gammadust

Ohh... but there is also a very inbetween: but if I got an incentive with what additional quality and dedication would I cherry top this mod

I think it is pointless voting on anything that is only a broad line of an objective. Maybe it can be more useful measuring the community's standing when we have an idea from start to finnish.

Right now we don't know and we can't know. I started this thread not so much to speculate what Bohemia will effectively bring to the table, such discussion would be pointless with so few information. The stated purpose of the thread is more to raise the concerns (i have my own and have put them up in the OP) that we as a community may have, since this, imo, is the best way for Bohemia to take a decision connected with the community, who knows even, mold the goal and its materialization in a different direction altogether. (maybe i can be accused of jumping the gun a bit early on those quotes, but the discussion was already taking place in a scattered way, the idea is definitely impacting, we might as well unite the opinions in an easy to access place to Bohemia) Let me remove your concern there. As a consumer i always drive for the BEST deal, as a player with limited resources to allocate for entertainment, buying those mentioned DLCs as Steam deals was just opportunity. I usually like what i pay for, and those specifically were deals i liked very much. Regarding the second part, i clearly separated my suggestion from the topics i found worthy of discussion (list has grown). No where did i ever suggest for modders to start charging, not that i would find it an outrage at all, but exacly because i also find that as descharacterizing of this community, such an idea would definitely encounter founded opposition. How is it that a modder participating in a contest would mean him charging players for his mods? But that is my suggestion, what i would like this thread to produce would be multiple suggestions on making the idea "Opening up Arma 3 to paid user-made content" not only possible but also welcomed by the community at large, sufficiently discussed to account for all reasonable concerns. It might be too early to expect that (Marek mentions months), i think the idea is still in the drawing board for there being definite answers on the part of BIS, let them stick to their schedule for this.

Did you check "Put" and "Take" eventHandlers, maybe they might help you, there's a ticket regarding an apparent bugged usage, but OP there says also that "Works with clothing and vest though".

I don't see the point of going into semantics. Totally aggree when you say "Why not a comprehensive modding "TTP3"? Wouldn't you think the broader the inputs to it's creation the richer and more effective, instead of a single guy spending it's best efforts and time? This is a type of effort were an "aggreement" does not have to imply endless discussions about whatever detail(s) (was it my mention of "comission" - it was presented exacly as an obstacle). Contributions can be and are mostly comulative not necessarily confrontational/mutually exclusive, specially since we even have as reference the access to the practices/solutions and interactions with the engine preferred by Bohemia. But one needs to interpret those examples, simplify them, abstract them to allow more general applicability and usage possibilities, put them at the reach of a new modder. I structured my thought with a focus on standards, it is also the OP wording. Collect this has you find it usefull and motivating for you own participation in enriching the ultimate goal(s), helping newcoming modders is a noble one, i also mentioned it, but I am absolutely sure the benefits are not limited to this. Don't get me wrong, maybe you misinterpret my wording, and of course i can also be wrong in my own interpretation of the OP intents, but it appears to me you're seeing some kind of incompatibility or friction between notions where it is simply not due. If it is the feasibility regarding the scope of task that lets you more skeptical, i also mention it as an obstacle, others mentioned it, we know! Is there something we can do about it? Start small, basic things, superficial things. Distributed to several guys with own experience at a specific topic (i know not much about modeling, but i'm sure i could effectively contribute elsewhere), even several guys contributing to the same topic, sharing some best practices. We just need to set common goals and objectives. Work on what we can agree and i even risk to say that if we simply ignore the stuff we can't aggree on, we still could create something useful.

Update: version 1.51 download Solution to menu position may not fully solve for all screen sizes - additional input appreciated, until a more general solution can be found.

Have you noticed that if you click on the icons on the Visual Scheme you will find the purpose of each object further informing how to setup? What do you mean "simple horde type combat"?

Yea... despite no coded routines in danger.fsm as Varanon mentions, i believe i saw some sort of reactions (combat mode if i'm not mistaken), if so > engine hardcoded. Keep in mind also that they may react differently if encountering dead group units against the others.

