carlostex

OK, i haven't been doing Arma stuff for a looong time now, and i didn't have the habit of looking through configs but... BIS configs makes me confuse. So in the CfgAmmo section there is: caliber= hit= I assume these are two of the most important lines for adjusting the power of a bullet. There's also typicalSpeed and airFriction that i suppose help to affect the speed and drag on the projectile. But let's stick with the top ones. From what i understand, caliber affects the penetration capabilities of the projectile, the higher the more it penetrates, and hit affects how much damage it causes to an object. Looking at BIS config i can see for instance: .45 ACP ball ammo: caliber=2.6 hit=8 5.56x45mm NATO ball: caliber=0.7 hit=8 Now there is also the factor of projectile velocity which should help penetration as well, as BIS puts initSpeed in the CfgMagazines when they should put it in CfgWeapon (cause some weapons have longer barrels and can fire bullets faster than weapons with shortel barrels but that can use same magazine), but let's not deviate any further. As far as i know, 5.56 ahould penetrate much better but it also has less stopping power. The.45 ACP round should be the opposite, it can't penetrate hard body armor but on soft tissue its wounding potential is higher than 5.56. So BIS config values show the exact opposite! Of course, this dependes on a lot of factors as well, like the body armor system which i still have to take a look. But all in all this just seems sloppy to me. Opinions? Am i looking at it wrong? Engine limitations? Config balance? What do you guys, specially the most experience config writers think?

I was kind of hoping this DLC would be the starting point to a new visual damage model. Like a wing being torn off in the 3d model without the damage state going to 1 and boom. The same i was expecting for the Tank DLC, like blowing off the tracks or a knocked turret. Maybe the changes would be more visual than functional but i think destructive models would breathe some new life to the 3d world.

I think one of the most valuable things you can do when making missions work is having the ability to remotely execute code wherever you want. For that i can't find a better method than CBA_fnc_globalExecute. Let me give an example. Let's say we have an enemy AI soldier, and that we need to attach him an addaction. Because that AI soldier is local to the server, i need to addaction on all clients. So for that i would use multiplayer framework: [player,_unit,rADDACTION,"Arrest Soldier", "arrest.sqf",[_unit, player, 1],1,true,true,"","(_target distance _this) < 4"] call RE; Every client that gets within 4 meters of the AI soldier has the addaction available. Thing is, now the code that is inside arrest.sqf is local to the client who called it. So let's say that i want to something to execute on server only: [-0, {hint "running only on server"}] call CBA_fnc_globalExecute; https://dev-heaven.net/docs/cba/files/network/fnc_globalExecute-sqf.html As CBA wiki explains parameter -0 executes code on server only, -1 on clients, and -2 on all machines. So with CBA_fnc_globalExecute i can put code in a script that only runs client side and make it execute wherever i want. So my question is there any alternative? What else can i do when i want code to run only on a certain destination? For instance, if i would use SHK_Taskmaster, which is server driven, a task created via taskmaster would never fire because arrest.sqf is running in a client locally. Solutions? 1-CBA_fnc_globalExecute 2-Please tell me 3-Please tell me etc... So why am i asking if CBA_fnc_globalExecute does the job? Because i recall Sickboy mentioning it is not a good idea to use it too much. PS: and besides eventhandlers...

Hi pettka, first of all thanks for taking the time to clarify our doubts. As far as maybe trying to answer your question, which raises a good point, i'll answer it by restating what i said before. Malden by CUP is Malden 1985. It is a recreation on Arma 3 how Malden looks in 1985 in the Armaverse. But for Malden 2035, i would expect an island that would have grown 50 years in the future. Take the old layout, leave the old buildings right where they were, and have new buildings around the town. This is what happens in real life right? Towns and cities which have their historical centers. Furthermore, some new buildings could be some memorials to the lives lost in 1985 (for instance) maybe some easter eggs too... I feel this would be a great homage to the original OFP, to its legacy, story and characters as i consider the Armaverse part of my life. OFP is my favorite game ever, number 1, and from 2 to 20 is maybe all MS-DOS games.. :) Anyway i wouldn't mind paying for this Armaverse 2035 future Malden, even if my favorite was actually Everon, but i would be very happy to see the Armaverse further expanded.

