Sniperwolf572

I'm not sure if the above is supposed to reference this, but grenades now have sound effects for things that were never there before. They make sounds when they hit something or bounce. Smokes have a pop when going off and hissing sounds while the smoke is being deployed.

The houses that he refers to drywall, isn't drywall. It's either reinforced poured concrete, cement blocks or bricks with an outer facade. Drywall isn't a very popular construction material, I suppose across Europe, as it is in the US. I've yet to come across a drywall home in the Balkans. I can tell you from experience of being shot at while behind such walls by 7.62's, that a single (Arma doesn't simulate an effect of multiple rounds/structural wear) 7.62 isn't going to penetrate any wall of those materials in the second part of the video. The thin inside wall might be an exception as it's pretty thin ingame. Ricochets on the other hand are quite dangerous and will embed themselves in the furniture, go through multiple doors and whatnot even after several bounces from such surfaces.

And that's still another quarter to work on things, considering their release target is Q3. Bad MetaCritic score on the other hand is forever.

I get it, but I dislike the decision. The decision would be to grow a backbone and delay, a delayed polished game will still give better reviews than giving reviewers public Arma 3 MP and a couple of showcase missions to judge the game by. Once the reviews are in, there's no going back. Everyone else can be just fine with the Beta content and incremental packages.

It's actually obvious, they don't need to say anything: Not enough resources to focus on everything Tight deadline and we can't move it because of reasons The campaign is not in an acceptable state (Audio might be missing, etc) QA can't test the campaign in time to make sure it's acceptable People who write code for missions also write various non-engine code like scripts and functions and those need to work better We would like to deliver high quality campaign

You're digging a bigger hole here for yourself. If I search for "carrier command multiplayer" on google, I'll find plenty of references to "no multiplayer on launch, but later", you'll find plenty of people who never followed these forums closely that got the impression that the MP for it is going to be included in a future patch. There are also plenty of reviews who absolutely plaster the game for not having multiplayer at all where it seems to be the thing that would incredibly improve the game. Saying things like what you just said makes you look untrustworthy. You know, if I said, "hey Dwarden, help me lift this heavy box to the top floor and I just might give you some money for your trouble" and then when it's all said and done, I say "Well? What are you expecting? I said I might, not that I will!" you'd tell me to piss off. I hate to be that guy, but should I now list the features that were promised and marketed for Arma 3 that are most certainly not going to be in Arma 3 because of various reasons, that we've come to accept as not happening months ago but still haunt us through age old posts and videos from BI people? I understand that things change, priorities shift, shit happens and whatnot, but there's a line where you lose credibility and understanding runs out, and from my perspective, a guy who's been and still is supporting you in numerous ways over the years, it's getting pretty damn close.

Yes it is, it's the angle between the vectors: _unit weaponDirection (currentWeapon _unit) and vectorDir _unit

Read the damn post fully before hitting reply. :P

That's not the point. In the Arma 3 development cycle, there has been so much backtracking on promises that were made and now there is another, pretty vital one to add onto that pile so close to the release date. Imagine these scenarios: You find out through a media video that there is going to be no MP on the release day in the final version because the netcode sucks and they want to improve it, someone comes on the forums and says "It's ok! Everyone who has the game will get FREE MP shortly after release!" You find out through a media video that there is going to be no mission editor on the release day because there is something wrong with it, then someone comes on the forums and says "It's ok! Everyone who has the game will get FREE mission editor shortly after release!" First scenario has already happened to BI with Carrier Command, and the MP isn't out even, what, almost a year after it's been released? Is that shortly? Sure it's not the same people behind two projects. To show how funny this is, I'm going to compare it to the shittiest excuse for a game which is WarZ, that was pulled from Steam when Valve realized that things that were advertised were not in the game that was marked as "finished" and refunds were given to whoever wanted them. This is the same stance I expect Valve to take for every title that does that, and I'm disappointed that BI has decided to go down that path. Luckily BI might be able to dodge this because they aren't exactly saying what's going to be in the final game.

