Twix

Nice one, simple and does the job. Integrated it into my MPMission today and will report feedback once some of my players have tested it. Edit: Works fine and is quite handy. I have it running on a dedicated server MPMission domination style and no problem. I'll have to find a way to limit "become group leader", maybe based on rank, but otherwise it's doing what's intended :)

According to the ARMA wiki for macros, you can use #include "..\filename.sqf" to go back a folder level. However, I just can't get that to work. The game crashes and gives me " \foldername\..\filename.sqf not found as if it's not understanding the ..\ whatsoever Was it removed for arma 3? Any way around that but to copy the same include files all over the place?

Thanks, guess I'll have to copy everything everytime (and that explains the copy.bat files you can find in some projects!) The Bohemia wiki might need updating on that: here

It's true of course, but....in this day and age who cares about 90kb on a mission file? It's good practice but nothing to drive yourself nuts over. Clean and commented code is WAY more important than the mission size to me. Any code that a regular coder can't just open and immediately understand is done wrong in my book, even if it works flawlessly. A 4Mb instead of 5Mb MBmission on the other hand, who cares... I agree 200% for dynamic data though, especially what you push out and when (and if you really need to).

what? no, it's the other way around that I have problems, the include is in my root mission folder and I want to include it from my script\ folder. :)

Well, I have a define.sqf for example in the mission folder with just #define __DEBUG__ and I want to include that in all my scripts Works great for the couple scripts in the root mission folder, but for my \scripts\ files, it just can't find it.

A more "stable" version allows for finding deeper issues and core or odd gameplay issues while a "dev" version is more oriented toward finding the big issues fast, in order to have something stable. For dev versions usually you don't need a lot of testers, just dedicated good ones, with the proper knowledge required. For stable versions, you need TONs of people who will do TONs of different things, usually things other people (or even devs) won't even think about. Would be totally unproductive to force everyone on the dev build because they'll be swarmed by feedback, most of which would be not only redundant but also unproductive. Just check the tracker, you'll see the difference between the dev feedbacks and the stable feedbacks :)

Thanks and thanks for the PVclient/PVserver thing, didn't know about it yet. Damn, the more I learn the more I want to start everything from scratch :)

createMarker might be global, but setMarkerPos isn't so if you want to move your markers dynamically (new mission appear, etc), you need to update them on clients with setMarkerPosLocal, at least that's how I understand it. Usually I do things like this: 1) Update setMarkerPos server side 2) PV a variable like markerPosUpdated or whatever 3) Have a client side PVHE on that variable run setMarkerPosLocal. My question was related to WHICH HE is doing what and from what Radioman just posted, if you define the HE client side, it's ONLY the clients doing it, which is fine for me. That means when I PV, only the variable is sent (which is ridicule), all the rest is done 100% client side. If this is indeed true, I don't really see the problem with doing SHITTONS of stuff on clients, just using flags variable that you PV here and there on the server (apart from core server stuff of course). I'm still wondering if it's more efficient to pack all that you can into an array and send that over once, or to have tons of little independant variable that you PV as you go. I'm guessing arrays is the way to go but that would mean sending bigger chunks to everyone at the same time... Yea, for that it works because the server doesn't give a damn about any of that. You can't do that with dynamically updated markers that are results of server side scripts (missions, etc). Ah, thanks for clearing that up! As you said though, you NEED to send that stuff to the client, one way or the other. All you can do is find the "best" way, I agree. But in the end, it needs to send something :) In any case, thanks for the patience in trying to explain stuff like this. Some concepts are not easy to grasp without the basics (especially the entire networking bit) and some questions must appear completely stupid.

Alright, but what about addPublicVariableEventHandler? Is that 100% client based once the map is loaded or does the server send the ENTIRE thing every single time? (I updated the post you replied to while you were replying). I mean the wiki says it's the EH doing it, but which one? client, server, my grandma's?

Something I don't understand. You need publicVariable to make sure some things update on clients, and at the same time it seems everyone agrees that it screws people over (and is a bandwidth hog). How the heck would you update markers on a map for a MPMission without telling all clients to update it for example? I mean, no matter what, at SOME POINT, you need to send stuff to clients and force them to update... 1) What does "too frequently" in the wiki means? Does updating 3 or 4 markerPos in a row without any pause "too frequent"? What about 10? 20? 2) Also, is it better to just pack EVERYTHING in an array and publicVariable that array once and for all, or spread out the publicVariable here and there? 3) What about addPublicVariableEventHandler, isn't that purely client side once the map is loaded? Why would the server handle anything related to that once the client is connected and you publicVariable whatever you needed updated? 4) isn't BIS_fnc_MP an insane bandwidth hog since you send the entire functions everytime, to everyone? I mean, compared to a little marker update variable, that seems crazy. In Tonic example about vehicule lock, why wouldn't just have a variable store your lock state on the server, PV and in the PVhandler, do your thing? Seems WAY more efficient if handlers are handled 100% by the client. That could apply to everything...need to run something on clients, just make PV some "doFuncVar" or your choice and PV it...no? :) I'm probably completely off the ball park here but would love to understand...

