Varanon

Just did

Strange problem with this one: Start Cipher-CO 10 and have one client connect, taking up spot #8. Cipher is a bit peculiar in that all units start in the same spot, with some of them moved into a helicopter, and the rest moved to another starting location and the teams split. With the new beta, the team that is normally moved to the other starting location remains at the original point (where they have been placed in the editor). It used to work with the previous beta Can anyone confirm this ? I'll try to come up with a repro, but this is probably not going to be easy to reproduce.

Yep, gone for me too, although there's still a slight moonwalking effect (animations running too slow), but I guess that simply wasn't addressed yet.

I should clarify: I wrote animations, but I meant the actual movement, i.e. as Alwarren wrote, the footsteps overtake the actual soldier making the footsteps. It looked like the soldiers were moonwalking sometimes, but this might have been the same problem as the deformations seen in the video.

We tested this on a hosted game with one connected client, both running 84391, so it is definitely not a version incompatibility.

Yeah, I had those as well, and without switching to the desktop. I also noted that animation of players from other clients are slower than normal. You can even see their own footprints overtake them.

Seems the handgun stuck problem is gone, I tested with my mission that could reproduce the problem with 99 % certainty, and it never happened now after several tries. The machinegunner still prefers the pistol over his MG36, but that seems to be a faulty range for the G17, as has been mentioned here before. Thanks for the fix, that was really an annoying bug that cost many a good soldier a bullet to the leg ;)

Well, I've cross-checked with some of the PMC missions, and guess what, they have a similar problem: In MP, some damages are different. So my guess is that you're right: Damage to buildings is not correctly distributed. The peculiar thing is that if I run the mission as dedicated server, then all clients see the same destruction (i.e. it looks correct). However, in a hosted match (one machine hosts and another connects as client), the host machine sees a different destruction. The client always sees the same picture (it should since the seed is fixed) regardless of whether it's standalone server or hosted. If it's standalone, all clients see the correct damage. Only in a hosted game, the server player will see the wrong damage. I'll try to create a simple repo mission. ---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 PM ---------- Created a ticket on the CIT: Bug #23915 Includes repro mission and screenshots illustrating the difference

Hi, For a coop mission I am doing right now, I'm using BIS fnc destroyCity to destroy parts of a city. I'm only executing the function on the server, and with a fixed seed. However, on each client, the destruction looks different (leading to people suddenly floating on one client because they stand on a heap of rubble that's not present in other clients). Here's the relevant part (from init.sqf): if (isServer) then { ["markDestroy1", 200, 123] call BIS_fnc_destroyCity; ["markDestroy2", 900, 123] call BIS_fnc_destroyCity; }; Thanks. - V

Sorry for reviving this old thread, but I was faced with the same problem and found a solution, so I thought I'd share. Basically, set up the UAV like described on the Biki, UAV module, UAV unit and player synchronized. To control the UAV, you need a backpack that can serve as controller. Since you don't want to have it on the ground for the player to pick up, this code fragment creates and synchronizes it (assuming the UAB module is called uavModule and the player westMan1_1): // Create a UAV backpack on the group leader removeBackpack westMan1_1; westMan1_1 addBackpack "US_UAV_Pack_EP1"; // Sync it with the UAV _backpack = unitBackpack westMan1_1; uavModule synchronizeObjectsAdd [_backpack]; If you wear the backpack, or put it on the ground, you can control the UAV. In Multiplayer, sync every player that should get access to the UAV with the UAV module. Once they get the UAV backpack, they can control the UAV. - V

Doesn't that work by issuing a "no target" command ?

Sure, I've put it up on my website: test mission. To reproduce the problem, launch in multiplayer and play as the KSK team leader. Go towards the objective waypoint, and watch the KSK machine gunner (unit #2). When they engage the enemy, he will shoot a few times with the MG36, then switch to the G17. After the engagement, he will almost 100 % be stuck with his handgun out.

Not here. I have made a small mission that almost 100 % reproduces the error (I tested it like 10 times, and every time one got stuck)

Happens for me too. Units switching to unidentified (orange) in something like 2 second intervals.

Looking up/down doesn't work for me either, gun moves, but the view stays the same Edit: Alt key doesn't work either, the view just stays as it regardless of mouse motion.

Yes, me too. I get CTDs when getting shot and respawning, mostly Edit: It happens when being shot in a vehicle, too, not only if the vehicle is destroyed.

If I may ask, what algorithm corresponds to the individual numbers ?

Free of charge does not equal freely distributable. A lot of game magazines have cover CDs with full game versions. However, even though you get it with the magazine (so the game is basically free of charge for you) they are NOT free, as in freely distributable. They are still copyrighted, and some even have the original copy protection in place. Just because it's on a cover CD does not make it free. Whatever arma2free.exe is, it is highly unlikely this is it.

Maybe it is tied to the guerrilla clue (as in, Freedom Fighters ?). Like Alwarren, I'm hoping for some new content for Arma 2... Arma 3 is still so far into the future (and I don't mean the setting, but 2012 :D) True, but a reduced version of Arma for free would also be "watered down". I also don't really see what BIS would gain from it, from a commercial standpoint... sales ? I think that's what demos do. A gift to the community because of the 10th anniversary ? We all own Arma already (most of us, I'd say, own OFP, Arma and Arma 2 with all expansions and DLC already). *nudges BIS* come on, spill the beans... what's arma2free.exe

Not yet, no. I wanted to confirm if it's a bug or intended behavior. Edit: I'll create one. They might simply reject it if it's intentional #19876

This has been asked before, but wasn't answered yet (in an earlier beta thread, about 79348), so apologies for bringing it up again, but I find this pretty annoying: Usually, the pointer that you get as team leader is context sensitive, i.e. point it at a spot on the ground, and clicking issues a move command. If you point at a bad guy, it issues an attack. However, since 79348, this is changes slightly: The normal behavior persists until the selected unit has a target assigned. When this is the case, the cursor becomes an engage command when you click on empty ground. This is particularly annoying because the engage command persists, you can not say "disengage", and even if you order "Return to formation", they will immediately re-engage. The only solution is to cancel the target, and call back to formation. Even then, re-assigning the same target will again cause an engage order. Overall, this method, if it is intended, is counter-intuitive, since there is no indication whether the unit has a target assigned or not, so if you click somewhere in the heat of battle thinking it's a move order, it suddenly becomes an engage order that takes several "complex" steps to undo. Again, apologies for bringing this up again.

... You know that this is taken from a rather cynical set of science fiction books called the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy ?

Maybe add 1 to each number, getting them from 0-5 into 1-6 ? Although that's probably a long shot Edit: Tried it, doesn't make sense (would be 'd force abuse arch')

Not to the end... leading zeroes, i.e. at the beginning.

Ahem... Whatever application was responsible for this message is botched. It's like saying a decimal number has to have a certain amount of digits. Binary numbers are just numbers with a different base than 10. Just because computers usually use 8 bits as their smallest storage unit does not make other binary numbers invalid. ---------- Post added at 10:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 AM ---------- No, just add three leading zeroes to satisfy broken applications