I know, I'm not saying stuff won't be included, I specifically said "everything-but-campaign", I'm just saying that there is no point in marking anything final without a huge chunk of content like the campaign missing. Saying stuff like that only results in confusion for people like petek here. :D I quoted Varanon with my exact feelings on the issue.

This mirrors my opinion on the topic precisely.

If you have the game, you paid for it, that sentence is just sugarcoating the fact that they will fail to deliver it when it's expected.

Thanks, I'll check it out when I get some free time. :)

I'm looking forward to it, because the decision to cut the campaign from the final release will need some serious arguments to make it sound like a sane decision. Especially because this information comes so near the release after the people have already bought the game expecting something like that to be available from day one of the final. Edit: You might as well call the release day "Beta-with-more-units-and-an-island". Because apart from that, I'm really stuggling to see what new "features" this is supposed to result from delaying the campaign. :D How about we get some positive news in this fashion instead of always getting the "yeah, we're not including this in the final" news through media?

I'm not quite sure how it would look like, but if you can find the animation name in the animation viewer, I can try to see what I can do.

Unit skill bar is the mission designers choice for that unit. I'm not 100% sure what the difficulty slide bar does, but i'm assuming it's the coefficient depending if hostile or friendly, so skill = (mission defined unit skill * difficulty slide skill) Super AI makes all above irrelevant and just maxes out the AI skills to 1 no matter what.

Don't worry, I don't mind, it's a good topic for discussion that closely relates to the addon. :) Yes, exactly what I'm trying to say, Arma isn't trying to do such things in the scope that the games like SWAT and R6 are doing nor does it need to, but it also isn't quite right as it currently stands. While the outdoor combat feels good, the moment you start to play in our around structures, it all goes a bit downhill and the fangs come out, especially with the AI. I'm not saying that CQB needs to be advanced on SWAT or R6 levels, I'd just rather have it improved to the point where I don't feel that disconnect as if I'm playing the wrong game. There were advances in Arma 3 in this regard due to the movement and control changes (for example, we have an awesome new stance adjust system that shows it's best and has most use in an urban environment), but I feel we're never going to go past considering buildings and urban areas as crutches unless slightly more consideration and effort is put into it. What would be the point of huge cities on the islands and having all buildings enterable when those areas provide less fidelity than a forest or a field.

Version 1.0.1 now available from the first post. This release improves the detection of glass doors and has slightly better detection where the player is looking that is based on the current camera vector instead of the circumstantial use of eyeDirection/weaponDirection from before.

Can we get some parentheses or a more specific formula? :D Going by what RiE wrote, it seems a bit strange. I'm assuming I came up with a wrong formula, because the results below would mean that shooting a weapon on top of AI would end up them having a minimum of 25 meter error in the best case of shooting right on top of the AI. (100 + 0) * 0.25 = (25 + 0.5) (100 + 300) * 0.25 = (100 + 0.5) (100 + 400) * 0.25 = (125 + 0.5) (100 + 500) * 0.25 = (125 + 0.5) (100 + 1000) * 0.25 = (275 + 0.5) 100 + (0 * 0.25) = (100 + 0.5) 100 + (300 * 0.25) = (175 + 0.5) 100 + (400 * 0.25) = (200 + 0.5) 100 + (500 * 0.25) = (225 + 0.5) 100 + (1000 * 0.25) = (350 + 0.5)

