Tankbuster

Marijus, Thanks for replying here, it's probably best if we don't continue the discussion from that thread. I'm pleased to say I've solved the missing addon error. It was, as I suspected because the unit is spawned via an SQF script that is called during the mission. As such, there's no entry for it in the top bits of mission.sqm. (ie, they were never created by the mission editor) I noticed that al the units in the mission have a 'fake' spawn up on a tiny island. They have zero probability of presence, but it's enough to give them a entry, think of it as a declaration, in the first two paragraphs of mission.sqm. I did that an sure enough, the error went away!

Guys, We have a number of T90's now. I have Marijus pack, but Ike's is also popular. modEmMaik also has some. Marijus's is generating an addon error for me right now, but that might be my mistake not his. So, if anyone else has used more than one T90 in multiplayer, whose do you prefer and why? Tanky

I don't want anything more, but luckily, you're not a moderator.

Thanks for looking badg. (Can I call you badg? ) As I said to vilas in there, I think it's related to the fact the tank is spawned by a script, not by mission.sqm and thus, not mentioned in mission.sqm. I'll continue testing.

How many polys on that snowman?

Thank you badger. Just the answer I was looking for! See Vilas? How that didn't end in tears? A full and frank explanation and nobody (yet) has got their knickers in a twist. As it happens, I've gone for Marijus's as I really only want one type of T90, the green SA. I wonder, badger, if you might be able to shed any light on my addon problem in this thread about his T90?

I'm sorry, but I can not agree with this. It's perfectly possible for two addon makers to make similar things without coming to blows. It's also possible for someone to legitimately ask if one addon is better than the other. Why do you assume it will lead to flaming? Why wouldn't there be a civilised exchange of views? I don't think it's the moderators job or intention to suppress debate, whether it be contentious or controversial or not. We are entitled to know the communities views. If one or two individuals, be they addon makers or not find they can't contribute in a grown up way, why should the mods prevent ANY debate on the subject.

There certainly is such a thing as too much choice, but I for one am glad Mike decided to share his stuff freely. In this case we have 4 or 5 practically identical addons, but isn't that better than just one?

Xeno, If I've done this; <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">d_veh_a_E = [ ["T72","T90ERAwd"], Should I be making appropriate changes to <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">d_vehicle_numbers_guard = [ [[1,1], 2], // tanks (as well as _static and _patrol) d_vehicle_numbers_guard here means (I think) between 1 and 1 groups of tanks (in other words, guaranteed 1 group) of MBTs with two tanks in the group. I've got T72's *and T90's*. So, will that be one group of each, or one group with a combination of the two types?

I'm aware of the problems that can be caused by removing an addon unit using editor, when references remain in mission.sqm. This addon is not mentioned in the first two sections of mission.sqm, but then, it wouldn't be because the spawning of these tanks is controlled by a script within the mission pbo, not by mission.sqm. Also, I note that the error seems to allude to a version of 1.02, whereas I'm using 1.4. This might be because the addon maker had that name for parts of the addon and hasn't changed them as he's made newer version. Who or what is smurf anyway?

While I often don't agree with what you say, Vilas, here, I'm in total agreement. The truck load of M4 addons in OFP was not good for the community, although some might say it reflected the bewildering array of Armalites out there in the real world! I wasn't trying to start a fight amongst addon makers, I merely wanted to know ia other people had an opinion as to which pack might be best for my application, IE, they'd be grouped in a town sized area, AI controlled with lots of their freindlies about, running on a dedicated server for MP. I have do a little research and I know that some of your stuff was used in many of these addons, I didn't check but I assume you made a T90 yourself?

OK, related problem. I know how to make the T90 SA Green spawn in Domination missions, the tanks appear in the mission, but the mission gives an error at the start. I'm using the 1.4 version.

What are the classnames? Unless I've done something silly, I can't get these to spawn in Domination.

The new forums will allow searching within threads, just a little more patience required You can also select "print view" and then view the whole thread in one page, use CTRL+F to look for certain keywords, that helps find stuff Answer one as expected. Answer two. I didn't know that. Will try now. Many thanks. Happy New Year.

