galzohar

I wanted to perhaps prepare my missions to make use of this system in advance. Since we don't actually play on the dev branch it would be difficult to put to the true test (let the simple user who doesn't know how it works try to use it and see what happens). Of course, at least some basic example and useful function API will be needed to make some kind of use of it. In any case, I doubt any of our regular players that play in our events would be attracted to the new game mode, as our players are mostly either really hating to play against the AI, or play against AI way too much elsewhere and come to our events for the pure PvP action. Some more questions: Were any engine changes made to support the new group management system? Bug fixes? Group handling tweaks? Or is it currently 100% script? I ask because I found some issues with the engine in how it handles groups that I had to add dirty scripted work arounds (which I've later noticed were done by other mission/mod makers in a similar fashion to avoid same issues), and also that I need to know if any existing group scripts may break with the patch. Is the plan to eventually do the group management in engine instead of the scripted solution? The only real benefit I can see for having it in engine is to work around and/or fix the current issues with scripted group management. As for respawns, getting it right in PvP is really tough. I solved it by making a mission with no respawns and make it short-duration round-based, and tweak a lot of stuff to get that to work. TacBF tried to do a lot of tweaking to get respawn working but in the end it still gets pretty dirty pretty fast when players who know what they're doing are playing (spawn camping and knowing how to spawn much closer to the objectives than the less-informed opponents). Some missions (like EUTW) just let you spawn right next to combat in a lot of situations, giving more action but with the cost of losing a lot of potential tactical play (since spawning as fast as possible and running back in as quickly as possible is the most effective strategy 99% of the time, similar but less severe than what you see in TacBF). Basically, as long as you have respawns, you will have the "who can get faster from respawn to combat" race along with the "by the time I regrouped with my squad, they died, and by the time they regrouped with me, I died, so we never got to play together" issues. Getting to play together with your squad will generally slow you down way too much resulting in a loss against a team who doesn't do the same.

Replace: -mod=Curator;Heli;Kart;@Blastcore-A3-Phoenix;@Blastcore-Tracers;@CBA_A3;@nato_russian_sf_weapons;@rhs_afrf 3;@rhs_usf3;@norwegian_units;@Ares;@ASR_AI3;@CPM;@ task_force_radio With: "-mod=Curator;Heli;Kart;@Blastcore-A3-Phoenix;@Blastcore-Tracers;@CBA_A3;@nato_russian_sf_weapons;@rhs_afrf 3;@rhs_usf3;@norwegian_units;@Ares;@ASR_AI3;@CPM;@task_force_radio" I'm not sure "@rhs_afrf 3" is the correct folder name for the afrf mod. If you want a space in a folder name you must use "", or else it is like you have it broken to 2 parameters, one -mod=Curator;Heli;Kart;@Blastcore-A3-Phoenix;@Blastcore-Tracers;@CBA_A3;@nato_russian_sf_weapons;@rhs_afrf and the other 3;@rhs_usf3;@norwegian_units;@Ares;@ASR_AI3;@CPM;@task_force_radio (note that the space between the '@' and the "task_force_radio" is added by the forum, ignore it and make sure not to have it in your own command line).

Is there any documentation for how to use the group management system in other missions? In which patch is the group management system supposed to hit main branch? Some features that would be necessary to allow most game modes to transition to this system: 1. Allow leader to promote a new group leader. Fix bugs related to poor propagation of group leader changes across the network (make "who is group leader" properly synchronized in MP without needing additional scripts to do so). 2. Allow naming of groups. 3. Allow locking and unlocking a group (is that the "private" checkbox? If it is, it's not a very good name for it). 4. Allow not only recruiting friends into the group, but also have others able to request joining your group in case it is locked ("private"?). 5. Allow enabling and disabling the option to open up the interface easily with a script (and when disabled, if it is open, it will be immediately closed). 6. Allow kicking players from your group. 7. Allow assigning fire teams (either through the menu or by commanding and setting team colors) and visualize it in the interface. 8. [Engine] Make it so while squad leader is waiting for respawn, nobody else becomes a temporary squad leader, so that he cannot mess up the group management. Only promote replacement squad leader upon squad leader death in missions with no respawns.

