freddyk83

I've seen videos on YouTube of someone accessing a artillery map for the VLS included in the new update. I can't seem to get it to work. If I set it as artillery support, the artillery menu has the weapon greyed out. If I set a UAV and take control of it directly, there's no artillery computer option. Have these features been removed?

Thanks for responding R3vo! I know I don't need SurUnit = _x when (_this select 0) is the working solution, I was just messing around with what I thought would be another route to the same place. What I failed to think of, and after reading your reply it suddenly dawned on me, the variable setting logic is working as it should..updating and replacing each loop through...but what I had not fully grasped is that when the SurUnit variable is then used in the AddAction code, it doesn't 'bake that unit' into the code when it creates the action. What I mean by that is I thought mistakenly with the code: _x addAction ["Take Weapons", {removeAllWeapons SurUnit); removeAllActions SurUnit; that SurUnit would be written into the code there and then...as Bob when its Bob and Dave when it's Dave... But.. The variable is actually called when the Action itself (me taking the weapons) is fired off...by which time as you say...SurUnit will now say the last unit in the loop. In which case, it's best that the action itself controls the object being referred to when it's fired off....ie (_this select 0) Got it! Thanks for helping me understand that. I just coudlnt get in my head why the logic wasn't working!

Hey All, First let me mention that this isn't a 'please help me get this to work' post (as i've got it working), it's more of a discussion i'm interested in havng as to why something doesn't work. This is more of an inquisitive theory topic, not a 'quick fix'. Can someone explain for me why a particular part of this code doesn't work? (because by my logic it should).... I was following a tutorial I saw on how to make units in a group surrender when the count drops below a certain threshold. That all works fine! I then decided to go 'off tutorial' and add an action to each surrendering unit to allow me to take their guns away. In the On Activation I have the following code.... { _x setCaptive true; _x action ["Surrender", _x]; SurUnit = _x; _x addAction ["Take Weapons", {removeAllWeapons SurUnit); removeAllActions SurUnit;},nil,6,true,true,"","_target distance _this < 3"]; } forEach units enemygrp; Of course, the first thing I tried, {removeAllWeapons _X} the game didnt like because it didn't know what _X was..being local I guess. Before that code you see quoted, I had got it to work initially by typing {removeAllWeapons (_this select 0)} which , (referring to the Bohemia page on AddAction), basically returns the 'object the action is applied to' which in this case is the enemy unit with the action. I then later thought maybe another way would be to store the local variable _x in a global called SurUnit and then refer to SurUnit in the AddAction script section (see above quoted code). My logic process being as it loops through each surrendering unit: { it sets it captive, makes it surrender, stores that current unit in a global, and adds action to current unit using global containing that unit's details } so if the units had names for example .. two surrendering units called Bob and Dave lol .... and we walk through the logic..... (First surrendering unit found) _x = Bob so Bob is setcaptive Bob surrenders SurUnit variable is now set to Bob Bob now has an action to remove weapons where the variable on his action (SurUnit) refers to him.... (Now on to second unit...) _x = now Dave so Dave is setcaptive Dave surrenders SurUnit variable is changed to Dave Dave now has an action to remove weapons where the variable on his action (SurUnit) now also refers to him (Reached End of Units in Group) The problem that arose on playback is that the last unit....Dave...(or it could be the first) worked fine..but the other didnt remove the weapons or the action after.....not just that! but when i tried to remove let's say Bobs gun...his didnt go....but Daves had....so..I can summise that SurUnit didnt change, or the action on the second looped unit somehow still contained previous unit data so Dave had an action that was somehow set to the equivalent of saying {removeallweapons Bob} (with SurUnit still saying Bob when it should now be Dave). But I just don't understand how that can be. Because if it loops around the second time..if _x is now for all intents and purposes Dave (because _x refers to Dave in every other bit code perfectly fine..setcaptive, surrender etc), why isn't SurUnit now ALSO being set to what _x NOW is...Dave...why is Dave getting RemoveWeapons aimed at Bob from that variable? I'm guessing my logic is flawed but I just don't see how so if anyone can shed light on why its doing this/what's happening i'd be keen to know just for interests sake. As I said earlier, I have it working anyway by using _this select 0 instead of a global but i just dont see why the global approach isn't working the way I expect it to.

Have Binoculars actually been removed in the Beta release? My usual player soldier is no longer equipped with one and any attempts to add them to either the player or into a cargo box is met with an item error. Any one else found this? If they were removed, how come? EDIT: Never mind. I didn't realize they were classed as a "weapon" (seems a bit odd) and also known as "Binocular" not "Binoculars". Explains why my attempts to add them to crates weren't working . :)

The AI does have its little issues I will admit, but for the most part I think their AI is good. I think you have to know how to effectively order them, form them, target them etc. to get the most out of them. However, there are definitely issues with the Diver AI. Seems to me their 'land' AI might be very early stages as they don't seem to handle buildings or other upper land geometry like the Squad mates do. I sent my Diver squad into a house and they clipped through every door and staircase.

It's plugged into a multi-plug adaptor. I don't know if the adaptor is surge protected though. Think it's just a standard multi-socket.

Unfortunately I don't. However, one thing I DID do was when I first removed the card and managed to boot it up using onboard, I then shut it all back off and re-inserted the card (my theory being sometimes taking things out and then slotting them back in again sometimes tricks them into working) and the first time I tried that, it worked! I actually got back into Windows using the Radeon...however, about 5 mins later, the screen went all 'patterny' and the monitor shut off again. Subsequently went back to only booting up with the card removed and no further 're-insert' attempts have worked.

Hello All, As the title suggests, I fear that ArmA 3 may have fried my graphics card. I wouldn't be too concerned about it because 'stuff happens' but oddly enough, this is the second card that an ArmA game has taken out. This recent card was a 1GB Radeon HD 5670 Not a great card I know but I run a budget rig. However, even with that card I could run ArmA 3 at a playable rate (admittedly, I run it on default settings so probably not high, certainly not highest!). The last time I played (Saturday) I was happily playing, for about an hour I guess and then it froze. I was able to return it to desktop where windows reported driver had failed. Later that day I ran it again, again for about 1-2 hours, and then it froze again, but then screen went black. At that point, I had to hard reboot it but it simply wouldn't boot up, even to BIOS. Monitor reported 'No signal'. So I remove the radeon, plug the monitor into the onboard and it boots up fine so that pretty much says to me the card has gone to 'silicone heaven'. As I run a budget rig, this weekend I have sourced a replacement card - a 2GB Radeon HD 6670, the model up i'm guessing (tbh, I don't know how these numbers work). it's a GB more than my previous card so that should count for something I hope. My real point for posting this is not to rant at how ArmA keeps killing my cards because I know its not the games fault in fairness. They ARE graphical demanding games and my card was about 2 years old so it had a good innings. However, I AM a bit concerned that I don't go and fry THIS one one week into having it! lol While I love ArmA and am longing to resume playing it, it would be foolish of me to blindly attempt to play it with a card that wouldn't handle it (AT ALL, forget max settings, just running it). Better to be safe first and ask! So my question is, is this a real problem that is likely to occur [having a card burnout in a week if I run ArmA3 on what I presume is Low-Mid] or can I relax a bit and enjoy some quality ArmA time again? And... Are there any measures I can take to help prevent potential repeat burnouts? I'm guessing [hoping] it realistically takes a while for a card to burn out and also, can most likely be prevented. Full System Specs ------------------ Intel Core 2 Duo 3.06ghz 2.1 GB Ram Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit ATI Radeon HD 6670 2GB DDR3