Varanon

Or even better, the issue tracker.

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No That's what this thread has become.

Yeah, and "Apples, not violins". Sounds silly ? It is. No connection between the two. Like in sandbox and milsim. Sandbox does not preclude milsim, nor the other way around. If you try to make a point by throwing around words, you'd better make sure it makes sense. This one doesn't. ---------- Post added at 12:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 PM ---------- You mix up fans with customers. Paying customers, actually. I'm always amazed that people would jump on a car dealer if they sold them a car without seats, but at the same time bitch at people for doing the same with software. And for the record, I DID buy the supporter edition AND I would spent a few Euro on DLC if it were good. Just mean ? I see a lot of people being called names by "optimistic people" (and vice versa, too). Talk about mean. Unfortunately, almost everyone here is one-sided. You are either a "fanboy", or a "fixmoaner". No one even believes that someone may like some aspects of the game and doesn't like others. You're either labeled black or white. THAT is the real problem in this "community" these days.

Well now we know where the companys focus is. Yeah, it will just not sustain them for over ten years like the Arma franchise did

And it seems to be Visitor 4, not 3... Yay!

Someone joining in progress, perhaps ? Edit: Damn Autocorrect

Speak for yourself. I didn't buy the supporter edition for the DLCs, so so please don't speak for me. Period. I bought every game and every expansion from OFP to Arma 3. I did it because I liked the games. Besides, I would bet that MOST people bought the supporter edition for the support, not for anything else. However, saying that if BIS makes no DLC, someone is going to be miffed is their right. You have no right to judge them on that. Also Period.

DLCs don't necessarily split the community IF BIS keeps bringing out "lite" versions of the DLC. But in general, I agree, larger DLC/expansions would be better than multiple smaller ones.

I don't quite understand what you mean, and obviously, you haven't understood what I meant, either. I've created a mission. I have to weigh what to use in terms of addons. So, what addons do I use ? If I sue too many, people won't bother downloading my mission. I know I don'T bother with missions that use more than a handful of addons. Let's give an example: CWR2. Great mod, pretty big. Would you rather download a mission that says "Needs CWR2" or "Needs CWR2_weapons_east, CWR2_weapons_west, CWR2_weapon_fia, CWR2_vehicles_west, CWR2_vehicles_east, CWR2_vehicles_fia" etc. It's not about how YOU organize your harddisk. It's about the convenience of download for the user, keeping track of updates etc. Yes, and if you want to use them, you have to download EACH AND EVERY ONE by itself. Quite obviously, you didn't. I hope you do now ? No, the real issue, and IIRC, that's what CUP is about, is to create a unified apporach for all the A2 assets to be ported. If done right, all the weapons, for example, use the same set of attachments. In fact, you give one more example of why having hundreds of addons is a bad thing. Due to the way attachments are handled, each potential weapon mod would come with it's own set of attachments. So, you might tend up with a PSO scope that fits on an AK47, but not on an AK74 since that's from another author. And the Kobra sight that the AK74 author did does not fit the AK47. The issue right now is unification. Otherwise, we end up with tons of different addons with different features and far different quality.

Of course it can. If you moveInGunner a player, he is put into the vehicle you specify. Of course, the player can choose to exit the vehicle, but he will be in when the command is executed. You can verify yourself: place a player in the editor, and an empty mortar, name it mortar, preview, and type 'player mobeInGunner mortsr' on the console. By the way, giving a unit a name basically creates a variable with that name whose value is the object. So _blue7 = blue7 does work

Of course, no one is actually trying to force people to cooperate, or make them not release their mods. I'm not saying they MUST do it, but in the interest of the players, they SHOULD do it. It can only be beneficial for them. Stir the PR cup ;) Probably there aren't a lot of people that are aware of the effort at all

Lots of mods is really a bad idea, IMHO. As a mission maker, I always try to stay away from using too many mods. Just look at some of the weapon mods that have been made based on the A2 content: People actually released mods with single weapons. When I make a mission, do I want to tell people to download @m4, @SMAW, @M249, @DMR, @M24, @G36, @m16 ? No, I would like to tell them to download @a2_weapons. And it doesn't stop with the number of mods, but there will most likely also be duplicate efforts, like, people trying to port over M4s/M16s from Arma 2 only to find out that someone else already did that. Wasted time. That's why an effort like CUP is necessary for this. Otherwise, we'll be swamped with A2 conversions that are badly done, rushed, sloppy, have vastly different quailities etc. Look at A3MP: It still contains config entries for things that aren't even in A3MP, like vehicles and weapons. This will not only cause problems with the mod itself (loading singleplayer games doesn't work), but it will also create potential config file conflicts when using other mods. Unfortunately, most people are rushing out projects like this just to be the first to release it.

