beta

For removing your corpses you could do something like this: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">for "_i" from 0 to ((Count _Array)-1) do { If !(Alive (_Array Select _i)) Then { _Array Set [_i,ObjNull]; }; }; _Array=_Array-[ObjNull]; Ah, perfect. Much better than the way I was trying (the compiler doesn't like it when you have something like: _array select 0 = _array select 1; ). Going to give it a try, thanks! EDIT: Looks like it worked, thanks again!

So, I have an array called _array. This array is populated with units of class SoldierWB (all BLUFOR soldier classes). The problem is, this also includes corpses and that is causing problems for my script. The array is updated every second via the nearestObjects command. There will be no more than 7 elements in the array (unless something goes wrong heh). What I would like to know is: what would be the easiest way to remove the corpses from this array? My first guess would be something along the lines of: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> _x = nearestObjects [player, "SoldierWB", 55]; {if (!(alive _array select _x)) then { ? ? ? };} forEach _array; I am not sure what would go in the "? ? ?" spot. I guess I could simply dereference the element, ie: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> _array select (_x - 1) = _array select _x; But, then I would need to include logic to detect if it is the first element or not, ie: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> if (_x == 0) then {_array = _array - _array;}; Now, this isn't all that complicated, but I don't know if this would be too demanding to be run every second. I guess I should just try it out, but I was just interested to know if anyone else has any experience with this kind of thing? EDIT: Heh. Emoticons.

This is probably the final version (unless someone spots some bugs), added Shack Tac markers and a few other things. Latest is v122.

Here is a mission I made for ArmA. I noticed a lack of publicly available TvT missions, so I decided to make one. If people like the style, I can make a bunch of similar missions off of the scripting framework. The Obregan Gap v128 Max. Players: 67 (35 BLUFOR, 32 REDFOR) Min. Players: 2 Min. Recommended Players: 20 Time limit: 60 minutes Download link: http://gloryhoundz.com/prmm....ase.rar Quick Description The BLUFOR must destroy the bridge south of Obregan. They have one platoon of infantry, and an accompanying Stryker Platoon. The REDFOR must defend the bridge. They have one platoon of infantry with a MG team, and an AT team (who are low on ammo) and a Mi-17 crew. BLUFOR Groups: Platoon HQ - 1 Platoon Leader, 2 Platoon Medics 1st Section - 1 Section Leader, 1 Section 2IC, 2 ARs, 1 GL, 1 AT, 2 Riflemen 2nd Section - 1 Section Leader, 1 Section 2IC, 2 ARs, 1 GL, 1 AT, 2 Riflemen 3rd Section - 1 Section Leader, 1 Section 2IC, 2 ARs, 1 GL, 1 AT, 2 Riflemen Recce Element - 1 Element Leader, 1 Element Member 1st Stryker Crew - 1 Driver, 1 Gunner 2nd Stryker Crew - 1 Driver, 1 Gunner 3rd Stryker Crew - 1 Driver, 1 Gunner 4th Stryker Crew - 1 Driver, 1 Gunner REDFOR Groups: Platoon HQ - 1 Platoon Leader, 2 Platoon Medics 1st Section - 1 Section Leader, 1 Section 2IC, 1 MG, 1 GL, 4 Riflemen 2nd Section - 1 Section Leader, 1 Section 2IC, 1 MG, 1 GL, 4 Riflemen 3rd Section - 1 Section Leader, 1 Section 2IC, 1 MG, 1 GL, 4 Riflemen AT Team - 1 AT Team Leader, 1 AT Team Gunner Mi-17 Pilot BLUFOR must have a Stryker crew, or the infantry will have a long walk. REDFOR must have an Mi-17 crew, or the reinforcements will have a long walk. Notable Features: * Only Crewmen can drive or gun in the Strykers. * Only Pilots can drive or gun in the Mi-17. * Vehicles can be rearmed at base. * There are no weapons available in the mission, only ammunition. * There is a limited amount of ammunition available. * Wave Respawn system, you respawn after 5 minutes or if there are 4 or more people at your base. * Dome of Death for both bases. * Deployable barbed wire fences, foxholes, and HMGs from a Ural. * Fortified houses that destroy the defenses when the house is destroyed. * Full briefing. * Pre-placed defenses, including static weapons. Thanks to BAS f for the crew check, briefing, and Shack Tac marker system, Xeno for the vehicle service script, sickboy for the multiplayer scripting wiki page, Shack Tac for the marker system, and to everyone who helped out on the BI Forums!

