semiconductor

Finally gave it a try aaand... damn, this is the one of the most amazing maps I ever saw! :eek: This map is simply brilliant, even though it's not completed.

Great to hear that! :D Thank you for your work! :)

Hi, Varanon, first of all thanks for the great script! I was making a small Arma OA mission (edited with v. 1.62 due to constant script errors in 1.63 and switched back for exporting to MPM) and figured out that bug L3TUC3 was talking about still exists on dedicated server (v 1.63). Everything runs fine in singleplayer or on listen-server but on dedicated server tasks won't create without briefing. Once I've added briefing with FHQ_TT_addBriefing, tasks started working as expected. :) Oh, one more thing - I think it would be great if commented description in fhqtt2.sqf will contain scripts version number because right now it's almost impossible to distinguish them.

Since 127.0.0.1 option is no longer available, is there a way to create "localhost" server, without reporting it to Steam? :) It was a very convenient way to test missions, especially because you don't have to wait until your server is listed by Gamespy/Steam and don't clutter up serverlist with useless server.

Well, we obviously have different expectations from this series. :) A bit of grumble: in my personal opinion such view (shared by many players sadly) is driving Arma into yet another generic Battlefield-like shooter with generic rile-like weapons and generic MBT-like tanks. And it's really sad to realize all amazing features of ACE, ACRE and other outstanding mods will never make it to the vanilla version. :(

Why wouldn't you play OFP instead of Arma 2/3 if «feeling and illusion» of something new doesn't matter to you? :)Seriously though, it's really weird to see a brand-new russian helicopter with old american cockpit. It leaves us with two explanations: either Russia and US are Best Friends Forever or BI just don't have time/resources (hopefully, for now) to produce high quality and original, non-copypasted content. And I think we all know which explanation is the right one.

Well, nobody asks for 1:1 replica of, say, France, BI can add as many land features as they want. Besides, Asia also provides really dense grass/forsets and I really want to see how exactly we are going to fight all-seeing AI in those circumstances.

Contemporary setting and new terrain based upon North America or Europe. But everybody seems to be waiting for yet another Asia-themed game with silly-looking weapons. Sigh.

For now, vanilla Arma 2 is more polished than Arma 3. Plus, it has contemporary setting. But Arma 2 + A.C.E. is infinitely better than Arma 3 so if you want infinitely diverse, complex, interesting gameplay and not afraid of spending some time to learn — yes, it's totally worth getting.

Great job! Can't wait till release. :D

Intresting idea. BTW, do you plan to make a mod that would provide realistic respawn experience for lengthy coops and Domination/Insurgency-type missions? :D

I'm afraid we can't. It was suggested dozens of times but nothing has changed, so let's face it - BI apparently doesn't care much.

Tanks PhysX config seems to be completely screwed in stable, they can't even turn or roll down from a small hill fluently.

Good idea, but I think it would be better for mission makers to receive a command that allows them to disable almost any UI element, not only the radar. Something like this: _vehicle disableUI["radar"]; _player disableUI["hintReload"]; _player disableUI true; // disables the entire interface

From what I have read here it's an awful idea, Arma 2's approach to DLC content was way better. Sad to see that BI continues to make one mistake after another. :(

As far as I'm aware, "old" and "futuristic" aren't mutually exclusive. There are plenty experimental projects of "futuristc" military vehicles from 1950's-60's, like soviet Object 279 or Chrysler TV-8 — they still look futuristic even though they've been around for 50+ years. And since they've never been in actual service (therefore their designs were never tested by reality) they share the same problem — there's something wrong with them. You can't always say what exactly wrong with particular vehicle but it just doesn't look like finished project or servicing vehicle.Concerning cancelled projects like Comanche - they have "something wrong" too and there is a great example (well, at least it works for me :D): Mi-24A. Its primary visual difference from its successors is double-seat cockpit that doesn't fits vehicle's design and looks like something not belonging to that helicopter. After some time of actual service time this cockpit was replaced by the famous design everybody knows today. So, the point is that no team of designers, no matter how skilled they are, can replace decades of service and gradual modernization. That is why all these vehicles in Arma 3 can't stand a comparsion with contemporary ones that are in actual service. Simply because most of the Arma 3's vehicles are unfinished projects or experimental designs. They are just not ready yet. Another issue that kills immersion is the functionality of Arma 3's vehicles and other stuff. What's the difference between T-100 and T-34? Visual appearance. Well, T-100 also has thermal sight but T-34 has better optical sight, that's all. In the bright light of not-so-distant future T-100's driver still can't look to his left or right - party like it's WWII I presume? MBT without FCS in 2035? Meh. APS? ERA at least? Non-existent. And the list goes on, not a single vehicle or weapon in Arma 3 employs something that wasn't around for 30+ years in 2014 and sometimes lacks things that became crucial in 80's. While looking like super-nano-tech. That is why Arma 3 vehicles feels generic and unimmersive to me. Sadly, BI most likely won't return to contemporary setting in future expansion packs. :( Can't wait to play with Armed Forces of Russian Federation and Armed Forces of United States and other contemporary mods though. :) They don't have to be widely known, they just have to be real. Because real vehicles and weapons are products of years of constant development and modernization made by thousands of people. Their development costs sometimes just enormous - no wonder that they are the best that certain manufacturer can provide.