Laying down for 10 seconds and then continuing to run is not the intuitive nor realistic solution for being tired. In real life you'd pace yourself down and move slower, but not stop. Stopping in real life is a good way to NOT get where you want at the maximum possible speed. Running/walking slower should be the fastest way to move around when tired, but currently is simply is far from what we have, as in Arma the optimal speed is obtained by a rotation of jogging and laying down on the ground. This really needs to be fixed.

Come play some DTAS if you're in EU time zone. Find events here: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/arma3pvpcommunity#events Video guide for mission: It's not extremely fast paced, but it's fast paced enough to keep you interested.

They really just need to ditch the "items are strings" concept and make them proper objects that have commands to test/manipulate them.

I couldn't find a proper way to use a script to check for loaded grenade in UGL. Maybe that's related to the loadout saving issue when having a grenade loaded - The game simply doesn't have a scripting command BIS/Alex can use to save the grenade loaded in the UGL. Unless I am missing something (in which case, please let me know how to check for loaded grenade!).

You guys also need to remember that the performance hits are mostly due to the ballistic calculation being done in a mod that needs to use a lot of tricks to work around the limitations a mod is bound to. Doing the ballistics properly in the engine (C++) is a LOT less performance intensive than having to use sqf and overhead of callExtension. Overall, BIS is presenting their ballistic changes as the "end all be all solution that will fix things once and for all", but in fact it's really a half-assed solution which really just implements the absolute minimum required for making ballistics that are different for each weapon, and in the end is not anywhere near enough to make them actually correct. I highly doubt the reason is performance. I also doubt it's such an incredible effort, considering most of the code already exists and adjusting the way the game reads config values just can't be all that complicated. In the end I believe the real reason we aren't getting more appropriate ballistics is the same reason Battlefield and Call of Duty don't get them - The average player just can't tell the difference between real and half-assed ballistics.

Download link fixed.

No, sorry and thanks for noticing. I will fix it later today.

Version 1.04 - Task Force Arrowhead Radio support - Players start with the appropriate radio and cannot pick up other radios. - Minor fixes to rearming script. First post updated.

Play withSIX also supports delta-patching for all mods. This means very fast updates even when you have a large mod list with multiple mods to update, as long as none of the mods didn't add/change a massive amount of data.

Well, nothing GPU-wise will help performance if you're playing missions that push your CPU to its limits. That's not saying nothing about how well the game supports SLI. Proper SLI support means that even if you are CPU limited, you can raise your settings further without FPS loss due to having SLI over non-SLI. Unless you can max out your settings already without FPS loss anyway, in which case SLI is indeed redundant and a CPU upgrade/overclock would be more beneficial.

When you try to make something compatible with missions that don't take it into account, you will inevitably break some to make others work. Eventually, no matter what the mod does, some missions will need to be edited to maintain compatibility (or server-side mod/configuration will need to change default TFR behavior for those missions to work).

For some people, this is pretty advanced stuff. In fact, I've spent quite a bit of time just helping people find out where their game is installed. Creating a folder is 2 levels of skill beyond that (first you have to find where to create it). Basically, you are way over-estimating the technical abilities of the simple user. As for PWS not willing to host the files, I find it hard to believe they flat out don't want to host it. Most likely there is just a small easy-to-resolve issue that could be bridged with just a bit of talking. I wasn't asking for you to spend a day of work on each release pushing it officially. Just that you spend a little effort to find a way that PWS can host it without you having to spend a day of work on each release. I'm sure with 5-10 minutes of conversation you guys can reach a much better solution than I could. Though we could try have broken communication of me talking to them and then back to you and then back to them to figure out what is the problem with hosting the betas on PWS, if that is what you prefer. In the end, having stuff update automatically along with all the other mods that need kept up to date doesn't just save me time, it saves time for a lot of players who want to use your mod. Even if I go as far as renting some sort of FTP (which I doubt would provide acceptable speeds at affordable prices), it would only solve the problem for a select few people which I direct to that FTP, instead of solving it for everyone. I'd upload it myself with my 100kbyte/sec upload to some random hosting so PWS can download it if that was the best solution. But I doubt it, considering that at best case scenario it would result in PWS users would have ~48 hour delay on every update.