So, I have a problem. I need to have a file and a few commands run on any new players (JIP players). I took a look at sickboy's MP scripting wiki page. ( http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/6thSense.eu:EG ) I used the code to determine what type of machine the connection is. I then made a nested if set to run some code depending on the machine type (client, dedi server, etc.). Here is the relevant part of the init.sqf: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> //determine machine type // from sickboy's multiplayer scripting wiki page T_INIT = false; T_Server = false; T_Client = false; T_JIP = false; if (isServer) then { T_Server = true; if (!(isNull player)) then { T_Client = true }; T_INIT = true; } else { T_Client = true; if (isNull player) then { T_JIP = true; [] spawn { waitUntil { !(isNull player) }; T_INIT = true }; } else { T_INIT = true; }; }; //dedicated server if ((T_Server && !T_Client) && T_INIT) then { [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_server.sqf"; } else { //JIP client if (T_JIP && T_INIT) then { setViewDistance param2; [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_client.sqf"; } else { //client if ((T_Client && !T_Server) && T_INIT) then { setViewDistance param2; [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_client.sqf"; } else { //client server if (T_Client && T_INIT) then { [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_server.sqf"; setViewDistance param2; [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_client.sqf"; }; }; }; }; This is what the main_thread_client.sqf file looks like (the server one is blank for now): <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> //Written by beta //Main thread for the client //remove enemy markers if (side player == WEST) then { //player on BLUFOR deleteMarkerLocal "defensive_minefield"; deleteMarkerLocal "defensive_minefield_area1"; deleteMarkerLocal "defensive_minefield_area2"; deleteMarkerLocal "defensive_minefield_area3"; deleteMarkerLocal "defensive_line"; deleteMarkerLocal "hardpoint1"; deleteMarkerLocal "hardpoint2"; deleteMarkerLocal "hardpoint3"; deleteMarkerLocal "hardpoint4"; deleteMarkerLocal "hardpoint5"; deleteMarkerLocal "hardpoint6"; deleteMarkerLocal "hardpoint7"; deleteMarkerLocal "hardpoint8"; deleteMarkerLocal "REDFOR area"; deleteMarkerLocal "REDFOR armour staging area"; deleteMarkerLocal "respawn_east"; } else { //player on REDFOR deleteMarkerLocal "enemy_defenses1"; deleteMarkerLocal "enemy_defenses2"; deleteMarkerLocal "enemy_defenses3"; deleteMarkerLocal "enemy_defenses4"; deleteMarkerLocal "enemy_minefield"; deleteMarkerLocal "enemy_defensive_line"; deleteMarkerLocal "BLUFOR area"; deleteMarkerLocal "BLUFOR staging area"; deleteMarkerLocal "respawn_west"; }; skipTime param1; //set time to param1 sleep 0.5; [] execVM "scripts\spawn_arm.sqf"; //arm the player [] execVM "scripts\player_death.sqf"; //listen for the player's death if (true) exitWith {}; Now, the problem is: It doesn't work. More specifically, the JIP players do not have their time adjusted, nor do they get the proper weapons loadouts (on spawn or respawn), and they have all the markers on their maps. The players who were there from the beginning however DO have all these things. I am sure I've done something wrong, I just can't seem to find what it is. Any help would be MUCH appreciated, as I've been struggling with this for the better part of 3 weeks now.

