calo_mir

Hi. Any way to get rid of those "hints" that appear in your peripheral vision in-game? Even with everything disabled in the difficulty editor, they still appear. In case it's not clear, they are the fuzzy dots that appear on the edges of the screen that indicate the presence of a unit just out of your field of vision. The dots are green for friendly units, red for enemy units and white for neutral.

Is there a working, available array sort function? I know of BIS_fnc_sortNum but unfortunately it just spews errors whatever I give it as parameters, so I assume it's broken (I don't have the errors to hand, right now).

I've built a small mission using the high command module (in the same vein as Village Sweep). The problem is that if the commander dies, the mission's basically over as nobody else can access the high command module. Any AI squads will obviously just sit there forever. Is there some way to pass command of the module to, say, the current highest-ranked subordinate, or something? Ideally in an MP compatible manner.

We've got people trying to get it in Denmark, New York and London and the behaviour's always the same: The server manages to send a few megabytes and then the download hangs. After a few minutes of sending nothing, the server drops the connection. You might want to speak to whoever's providing the server... I can probably get more diagnostic info if you need it.

That's the server I was referring to.

Are there mirrors for the GITS evolution missions anywhere? I've been trying all week to download them but the server they're hosted on drops the connection before the downloads are complete.

There are a few industrial wire fence pieces available (Empty -> Objects -> Fence Industrial). Anyone got a smart way to place a long line of them? Sitting there trying to make micro adjustments to get a straight fence and unbroken continuous wire is too time consuming. Also... there doesn't appear to be an end post for the fences despite one appearing in game (the northern entrance to the airfield on Utes, on the eastern hill).

Hi. Ah, thanks. Completely misread that description the first time - I thought it was intended to set the likelihood of a group calling support. I've just noticed _setSearch above that. Hopefully that'll stop the groups from straying right out of the zone.

Any opinions on what might be the best way to implement something similar to the "GUARDED BY..." trigger? I'd essentially like to set up a few zones with squads that will patrol and defend against any incoming attack but will not stray from their zone and will not respond to support calls (or something along those lines).

It's a gameplay issue really, regardless of authenticity (for this mission at least). A small fireteam goes in and on the first engagement, they're immediately swamped with all the units on the map. I could argue that one group requesting support from all available groups isn't really authentic at all if those groups are tasked with patrolling a large urban area - a small distracting attack could be a prelude to a large attack elsewhere and moving all groups to one location could be a huge mistake. Let's not get into that, though... Ok, thanks, I'll have a look. I checked the first ten pages or so but given that I didn't really know what I was looking for...

Hi. I've placed a large zone over an entire town with about six infantry groups set to spawn in the zone. The problem is: Attacking (or being attacked by) one of the groups basically results in every unit in the zone swarming to attack. This usually results in a firefight with 50 or so soldiers on one side and 4 on the other... Is there something I need to change to stop this happening?

An Evening On The Coast MIL/DEV 720 Type: SP / Co-op Players: 1 - 6 An Evening On The Coast 6 player cooperative and single player urban combat mission. Your main objectives are to disrupt Russian supplies by destroying two key targets. Unfortunately, due to the heavy civilian presence in Berezino, certain protocols must be abided by - indiscriminate artillery fire is not authorized. The first of the two targets are a pair of train engines. Intelligence suggests that the destruction of these engines will severely affect equipment and fuel transports to outlying forces. The second of the two targets is a large shipment of fuel used to power larger armored vehicles. Unfortunately, due to the difficulty of maintaining security in an occupied town such as Berezino, the shipment is moved frequently and the current location is not known. Uses DAC 3.0 for dynamic AI behaviour and unpredictable squad placement. Downloads Download (0.2.0) MD5 SHA256 PGP signature Mirrors Armaholic Changelog Dependencies ACE2 >= 1.2 ACE2_ACEX >= 1.2 ARMA2 >= 1.01 DAC >= 3.0

Hi. For single player, just place it in the "missions" directory instead.

A grand Oops in this version (0.1.2). Client code is not being executed for the first player of a non-dedicated MP game. Expect a revised version very soon. Arrowhead is also in the mail, so the mission will see proper testing with Combined Ops.

