Jump to content
🛡️FORUMS ARE IN READ-ONLY MODE Read more... ×
Bohemia Interactive Forums
🛡️FORUMS ARE IN READ-ONLY MODE

Cenwulf

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    26

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Everything posted by Cenwulf

  1. Cenwulf
    I know it’s extremely late in development to reconsider this but shouldn’t LDF be a blufor faction? After all, they’re part of NATO. I know you can just group them to blufor but even so, I’d say NATO vs LDF would be the least common scenario for most mission makers so making them blufor and reserving greenfor for criminals (or aliens! :DDD) by default would make the most sense.
  2. Cenwulf

    AI Discussion (dev branch)

    Cenwulf replied to klamacz's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    From my admittedly brief tests, it seems that passengers in vehicles receive zero suppression (or are at least are very resistant to it). This makes sense for some vehicles like tanks, less so for an open topped transport truck. I agree that a suppression event handler would be very useful to allow for fine control of this mechanic. I was hoping to use this for an ambush scenario where a get out event handler would be used to amplify a units suppression when exiting a vehicle (to simulate jumping out of your nice relatively safe vehicle into a hail of bullets) but as they weren’t receiving suppression in the first place will need to revert to less elegant solutions like setting suppression to a fixed value upon exiting. Fully agree that suppression is a fantastic mechanic, it’s just under utilised and needs be be fleshed out out a bit.
  3. Cenwulf

    Jets DLC Official Feedback

    Cenwulf replied to saul's topic in ARMA 3 - DLC

    Really appreciate the ability to set flag, number designation and the name textures for the destroyer through 3DEN attributes. Any chance of doing the same for the carrier?
  4. Cenwulf
    If you wanted to play around with it in the editor it’s really easy to do, just a vehicle down and then fiddle with it’s attributes. No scripting required :)
  5. Cenwulf
    You can do it via script commands or through the vehicles attributes in the editor (right click > attributes...), it’s near the bottom.
  6. Cenwulf
    I've nailed down the issue I was having with playing as the commander of the Rhino MGS and trying to laser designating for the gunner's ATGMs. If you don't have data link send and receive enable for the vehicle, the laser marker doesn't show up on the commander's sensor panel and the square targeting reticle doesn't show up when the laser spot is targeted. It's still possible to target it but it's very difficult to tell if you've targeted the spot or the thing you're pointing it at and at long range the gunner tends to preferentially target vehicles rather than the laser spot. Edit: For the ATGMs this means the gunner simply zeros the current distance and since the missile lacks LOAL capability it just flies in a fixed arc based on the zeroing and doesn’t home in on the laser spot. Also because the zeroing of the flight path doesn’t appear take elevation into account, it may not even hit a stationary target. I feel like for consistency the targeting information of a unit's own laser designator and the reticle showing you've selected it as a target should be independent of the unit's data link settings. Also for laser spots in general the AI isn't too quick on the uptake and very rarely recognises it as a laser spot meaning that the gunner will often independently report the laser spot as an unknown vehicle as soon as it's switched on (slightly annoying) and the commander will often refer to it as "unknown" or very occasionally "laser target" (less annoying but still a bit goofy). I think full knowledge of the laser spot should really be instantaneous for the "owner", if not for the owner's entire group as well.
  7. Cenwulf
    Aha. Thanks for clarifying, oukej. To follow up though, does that mean that if I’m in the commanders position of the Rhino MGS Up, should my own laser spot appear on the sensors panel as a red laser marker and should I be able to command the gunner to lock it with “Next target” or “reveal target/target” key? Edit: I’ve just tried it out in the editor and it works perfectly but for some reason I couldn’t get the laser spot to show up or lock yesterday when I tried it in the showcase mission after I’d engaged the AA with the scripted laser spot. I’ll have another go tonight to be sure.
  8. Cenwulf
    I’ve noticed a potential problem with the Rhino MGS Up and the new cannon launched ATGM, not sure if this is the right place to report it or if it’s already been reported but hear goes. Unless I’m doing something very wrong I believe that neither the gunner nor commander turret are equipped with a laser sensor. This means that the commanders laser designator does not appear on his sensor panel and cannot be selected as a target for the gunner. I noticed this while playing the Tank Destroyer Showcase scenario, as the commander I’m able to lock and command the gunner to fire the ATGM at the scripted laser point but my own laser point doesn’t appear on the sensor panel and so cannot be targeted in the same way. Is this a bug or is it intended for balance purposes that you can only lock on to a laser point shared over datalink from a laser sensor equipped unit?
  9. Cenwulf
    I agree the standard behavoir isn’t great but it’s fairly easy for mission makers to script in something more complex. Personnaly I like using a hit event handler on the vehicle that checks if the vehicle is imobile, if the crew took damage and if any of the crew are greater than 50% dead. If all that returns true, they all bail and run for their lives. Otherwise they’re happy to hunker down and wait out the storm in thier big metal box.
  10. Cenwulf
    Hopefully but if i’m being honest I think the devs are running out of time and are just trying to get everything into a “good enough” state for release, which probably means back tracking on a lot of the new features they’ve been experimenting with on dev branch. I really hope they’ll revisit these features and spend some more time revamping the armour system and HEAT post release, it all looks really promising, but I think it may be asking too much considering Arma 3 development seems to be winding down.
  11. Cenwulf
    One of the LODs for the left hand Nyx (AA) missiles doesn't appear to obey turret rotation:
  12. Cenwulf