Thanks for all the help guys! Looks like its working now, thanks again!

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> if (isServer) then { [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_server.sqf"; } else { waitUntil {!(isNull player)}; setViewDistance param2; [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_client.sqf"; }; One question about the code you posted: What about client-servers? From my understanding, the client-server would not run any of the client scripts. Would adding a check to see if the server is also a player work? Such as <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> if (isServer) then { [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_server.sqf"; if (!(isNull player)) then { setViewDistance param2; [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_client.sqf"; }; } else { waitUntil {!(isNull player)}; setViewDistance param2; [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_client.sqf"; }; I would like this mission to be able to be run (properly) on as many configurations as possible. Thanks again for the help, still trying to wrap my head around this network scripting

Thanks for the replies. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">waitUntil {!(isNull player)}; T_INIT = true; I'll give this a try, I wasn't completely clear on why it was in a spawned function either. I was under the impression that time passed since the mission has started was something that was automatically synced at the mission start, as explained here. So, <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> if (isServer) then { [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_server.sqf"; } else { waitUntil {T_INIT}; setViewDistance param2; [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_client.sqf"; }; should run the needed scripts on all players (JIP or otherwise)? I'll try it out. Thanks again!

Good to know the random complaining was useful for something. I started making my map (which is just about to enter closed testing on a dedi server *crosses fingers and hopes for the best*) because I was sick of Evo, and was sick of the PvP options. If all goes well on the testing, it might be out by Friday (haha, wishful thinking I bet).

I will try ANY ArmA PvP mission once. If the mission includes: -restricted weapons (and, no, you can't have all the weapons in a crate somewhere) -can't drive a Tank/Jet/Helicopter as some random rifleman -players in SQUADS, not just on their own causing ungodly amounts of text spam -FEW armoured/air vehicles I will play it probably exclusively ... MAYBE some Sahrani Life once in a while.

Okay. Figured it out. As predicted, quite stupid mistake. The if then else works right. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">if (isServer) then { //server [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_server.sqf"; if (!(isNull player)) then { //server-client [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_client.sqf"; }; } else { //client if (isNull player) exitWith { //JIP-client [] spawn { waitUntil { !(isNull player) }; }; [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_client.sqf"; }; [] execVM "scripts\main_thread_client.sqf"; }; Is the code that works. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">[] spawn { waitUntil { !(isNull player) }; }; This was the line with the error, I was missing the spawn's closing bracket. I guess it's time to enable my IDE's "auto-close bracket" feature Thanks for the help Linker Split!

Trying this, I get an error: missing ";" after the opening "{" of the else. Trying this, I get an error: missing "}" after the opening "{" of the first if. I've read over the biki page on if then else, from what I read there, this should be working ... http://community.bistudio.com/wiki....tements It's probably something incredible stupid .... usually is

Wish I would have seen this sooner! That was VERY helpful, answered all the questions I had about locality (so far). Now I just need to get around these "unwritten" limitations ... like how addAction doesn't work so well if you execute it just after a player enters a vehicle (apparently). Slowly but surely, I am learning. I agree. However, you have to be careful. Some people seem to equate high density to a small play area. You can still have a large environment to move around in, and yet keep it high density battle. Simple things like terrain and forests provide natural obstacles and are a great way to "softly" enforce a restricted play area. Another great tool for doing this, albeit slightly "harder", is minefields. There are some scripted solutions out there, and you can always make your own the "hard way". Minefields are an excellent deterrent. However, they do not completely restrict the player, you can still move through a minefield, VERY slowly in vehicles, but at a regular pace on foot (until you get some APERS mines in an addon that is). So instead of forcing players to do what you want, strong suggestion allows for more replay value as you can try new (and strange) tactics on the same mission. I agree, it is a little wierd, it tends to "skip" around instead of flow smoothly. It seems like the sampling rate for detecting mouse movement is a lot slower than in most other FPS'. Thank you. Maybe now SOMEONE will play some sort of public PvP on a 1.09b server. The VON works sometimes, and when it is working, the possibility of teamwork grows by about 1000%.

