10t

Updated: my problem was that Alive was messing with the locality of the units, I think. My workaround is to have all the units whose uniforms I want to mess with as standard editor-placed units, and let Alive profile the rest.

Hey all, sorry to keep flogging this dead horse. The good news is that I have no trouble giving human players new uniforms in MP and for them to be immune to JIP-underpants syndrome. Thanks to all the contributors in this thread for their valuable info, without which I'd never have twigged to the locality issues around add/removeUniform. My trouble is with changing AI uniforms. I've got a bunch of generated units spawning mid-mission (thanks to Alive's CQB module), and I want to change their uniforms. I have a script that finds all the units, strips them, adds a random hat and uniform from some arrays. The headgear's fine, which is no surpirse, but the uniform doesn't work (also no surprise). I'm obviously suffering from the same "addUniform is local" issue - combined with the "BIS_fnc_MP doesn't work on a dedicated server" issue. At the relevant part of the script (not a function) where the uniform has just been removed and the script's slept for 1 second, a I've tried the following: // _x is the current unit in a { ... } forEach allUnits loop // _uniform is a selected uniform name selected randomly from a predefined list of uniforms _x addUniform _uniform; // or [[_x, {_this addUniform _uniform}], "BIS_fnc_spawn", true] call BIS_fnc_MP; // or [[{}, _x addUniform _uniform], "BIS_fnc_spawn", true] call BIS_fnc_MP; In every case it works fine on a locally-hosted MP mission. In no case does it work for a mission hosted on a Dedicated server. I know BIS_fnc_MP doesn't fire properly on a Dedi Server, but I was hoping that it would work in this case by giving the units the right uniform on all the human machines anyway. Can anyone point out where I've made a stupid and obvious mistake? Or point at an existing, working, AI loadout-changing script I can butcher? Thanks.

That's much better news than I expected, thanks!

I'm able to use a custom squad.xml URL to define and use a logo on mounted vehicles and get player metadata (squad webpage, 'remark', etc) in multiplayer games. I can't see the logo displayed on any infantry units though, which I believe was possible in A2. Am I doing something wrong, is this just something overlooked by the modellers, or is it a deliberate departure from the ways of the past? Similarly, and I guess this question might belong in Modding, is it possible for unit/uniform/faction makers to implement the attachment point (or whatever it is) with their units?

TomNedry has a nice PHP and SQLite one at his site HERE. For creating your own logos to use with your custom Squad.xml, look at the Biki page - it's excellent, if a little out of date. You'll probably want the Gimp (for rasterised images) or Inkscape (for vector images) to create your images with transparency. I've always used TexView2 to convert my Targa images to .PAA textures, but I've lost the download link and now see that Arma3Tools (available in Steam) includes ImageToPAA, which presumably does the same job but better. YMMV. (wonders if he's hit the spambot detection threshold of links vs. words ratio)

Whew, glad I wasn't missing something obvious in there. Thanks for the quick - and encouraging - response!

The devs are clearly pretty aware of the issue: Yeah, it's a bit jarring - but I can deal with it.

Hey guys, loving Alive and pretty awed by the possibilities it opens up. I'm trying to use it to add ambient Civilians to some towns - but when I try they're all spawning as OPFOR (edit: to be clear - they're still Civ units but they belong to OPFOR. They have red diamonds when I do 'show markers' and any Blufor units engage them on sight). I've read the wiki and seen that it's not fully implemented yet, and that a workaround (which I'm using) is to use a CQB module. In a fresh mission, I have only myself (a BLUFOR rifleman), a marker on my town, and the following Alive modules: Alive Required, Admin, Profile, and CQB. The CQB module has the marker in the Whitelist box and Civ_F in the Faction boxes for Strategic and Regular structures. Is this behaviour (the Civs being spawned as Opfor) me missing something obvious? Or is it just a limitation of trying to use CQB for ambient civs for now? It's pretty frustrating (and kind of disturbing) to have some Blufor troops who are meant to be stationed in the town to protect the populace start stalking from building to building executing civvies in their homes instead.

The hardware (MPU-6050) is 6dof: A 3-axis accelerometer and 3-axis gyro. So it should be no problem. You can bind any of the TrackIR (or, presumably FaceTrack) axes to progressive lean. I'm pretty sure that the 'peek right/peek left' (where you sidestep out and switch gun hands if you go left) is all-or-nothing though.

