st_dux

One more thing. In case anyone would like to call me out on my references to facts and/or statistics about gun control and its effects, here's where I've obtained most of my information: http://gunfacts.info/ That e-book is a great source of factual information for the debate on gun control, complete with easy-to-understand graphs/charts and full citations. ch_123, I would point you at the section on page 23 about the availability of guns and its relation to crime rates.

First off, it seems I need to clarify my position on gun-free zones. I was not suggesting that high school students or younger should be allowed to tote guns to school -- there is no state in the United States that allows anyone under the age of 18 to purchase or carry firearms, anyway -- but teachers, school administrators and other employees of the school that are of age and do not have a criminal record should be allowed to extend whatever concealed (or open) carry rights they have onto school premises. Gun-free zones serve no purpose; anyone who has a mind to shoot up a school/mall/bank/etc. will do so anyway, so the gun-free zone regulation only ensures that no law-abiding citizens can defend themselves. Also, I wasn't trolling. It's interesting to me that gun control advocates take it as a personal insult whenever someone has a differing opinion on this subject. Thirty-two people were killed during the Virginia Tech massacre while attempting to hide and wait for the professionals. The gun control regulations that came into play during this situation -- most notably, that Virginia Tech is recognized as a gun-free zone by the state -- did nothing to stop the crime from occurring. Now what if some law-abiding citizens (like teachers or older students) present on campus when the shooting started were also carrying weapons? Would an untrained individual accidentally shoot a fellow student in an attempt to defend himself or others from the shooter? Maybe, but I seriously doubt that; even to the untrained individual, basic gun operation is mostly intuitive. I'll tell you what it would have definitely done, though: It would have really evened up the odds, making it impossible for Seung-Hui Cho to kill anywhere close to 32 people before being incapacitated himself. Once the police arrive, I agree that it's in everyone's best interest to let them take over. But police have never arrived anywhere instantly, and when 32 people can be killed during the time it takes for them to arrive, that's a huge problem. To me, that's an unacceptable problem. This is a reasonable regulation that I generally support, provided that the gun safety program isn't so difficult or expensive that it makes it unreasonably difficult for an ordinary citizen to arm himself. This seems to be the great fear of many gun control advocates, but there isn't a shred of evidence that supports this claim. Guns actually don't turn angry people into killers. Unless you're seriously disturbed already, you aren't going to just shoot someone in the face because you're pissed off about something, and if you are seriously disturbed, then you aren't going to let something as petty as gun control measures get in your way. The idea that having guns readily available will lead to a Wild West scenario where people kill each other left and right over minor squabbles is one that is borne out of paranoia, not a rational examination of the facts. Having guns readily available actually leads to a lower rate of violent crime in any given area, and this is a claim that is backed up by several statistical studies. We'll never know what would have happened in Big Mac's pregnant girl scenario had she not been caught, but I'll tell you this: It is far easier to bring a gun to school out of anger than it is to actually use it. Who are you to say what is and what is not necessary for someone other than yourself?

@Big Mac: It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that you live in a fantasy land where "respect" holds more power than violence, law enforcement is infallible, and people tend to get what they deserve in life. While I imagine it's very nice to live in such a world, it sadly bears no resemblance to the real one. You keep talking about gun control like it just works. Despite my evidence to the contrary (i.e., over 90% of gun crime being committed with illegally obtained weapons), you're happy to keep on assuming that gun regulations will make it difficult for criminals to obtain them. They don't. If they did, then 90% of gun-related crime would have never happened; it would have been stopped by the gun control regulations that were instead ignored. Gun control can make the price of weapons higher (and the non-taxable profits of black market arms dealers greater), but that won't stop people from getting them. As far as military-grade weaponry goes, this isn't really much of a criminal issue, anyway. As you've said in this thread, crime is rarely carried out using such weapons, and as I explained in my last post, this is because it's not very practical to try to rob a convenience store or mug someone with an assault rifle. You don't need something that powerful to get the job done, and it adds the unnecessary obstacle of finding a way to walk around on the street without people noticing the fact that you're carrying a plainly visible rifle. A handgun just makes more sense in 99% of cases, and that is why criminals prefer them. It's not because they're legal; usually, it's not legal for these kinds of people (i.e., felons) to buy handguns. They do so anyway, illegally, ignoring gun control completely. Again, I can't stress enough how important it is to realize that crimes are rarely committed with legally-obtained firearms; they are almost always committed with firearms that were bought on the black market, generally by people who would never be allowed to purchase them legally, so gun control isn't doing anything. With regard to your final point, saying you'd rather have someone go postal with a pistol or shotgun than with an assault rifle is kind of like saying you'd rather drown than be burned alive. Both are really terrible, extremely undesirable things, and I don't think that looking back at a mass shooting and thinking, "Well, at least he didn't have an assault rifle," really offers any silver lining to the situation. An assault rifle may make it a bit more difficult for the police to deal with (when they eventually arrive), but it's not like the death count is going to be much higher than it would be with a shotgun. When you're in a place like a school where you know for sure that every single person you see is completely defenseless, it's really easy (technically speaking -- I'm not considering the fact that you need to be a complete psychopath to even consider doing something like this) to just walk around killing people with any sort of firearm. Given enough ammo and time, you could finish off quite a few helpless victims. You know what would really protect people from mass shootings? Getting rid of the inane "gun-free zone" doctrine that makes it illegal for anyone to carry a firearm in places like schools (hell of a lot of good that has done for every school shooting ever -- didn't the mass murderers see the "this is a gun-free zone" sign?). If it were allowed, then the non-psychopathic types who choose to arm themselves would have the opportunity to defend themselves and others well before the police even arrive at the scene. And what's more, a would-be school shooter might even think twice now that he can't be sure that everyone's so defenseless anymore. Imagine.