I agree. I've been waiting for a serious PvP map for a while now. Doesn't seem like anyone is up for the task. So, with my admittedly limited scripting knowledge, (lousy Client-Server scripting ...) I'm going to give it a try. We'll see. However, half the PvP experience is out of the mission maker's hands. If the server running it isn't running proper "PvP settings", it can ruin the mission. Like JeRK says, removal of the crosshair is vital, so is 3rd person, Auto-Report, and Kill Messages, IMO. You can try and make a mission as realistic as you want, but if the players can just drive that T72 in 3rd person, the infantry have no chance, or if the player randomly spots a sniper in the woods, from 500m, when they aren't even looking that direction, it can be frustrating. One thing I think that ArmA PvP is missing is a revive system. Yes, its not realistic, you can try and rationalize, but in the end, it isn't realistic. However, it is VERY helpful to build cooperation. As it is right now, other players around you are a liability instead of help. It is more dangerous to move as a group than it is alone, simple as that. With this type of atmosphere, it is nearly impossible to expect cooperation in the team, it is easier AND more effective to have 30 lone wolves than it is to organize into some sort of team. I also do not understand when people say that the ArmA controls are unresponsive or "clunky". The ONLY thing I can see having trouble with is the aiming/movement of weapons. It is slightly sluggish, the weapon has weight, and trying to get the "feel" for that weight with a mouse is very hard, you will often "over steer" your sites and swing back and forth over your target without getting a good picture. I think it only takes practice. Yes, it isn't as precise as OFP, BUT OFP was unrealistically precise, the weapons didn't seem to have any weight, IMO. I really think that ArmA PvP should take a hint from PR. I play both ArmA and PR. ArmA is great for the realism; accurate modelling of ballistics (you think ArmA is bad? LOL), realistic size and object density on the "maps", easily modified content, etc. PR is great for the cooperation and teamwork. Some people have said that you cannot simple stick a bunch of "public" people together and hope they work together. This is proven wrong each and every time I play a PR map. Random people, most having never met each other, will work together to achieve the team's goal. I think ArmA PvP is simply lacking a open-ended, objective oriented, BALANCED PvP mission set. New game modes are VITAL. Evolution was great ... 2 months ago, Sahrani Life is great, but it isn't everyone's idea of an "ArmA mission". Playing the same thing, over and over, can be very tiresome. Well thats a big enough wall of text for now

That makes sense now. Hmmm, well looks like I will have to rewrite a bunch of scripts then ... It's a shame that deleting vehicles is the only way to rearm them, maybe something will done in the next patches to either fix the setVehicleAmmo command or add/modify existing commands to be able to access the individual turrets. I guess I will go read the behemoth that is the ArmA Wishlist

I think everyone is playing COOP simply because there is very little other choice. There are PvP missions out there, various CTFs, Bezerk, some C&Hs. But most of these cater VERY little to any more complex form of teamwork. Such a thing is quite common in even the most basic for of COOP. An example. If everyone can: 1) Carry a sniper rifle/Assault rifle with optics and a GL 2)An AT weapon 3)Drive a tank/jet/chopper What is the point of relying on someone else? You can kill infantry with your rifle, you can kill tanks with your AT weapon, and that is only if you manage to lose your vehicle! Without some sort of restrictions on what players can and cannot use, any ArmA PvP is basically team deathmatch with vehicles. Yes, there are some large clans/leagues out there that may have something different than what I just described, but the problem is you cannot simply "play right away". I have read the sites for all the major clans/leagues and there is not very much that would indicate it's anything but a giant vehicle, sniper/rocket man deathmatch. Basically, make an organized, focused, and realistic PvP mission, and you will see a LOT more PvP servers.