Try "Show Info" (bottom right on the modules menu) in editor it should give you a hand at the basic setup. (triggers+units+module placement and sinchronization) Apart from that never used it, but check it's description.

be warned that i was a bit rushy with this release, code is not very tidy at all and there's a possibility you guys becoming testers :P

+1 (the very reason i created my own blog* to host my stuff, i knew about the project hosting but after sign up - aka gamma there - i did not immediatly find a way to do it) *for a hammer everything looks as nails

I think the community is moving with ideas, i have just read Unified Addon Standards and a bit less recently A solution to the A2/BI content in A3 and your thoughts, DevHeaven Improvement Project (and shameless plug "Opening up Arma 3 to paid user-made content" - How?), such a CaMSO would assist so much in reaching for these goals, that extra bit of involvement from Bohemia would be key... i welcome the idea very much. I have more permanent tabs in this forum, but these are in my main firefox window, right next to the gmail login lol.

I think there is a great potential for standardization to help in many fronts to the benefit of everyone: Modders: - Access to templates which ease their work (ie. configs, models) - Scripting guidelines for common functionalities - Common set of concepts and wording, facilitating communication for whatever purposes - Learning aids for beginners - etc. Players: - Would start to recognize the patterns modders adopted (ie. Menus for interaction in the same place and input keys, manual configuration of mods) - Common visual theme for addon types and presentation helping identification - etc. Standardization is a natural force against the fragmentation of servers we see, if not directly, no one is forcing no one to adhere to the standards be they modders or server hosters, but they can weigh in along the time. Surprise factors are reduced on all tables where guidelines are set. The thing is, and probably the most relevant reasons behind no standard being in effect: Bohemia as the most authoritative does not share their own (which i'm sure exist, but perhaps contain too internal of information) in which hipothetical case i believe the whole scene would already be riding that wave. Secondly at the lack of an authority one needs a comission to aggree on them (clan/mod groups have them by their nature), the whole community does not serve as a comission. Thirdly there is significant work involved creating the different standards, distant from what a modder prefers to do most. Forthly there is a tendence to look at standards at such a deep level that it's very utility becomes rare, and at the same time increasing the odds that a modder wil not adhere to. Let's start with surface stuff, someone mentioned that modders don't like to fit their mods in categories, but: - Island (all islands share a modding process, they can be seen as special case) - Asset (all use models, highly depend on common set of config entries) - Mission (more diverse, but just asking a mission maker how many times he repeated a finish condition and...) - Feature (most features require activation menus, can't we agree a common place were this functionality will be available?) Back to basics, simple stuff, begginer level stuff. Can't we in this community find some intermediate level modders, familiar with the basics, to survey for these routines, these sufficiently abstract and basic notions for each category types of mods, and start to solidify some uniformity? One just needs to look at his own workflow, the basics pop up on every corner (what is that repeating decision i allways fall down to in this part of my creation process?). Any standards made as an option to the end-modder, he ultimately decides the level of adherence, and let whatever standard become norm by it's merit and not by ruled enforcement. There is a natural tendence to stability, let's aid and create some references, uniformity will emerge. I really think there is merit to the OP and there are potential benefits of huge impact. This is actually an idea so dear to me that i have a reference to it (in passage) in the topic created to collect input on the pollemic "paid user-made content" (i call them rules/guidelines in the context of a Contest, idea independently of which any standards a mod could reach out to would absolutely benefit all). I really think we should make an effort.

Synthesis of 16 hours of input so far: (14/09/2013)

^^ my appologies if i mistakenly interpreted the purpose of your post as an ad absurdum comparison with the factual US'/Nato's encirclement of Russia (and it's sphere of influence).

Update: version 1.5 download @PawelKPL yes... i am having trouble with my webhost. Here's an alternative link @Caeden The multiplayer demo mission does not provide a configuration menu interface as does the single player, if that is what you're expecting to happen. Missing any introduced bug (since i originally tested it) it's purpose is to provide the clients the same effect, keep them in sync, while not stressing the server itself with the required processing. Aside of that it requires some configuration GAM_TimeXlerationMP = [1, 20, true, 2] execVM "GAM\GAM_TimeXleration\scripts\timexleration-mp.sqf"; // these are the defaults // meaning: // 1 - minutes between server syncing // 20 - accelerates time by a factor of 20x // true - is activated on startup // 2 - computation is run only once every 2 frames on the client (too reduce load) unfortunately i am unable to do some proper testing with MP so soon to take a better look at why it may be bugging out.