You can also use "if (condition) exitWith {}" to break out of any loop. It will not exit the entire script unless you are in the main scope.

Most non-communist states in the Western world have stricter gun control regulations than the United States, but their regulations are not nearly as strict as the totalitarian states of yesteryear, where guns were essentially forbidden. Also, there are several examples of Western states that actually have less gun control than the United States, for example, Switzerland. You will find an assault rifle in nearly every Swiss residence. And guess what? Switzerland is not a warzone. In fact, it has an extraordinarily low rate of violent crime compared to other European nations. It's funny how people think twice about robbing their local liquor store when they know that the owner probably has an SG 550 in the back. - No, not everyone who supports stricter gun control is a Nazi or commie. That is why I specifically said in my last post that while totalitarian dictators tend to have strict gun control, the reverse is not necessarily true, i.e., having strict gun control does not automatically make a state totalitarian. Please take the time to read what you are responding to completely. - Criminals tend to use concealed weapons more often then full-scale assault rifles because they are far more practical in 99% of the situations they encounter. This has nothing to do with the availability of guns or the effectiveness of gun control; if someone wants to get their hands on an AK-47, it's really not that difficult to get one illegally if he or she has the money. It's just like heroin or anything else that the government attempts to ban: The ban doesn't work. As long as there is a demand for something, there will be a supply. Always. - Saying something like "true power is not gained through the barrel of a gun" shows just how naive you are. There is no power more direct or indisputable than the power of potential violence. At the end of the day, all governments maintain their power through this potential, i.e., through force. - Where are you getting this personal armory thing from? No one is saying that average people should be maintaining entire armories of military-grade weaponry, but the basic freedom of keeping and bearing arms is important. - Your contention that freer gun laws would lead to rising gun violence that would eventually escalate into a full-scale warzone is plainly ridiculous. I don't know where people get the idea that guns create violence, but they don't. Guns are tools used by people who create violence, and making guns available doesn't turn ordinary people into mass murderers. Moreover, making guns unavailable doesn't turn mass murderers into good citizens. Violence has been around since before guns even existed, and as stated earlier, banning guns doesn't make them truly unavailable. The vast majority (over 90%) of gun crime in the world is committed using weapons that were obtained illegally. Gun control laws should have theoretically prevented these criminals from having a firearm in all of these cases, yet they obtained one and the crimes were carried out anyway. How is more gun control legislation going to be effective when the current legislation is largely ignored by criminals? Gun control legislation just doesn't make any sense as a practical safety measure, regardless of much you'd like it to in your idealized world. People are safer and violent crime rates are lower when there is less gun control, as the number of criminals in a given area is no different, but the freedom for law-abiding citizens to own a gun creates a real deterrent for crime.

@Big Mac: Are you paranoid or something? Do you really think that people who value their constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, as Jack does, really just want to commit acts of violence against other people? Who are you to cast such extreme judgment on the character of someone you've never met? And why do you insist on posting in such a hostile tone? If anyone's been showing violent tendencies in this thread, it's you, not Jack. With regard to communism, Jack's comparison was perfectly valid: Every communist state that has ever existed has had overwhelmingly strict gun control laws. The fact of the matter is that gun control laws have not, do not and never will stop criminals from procuring guns; anyone with a mind to commit a violent crime certainly won't have a problem with breaking a few gun laws. Every statistical study done on this subject demonstrates that having fewer gun regulations leads to relatively lower rates of violent crime in any given area. When criminals cannot be sure that they are the only ones armed (which is the only thing that gun laws actually accomplish), there is a natural deterrent factor that comes into play, one which cannot be created or maintained by law enforcement agencies alone. In truth, gun control laws were created by men in power to ensure that those without such power never get any of it. In general, the more totalitarian and abusive of power that a state is, the stricter its gun laws will be (although the reverse is not necessarily true). Two examples of this that come to mind are Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin, both of which had exceptionally strict regulations on the personal possession of firearms. Clinging to the naive ideal that restricting weapons makes everyone safer does nothing but limit freedom and facilitate violence. Or, you know, the American Revolution. That is exactly how we overthrew our government back in the 18th century, and we want to make damn sure that we never lose that ability against our government today.

If you just spawned the helicopter, how does it have passengers?

That is correct.

