Jump to content

tinter

Member
  • Content Count

    528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by tinter


  1. Well it has so many fundamental changes to the config values it could be ran alone.  Doubt it would work with other mods such as RHS etc... but then again why would you since it is a Vietnam era mod  :)

     

    It needs CBA of course.

     

    It should work with ACE.  I think they started working on ACE compatibility values a while ago.

    Modern equipment mixes well with past equipment as it's used by insurgents and less modernized armies.


  2. ACE makes changes to the explosives system and removes the vanilla actions in favor of it's own system, which causes it to lose compatibility with AI. This is why ACE doesn't recommend using ACE for missions that are not designed with it in mind, like the campaigns for example.

    You should ask in the ACE thread, I think they would be interested to keep their mod compatible with AI in most cases.

    • Like 1

  3. hi tinter are you in our team?

    i guess you didn't read our license which says

    best leave off editing our mod without permission eh?

    if you wish to contribute then by all means contact sgt_savage and join up properly.

    we can use help.

    If the devs had the same attitude as you, your mod would never be a thing.

    Best to stop threatening people for trying to see what can be done with the engine eh?


  4. Something I just remembered that existed and wish they used instead of the Osprey for the NATO gunship, is the OV-10. Because it is a small aircraft thats proven it's effectiveness in the past, and is being looked into once again for a reinvention. Plus it pretty much is a baby C-130 which who doesn't like the sound of that. Though realistically it wouldn't make sense to design or buy a new aircraft when you already have a proven design that can just be modified to do the same task. Then again a OV-10 modern could be made with stealth capabilities (full or semi) well also sporting a Semi-VTOL mode like the XI'AN that allows for a very slow flight speed.

     

    Which by the way the XI'AN would not work as a full VTOL design, instead it would be a more of  STOL system. Because those fans would not be able to produce enough thrust to properly maintain flight without forward movement occurring thus the wings aiding by providing lift. Unless there are secondary engine nozzles that are assisting in lift, which are easy to miss like the ones on the F-35's wings. And if carrying a vehicle or other heavy stuff the thing would most likely not take over using VTOL or STOL, but would have to use a run way.

    Also on a similar note regarding the blackfish, to anyone thats dealt with the Osprey in real life. Do you think the Blackfish would be able to successful land and take off vertically if carrying heavy cargo (Armored vehicles and such). Because I feel like it shouldn't be able to, but instead would have STOL capability or have to take off and land normally. Since it's really just a bigger Osprey that is most likely a bit heavier and also engines are most likely better, so performance would be safe to say would be pretty similar. And when you add in the fact vehicles like the MRAP's pretty much all weigh 20,000 pounds or more which would put an Osprey overweight for VTOL mode and possibly even it's true max take off weight. I think it's reasonable to say if the blackfish is carrying any of the armored vehicles it will most likely be over weight for VTOL, but if carrying one of the FAVs, normal cars, and/or supplies then most likely would not be over weight for VTOL.

    Regardless of what the real life characteristics of VTOL are, it would most likely be out of scope for Arma to implement something like that.


  5. It could also be possible for the ramp to open automatically once someone tries to enter or exit the aircraft. That would at least keep the functionality without having to confuse people with why they can't get in or out. As long as it doesn't close automatically afterwards, as that would lead to a silly loop of opening and closing once a lot of people get in or out.

    • Like 1

  6. I reckon most of the people who have a problem with non enterable buildings wouldn't have complained back in Arma 2 about maps like Chernarus which had closed off buildings. Just play the map for a bit and learn how to differentiate working from non-working doors.

    The problem is that there's no consistent way to tell working doors from non working doors.


  7.  

    The outcome is the same either way, you run to the door and try the handle OR check the action menu, the door is locked and you collapse on the stairs full-o holes, it doesn't make a slightest difference what is or isn't behind the door, you shall not pass.

     

     

    Except the problem is that the game doesn't communicate properly that the door isn't functional. Lack of action menu entry is not reliable and it's a bad way to go about it. There's lots of times where the action menu does have the capability to do what you want it to, but it's just being fumbly. So how do you know whether the door you're trying to open can or cannot be opened and it's not just the action menu being fumbly like it is sometimes? You could look at the windows, remember that the rooms in this particular building can't be entered or do whatever, but the problem is that there's no consistent way to be sure. The idea is that you shouldn't have to fumble with the action menu until you realize it can't be opened takes, at least personally, me out of the game and is a slight, but annoying waste of time.