It's pretty clear why Workshop entries get more feedback though, right? As soon as I'm done playing a mission from the workshop, there's a link right there to go and comment. Right there in the game. And I'm already logged into Steam; I can just click and Bam! Typing feedback! The effort and mindfulness barrier or requirement is so low for people that they'll happily spend some time commenting. People who download missions from elsewhere - the forums or Armaholic - may not play the mission until hours or days later. They likely went on a downloading binge and got several in one go. By the time they actually play your mission, a good number won't even remember what it is or where it came from. Once they're done - even if they're keen to give feedback - they need to quit or Alt-Tab out of Arma, fire up a browser, track your mission down in here or on Armaholic, and finally log into that other service and start typing. Or if they put it off until later (after all - they're in the middle of playing Arma), then I don't like your chances of them remembering to do it when they stop. Even with the best of intentions, people are very unlikely to go out of their way to do something like give feedback with so many small things making it just too hard. Sure, it's not a lot of effort when compared to what went into making the mission - but you can either deal with the reality of what motivates people, or you can feel self-righteous and hard done by and sulk that they aren't behaving the way you want them to. If you want comments and feedback, the best way you'll get that is to make it easier for people to do it, and make sure they don't have to think too hard about it. An endMission trigger that popped up a usable hyperlink to the thread or Armaholic page where it was hosted would be ideal if it were possible. The licensing issues with the Workshop are (rightly) concerning, and I'm sure there are other reasons not to publish there - but the ease with which people can connect with you after trying your content is pretty attractive.

They do. They set up a whole feedback tracker for things like this: http://feedback.arma3.com/ What's more, by uploading your repro there you can get sympathetic people in the community to test and validate your concern. Like Furret said: everyone wins.

Put "respawn=0;" in description.ext and re-export the mission. It should disable respawn. Or set it to 1 for bird (since changed to spectator camera, I believe). Edit: This is pretty super-useful http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Respawn

From an old Alpha thread, here's a picture I knocked up to compare Altis and Lemnos: Linear dimensions on Altis are 75% of those on Lemnos. Which means that the area is 0.752 = 56% of the real island.

Well, there's the thread title right there at the start. Which is a totally reasonable question from someone trying to educate themselves. Then the rest of the post gives us more context so we can understand the questioner's current level of knowledge and what thinking they've already done, so we can answer as well as possible. I'm not sure that it could have been done much better, really.

Dxtory allows recording multiple audio inputs to multiple tracks. Also has a PTT (or push-to-record) function, which would probably cover your requirement there. There are some good YouTube videos covering good ways to set it up.

You're not... crouching, are you? I read the ticket you raised. The bit I agree with is the "torso should twist too" bit, but - except for deadzone - I don't think it's coming in a hurry. And don't think the programming effort would be worth it, because I don't have any trouble seeing as far over my shoulder as I want. Maybe there's something funky going on with your FOV?

Agreed. I suspect a major sticking point is that the centre of rotation with a bipod should be the bipod pivot point. As much as I love TMR weapon rest - it bugs the heck out of me that I'm still pivoting around the player's torso instead of moving side-to-side to aim.