If only it was just 1 minute 42 seconds. But it's 1 minute 42 seconds times the number of players I'll have to help to do it as well, times the fact that they simply won't get it and have issues that need help resolving, on top of the fact that this comes as an extra to helping them make the whole thing play nicely with all the other mods (and if you've ever helped a noob, you'd know editing a shortcut or even using a launcher is out of the question unless you want to take control of his PC with remote desktop and set it up for him). I would have expected you guys would have a bit more understanding for how difficult it is to explain to noobs how to setup and install mods. I also didn't ask for anything more than just trying to talk to the Play withSIX and Armaholic guys to try see if a simple and acceptable solution can be found. I'd spend the time to do this talking myself, but obviously I can't make the decisions for you. Instead of having each involved party say "it's the other guy's responsibility", it would be very much appreciated if you could just try to talk it out and see that maybe there is an easy solution... If an acceptable solution cannot be found then so be it. But just trying to find one is the very least I'd expect. I really hope that's not too much to ask.

Maybe... But it's more work, more money, and more complications to deal with. With current method we use I only have to host 2 text files with a list of mods and give people a click-able link and they have everything they need. The click-able link may be do-able too, but it would still require to have additional hosting, bandwidth, etc on top of needing to deal with the technical side.

The reason for needing Play withSIX is that people are already managing large mod packs on Play withSIX with automatic updates, and adding another tool to update another mod in a way that won't be recognized by Play withSIX and will have to be worked around in order to get it runnign along with Play withSIX mods is just too much for people who hardly have a clue what a mod is, and worse, is just too much for the few people who need to help all those who can't get things working. Getting it on PWS means I can use it on the server and have the entire community have the correct version without them having to do anything different than they are already doing. This is a very big thing. It was hard enough to get them to get Play withSIX working, there is no way I would be requiring people to to anything beyond that to get their mods running, and especially not something as complicated as mixing Play withSIX mods with non-Play withSIX mods. If I do that, it will just result in people refusing to use any mods altogether, or just not playing on the server. I'm sure if you're just slightly determined you can work something out with the Play withSIX and Armaholic guys to have it available there, and save everyone a lot of trouble.

Weird, sounds like something is missing... Try to update it through Play witSIX to make sure you really do have everything without needing to re-download the whole thing.

I add the radio by adding a "generic" radio (no ID) and waiting for TFAR_fnc_haveSWRadio to return true. Or will it return true before a radio ID is assigned? Do I have to wait for the no-ID radio to be removed first? To activate the additional channel (manually), you can set it in the radio interface with the "left arrow" key (at least on PRC-152). To talk on this channel, you need to configure your "talk on additional SW channel" (or whatever it's called) key bind, I think it might be unassigned by default.

Something like that. Pretty much. People might still complain anyway, but at least you can get new stuff and improvements for your game and actually get to play with them in multiplayer. The current DLC situation means that even if you buy it you won't get to play it because mission makers will avoid using it and server admins will avoid using missions that do use it. The goal shouldn't be to avoid complaints, but should be to be able to sell stuff to people without them regretting their purchase, and coming back the next time you want to sell them something. I don't believe the current DLC system can achieve something like that.

No script errors in RPT. Should I look for any specific messages printed with diag_log?

You are right that with the current DLC model it will be more difficult to sell something like OA, with a different executable etc. The "standalone" part of OA was not the main part. It could have been made non-standalone and it would actually have made things better off in the long run if they just made sure to sell it in a cheap bundle with A2 (aka "combined operations" for 50$, which people who got the correct tips from the correct people bought anyway). Trying to make the expansion like they did the DLCs will probably make it fail just as hard. I've yet to see any of the DLCs used in any of the servers I played on, and while I don't play on public servers often as I don't like their game modes very much, I did check out game modes like King of the Hill and EUTW and haven't really seen any DLC stuff there, and of course not in TacBF which is a more serious PvP mode that can't rely on people having DLC for missions to work. And then in DTAS of course I won't include any DLC for the same reason. I'd be quite sad if BIS release an awesome island but buying it will be pointless because half the players won't buy it and thus most of the servers will never use it if they want to keep their player count high.

Not even the tracks? When placed as close to the bradley as the game allows without having it drive over them?

Version 1.11: - Initial Task Force Radio support - Automatic channel and frequency assignments, remove radio from players waiting for next round. When missing the mod on a server running it players will only get a message but still be allowed to play with no radio. - Tweaked unstuck option and add it to attacker vehicles. - Reduced minimum insertion distance for boats (70%) and submarines (55%). - Add spec-ops class with 9mm SMG for attackers and defenders. - Various minor fixes and tweaks. First post updated.