Or maybe Malden women were too slender, with only one body type and decided to leave Malden islands so that OFP wouldn't offend Anita Sarkeesian...

1 - Whether you like it or not people have the right to complain. We're human beings, it's in our nature to complain; 2 - What i wrote above does not apply in this case, i'm not complaining, just making a point; 3 - No matter how the map on Malden DLC will look, i can never be offended by it, it's just a map...on a video game..no reason to be offended; 4 - "To play it or not to play it" is a right i claim for myself. It's my business, not anyone elses... Take a chill pill, and let's just respect everyone's opinions.

Nobody is complaining, we all can have different opinions. A 5€ price would actually be pretty fair for a proper 2035 Malden. In my opinion a 2035 Malden would keep the original shape and the old buidings, with new buildings around them as 50 years had passed. As far as vegetation it would be nice that the same tpe of original vegetation was to be used, up to Arma 3 standards of course, but the placement of vegetation (with the greater exception of forests and most trees) could change, since vegetation can change a lot during 50 years. Now i don't want sound like an elitist, which i would hate, but i am (proudly) an OFP veteran. A 2035 Malden that would pay homage to the original OFP: Cold War Crisis game would bring great joy and Nostalgia to every OFP veteran like me. It is true that Malden is based on Lefkas in Greece, but i care more about the ArmAverse. I care about its legacy, about remembering the story and the characters, about stories that haven't been told yet. No doubt the best way to play on Malden is the CUP mod right now, but i'm sure that some agree that Malden 2035 should be Malden 50 years after Malden 1985. And this means that the old Malden is still there but it has grown independently thanks to many who lost their lives in 1985. Fiction i know, but a beautiful homage on the 16th anniversary. So yeah i would rather pay for a 2035 Malden where i can still relate to all the battles i fought there 16 years ago (in real life) or 50 years ago (in the ArmAverse) should i say.

My 2 cents: I certainly appreciate the idea of bringing an old map like the beloved ones from OFP. But seriously it doesn't look like Malden at all, it feels like were on Stratis. Although i do agree that 2035 Malden would look different from 1985 Malden, it wouldn't look this different. There would be certainly still lots of old houses and structures from 50 years ago. It would also be appreciated some easter eggs for all us OFP veterans, i'm imagining something like a graveyard with a tombstone engraving saying something like: "Here lies Kozlowski". Or a statue that would commemorate Guba's capture: "On July 10th 1985 Major James Gastovski captured General Aleksei Vasilii Guba, a rogue General from the Red Army of the Soviet Union. The efforts of Major Gastovski and his team assured that peace would endure for the Malden Islands." I was pretty excited with the Malden DLC but now not so much. But i would really love to see Everon and Malden to be remade for 2035, but with a natural evolution, with bigger locations that would keep their old buildings in center and expand to the outskirts with modern buildings, much like in real life. I really loved the Cold War setting in Armaverse and the characters and story are just great. There's great stuff that was not explored, like James Gastovski and Victor Troska were close friends who had been in combat together, maybe during the 1970's. I think the Malden DLC would have been a great way of paying homage to ArmA legacy, the story and its characters.

I love the effort Bohemia is putting into this! Thank you oukej and the other devs. I am however still using the old Xendance mod. I love the target lead cannon weaponry. For rockets however the BIS CCIP is still innacurate. Rockets do not hit where the CCIP is pointing to but rather a little to the left or right depending on if you are using AP or HE rockets. Using the Xendance CCIP mod the rockets hit spot on. I'm hoping for some improvements for the BIS implementation.

I'm having the same problem despite ging through the account and redeeming Apex. When i did, it apparently send the key to my steam account but i still can't access Apex as it does not appear on the DLC. And to make things better now that i am trying to access my BI account to check my purchases and try the redeem again, the damn site is in maintenance.