Are all of the players in a single group? If so, the easiest solution would be to put the following in the condition field of the lead vehicle's "moving on" waypoint: ({vehicle _x in [veh1,veh2,veh3]} count units groupName) == ({alive _x} count units groupName) This line will compare the number of units in correct vehicles to the number of units that are alive. If all alive units are also in correct vehicles, it will return true. Simply replace "veh1," etc., and "groupName" with the proper names in your mission, and you should be good to go. If the players are not all in the same group, then replace "units groupName" with an array of all the units for whom you'd like to check, e.g., [fred,tom,bob,timmy].

Is the AI unit an enemy of the player?

I'm glad they took Warfare out, but less than 10 missions is really quite disappointing. OFP had over 40.

Air-Taxi is built into the SecOps module. After adding the SOM module to your mission, run this somewhere: [["transport"],player] call BIS_SOM_addSupportRequestFunc I forget how to configure it completely, but maybe if you mess around with it enough you'll be able to figure it out.

Even games that have separate first-person and third-person perspectives (i.e., all other FPS games) usually manage to have better third-person reload animations (the animation you see others using) than the utter crap that has been in the ArmA series since OFP v. 1.0. The excuses that fans try to make for this are astounding, but the fact of the matter is that OFP used an outdated animation system when it came out in 2001, and ArmA II:OA is still using the same core system, which is archaic at this point. It would be very hard to have good-looking reload animations in ArmA II, but that's because the animation system is crap and needs to be overhauled completely.

Really? You're terrified of this? It's just a game, dude. Relax. Anyway, I don't think you need to to collect 100% evidence to get the "good" ending.

It's worth a shot.

Whoops. Change the "" at the end of the onMapSingleClick command to ''; that should do the trick. Original post updated.

@Nielsen: I'm really not sure, since I haven't looked at how the RE function actually works, but from that result I'd assume that BIS_missionscope plays an important role. Setting it to something random almost certainly isn't a viable solution; while it is making it work in your SP test, it probably wouldn't actually function the way it's supposed to in an MP environment. See if you can find the part about rCREATESIMPLETASK in the script found in the modules pbo. Post it in this thread, and I'll do my best to interpret it.

It sounds like the remote execution scripting for createSimpleTask was designed with BIS custom variables in mind. As I don't have access to my ArmA 2 game files at the moment, I can't say for sure what's going on, but you might want to look into the RE scripts yourself. Alternatively, try creating some variable called BIS_missionScope in your mission to see what happens. It won't be nil anymore, but it will probably show a different error, which might be useful in solving the issue. If all else fails, there are other ways to make task creation JIP-friendly, since I presume that's what you're aiming for with this.

For future reference, there is a vehicle-spawning function (complete with crew) built into the game that makes this sort of thing much easier. You can find it here: http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/BIS_fnc_spawnVehicle

What have you tried already? Also, why are you using the "loc" parameter?

As far as locality goes, there are two types of scripting commands in the game: local and global. Local commands are only run on clients (or the server) that actually executed the command. If every client executed the command, the result is that it is run once on each client. If only one or some of the clients executed the command, the result is that the clients that did not execute the command will not see any of its effects. Global commands are broadcast over the network to every client regardless of which client (or server) executed the command. If a single client executes a global command, it is run once on every client (unlike a local command, which would only be run once on that client). If multiple clients execute a global command, then it is run multiple times on each client (one time per client or server that executed it) because it is broadcast every time it is executed. This leads to generally undesirable results, and with a high player count, it can lead to disastrous, server-annihilating results. The general rule-of-thumb for MP mission design is to run local commands once on each client and global commands once only on the server (because it is a global command, the result will in turn be broadcast to all clients). As Carl mentioned, isServer is the easiest way to do a server check. You can either do it as he showed to make a whole script run only on the server, or you can use an "if (isServer) then..." control structure if you only want to run a few lines on the server and allow the rest to be run everywhere. This is useful if, for example, you have a mixture of local and global commands, or if you want to come up with a random number but want that number to be consistent across all clients.

@fro: You're probably saving the file as text by accident. Windows will do this by default when using notepad. To fix (for xp), go into any window and navigate to tools > folder options. From there, find the option for "Hide known File Extensions" and turn it off.

@Maltti: That's strange, but it might not be necessary. As long as the Functions module is up, I think the multiplayer framework should work anyway. Give it a shot. @galzohar: That is far more complicated than it needs to be.

1. Press F7 2. Double-click on the map 3. Select "Multiplayer Framework" That's it. Then use the line I posted above to update tasks, replacing "taskName" with the name of the task you wish to update.

One workaround that should definitely work is to get rid of the chopper's waypoints and then create a trigger with the following statements: Condition: nameOfPilot in nameOfChopper On Activation: nameOfPilot move (position nameOfHelipad);nul = [] spawn {waitUntil {unitReady nameOfPilot};nameOfPilot land "LAND"} NB: You must replace "nameOfPilot," "nameOfChopper" and "nameOfHelipad" with the proper names assigned to these units in your mission. Everything else be exactly as written above. While that solution should work, I don't fully understand why Transport Unload isn't working for you. My guess is the waypoint isn't being applied to the proper unit, i.e., the spawned pilot. Creating the waypoint through scripting after creating the pilot could very well fix your problem without the need for the above trigger.