Heap Sort MIL/DEV 720 This package provides an implementation of the heap sort algorithm. The algorithm is an in-place, unstable sort with O(n log n) performance in all cases. Essentially, the algorithm has performance competitive with quicksort but without quicksort's dangerous O(n^2) worst case performance. The implementation provides a general function that takes an array of arbitrary objects and a comparison function to compare those objects. Convenience functions are provided to sort arrays of integers. Usage example: _input = [5, 3, 1, 2, 4]; _output = [_input] call M720_heap_sort_integers_ascending; assert (_output == [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]); Downloads Download (0.1.2) MD5 SHA256 PGP signature Changelog

It's not been tested with Combined Ops (I don't have Arrowhead yet) but I see no reason why it shouldn't work fine. I'd be interested to know if it does/doesn't work.

Hi, thanks. I should've made it clearer that the problem was fixed. The empty Missions class obviously helps!

I'm trying to set up a dedicated server to test MP missions but for some reason, I can't get any missions to show up on the list - including the "built in" missions included with Arma 2. Config file: hostname = "mptest"; password = ""; passwordAdmin = "xyz"; reportingIP = "<>"; logFile = "server_console.log"; motd[] = { "" }; motdInterval = 5; checkfiles[] = {}; maxPlayers = 30; kickDuplicate = 0; verifySignatures = 0; equalModRequired = 0; voteMissionPlayers = 1; voteThreshold = 0.33; disableVoN = 1; vonCodecQuality = 0; persistent = 1; onUserConnected = ""; onUserDisconnected = ""; doubleIdDetected = ""; regularCheck = ""; class Missions { class MP_01 { template = "[CO06]MEU_SecOpFun.Chernarus"; difficulty = "mercenary"; }; class DM_Detector { template = "MP_Detector.Chernarus"; difficulty = "mercenary"; }; }; I've tried using an empty "Missions" class as per the wiki. I've logged in as admin and used "#missions". Nothing happens... Am I supposed to put missions in some special place for the dedicated server?

After tracing the process with Process Monitor, I discovered that the server's looking in the beta subdirectory for an MPMissions directory (I'm running the beta patch, obviously).

Nice to see someone else doing it. Ever tried djb's daemontools? Handles process supervision very cleanly. I've not got around to setting up the server on FreeBSD yet but I expect that's the way I'd go about it.

In the following, the camera moves smoothly from flyby_start_0 to flyby_end_0. The camera switches back to the player's internal camera when the flyby is over. Unfortunately, the camera direction seems to be fixed to 0 degrees and the FOV is unchanged. The camPrepareTarget and camPrepareFOV commands seem to be completely ignored. What's going on? _pos_0 = [ (getMarkerPos "flyby_start_0") select 0, (getMarkerPos "flyby_start_0") select 1, 1.0 ]; _pos_1 = [ (getMarkerPos "flyby_end_0") select 0, (getMarkerPos "flyby_end_0") select 1, 1.0 ]; _focus_pos = getMarkerPos "focus"; _camera = "camera" camCreate _pos_0; _camera camPrepareTarget _focus_pos; _camera camPrepareFOV 0.200; _camera camCommitPrepared 0; _camera switchCamera "INTERNAL"; waitUntil {camCommitted _camera}; _camera camPreparePos _pos_1; _camera camCommitPrepared 10; waitUntil {camCommitted _camera}; player switchCamera "INTERNAL";

I did use camCommitPrepared, unless you're referring to something else. Anyway, this works: _pos_0 = [ (getMarkerPos "flyby_start_0") select 0, (getMarkerPos "flyby_start_0") select 1, 1.0 ]; _pos_1 = [ (getMarkerPos "flyby_end_0") select 0, (getMarkerPos "flyby_end_0") select 1, 1.0 ]; _focus_pos = getMarkerPos "focus"; _camera = "camera" camCreate _pos_0; _camera cameraEffect ["Internal", "Back"]; _camera camCommand "inertia on"; _camera camSetTarget _focus_pos; _camera camCommit 0; waitUntil {camCommitted _camera}; _camera camSetPos _pos_1; _camera camCommit 16; waitUntil {camCommitted _camera}; player cameraEffect ["terminate", "back"];

Ah, OK. Thanks!

Anything ever come of this? From what I gathered from the whole of the thread, one of the major issues is that the AI can spot units far too easily in forests due to an incorrect (or poorly chosen) value for the forest surface type. Shouldn't this be an easy one to fix?

Is it possible to place a waypoint for more than one group on a vehicle/building? The first waypoint obscures the object, preventing creation/placement of the second waypoint (double clicking just selects the first waypoint as opposed to adding another). Is this an engine limitation or just a problem with the editor UI?