In the Flight model thread here i started to do some tests on how the 30mm Cannon seemed a step back when compared to the GAU-8, and how the A-164 does not seem a worthy successor. I created this thread to allow the discussion to continue on a proper thread. Here are the issues i presented: Ok just made a small test. The 30mm DU rounds should have extra penetrating capability. But in the tests it doesn't really feel anything special compared against other types of 30mm rounds. Against a building: Against plywood plaques or some sort: Against Metal Containers: Now it seems to me that 30mm DU penetrating capability isn't very realistic. Either 30mm needs to penetrate more or objects in the Arma 3 have way too much armor. Maybe it's a little of both... I was curious... So it seems that the 12.7mm APDS round penetrates deeper than the A-164 30mm Round. Just took a look into configfile >> "CfgAmmo" >> "Gatling_30mm_HE_Plane_CAS_01_F" and values are: caliber: 1.4 hit: 32 indirecthit: 12 indirecthitrange: 3 This is basically the same as: configfile >> "CfgAmmo" >> "B_30mm_HE". So BIS might change settings. I would be cool to see two types of ammo available for the A-164. To attack hard targets a 30mm_DU round: caliber: 8 hit: 150 indirecthit: 8 indirecthitrange: 1 To attack soft targets (cars, personnel) a somewhat improved 30mm_HE round: caliber: 1.5 hit: 40 indirecthit: 15 indirecthitrange: 3 If supposedly the A-164 Wipeout is the A-10 Warthog successor, make it a worthy successor. As it seems right now the Wipeout in Arma 3 performs worse than the venerable Warthog in Arma 2. One cool feature would be that the Wipeout had an internal system that would allow to reload between HE and AP rounds. That would be a cool "advancement" between the Warthog and Wipeout instead of the cosmetic change which has no gameplay impact whatsoever.

How about that story when a pair of SU-24's buzzed the USS Donald Cook and supposedly jammed the Aegis radars making the whole destroyer blind? Does anyone still believe that story?

It is possible that the warnings started just before the SU-24 entered Turkish airspace. Either way the Turks got trigger happy. I think the US and other countries are interested of having them in NATO because of the strategic reasons. The US have a major presence at Incirlik. Other than that i rather not have them at NATO either. Killing the pilots is clearly revenge and religion motivated crap. They would have much more to gain by capturing them alive and would give the message that they are truly moderate. Instead they acted like fuckin barbarians.

One more reason to not act like assholes and doing all these silly provocations that happened days before. With such a condensed airspace where Syrian and Russian Air Forces flying around and also the western coalition it would be good to everybody coordinate and cooperate, this would avoid such accidents and even fracticides which we know are common during wartime operations. And since apparently Russian planes had already violated Turkish airspace it would be wise to be more careful to avoid these violations instead of "we can fly over your territory and buzz your aircraft carriers and you can't do anything about it" policy. I don't doubt that the Turks were trigger happy, but again the Russians are saying it was shot down from the ground, so i can also speculate that the Russian politicians don't mind losing 2 pilots to get an alibi to now bomb the FSA relentlessly. To be honest i just want IS to be destroyed, i think the FSA isn't what it was anymore and it wa probably better to keep Assad in power. So this just turned into a big clusterfuck. Our thoughts should be with the pilots (confirmed dead?) and their families, and i hope these stupid politics changed so that lives that fight for the better are not lost.

Wait CNN? So now sources from imperialistic western media controlled by evil US shills is to trust? Seriously now. If the source is accurate Turkish airspace was indeed violated. So was Turkish airspace really violated? Russia says no! If SU-24 never entered Turkish airspace F-16's should have never took a shot at it, so it's Turkey fault. But Russia MOD says that it didn't enter Turkish airspace and it was shot from the ground. So FSA shot SU-24 with MANPADS? Or was it ISIS? Russia claims the Fencer was flying at 6000 meters. As you can see there are lots of information and misinformation that contradicts itself. Reminds me when the Malaysian airliner was shot over Ukraine. For me, i think the truth is in the middle. I think the Turks have been ready the last few days for something like this to happen and took a shot at first opportunity, and the Russian MOD thought the Turks were pussies that wouldn't dare to fire on their aircraft and kept on with the same provocations and violations it has been doing the past weeks. Again this is result of stupid politics and because of that pilots lost their lives because they were following stupid orders. And now it can be that other pilots on both sides might lose their lives on butt-hurt border clashes between TuAF and RuAF.

