shwat

I don't know if you're still actively working on this campaign (the activity of the thread seems to indicate that you are not), but I'd like to note that the fourth mission (Operation Owl) is obscenely difficult in just the first 2 minutes. Every single time I have loaded the mission, with all difficulties ranging from Recruit to Expert, the CRRC has been spotted by AI forces on the coast (or even further inland). The AI engages at very long range with autocannons (ZU-23s would be my guess) while you're still over deep water in the CRRC. It only takes one or two rounds before everybody in the boat is dead. I managed to get on the island one time by ejecting out of the CRRC and swimming away from it (it was destroyed soon after), and played a good portion of the mission. It's well done in all other regards, and quite enjoyable, but by the time I got to it it was late and I was annoyed at the constant moans and groans of pain from the sniper/spotter team so I haven't finished it yet. I'd suggest making the AI ignore the CRRC. That little boat gets you killed before you've even properly begun the mission. I really like it so far, though. The third mission is my favorite, but I dislike the blue/purple sky. Is this some sort of bug, or just a filter in the mission? It looks sort of like an overcast dawn, but the mission time is 1400. Quite odd. :p [Edit] One more thing. Same mission, sometimes the HVT is invisible inside the ATC tower.

If I'm wrong forgive me as I haven't been mucking about in the editor in ages, but if I remember right it seems that you must add magazines before adding weapons in order for the weapons to start loaded. This applies to the mortar as you essentially "addWeapon" the mortar when you create the unit, but you can't add ammo to it before you create it. It comes with a specific type of ammo already, so it loads that, but if you remove those HE rounds I suspect you have to reload it from the start. I have a hunch this might be hardcoded. I'm probably wrong, but it feels that way to me.

You got what you asked for already, to a certain extent. :p I keep kylania's site open in a tab in Firefox every time I'm messing around in the editor. There's plenty of great stuff there, and the site's design means it isn't another complication (like some community sites I've seen around, especially for other games). Aside from that, kylania's suggestions are quite relevant. Especially the font/background colors. If it's difficult to read your guide, I personally don't care how informative it is, I won't give myself a headache deciding if what I'm seeing is a c or e, t or f. If it's not legible you've got a problem, mate. Just sayin'. Oh, and massive full-screen screencaps aren't really necessary, and if you just cropped out the unnecessary parts of the images you'd reduce your file size as well. Smaller files are easier to download, and thus more user-friendly. That's the whole idea, isn't it?

I figured somebody else would've hit on the idea by now. Too bad that's the case, though. I suppose your post also clears up the issue of removable suppressors.

Seeing as how removing the eotech would annoy plenty of people, and please plenty of people (my self included), why not keep it but instead change the way weapons are configured? It's a little late for such a drastic change, but I'm just speaking hypothetically to see what sort of response the idea would generate. Instead of picking a weapon configuration, the player would pick a base weapon (M16A4, M4A1, etc.) and would be taken to another menu. In this menu, there would be drop-down boxes for each rail. On your top rail, you could select from the sights available for your gun, in the case of an M16A4 you'd have ironsights, aimpoint, and ACOG. An AK101 could have ironsights, kobra, or PSO. Simple, right? You could also select grenade launchers and silencers/suppresors for weapons that can use them. With a method like that, you could get a suppressed M4 with the M203 and you wouldn't have to deal with the eotech. You could have an aimpoint, ironsights, or RCO if you wanted. For implementation in the editor so that a mission-maker could customize the weapons he gives to units, each weapon would be passed with an array. Something like... [M16A4, #, #, #, #] ... where the #'s would be changed to customize the weapon. Hypothetical example: [M4A1, 3, 1, 1, 0] This would give you the base weapon of an M4A1, the next value would be the top rail selection with options ordered by increasing effective range (ironsights first, then aimpoint, eotech, RCO) with 0 being ironsights and 3 being the RCO. The third value passed would be true/false for a grenade launcher (1 being true, 0 being false) and the fourth value would be for silencers (also true false, 1/0). The fifth (and final) value could be for changing the skin (the M4A1 has matte black and a woodland camo pattern, for example). Remember, this isn't a plea for "hey developers, look at this idea, can you pleasepleaseplease do this?" it's purely hypothetical, as I'm sure the devs would have one helluva hard time adapting the current system into this.

Yeah, it's pretty simple to use as-is. I don't see why it should be oversimplified.

I really hope it gets even a compatibility fix for the 2D editor. Being able to set up all of your basic stuff in the 2D editor, and then swapping over to the 3D editor to precisely add in units and objects would be sweet.

It could be much better than an expanding circle though. Even with suppressed weapons, you can pick out that expanding circle from a considerable distance. I really noticed it when I was playing around with an M4A1 CCO SD. It's just ridiculous how much of a cloud you can make with sustained fire.

The F-16C that's been released has a high normal topspeed, and it also has an afterburner. I've pushed 1150 KM/h in level flight with it.

You, good sir, have won many cookies.

I fell out of my chair. Literally. Yeah, c'mon, 17k polys? I'm not great modeller (hardly a modeller at all), but a lot of those polys could be removed. Detail is great to a point, then it becomes a problem. A lot of those polys are probably unnecessary. In fact, they most definitely are. Props to the creator for the effort, but it should be optimized (alot) before being released. You've got a place to start from, you just jumped the gun. Fix her up, re-release, and you'll be golden.

Great start, mate! The only thing it needs is some better textures and a few polys here and there. More civilian cars are always nice. Maybe if we get enough of them, someone can make a Need For Speed-style mod, and we can drag through Chernogorsk.

So make 2 SOM's, sync SOM1 to Marine1, sync SOM2 to Marine2, create a trigger activated by alpha, and in the On act. field put: [["transport"], Marine1] call BIS_SOM1_addSupportRequestFunc; [["transport"], Marine2] call BIS_SOM2_addSupportRequestFunc; Add the following as you normally would for marine1 & h2, then modify it for marine2 & another helicopter, and change the name of the second SOM. waitUntil {!isnil {Marine1 getVariable "mainScope"}}; SOM_mainScope = Marine1 getVariable "mainScope"; [["transport"], Marine1] call BIS_SOM_addSupportRequestFunc; SOM setVariable ["TSS_vehicle_custom", h2]; SOM setVariable ["TSS_allowed", ["pickup", "unload"]]; SOM setVariable ["TSS_plannedLZ", [0,0,0]]; h2 setVariable ["supPool", [bIS_cooper], TRUE]; h2 setVariable ["supPhase", 0, TRUE]; h2 setVariable ["onMission", objNull, TRUE]; h2 setVariable ["stuck", FALSE, TRUE]; That should give you two completely independent transports. However, I have no idea if two SOMs will conflict with each other in some way, or if there's some other sort of bug or glitch that would muck it all up. I'm still fairly new to editing. :p

The least complicated way I can think of would be to make a second helicopter, and basically copy the code you've got but exchange "marine1" with "marine2." I'm not sure if you need a second SOM for them to be independent of each other, though. I'd give it a try but my friend/debugger/troubleshooter is offline right now so I couldn't test it extensively.

Same thing for me. :D It was just a problem with my next waypoints being too far away. I thought to my self "if this is the problem I'm going to kick my self," and I've kicked my self since.