@Rian and all thanks for the heads up was made with the initial alpha, something must have broken it. I shall look into it, but not tonight it is beddy time for me...

In a way some members are favouring this thread for their criticisms. I disagree with the suggestion, not if in replacement of healthy discussion that can still happen here. If one isolates the criticisms from "rebuttals" one artificially limits their potential for being valid and accepted as such. The process is forcefully dialectical if it is to bring fruition. As it happens there is various levels of disappointment/enjoyment and manners with which to deal with it, the limits should be imposed on the manners not on the object of disagreement. I strongly agree with some of the criticisms despite my fanboyism cloak.

^^ "but they can, so they're guilty" - I hear the same about Assad's alleged usage of chemical weapons. "they didn't do it, but they can" - except that in the last ~10 years, Nato/US let itself involve in armed conflicts in at least 1 relevant instance near russian borders and 2 more in it's broader area of influence. "[Russia's] permanent presence... in the case of a possible confrontation [against the US]". - except that one needs to really search deep to find one such example, not even a low plural of examples to one even think of applying the word "encirclement" which is the main point of contention here. Of course it is stupid to think of it... but it appears to me that you're trying to make look as even, circumstances which clearly are not with your "It's nothing short of...".

Maybe instead of unhappy or mislead, you could lay your weight under the (reasonable) assumption that your expectations could still be fulfilled if you pressure your standing in this forum in a more positive minded way? Apart of that ask for refund, but make sure to introspect and figure how "contractual" can you make of those perceived promisses to make a winning case.

@ Fulcrum90 and your argument is self-defeating, because those who paid earlier would in that case be castrated by the very same token. (did you read all my post?) Plans never go accordingly. Perfection does not exist! Only it's drive which culminates exacly in understanding this, from then forward, all is contingency.

There's the idea crossing that perhaps BI should have delayed the release of the full game, until all stated and "suggested" promisses were finished to a minimum of quality as set by BI. And i could absolutely relate to this option, but... BI would then be missing the release day of 12th September, instead it does not miss the date but misses the schedule of some of the stated promisses. What would be worse? I wonder what exacly would be the reaction in the forums if that was the case, would it lead to more or less outrage? As a costumer knowing this product only through the Steam store, what would make one more frustrated? (Thinking of those who bought into alpha/beta after the release day was advertised) Now, in regards to the continued development of Arma 3, this would not make any significant difference: in both circumstances BI would still keep it's development until considered finnished, specially the stated promises. THEREFORE the release day is a mere formality in a franchise such as Arma 3, but for the fact that do exist some commercial commitments associated with it. Compare this with any other franchise were the players are dumped as soon as the money has transfered hands. I think it is unfair to Bohemia (and even ourselves) for a good deal of us in this forum to pretend that Bohemia will not heed to it's promises, as if that did not happen in the past, as if Bohemia did not deserve the benefit of doubt. And if this is somehow easy to expect from some of the newcomers, which could not know better, this is specially surprising for those veterans around which do know better but reveal the level of restraint of the former. And am I just imagining things and no one fits these categories, WHY all the fuss, WHAT is the rush? "I want it all, I want it all, 'n I want it NAO"? I am assuming more maturity than this stance would suggest in these forums. Should I not?

Right now worths every penny (and with +600 hours already since alpha it was worth it absolutely). There, my opinion. But finding an explaination is not that hard... a good part of the community, veterans and newcomers alike expected "more", as simple as that. Expectation management is not something companies do through their PR deps. alone, the end-user is expected to do the same (there we go... expectations, expectations...). I managed my expectations quite well, with no big surprises. Sincerely hope those which have not are able to manage theirs and bypass the impatience their suffering at the moment. There's so much now in Arma 3 to enjoy, and so much more in the months to come.

If this is a switched-to-AI-unit-looses-leader type of issue, you should be able to solve it with: onTeamSwitch "selectPlayer (leader _from); {_x doFollow leader _from} foreach units _from; selectPlayer _to;"; more info here or specifically to your case: onTeamSwitch "(Pilot) doFollow leader (JTAC's group)"; // or something alike

^^ nope, it's not. That is a config mod, you get to set the water level once, and there it stays. OP is interested in scripting commands to allow dynamically change water level (ie. tides), which afaik, are inexistent right now.