I still have hopes that BI will come up with something different than asian setting. Something like central Europe or US/Canada maybe? :) IMO, that Middle East/Asian theme is quite hackneyed. Why does nobody wants to try something new? Besides, it would be almost impossible to play against AI on a terrain with dense vegetation since AI can almost perfectly see though tree's crowns and grass. :(

There is no need to sacrifice quality to add M16 rifle in game. Actually, replacing all these futuristic weapons, vehicles and other stuff with contemporary ones will greatly improve overall game's quality. Because fighting with M16 is way more immersive and intresting than fighting with some generic-fictional-futuristic rifle with similar specs. Why do you think weapons and vehicles in most of the games are modelled after their real-world prototypes? Because nobody likes to destroy a generic tank-like vehicle with generic launcher-like weapon. That is why all those T-80's and M136's are so precisely modelled and textured.

In my opinion, one can't use phrases "generic futurstic stuff" and "a good game" in the same sentence. Unless that game itself is generic futuristic shooter.

Thank you, this is really great work! :D Just finished another attempt to complete it with my friends and I still can't believe how much more diverse and funnier Escape Chernarus is with full ACE support. A small question - for some reason gunners in armored vehicles never try to attack players with main cannon and rarely use their coaxial guns (commanders is ok though). Is such behaviour implemented intentionally to make mission reasonably hard or it's something on our side? If it's an expected behaviour, is there any way to disable this limitation to see if we're able to complete this mission with enemy armor being fully operational? :)

Yes, I noticed something similar after lowering AI's accuracy. It seems that when AI's accuracy set to values near zero, enemy rarely able to hit player (as expected) but every successful shot tend to be a lethal headshot. This strange issue disappeared after AI's accuracy was set to reasonable values. I don't think it's a bug though. In one of the lastest TECHREPs BI warned that AI can be broken with some combination of difficulty settings.

There is no reasonable alternative to Steam for now, but, again, I'm not asking BI to remove Arma from Steam and Steam from Arma. Still, detaching Arma 3 from Steam-dependent features via some kind of no-Steam patch might be a good idea after some point. Several developers (e.g. Egosoft) actually remove protection form their games after couple of years to save players from having trouble with backups and protection compatibility, perhaps BIS could do the same. Nobody could say what will happen with the Arma 3, but I'm pretty sure that there is no change in policy that could affect physical copy of Arma 2 which, if I remember correctly, doesn't even require one-time Internet connection for activation. Since the only service Arma 2 relies on is the Gamespy, everybody can install and enjoy his copy of the game even if the entire Internet infrastructure disappear from the face of the earth. ;)

Talking about issues caused by integration with Steam is prohibited at this forum? All I was saying is that Steam is no better than a Gamespy in terms of Arma's dependence on third-party service. Not only because one day Steam might significantly change it's policy or even stop providing its services just like Gamespy did, but also because it's deeply integrates with games, rendering them even more dependent on stability of external service.

And that is the feature I'm personally not very fond of. But I'm not asking BI to do anything about this, I'm just pointing out that Gamespy wasn't crucial part of Arma in contrast to the Steam.Yes, Arma 3 has been tied to Steam from the very beginnig and it's quite obvious why BIS decided to do so; that decision has its pros and cons just like any other decision. So what's the problem with this again?

Than Gamespy was. Small, unnoticeable and wasn't interfering with other parts of the game. A tiny icon in the server browser menu was the only way average player could acknowledge Gamespy's existence. Steam is a completely different story. And also a quite buggy one. I know that Steam is the best digital distibution service around and I understand why BI deicded to switch to the Steam's browser. But the fact that Steam is the only one choice available doesn't automatically make it perfect, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that BI should leave Arma without server browser, but Steam, in my opinion at least, has some flaws. I don't get the point. Are you implying that I can't express my opinion about integration with Steam because I was completely aware of the fact that Arma 3 is depended on that service?Besides, let me clarify this once again: I'm not asking BI to remove Arma 3 from Steam. I'm just saying that Steam probably isn't significantly better than the Gamespy because it makes Arma too depended on availability of its servers.