Has anyone figured this out yet? Is there a way to select which turret you want the ammunition to go to? I can't seem to find any script command that would allow this. This seems to explain why the "bug" that you cannot fully reload the secondary turrets is still here after 5 patches. Any other workarounds for this besides deleting the vehicle and placing a new one? Edit: Where might I find the BIS script that does the rearming from an ammo truck? Since that script seems to rearm all turrets in a vehicle (albeit buggy in an MP environment), there might be a command or technique that we could use from there.

Ah, didn't download the videos, not on the best connection, so it would take an hour for even the low-res ones. All I can say is : Hooray! Even better than I hoped for! I see, that sounds pretty good. However, without a mute option, the radio comms might get quite confusing, especially in a public setting. It would be nice if you could mute players specifically, and also entire channels (ie: muting the Global channel, or the Side channel). From my experience, people tend to forget (very often) what channel they are on and talk away about what they had for supper. But hey, I'm not complaining, I will gladly listen to someone's culinary delights if it tells me who they are, so I can find them in game and loudly yell at them over direct speak . Thanks again!

Very good news! I've been hoping that ArmA's voice system would be working since 1.00. Back at 1.05 I remember it half-worked, and when it didn't cause a blue-screen-of-death, the direct speech channel was AWESOME. TS is a great application and all, but it has many limitations. Most of these limitations are not apparent in the 'standard' ArmA MP-session of either Evolution, Bezerk, CTF, or similar. However, when you try and play a large-scale (30 vs. 30) combined arms PvP battle, TS flaws are quite apparent. It takes a long while to organize people into the required channels, and not putting people into channels will lead to MADNESS. 30 people all yelling about something at the same time is NOT an effective means of communication. Once you get all the channels set up, get all the inter-channel keys set up, TS works nicely. Having the ArmA VOIP (if it indeed DOES work, you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical, I've been disappointed 5 times now) working, especially with the direct speech channel, communication becomes MUCH easier and natural. With TS, if you wanted to talk to a squad that in the game is standing two meters from you, you would have to have the proper keys bound, and remember them which can be difficult if there are 5-6 channels. With ArmA VOIP, simply transmit on the direct channel and they hear you. ... Anyways, on to my questions. 1) Does the VOIP in fact ACTUALLY work, or is this some sort of cruel joke? Be honest now. 2) When transmitting to the Group or Side channel, if a player not in your Group or on your Side is within audible distance (the distance you could hear it if it was transmitted on the Direct channel) will they hear it as well? Basically, do Group and Side transmission also transmit on Direct? If not, I think that would be a great feature, obviously depending on how easy it is to implement. This would simulate using the radio, much like how the Menu-driven commands play both over the radio and from the character. However, the Global channel should remain as the "unrealistic" channel, and not be transmitted on Direct as well. 3) Will you hear Global transmissions if you are set to say, the Group channel? Or will being on a channel filter out the radio traffic of the other channels? Again, I think this would help a lot to lessen the problem of "radio spammers". Yes, you could just kick them, but some people just tend to go nuts with the feature, but are otherwise good players. If the transmissions were filtered, you could seek "solitude" in the Direct channel heh. This would need the player to switch channels more often, but I think it would be worth the hassle to effectively eliminate the annoying "radio chatter". Thats all I can think of for now, thank you VERY much for taking the time to give us this information AND to respond to the questions (even the aggravating ones) that have been asked!

What I am trying to do is to move the point of view of the optics on the model forwards in an attempt to make the weapon's sight picture more accurate as to how you would sight the weapon. BUT I do NOT want any optical zoom, so simply changing opticsZoomMin or opticsZoomMax will not work. I think the key to doing this lies in adding a new memoryPointCamera further "up" the model than it currently is. I am NOT a modeller and have a hard time trying to get such things to work. Is there a way to do this without editing the model (model is a Native ArmA M16A2)? If not, how would you go about editing the model to achieve these results? Edit:Well, I have figured out how to do this (I think), moving the memory point "eye" in the model changes the sight picture.