    Tanks - Vanguard MP Mode

    Cenwulf replied to zozo's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    I’d have to disagree slightly here. Battle royal games (a phenomenally popular genre at this point) seemly thrive off this mechanic. You can always hop out and join another server once you die. I guess I see your point with the down time though, if initially there aren’t enough people playing to maintain a decent turn over of new games then the downtime could be a big factor in why people don’t play. It’s kind of a chicken and the egg problem. Need a large number of active players to negate downtime and make it popular, needs to be popular to draw in sufficient players. I do think the no respawns aspect is fairly important for the flow of the game though, without it then it’s very dificult to avoid a stalemate and then it just devolves into a ticket based team death match over a fixed time period. I think of this game mode in its current state as primarily a vehicle death match with the device serving as a focal point and then as a quick game finisher for the victors, which negates the need to hunt down every last opponent when one team has obviously won. Makes it much more about team strategy/synergy rather than throwing waves and waves of players at each other with very little penalty for dying.
  13. Cenwulf
    I’m really impressed with all the new assets coming with the Tanks DLC. Noticed a couple of small issues. While playing around with the Nyx AA I found that it’s not available to be placed in Eden editor, the other variants are though. Also when firing the missiles on the AA variant the missiles fire in the pattern right, left, right, left but the static models for the missiles disappear in the sequence right, right, left, left. The missile models also instantly reappear at the beginning of a reload cycle, it would make more sense if they were invisible until the reload cycle is finished (or maybe even appeared 1 by 1). Edit: Aha, it's under AA because it's an AA asset. Now I feel dumb.
  14. Cenwulf

    Laws of War DLC Assets

    Cenwulf replied to DnA's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    Would it be possible to leave some remnants of the APERS disperser and cluster bombs visible after the submunitions are spawned? It'd add to immersion and also telegraph where minefields and potential UXO are for the keen eyed players, like it would IRL. Only bug I've noticed so far is that the CCIP on the Wipeout and Nephron estimates short of where the cluster munitions actually land. Haven't tested AAF.
  15. Cenwulf
    That was me! The issues I had were that the vehicle has to be manned, you cannot use hideObject or disableSimulation as this disables the radar functionality so you are forced to use setCaptive to prevent it from being engaged by enemy AI. I tried to hide the vehicle inside the large radar dome structure but while I wasn't able to conclusively prove this, I was pretty sure that the structure blocked the radar. I could be wrong but i'm guessing the radars are configured so that hey only work with direct line of sight (as I imagine they should). So ultimately I wasn't able to get it working. I imagine the best solution would be a virtual radar entity (one for each side) that could just be spawned in at any position over any object rather than configuring multiple static structures individually with radar functionality. I don't have the modding expertise to create one though (yet!).
  16. Cenwulf

    Audio Tweaking (dev branch)

