one of the mods you are using is activating it.

They already have. Problem right now is that 0 is not an option in the Valve interface, but apparently that's going to get sorted soon.

People talk about "derivative content" being the reason for such insane cuts. I'd agree if the mods being released are standalone games that do not require the base product (For example, IF44). If all those people in the chain before the mod can't agree to not tax the people, who increase the sales and lifetime of their base product, in a way comparable to a bad medieval movie, then it's not worth even pretending to be doing it for the benefit of anyone other but themselves. On the other hand, people who agree and have agreed to sell mods with the current system, in my opinion, completely forfeit any right to complain about anything related to it. They knew what they were getting themselves into. I'll actually defend Valve in the decision that you can only stop selling the mod and remove it from the public view, but not remove it from the people who bought it. ---------- Post added at 23:00 ---------- Previous post was at 22:24 ---------- For the next few hours, GabeN is discussing this on Reddit.

Currently the non-modder cut of Skyrim Workshop is 75%, how it's split up, I do not know, the end result is that the mod creator gets 25%.

Unfortunately that isn't the case and is not comparable. You make it sound like as if no effort is put into a mod, as if no knowledge is put into a mod, as if someone just snaps their fingers and something is created out of no effort, no training, no learning, no investment. And that the game devs are there on platter for everyone to ask. Hell, Arma has been modded for 15 years now and there isn't a single person in the community who could tell with certainty about anything and even documentation isn't to be trusted. But then again, this attitude does not surprise me. Modding has always had a problem where you release a gun, you get "a request" to make an arsenal. Release a vehicle, you get "a request" to make a fleet. Etc. A mod can provide a value to a game even if you don't use it. Arma 2/Arma 3 passively benefited from DayZ's popularity, many of the DayZ population rubbed off onto the base game. There are new mod makers now that are invested in Arma 3 because DayZ had them discover Arma. People discovered the games and their capabilities. Skyrim gets publicity all the time when news outlets report on great, cool and insane mods that get released. Same with a ton of other games. It keeps them relevant and visible, mod or no mod, and that's what leads to sales, even if the buyer doesn't end up using those mods. DayZ wasn't the first, won't be the last, and will never be the only one to affect a developer in such a way. Counter Strike, Insurgency, Team Fortress, Project Reality, Blitzkrieg countless others where there way and gave value to the games they were built on way before DayZ was even a speck in the eyes of it's creators. The core problem in the system here is the double dipping aspect of the people who "sat and did nothing" as you put it and who then proceed to reap much more than just 75% of the benefits. It's not morally right, no matter how much IP bullshit you excuse it with. And in the end, those 75% are slapped across the skin of the buyer, because the seller who says "ok, this is worth 1 dollar" is actually $4 because of that 75% margin. And then you get "$4 dollars for a weapon, what a robbery!". I say IP bullshit, because those same people who take 75% from the people providing them service, come nowhere close to giving 75% to those who they themselves based their base product around on. Nvidia will not ask you for 75% of your games sales because you use their library. Microsoft does not take 75% of your games revenue because you use the DirectX. Fuck, the console manufacturers don't take 75% of your sales so you can make games for their systems. Epic doesn't take 75% of your games sales if you use their engine to make a game. Maybe we should pay 75% of anything we earn using the computers to the people who invented various parts of it. Maybe we should give 75% to the ones who discovered electricity. This is not for the greater good of the people who make mods or the ones who would buy such mods, this is just another attack vector on monetary gain. If the IP holders and and content distributors really see themselves as worthy of 75% of the effort of a mod, then fuck modding free or paid. They can mod their own games.

Exactly on point.

That's a magnificently dumb way to rationalize it. But coming from Dean, it doesn't surprise me at all. Let's draw a comparison, if I make a specific aftermarket parts for a, let's say Corvette, and sell them to Corvette owners, do you think Chevrolet would need to take 75% of every sale because I'm making parts that fit their car? The part can't fit any other car, so without the car my parts are nothing. Should BI give Microsoft 75% of their sales because Arma runs on Windows? Someone like Dean should fucking know much better where the value for the developer of the game lies, and that's the increased sales of the base product because your mod is increasing the inherent value of their base product. It's incredibly obvious how many people bought Arma 2 just for DayZ. The modding community has had this effect on games, their sales and their lifetime ever since the dawn of modding. And he somehow seems to forgot it in a span of two years. And considering the base product is sold on Steam, Valve takes a cut from extra sales and the game dev takes a cut from extra sales. This is basically double dipping. How much value does any Arma title have without the mods? How much value does Oblivion or Skyrim have without mods? They'd be fucking weekend titles you rented and returned.