If IS positions are on Turkish soil its Turkish jurisdiction. And stop with that bullshit because we know that IS claims territory in Syrian an Iraq. Do you think that politicians in Russia don't know that any attack inside NATO members territory would imply a response from other NATO members? You jump in defence of Russia because you think i'm attacking Russia. French, US and RUSSIAN planes bomb IS positions in Syria but we know its a totally different situation. There should not be any fuss about airspace violation but if the US would bomb IS positions inside Russia you would absolutely love that US or any NATO country was flying inside Russian territory? Lolz... Get over it, this is not the first time Russia violated Turkish territory, and Turkey warned Russia before. This is the fault of stupid politicians decisions, and because of this Russian and Turkish pilots lives are put at stake. Why did Russian SU-30's were painting (air to air lock) Turkish F-16's when the Turkish jets were well inside their territory? Navigation problem like Russian officials claim? Seriously? Maybe Russia should stop entering other countries airspace and it would even avoid disrupting civilian flights like on October 26th my brother in law flight got delayed because of Russian TU-XX incursions inside British airspace. Both stories: Russia: - SU-24 was on Syrian airspace; - It was shot from the ground; - We can prove it didn't violate Turkish airspace; Turkey; - Our F-16's shot down SU-24; - We warned them 10 times and no answer; - It was inside our airspace;

While i agree with you 100% on this that doesn't justify Russia sending its bombers to violate Turkish airspace. This is apparently not the first time it happens and Turkey warn them before. So those Russian planes should be hammering IS positions instead of being sent in useless childish provocations. Think about the Russian pilot who lost his life because of stupid orders and think of his family. Striked the upper comment has it is not confirmed a pilot died after all.

I'd rather see the amazing engine features of VBS 3 on Arma 3.

The major problem is that AI doesn't seem to suffer any penalty from being hit. Usually a rifle round (5.56 and up) have enough force to shock the person shot, even thouhg the bullet is stopped and depending on the distance one can receive shock/pain/trauma from the impact. I think that usually soldiers fall to the ground not because of the blunt force of the impact but because of the immediate shock and trauma it causes. If a soldier falls to the ground from being hit it can take a couple of seconds to recover/get up and during this moment his vulnerability might be an advantage for the enemy. In Arma AI just flinches, (i haven't played in a while and i don't know if anything has been done in the mean time) and consequently shoots you in the head.

Like i mentioned in my Wipeout thread i came up with this formula to calculate better hitpoint values for the Gatling cannon. Taking a further look into the vanilla config and looking at what the GM6 Lynx AP round can do, the values i came up with are far from being unrealistic or game breaking. I think it does better simulate an AP/HEI combat mix. One step further maybe we could have the ability to change the gun loadout while the plane is on ground, with an AP/HEI mix like i suggested and a more pure HEI loadout with reduced hit values to maybe half what the AP mix can do but with increased indirectHit values to make more sense against infantry. As far as Flight model, i have no idea what to suggest as i'm not a config expert, but i'm hoping something could be done.

A friend of mine from Latvia told me that once she asked a lady (the lady was around 60 to 70yo) if she could tell her what time it was. The lady answered her in Russian: "How dare you speak to me in Latvian?" I know this sounds like a single isolated case, but it seems that some older folks still have difficulty to accept the modern era.

I do not oppose removing the ability to lock with Cannon but the problem is people running on lower end systems are gonna have trouble finding the targets way up because they can't crank up the object view distance. By the time the objects start to render is kinda hard to put the pipper on target, specially because the flight model is still very weak there's no way to trim the aircraft.

I'm happy to report that after changing my addon rate of fire to default values the stuttering i was experiencing has disappeared. BTW, has BIS romeved the ability of locking targets with the cannon?

Agreed, but not all planes are as sturdy as the Warthog. But since in ARMA all planes are essentially CAS, all that you stated makes sense. But i would like to see a more advanced damage model as well. It would be cool to see shit breaking up instead of a plane that crashes intact, although in a wreck state. This is one of the things that BIS should have done for a long time.

I agree with most of your post, but AI is extremely accurate and planes would be too easily destroyed by gunners on APC's. So the problem is a little more complicated. What i would like to see would be a more advanced destruction model, where a missile or heavy cannon rounds could tear off a wing, and the plane would not be flyable any more so it would crash. As of now the plane keeps flying unless damage state is 1. The system shows its age.