     

    It might seem like a minor thing, but it's one of those details that impacts it negatively. Communication is important in keeping the game functional and immersive.

    If I can't open the door then the game shouldn't give me the signals that I can open the door, which it does by making them look like normal doors in most circumstances.

    • Like 8

  8. I can't tell just by looking at a door if it's locked or not in real life either, in my humble opinion you fellas are over analyzing this a bit.  :unsure:

     

    Arma isn't real life. In real life you can pull down on the handle and check it. In Arma, all you can do is open the action menu and wave your gun around to see if you can get the action and even then you're not entirely sure. It takes you out of the game.

    Not to mention, doors in real life are locked because they don't want people inside, while in arma they're locked because there is nothing behind it. In real life you might want to get inside anyway, while in Arma they should be disregarded by the player completely and you shouldn't have to fiddle with the action menu. They should either change the appearance, or make an action which makes a rattle sound like a real door would.

    • Like 2

  9. BIS has always had a certain visual shorthand for buildings: if you can see into a building, you can go into a building. Tanoa is the same. If the door you are approaching has windows you can't see through, then it's locked and unenterable.

     

    This is not true though.

    https://vgy.me/exhZJc.png

    There's three doors here, but only the one that leads outside is enterable. Of course it has some logic to it, in that no rooms are enterable, but it should feel natural. There's no clear indication that these doors are any different.

     

    For more examples, here's another pairs of doors that look alike but differ in functionality.

    https://vgy.me/8mILE7.png

    And these two.

    https://vgy.me/IHa6AA.png

    There's also the doors on the wall here.

    https://vgy.me/kAEF8k.png

    They actually removed the door handle on the door that can't be opened, but it's not really a clear indication as it's not consistent with all other doors.

    Again, I'm personally fine with buildings not being fully enterable, but I just want it to feel natural. As someone has said it's a problem when you walk to a door and the only indication it can't be opened is on the other side of the wall you're standing in front of. You're gonna waste time thinking the action menu is acting up.

    Bottom line, you should know, from any side, whether or not the door you're trying to open can actually be opened, without having to try to open it or look at the windows nearby, which aren't even always a clear indication, mostly when lacking windows.

    • Like 1

  10. I think the gameplay considerations are worth noting. Approaching a door that is locked is not only disappointing, but more noteworthy, it's confusing and it's not obvious which ways you can or cannot go through. The buildings should be designed so that they make sense even if they're only partly enterable.

    Also, I've mentioned this a few times, but I'm worried about it and have not heard from BIS, I hope they will make the rooftops compatible with AI, they cannot maneuver up there at the moment and it's a shame. The rooftop is more interesting for combat than the interiors., but they really need to be usable by the AI. I hope BIS will work on this.

    • Like 1

  11. I know people have been complaining about enterable buildings, but I think the added rooftop accessibility more than makes up for it. The real problem is that AI has no real way to access those rooftops. You'd have to manually place them on rooftops and then use a bunch of commands to lock them in place. It'd be nice if BIS could find a way to remedy this.

    Has anyone made a ticket for this or is it a feature request? I think someone said that the top of the building counts as building positions.


  12. I know people have been complaining about enterable buildings, but I think the added rooftop accessibility more than makes up for it. The real problem is that AI has no real way to access those rooftops. You'd have to manually place them on rooftops and then use a bunch of commands to lock them in place. It'd be nice if BIS could find a way to remedy this.


  13. Usually this is the case, but not always. There may be times where things are loaded into requiredAddons, in which case you'll need to remove them manually.

    There was also recently an update that changed the way profiles work, when this change was on dev branch it meant that it was not backwards compatible with the stable branch. However as far as I'm aware it has only happened once and it's also not an issue anymore.

    So in short, the worst thing likely to happen is that you need to remove some things from requiredAddons section in your mission.sqm, it's a good idea to not binarize your mission.sqm if you're on dev branch.

    • Like 1
×