Hi all, I'm trying to put a placed demo charge into a container (a static object which I can then carry on the player, using an attachTo - not a weaponContainer). I can get it attached, but once I attach it to the container, the "Touch off 1 bomb(s)" option won't set it off. The following works: - function checks if a democharge ("DemoCharge_Remote_Ammo") is nearby - function attaches nearest democharge to the container (satFONE, in this case) with the required offset More stuff: - If I try and use the "Touch off" action, the action disappears (as though it worked). - If I place two charges, the action shows "Touch off 2 bomb(s)" and I can detonate the unattached one. The "Touch off" action then disappears. - I can disarm the explosive. It then returns to its disarmed state and I can pick it up and re-deploy it. - I know there are some great "stick explosives on anything" scripts out there already. I'm not using them because I swap the Satellite Phone with a Suitcase (normally at [0,0,0]) when the player picks it up. As part of that swap it attaches the Demo Charge to the suitcase/sat phone as required. - If I attach the satellite phone to the bomb it works fine, but then when I pick up the phone the bomb is left behind. I'm open to another way of doing things if it'll let me use an existing, working script (like keep the sat phone object the same and change the model, or something - but I don't have any idea how to do that or if it's even possible). Ideally I'd be able to place the Demo Charge, set the timer (desired, but not requried), place it in the sat phone, "close" the phone, have the timer run out and detonate OR Touch off the bomb and detonate it. Any ideas? The script that adds the actions to the container (just the relevant bit - the other parts are the pickup/drop and open/close bits). I know there are too many global variables, but I was having "undefined variable" errors so I've dropped back to this for now. explCharge = objNull; action_setChargeFone = satFONE addAction ["Set Charge", { if (!isNull explCharge) then { hint "Explosives already set!"; } else { _explCharge = [satFONE, [0,0,-0.15]] call ZAK_fnc_setChargeInObj; if (!isNull explCharge) then { hint format ["Expl Charge set: %1", explCharge]; // this is just a debug hint - ###TODO: remove }; explCharge = _explCharge; }; }]; And the put-DemoCharge-in-object function: // 10T_fnc_setChargeInObj.sqf private ["_receptacle","_offset", "_explCharge"]; _receptacle = [_this, 0, objNull, [objNull]] call BIS_fnc_param; _offset = [_this, 0, objNull, [objNull]] call BIS_fnc_param; _explCharge = objNull; _listOfBombs = (player nearObjects ["DemoCharge_Remote_Ammo", 2]); if ((count _listOfBombs) > 0) then { _explCharge = (nearestObject [player, "DemoCharge_Remote_Ammo"]); _explCharge attachTo [satFONE, [0,0,-0.15]]; //_explCharge enableSimulation; hint format ["RC: %1\nOS: %2\n Expl: %3", _receptacle, _offset, _explCharge]; // this is just a debug hint - ###TODO: remove } else { hint "Looking for Demo Charge...\nNo explosives placed nearby!"; }; _explCharge

F2k Sel I'm away from my machine right now, so I can't check. I'm sure that would work to initially place the charge at the case, but when the case is carried around later, the charge will be left behind, right? I'm keen to avoid doing something like looping a script that updates the charge position every frame, since it'll be used in MP and I'd like to avoid wacky issues and any unnecessary network messages. I did make some progress by switching positions of the charge and case, and then attaching the case to the explosive (instead of the other way around). Now the pickup script checks whether a charge has been placed (if (!isNull explCharge) then...) and if so, it attaches explCharge to the player instead. The case is attached to the charge, so it follows. All good, except now - with the DemoCharge attached - my player walk/run animation doesn't play any more. The character is just hovering 1mm above the ground and scooting everywhere like a dalek or a single-frame sprite from a game from the 1980s. Is that a known issue, or have I just messed something up?

Dunno if this will help, but I use this in my triggers: { ({ _x in playableUnits } count crew _x ) > 0 } count thislist > 0 Obviously that just checks whether there are any. If you dump the trailing ">0", it gives you "the number of players on foot + the number of vehicles with at least on player in them". Again not exactly what you want. edit - After re-reading yours, this doesn't really add anything to the method you're using, and gives less valuable information. Oh well.

I see a lot of comments about AI taking too many shots to kill. I see almost as many responses telling people to turn off Extended Armour, because it makes AI stronger. It begs the question: what's the point of it? If it only affected Friendly units (or the player) then I'd understand it as a crutch for people playing on Recruit or Regular (where it's enabled by default). But if enemy are assisted by it too, then I don't see the point. Am I right that Extended Armour increases the number of shots to kill AI? If so, is that deliberate? Or is it a bug? Finally, would it be better to have it disabled for all difficulties by default? Would anyone (who didn't know how to turn it back on, that is) miss it? My guess is that it'd reduce the cries of "Arma 3 is teh not realistic!!1!one", and I can't think of a downside.

Extended Armour on or off? I'm betting you still have it switched on.

With that thread title, everyone's going to think this thread's about mêlée combat, not ejector seats.

Unless you tell us your view distances (overall and object), you haven't really told us what your display options are set at.

Yep, fire damage has been in since alpha (and I have very dull screenshots to prove it).