Thanks. :) Well, doors in Arma don't play much of a role really as the interior CQB isn't something that you find yourself in often. This because of the following: Buildings in Arma are either small houses with interiors or huge buildings which either don't have complex interiors or are not enterable at all AI isn't really any good for interior combat and mostly you'll just plant them inside and have them be static if you actually design any interior combat For players, movement inside structures up until Arma 3 hasn't really been that good, it's getting better, but this can be improved greatly with stuff like automatic weapon adjusting when you're close to a wall (think raise/lower the weapon when you're close to a wall so you can get even closer) Doors are bound to action menu which can be insanely slow process if you have interfering actions There is no locking of doors, all doors can be opened or closed at will if they have that capability You can't barricade the doors as they're only animations which are not affected by geometry, but instead, they affect geometry (you can be pushed away by someone opening the door) If there is any explosive ordnance in the mission to be used against buildings, it's almost always better just to level the building rather than risk entering it and being ambushed Now if the infantry simulation would enhance the usability of buildings where things above could be addressed, doors would become a much more important factor. Observe titles like SWAT series, Rainbow 6 and such where door play a major role. They're the most high risk thing to get through and places where you can get killed easily by being ambushed. They're not solid so if you make your presence known, they can be fired through by the enemy and kill you with your pants down. They limit the flow of force by being a choke point as one person is only able to get through them at a time and you can be ambushed by an undefined number of people behind the doors, think the tactic of the Spartans from 300. This can be countered with stuff like flashbangs and hand grenades, but flashbangs are kinda useless in Arma when you can just kill everyone with hand grenades. By the time a flashbang has gone off and you've executed your little maneover to enter the room, the job would already be done, unless of course there are friendly targets that can't be harmed. Now, this addon only addressed the one thing out of many, which is adding a non-binary choice when you're opening a door. For example, if you're one taking cover in a building, you can slightly open the door to fire out of it while still having majority of you concealed. Firing from a fully open door versus firing from a slightly open door at someone a fair distance away, the door might not even appear to be open so you might not be as easy to notice. You can toss a grenade in, etc. It's not much for the current state of the building gameplay, but hey, it's a tiny step away from the status quo.

It's not supposed to replace the default method, it's just supposed to allow you to incrementally open the doors which you cannot do by default in the game. If you want to open the door fully, then yes, getting close and using the action is much easier. I'm aware of the issue with not being able to move while holding the stance adjust, but unfortunately the default keybind for stance adjust also covers the only key that prevents the action menu from opening when you scroll the mouse wheel, which is CTRL. Further extending the implementation wouldn't be too easy as doors in Arma have a really basic implementation and you can't really do much better unless you modify the models themselves so you can detect more information about the state of the door. For example, I'd love to make it so that mouse wheel down would pull the door towards you and up away from you when possible and depending on which side of the door you're on, but I've still yet to find something that can be referenced to decide which way the door opens, what side of the door the unit is on and such. I'm having thoughts on actually just hardcoding the CTRL + MouseWheel combo for some performance benefits and so that the movement can still be had for those who don't use CTRL for stance adjust, but that just brings in the potential that CTRL might be used for something else for those who don't have stance adjust bound to that. If they ever fix this issue regarding the mouse buttons/wheels, then something else can be used for this in combination with the mouse wheel without having to worry about opening the action menu. Thanks for the mirror Foxhound. :) @Everyone else Glad you're enjoying the addon, I agree that this should be a vanilla feature and not a guerrilla addon. :)

Some new screenshots here. For some strange reason this one makes me think Arma 3. Might be the color palette of the terrain being similar to Stratis in combination with the Littlebird.

Assuming this is the entire script, you'd do something like private["_prob", "_heli"]; //Decides which vehicle to place based on multipliers and probability _prob = floor(random 100) * defendingMultiplier; if (_prob <= 20) then { _heli = createVehicle ["O_Heli_Attack_02_F", _targetMarkerA, [], 0, "NONE"]; ["Resources", 0.1] execVM "personalityHandler.sqf"; } else { _heli = createVehicle ["O_Heli_Light_02_F", _targetMarkerA, [], 0, "NONE"]; ["Resources", 0.05] execVM "personalityHandler.sqf"; }; _heliGroup addVehicle _heli;

The dropdown was always there, it's still stuck on the same voice ingame no matter what you pick. I don't count this towards the 5 minute grace period as it was a preexisting condition. :P

You and me obviously reacted the same way to that bit with the doors in Dsl's video. :D I had a go at implementing the R6-style fluid door opening last night and this was the result. I'm sure you're already aware of this, but I'll just mention it. SWAT4 had a pretty ok implementation of doors, it lacked incremental opening, the collision features you demonstrated and the "check if locked" was a bit awkward due to the fact you couldn't determine the state yourself unless you had a team member stack up on it but the contextual zones were done properly with auto-item selection and whatnot.