Had to use regularCheck="{}" personally, otherwise it's near unplayable. Lowers security a bit of course but there's still the initial check that filter people out. Drives me nuts that I can't whitelist some people via UIDs though! Heck, I'm among the most kicked out during the checks and it's my own damn server :)

The _pos is a mistake, can just use getMarkerPos "base" or whatever. And it NEEDS to run on all clients, so that's not a problem right? Plus I'll just need this once, when they connect. Need to add something specific for JIP too I suppose, but I already have a section that runs once for JIP for markers so I can just add it there. In theory however, that could work? Though are eventhandlers that intensive? I mean..it's just a little variable update when you look at it...

Can't we just use and abuse addPublicVariableEventHandler? For example if I need to make my base buildings invulnerable, could I do this: Then when I init the server side of things, I just update flagMakeBaseInvulnerable to true and call publicVariable "flagMakeBaseInvulnerable". I mean, this works when using say3D in MPMissions to make it so every players hear sound, why not there? edit: Hmmm, would that mean that my global server side flagMakeBaseInvulnerable would still be true, while it would be false on all clients? Mind boggling!!

Good news. That's gonna cause some issues in MPMissions but things like this had to go. Not sure how I'm gonna make my dynamic base guards that are supposed to be allowdamage = false. Maybe I'll have to put them in editor directly somehow, then find a way to clone them with all their properties and move them...or something :) Or how to make the base buildings immune to damage to keep it clean since we can't access them in the editor directly.

Yea I understood what I was seeing but not why. The why made no sense and still doesn't. Got it working with the naming procedure, once you know..well...you know and it all seems so simple. Lost a lot of time scratching my head on that one though... Thanks for the help in any case! Another day learning something new is another good day :)

Hello, I've been trying to get something to happen when a player get in a given helicopter and insanely weird stuff keeps happening. I just can't figure it out so could use some help. This is an example of code Now...the weird stuff! The waitUntil works perfectly and when I get into the chopper, it exits and continues. The problem is that in the hint box, _v, player, vehicule of player AND driver de _v are ALL the same, in that they are the player!! I turned this around thousands of times and I don't understand how the waituntil can exit, and yet the vehicle of player IS the player in the next line! The crazy stuff continues though because the IF statement actually WORKS! If any clever mind can sort this out for me, I'd be grateful. Thanks in advance. Edit: Also, related, how do you check if a vehicle is of a specific name (given in mission editor).

I see, thanks, I'll try that.

Well, the idea is to have a script running to make sure only pilots can fly any of the helicopters on the map, even dynamically spawned ones. However, I have ONE helicopter that I want specific players to be able to use, even if not pilots. The issue came from trying to identify THIS specific chopper amongst the entire fleet of choppers running around on the map, so I gave it a specific name in the editor. Just can't get it back in scripts :)

with this I got this Still doesn't make ANY sense. typeOf returned B_MH9_F, which is a good start, thanks. However, how do you get the NAME (as defined in the name parameter on mission editor) of the vehicule in which is the player?

I suppose you could always remove the IP reporting done to gamespy. Not sure if that would work but seems like it. You should have a reportingIP= "arma3pc.master.gamespy.com" somewhere in your config file, just comment it and restart the server.

Hey, First, great mod, really nice in MP missions to be able have a clean UI and save & load loadouts like this, with various roles. Congratulation. I noticed a slight design flaw however in the latest version between the changes to the config.sqf (with the items limitations) and the Save/Load system. From what I could see, the Save/Load system works across all servers with VAS boxes and bypasses completely the restriction in place in the config.sqf. As an example, I'm trying to only put some of the R3F weapons, but remove all scopes and what not from that addon. The problem is that anyone can just go on another server, save a loadout with whatever they want from the R3F weapons, and load it on mine. Also works as is with the ACRE radios btw, you can save them and load them even if they are not in VAS list. I'll probably end up doing it myself with some variation of your new ACRE filter or just a vas_ variable check on the load, but just wanted to post a note here since, as mods will start to stack up, you'll probably be asked for options to turn off mods completely.

Another update: - The Play With Six generated bisign & bikeys work just fine for whatever reason, and it's using the version 1.03(r3), which seems to be the latest.

Morning, I am indeed using your latest version and deleted (as usual) everything related to the 1.02. Some more information on this if you want: - Creating my own signature files for the addon did not solve the problem. This is strange since I did this already without problems for the ACRE & JayArma3Lib in order to use a signed version on my server. - The error you receive is correct for the .rpt entry generated but it is not a regular signature problem from the user perspective. You do not get the .pbo error right then when you connect, instead you get to the lobby THEN just receive a message (client side) stating that you were kicked off. This is, to me, unique so far. All other signature issues are expressed BEFORE the client gets to the lobby itself.

Hey, First, great mod, really can't play without it now...hence my problem with this release :) There's something wrong with your bikey signature I believe as it's not recognizing the addon .pbo. Could you release a new version with the proper .bikey and .bisign (PM me if you need testing on this). edit: I even tried creating my own but still it's not working. Something wrong somewhere :)