In yesterday's session at the CiA Arma 3 COOP night, we encountered a lot of stuttering and micro-freezes during gameplay. For some missions, it was immediately at the start, for others it came in after half an hour of play. And yes, we used the -nologs option to disable spamming the RPT file. Reverting to the last stable build fixes the problem, so it must have come in between the last stable and yesterday's beta (and still is in the current beta). Anyone got similar problems ? ---------- Post added at 01:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 PM ---------- I have a similar issue with the submarine in a mission I'm doing right now. The sub's "gunner" can't look through the periscope. Switching from any position to the gunner seat doesn't change that. What DOES change it is getting out of the vehicle and then getting in again: I can then use the optics no problem. The setup I have is similar to most missions that start you in a vehicle: init fields of the units contain "this moveInGunner westSub1" (resp. driver and cargo).

How does that look specifically ? Is the weather and time automatically distributed, or does the server need to execute, for example, a function to do that ?

Zeus announcment

Right now, it's possible to simply take over full control of any AV unless it's controlled by someone else. I'd like to see a possibility to allow restrictions on AVs via scripting: Ticket. For example, it would be nice to restrict the player control to just the gunner position. Or make certain UAVs not accessible by all terminals (in Aram2, it was possible to link the UAV to an item that controlled it). And my personal pet peeve is the fact that AV's will ALWAYS behave like normal soldiers and go into danger mode, attack on their own accord, etc... you can't place a darter somewhere, laser mark a target, then switch to another UAV and shoot a missile at the laser target because the darter has already moved on and tries to engage an enemy without weapons.

Please not again a thread about Steam. We had enough of those, honestly

I can add a function to update the task position. The reason you don't see it in MP is that tasks are local, they have to be replicated on each client.

A question I hope some dev can answer: What about features that were in before and have been removed because of problems. Will they come back ? I mean things like: - Inventory in briefing in MP (it's in SP already, why not MP ? ) - Slowdown due to fatigue - Those absolute awesome clouds that we saw in just one beta (honestly, best clouds ever in a game) It's some sort of pet peeve of mine to hear about those things. At least, whether there is an intention of bringing these back at one point (as always no promises, I know)

At 6:10 some steam popup comes in... don't tell me they really added achievements ? ---------- Post added at 04:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ---------- Yeah, both the plane and the trucks look really good

I'm not saying it's a good idea, just that this was probably the intention, i.e. just create the illusion of combat going on beyond the current area of operation. The module needs to just spawn the ammo and be silent or have a new weapon class created specifically for it so we can map new sounds to it rather than have to fake the audio like was done on their zeus trailer. Agreed. The current tracer module is "the easy way out": It probably did what the devs intended for it to do.

It's been called a lot. Some devs called it a simulation, too. The box at called Arms 2 a simulation. Arms 3 is the successor. In the end, this whole "Sim vs. Sandbox vs. Game" discussion is rather pointless and there is no need to bring this up like a mantra every time.

Indeed. And it's not only their number, but also the environment they are placed in. AI in dense urban areas cause abysmal performance. We had a case with one mission that was unplayable, so we moved all units to another place on the map, adjusted some triggers and markers, even added some units, and the relocated mission was about twice as fast

I think the main purpose of the tracer module is ambient combat, I.e. you aren't supposed to go near it, really

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. It's not bad, but only useful to a certain audience. As such, too much hype. Edit: I should also add that I was a very active player on Neverwinter Nights servers in the past. Zeus is similar to the DM client, and I can safely say that an active DM can really spice up things tremendously.