Dear moderators, I'm a big fan of Xeno's Domination mission, it's very popular, great fun to play and good to modify. It has a massive topic in ArmA/User missions but it's not possible to use search in individual threads and many of the questions that get asked, are asked over and over again. As we say, it's hard to see the wood for the trees. Would it be possible for us to have a seperate thread called "Editing and modding Xeno's Domination" and if so, in which forum should we put it? Thanks Tanky Paul

Hi Xeno. I like the changelog for the ACE version. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">- it is now possible to spawn more than one enemy attack plane or chopper that will fly patrol over the main target (d_number_attack_choppers, d_number_attack_planes) Would be good to see that in a future AI version. In init for my West AI 3.14 version, we have; <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">// vehicle reload time factor (for the chopper and plane service area). x_reload_time_factor = 4; // vehicle reload... turn engine off (false = don't turn engine off) d_reload_engineoff = false; My flyboys report that as they fly their jets through the service point, the engine shuts off and they can just about get it restarted in time to get airborne again so effecting a 'rolling fix and rearm'. I changed the second variable to false as you see above hoping that their engines wouldn't be shut down during this manoeuvre, but they report that they still are. My change appears to have no effect. Also, how does the reload_time_ factor work? what effect does it have and what are the acceptable ranges for this variable? Many thanks for a great mission and happy new year to you and yours!

I guess I misunderstood you. What I've added is that you can specify more than one type now but the number that get spawned is still one (will add a new parameter for the number of planes/choppers that get spawned). More that I didn't make myself clear. So I can have a single aircraft of more than one type ie, 1 Hind, 1 Sookie, 1 Ka 50 and 1 Ka 52 plus one of each MI17? Well, that's still what I call air superiority! Whereabouts is the program line? I've printed out init but can't see it.

Xeno, Last month I asked you; And you replied; Did it get added and if so, where is it coded? I want to have an enemy sky full of Hinds, Su34's and Kamovs!

Good. That's cleared that one up. Many thanks.

Not entirely sure where to ask this as it is actually about the ArmA units. In terms of armament, the 50 and the 52 are almost identical, with the 52's gunner being able to 'aim' the gun a little. I'm assuming the 'low' and 'high' cannon refers to the weapon mounted on the starboard side of the airframe *not on the wing*. Questions; Does the low and high refer to a selectable rate of fine, in the same way the UH-60 miniguns have 2000 and 4000 rpm? The ArmA version can also 'reload HE' or 'reload AP' but but ammo types share the same magazine. Can a single round be given these two very different properties in the gun? I would have thought they'd have been two different types of ammo? Wikipedia (on the RL aircraft) does seem to support the game's assertion; So, how does that work then?

Guys, I'm after a particular application that may or may not exist. I'm not even completely sure how I want it to work. Perhaps if I explain what I am doing, maybe you gents might know of something that will help. I'm modifying Xeno's Domination to make a clan version. Usually it's the same few edits, change the base flag to a clan one, increase the number of rounds fired by HE artillery, turn on map markers and stuff like this. This means small edits to the init file, the description file and to the many scripts that run this fabulous mission. But whenever Xeno brings out a new version of this mission, I have to go over all my edits again. Other than not using the latest version of this mission, how can I make this process easier? Thanks in advance, Tanky PS, I already use Arma edit and depbo.

Agreed. Or maybe, put the ammo crate and the flag on the ground floor?

I'm dropping a few choice addons into this mission, but I need a little help with something. Usually you have to refer to the addon unit by it's specific name, here, for example when you allow an MI 17 to be lifted by the wreck chopper, but these addons have odd names. With the BIS stuff, it's just Mi17, but how do I find the equivanlent names for addon units? x_heli_wreck_lift_types = sm_bonus_vehicle_array + mt_bonus_vehicle_array + ["Mi17"];

That sounds like just the ticket, Gnat. As ever, I'm indebted to you and Q.

Thanks for replying guys. So you're suggesting I used some sort of compare program? I edit version A and then version B comes along. I compare the two and the application can be made to apply the edits from version A to version B. I can understand how that would work, but would it be happy to ignore the edits made by the original author (ie, not undo them) of version B while still applying mine?