Thanks for this script link. If I can't it working with event handlers I will probably use canMove and canFire and such. Also, if a command fails to be processed, will it give an error in the script/function or will it just skip it and go to the next command? If it skips it, that would explain the vehicle's name being 0x100, looks a lot like a null value.

The Script: //check if running on server if (! (local server)) then {exit}; //type of vehicle _vehicleType = _this select 0; //respawn point of vehicle _respawnPoint = _this select 1; //vehicle spawn delay in seconds sleep 1.0; //create the new vehicle, orient it (doesnt seem to be working for second dead vehicle) _newVehicle = _vehicleType createVehicle getPos _respawnPoint; _newVehicle setDir direction _respawnPoint; player sideChat format["Vehicle created, name: %1", _newVehicle]; //listen for the new vehicle's death, then run the script again _newVehicle addEventHandler ["killed", {[_vehicleType, _respawnPoint] spawn respawnPRarmaVehicle;}]; player sideChat format["Event handler created, name: %1", _newVehicle]; The init of the vehicle: this addEventHandler ["killed", {["Truck5t_PRARMA", BLUFOR_1stsection_truck_respawn] spawn respawnPRarmaVehicle;}]; The debug output: (on the first vehicle's destruction) Vehicle created, name: 14A27000# 638002: 5T_Closed.P3D Event handler created, name: 14A27000# 638002: 5T_Closed.P3D (on the second vehicle's destruction) Vehicle created, name: 0x100 Event handler created, name: 0x100 The Problem: The script seems to be working for the first vehicle (original placed via the editor), it creates the new vehicle and adds it event handler. The new name seems to be ok. However, when the second vehicle is destroyed, the third vehicle's name is 0x100 and it is not created nor is the event handler added. I think that the third vehicle having the name 0x100 means something went wrong with it's creation. Don't know what went wrong or why, that's why I posted here Edit: Fixed a typo.

Have you ever been outside on a moonless overcast night? It is realistic. That IS what it looks like at night with no streetlights, headlights, flashlights or other artificial lighting. It is truly DARK at night.

I screwed around with this type of thing quite a bit. I found that turning off auto-report and NOT spotting the enemy reducing this a LOT. Seems a 'unintended feature' (sort of a bug i guess? heh) that when you spot an enemy, they know where you are. My guess is that it's the "yelled" commands and the range of the heard sound is a little bit to far. Since even if you are 1km from the troops the 'word files' are played, the 'medic name word' seems to be missing so it gives an error the first time it's played in a mission, and it gives that error whether you are in hearing range of the sound or not. A lot of the times it seems like the AI made an impossible shot, or was an 'expert' marksman, but there is one large difference between ArmA and OFP with the AI. They CAN see partly through foliage, where as in OFP they could not. So, if you are partly hidden by a bush (your shoulder and arm are sticking out) and where a VERY observant player could see you, the AI will see you and take you out. It's not always perfect, but making simply force-on-force skirmishes in the editor and just WATCHING as a civilian will really shed some light on how and why the AI does what it does, I find if you know what it is doing "in general", theres a lot less frustrating deaths. Same goes with players, it's just easier to "understand the beast" when it is another person. Really? Did you do anything specific? My placed MGs NEVER, EVER do ANYTHING useful, they just swivel a bit and get taken out by the unholy amount of fire the AI puts down on 'em. Jeez, if only they did that at EVERY infantry contact, THEN you would have some interesting battles. Probably would die less, there's NO way you're sticking your head out in suppressive fire like that!

What I'm trying to do is to get the action to heal (like at the field hospital) and repair (like at the repair truck) to be transferred to an object (say a first aid cabinet or a crate). Tried to search, but I don't quite know what key words to look for, the searches turned up nothing useful. Hopefully someone knows ...