You need to be issued a TIN by IRS, and if you're not from US that can take up to a year. You can read many horror stories about this from the Greenlit people because this is also required by Steam to sell your games, etc. It varies, but it's 30% if you're not on the special list.

On top of that, consider that you have to apply for US tax papers and getting that takes months at least. On top of all the "cuts", the IRS will take 30% (depending on where you live) of the earnings before Valve, Publisher or any cut is even involved. Not being worth it is a mild way to put it, it's almost completely pointless.

If you are inserting AGM properties in config, for example AGM_FastRoping = 0; AGM_FastRoping_Positions[] = {}; for a helicopter or similar, you can do so freely without any dependencies. Any extra config properties you add which are not used by the game itself are ignored by the game. You can have a "fullerpj_thing = 123" and the game will not care, unless you actually read it and do something with the values.

Thanks for tackling this. :) Hopefully work on this is not done yet, as . Left mouse button cannot be used in combinations Mouse wheel scroll up/down cannot be used in combinations Clicking on the right mouse button to add it with modifiers instantly adds a "hold" combo, then if the mouse was released fast enough, also adds a "click" combo Most of the time, combos are colored red to signal a conflict, but there is no information with what they conflict (in the brackets). ---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:08 ---------- _myArray = [1,0,3,2]; // Unsorted array _myArray sort true; // _myArray becomes [0,1,2,3]; _myArray sort false; // _myArray becomes [3,2,1,0];

That wasn't my point, video was added as a joke. I thought it was obvious. :p

I'll just leave this here in response. :D Also, a major difference here is that those games didn't have a restrictive animation system from the year 2000. If I had a Euro every time a BI dev complianed about the animation system or explained it away as the reason we can't have nice things, I could probably have a financially stable lifestyle. Either way, gestures would be a great way to make this collision type thing look and feel good. It might even be moddable, but I'm not sure if you can force an infinite gesture or break out of one. Other mod implementations seem to use the whole body animation system instead of blending with gestures.

1 AM CEST on April 14th

In practice, deployment-without-bipods is not as useful as you might imagine. First reason is that resting is provided very generously. If you're aiming out of a window, door, anything, you won't lose resting benefits so easy. As long as you have any kind of geometry next to you, you're stable. For example, these are positions that are considered as rested: As you can see, you have a huge wiggle room so staying within the bounds of resting is not hard to the point you need to restrict yourself manually. Second reason is when you really want to shoot someone, if they're out of the angle range of the deployment, you'll most certainly un-deploy to do so anyway.

Yes, hiddenSelectionsMaterials allows you to define a custom .rvmat for a hidden selection from config, and setObjectMaterial is the scripting command if you need to do it on the fly.

The data from my last post was done on the dev branch. We'll see what happens in the future, but currently, the configs do not have a special case for the deployment-without-bipods. This means that no matter what value changes are made as it's currently setup, deployment without bipods will always be equivalent to resting.

Some data straight from the config: // Weapon deployment values deployedCoef = 0.2; // Sway multiplier? deployedProneCoef = 0.04; // Sway multiplier in prone? deployedRecoil = 0.4; // Temporary recoil multiplier deployedRecoilPersistent = 0.5; // Persistent recoil multiplier // Weapon deployment times deployTime = 0.2; // Time it takes to deploy without a bipod undeployTime = 0.2; // Time it takes to undeploy without a bipod deployBipodTime = 0.4; // Time it takes to deploy with a bipod undeployBipodTime = 0.3; // Time it takes to undeploy with a bipod // Weapon resting values restingCoef = 0.6; // Sway multiplier restingProneCoef = 0.12; // Sway multiplier in prone? restingRecoil = 0.6; // Temporary recoil multiplier restingRecoilPersistent = 1; // Permanent recoil multiplier Deducing from this data and some experiments, I've come to a few conclusions in regards to deployment without bipods: Deployment without bipods, compared to resting, gives absolutely no benefits, in all cases, other than creating a pivot point. If you are deployed, you are also rested and that's where benefits come from. The only time deployment without bipods is useful is if you need to aim at something that is out of reach when not deployed. (Hard sideways/downward angle out of a window or a wall) Deployment locks your camera to the weapon (like a 2D scope), so when you experience recoil or inertia, it might be a bit more disorienting, but is generally not noticeable. I only noticed the effect when I was compositing the images. As it currently stands, this means that deploying without bipods in prone is actually a negative effect on your abilities as all it does is sink your point of aim and limits rotation angles And some composite images in regards to weapon sway. Tests with recoil and inertia were also done and yielded the same conslusion, but I could not be bothered to align additional 2*3*30 images together. Exactly.