    Cenwulf replied to DnA's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    *injured AI walking by* FFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuu...
  17. Cenwulf
    Way back when they first released the virtual garage a component for the XH9 family slipped in called "Sensor Pod" or something. It had no model or functionality but you could select it from the same list that allowed you to hide the rails and back seats. It's since been removed but I'm still holding out hope that they'll revisit this someday.
  18. Cenwulf
    With the incoming addition of the static carrier I can see it becoming even more common for aircraft to be operated outside of the normal map boundaries. Would it be possible to expand the black borders in the map screen and GPS to give the illusion that the island maps are bigger and also allow the GPS to function off the terrain grid?
  19. Cenwulf
    Cheers, I'm kind of embarrassed I didn't think of that.
  20. Cenwulf
    Thanks for the reply, I think this would be a great addition. I did previously try to simulate this by placing an AA vehicle inside a radar dome structure, not had much success as the vehicle needs to be manned and hideObject or disableSimulation also disables radar and dlink (as it should). Enemy CAS also zero in on the vehicle almost instantly and engage and destroy it. I imagine this could be a persistent problem, even if the radar vehicle is made to be a disembodied virtual entity it would be difficult under the current system to prevent AI from attempting to engage it. Another question with regard to making AI pilots appear a bit intelligent and increase thier life expectancy in missions where the creator (or curator) might not want to have to micro manage them so much. Would it be possible to create some kind of "No Fly Zone" module that could be synced to an area trigger to simulate knowledge of or perceived threat from potential AA in that area and prevent AI aircraft of different types from venturing into it?
  21. Cenwulf
    This all looks fantastic, been playing around on dev branch and it's like a whole new game. Two questions on future plans: 1) Are there any plans to expand the scripting api to allow more in depth "Emission Control"? By that I mean that having the ability add radar functionality to map and editor placed objects which don't otherwise have radar properties defined in config such as radar domes would be splendid. Also being able to fine tuning things like range, which side they broadcast to, etc. 2) Are there any plans to refine/integrate the the group indicators functionality, possibly make it a bit more realistic by limiting it to GPS equipped infantry and mimic vehicle transponders rather than just having it tied to the group leader?
  22. Cenwulf
    Ah, that does sound like a bug in that case, possibly the laser "hit box" (for lack of a better phrase) covering up the thermal hit box and preventing the macer from locking directly. Does it work if you try using a key bound to the "next target" action rather than the "target" action?
  23. Cenwulf
    This is intentional I believe. Macers can only lock onto thermal (or visual?) targets and so are limited by the range of those sensors (orange cone on the sensor display). Laser targets currently can be locked from a much greater distance making scalpels (which can lock laser targets) pretty op now compared to macers, I'm sure they'll balance this however. I have to say though I hope they buff thermal and visual sensor range rather than nurf laser target range. I really like the locking range of scalpels at the moment, it feels realistic but I would like to see vehicle countermeasures like smoke be made more effective at blocking or disrupting a laser or thermal lock to kind of balance out their effective range. Be good if smoke screen deployment was a bit more vigorous for vehicles as well.
  24. Cenwulf

    Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)

    Cenwulf replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    I'm normally not one to chip in topics like this as generally I trust BI to do the best they can by their game and the community that surrounds it but as it's generally only the very vocal minority that get's their opinions heard I fell the need to get my feelings on the fatigue/stamina debate down. The current system is beautiful in it's simplicity: The more weight you carry, the quicker you get tired. That's it. Nothing else. I love the current system, it feels authentic, it feels like it's grounded in reality. It's elegant and it does the job. The only two issues that seem consistently divide opinion on this system are the severity of the penalty and the lack of feedback regarding your character's current level of fatigue. The system itself is perfect, and the issues are matters of personal taste and preference. To fix this all you need to do are two very simple things. 1. Introduce a number of distinct difficulty settings for the current fatigue system. I've listed 3 below by way of example: None: no weight based fatigue system, jog and sprint to your heart's content. Casual: the same fatigue system but more lenient. 50% reduction of fatigue build-up from all actions. Realism: the current fatigue system in all it's glory. Make these settings configurable as a simple drop down in the difficulty settings menu for single player. Make it so the fatigue setting is enforced server side but make the current setting of any serve is clearly visible from the server browser and even filterable. 2. Finally to address the feedback issue simply include a discrete optional UI element showing your current level of fatigue. That's it. There is no need to invest time and effort into developing a new system. The proposed system of a stamina bar that is only depleted by sprinting is a huge step back and in no way embodies the spirit of authenticity and realism that sets arma apart from other military FPS games. It is in my opinion the most unrealistic, gamey way of handling this that I could have thought of and it caters almost exclusively to a very vocal minority subset of the community that are looking to turn arma into a clone of the same generic FPS games that arma originally drew us away from. You had a vision, an ideal, to try to encourage meaning and tactical decisions and you came up with a beautifully simple system that handled it perfectly and now you're about to take a huge step in the opposite direction. At some point you need to have the balls to stand up to your community and say "No, this is our vision for how this game should be played". For everyone who wants a more streamline arcade experience we have our CODs and our Battlefields. We don't need another one. Please DO NOT make this new stamina system the default system that inducts new players into your game. Please DO support and refine the current fatigue system and give people the option to play how they want to play, with all options presented on an equal footing.
  25. Cenwulf
    That's a very specific solution to a very specific need. Wouldn't a better solution simply be to add an "Alternate Frequencies" field to the Side Radio and Frequencies modules that are placeable in the editor? This would provide a more general solution that is useful to a wider range of users and that compliments the existing functionality of those modules allowing mission makers to fully customise the radio setup.
Ă—