TRexian

You had me at "toroid-shaped effectors." You had me... at... "toroid." ;)

[h] ;) :)

No worries! I'm glad people are still interested! :) I appreciate the patience. In going through the documentation myself, trying to figure out what I did, I realized that my documentation was pretty poor. Will try to post something soon, even if it is still pretty rough.

@Shammy The scriptdone is probably the best way, maybe used conjunction with waituntil (scriptdone scriptvariablename). There is a global variable that keeps an array of units that are still occupied, and that may help. In all honesty, though, I never could figure out a way to have a group go through waypoints, take a break to search a building, then continue on with the waypoints. @ KING I would start by setting up the trigger, and onActivate have it start the script. You can use the group of the first unit in thisList as the group, then use the radius that you want. If you want to get fancy, you can probably have it use the radius of the trigger itself. Sorry that I can't be more helpful with the syntax. Six months out of scripting, and my script-fu is full of fail....

Sorry I've been out of this for so long. Not sure when I'll be able to spend more time on this, but I'm gratified that there's still interest! I'll try to determine whether I have a newer version that I can post. I seem to recall it working quite well - notwithstanding AI issues falling off of rooftops.

haha Glad you like it. Sounds like a fun mission. :)

Wow. That is strong.

LOL I saw that stuff in the feature list and... indeed... got more than a little excited. :D I also remember when I first got passengers dynamically in buses and trucks. Thought, "That is f'n cool." :) Will absolutely check this out, then, and I suspect DMarkwick will, too.

haha That's not a dumb question at all. :) I had to think about it for a minute. I think that whichever is the last script to be called will be the one executed. So, if that is run after the building search, it will probably take precedence. BUT, it may also just really confuse the sh!t out of the AI, so I'm not sure what they might do. :) I would suggest having different groups for the two functions, at least for now, unless and until I figure out how to really create a checkin/checkout function.

Very cool idea! I've skimmed the thread, and my impression is that this is intended for MP? :) Is it possible to run it in SP, with a group of AI? If not, will you be pursuing something like that, and if not that, would you be offended if someone did? :) Thanks, T

Hmmm... blocksearch should still be implemented. Will check that. In terms of getting AI specifically to the rooftops, I'm not sure. If there isn't a buildingposition there, it gets tricky. Off the top of my head, I think I'd have to figure out the 'top' of the building using boundingbox or something, then setpos the unit there. That seems risky, though, and somewhat immersion-killing if you see a guy suddenly appear on a rooftop. :) With the larger buildings, with many building positions, the 'occupy' option will only put units in the 'last' numbered positions. They may or may not be on the roof of a building. I can try to get something that works on buildingID. That isn't a bad idea. :) Edit: Certain circumstances beyond my control mean that it may be awhile before any updates. I mean, longer than usual for me...

Indeed, free does not necessarily equate with open. That's why I said 'free' and not 'open.' To my knowledge, no one charges for ArmA addons, so any addons that would be 'orphaned' would be free/no charge. My point was more to the liability for damages. Damages from no-cost derivative works originating from no-cost source content would basically be zero. Going further, though, unless we're talking about BI actually incorporating these orphan projects into BI content, we're really just talking about BI allowing the distribution of the derivative content. At an even more basic level, all they can really do is allow/not allow such content to be linked from their forums. It would be a rather tangled argument to say that allowing such links somehow makes them liable for some other party's creation of derivative works. The liability for infringing on the IP would attach to the creator of the infringing work. BI's passive allowance of linking would be unlikely to create any additional liability. My understanding is that that allowance would be a change. But again, unless the claimant can point to some monetary gain by BI as a direct result of the infringing derivative work, damages would be very difficult to prove.

Liability for allowing free distribution of free derivative works from free source content? Assuming the complainant could make a valid claim of IP protection, the damages would be very close to zero. :) Like, almost indistinguishable from zero.

New version: http://www.mediafire.com/file/358tban6w9mgo99/JTD_Wolf3dMission_0211.7z Starting to flesh out the end-game scenario. ;)

They probably complain about human players having magical maps that indicate enemy positions, sneaking up on them in the darkness and headshot'ing them from 200m with silenced M9s. :)