twakkie

I apologise for bumping this old thread but did you find a solution or reason for this error? We have been having the same error, and for the life of me I cant figure out the reason.

Hi Genesis. Was hoping you could just quickly answer this question. Will AI turn on flashlights if they do not have NVG's or would they throw glowstick and flares if they have them available in their apparel? Thanks Twak!

Absolutely brilliant!!! Was waiting for some or other scripting genius to figure how to do this! Well done, cant wait to try this out!

I understand the point your trying to make. But it is a ARMA bug not RHS one. We had the same problem when we had admins run a certain mod set that differed a small amount from the other players.

Hi Genesis. Just some feedback. Loving the AI, thanks. Please just check if "this setVariable ["NOAI",1,false];" Is the correct syntax for your script. It threw thousands of errors in the line of "Integer detected, bool expected". When I changed it to this setVariable ["NOAI",true,false]; The errors stopped. Also could you please maybe give some indications what each movement order does. Like "Guard" sets a small area patrol, Loiter does this, etc etc etc. Thanks man, appreciate all your work!

Thanks kK. Your tuts are always awesome!!

Locality really screws with my head. KK can you please point me to where I can read more about triger locality and using them more effectively in a mp environment. I never thought much about it till a month ago when a editor trigger spawning units kept on firing during a coop session. I have now added if Server exit with statements in my spawning scripts but sounds to me its not the correct way to address the issue.

Hi KK. Native detection would be for example "Bluforce present" correct?

No worries. Your script solved all our problems! Thank man!

Good day We are trying to create a array of items which enable or disable simulation for the specific item type across the map. We have tried the following but keep on getting an error: _campArray = [ "Land_CampingTable_small_F", "Land_CampingTable_F", "Land_CampingChair_V1_F", "Land_CampingChair_V1_folded_F", "Land_CampingChair_V2_F"]; {_x enableSimulationGlobal false; _x allowDamage false} foreach _campArray; I suspect we are defining the object wrong. Since the error we get is in the lines of enableSimulationGlobal requires object not string. How would you then call up the objects? Any help would be appreciated. Regards C

LOL! Thanks. Shows what happens when you copy paste :)

Se we just tried this: { { _x enableSimulationGlobal false; _x allowDamage false; }forEach (enitites _x)} forEach _campArray; But got the following rpt log errors: 10:33:25 Error in expression <x allowDamage false; }forEach (enitites _x)} forEach _campArray; {{ _x enableS> 10:33:25 Error position: <_x)} forEach _campArray; {{ _x enableS> 10:33:25 Error Missing )

Brilliant! Thanks

Thanks will try tonight.

Good day BIS. As most of the ARMA community, I am very excited about the APEX release and cant wait to go bundu bashing when it releases. Unfortunately not everyone in our community has the cash to buy apex, even with the special offered pre-order prices on your website. And since our community is very small, 15 odd people, it will completely fragment us too such an extend that we might not even play on the new map for most of our regular missions. This has then resulted in most of us not even going to buy the expansion. Not because we dont want to but because it will be a waste of money. That is why I am really pleading with you guys to consider a different approach to the APEX release and pricing. Please understand that I feel that APEX is priced fairly for the content you provide but it remains expensive for most of us. And by no means am I saying you must release the expansion for free since I know ALOT of work have gone into it and you need to recuperate those costs. What I am asking is that you consider a pricing structure and content structure for the APEX expansion (For reference I took 30$ as the APEX release price): 10-20% of the cost of APEX, say 3$-6$, you only get the map (Which most people would buy and can afford). 30-50%, 9$-15$, you get most of the expansion content. 60-90%, 18$-27$, you get ALL content excluding the sp and all the scenarios etc. 100%, 30$, all content. This is only a guideline and obviously you can structure it as you want. I feel this will resolve the issue of fragmenting the community by allowing people to choose the package they can afford/want. This also has the effect that those, who like me, have the cash but wont buy it because they feel it will be a waste (for the reason stated in my first paragraph), would buy the fully priced expansion to get all the content now since the most of community they play in can also join in the games. Hope I conveyed my idea well and you receive it in the manner it was intended: To help grow ARMA as a game and BIS as one of the "good" gaming companies who prioritises their clients and their needs. Best Regards Twak.

Good day Would you please close this thread. Thanks

Amazing work Genesis. Cant wait for the official release. Good luck with your studies.

I think either I am not explaining myself well or I must be daft :) My proposal is not to have different expansions. There is a single expansion with different unlocked features. So say you buy the "premium" version of the NEXUS expansion, ie weapons, map and coop. You will then be able to jol with everything unlocked. Now the next oke doesnt care for the coop campaign. So he buys only the "Normal" version of the NEXUS expansion, ie weapons and map. This oke can play with the first oke in mp etc etc but not join him in the campaign, or maybe if BIS wants to wet his appetite for the coop, only the first mission. Now here comes the last oke, he just want to do some bundu bashing on Tanoa with the Vietnam mod and some play some mp with his friends. He doesnt care too much about anything else since he uses only RHS mod. He can buy the "Lean" version of the NEXUS expansion, ie map only. He can also join the first two okes in mp with the exception that he cant use the new weapons or vehicles, just like the weapons DLC. But anyway, I have said my peace. I really didnt think the community would be so against the idea. Ps I would love another expansion other than NEXUS.

I disagree that it will divide the community even more? I think it will give people who otherwise wont buy the expansion due to the cost, the opportunity to do so? What is the difference between doing this and their DLC they released previously?

I completely agree, BIS is by far one of my favourite and trusted developers. I never contested this issue and I actually also stated " I have supported them with their DLC policies and most of their business practices" .Regarding RBS:S, the maps might be smaller but the terrain is much much more detailed with allot of micro destruction, thus I see them in the same light (Out of an engineering point of view). But I digress, that was not the point I was trying to make. I was looking at the business practice (and the public opinion rewards thereof) not the actual content. If its not feasible for BIS then there is no argument to be made (Which wasn't my main point of the thread anyways). In my original post I also stated that personally I feel that "APEX is priced fairly for the content you provide but it remains expensive for most of us". Now maybe 30 dollar is not much in Europe or rest of the world but here in my 3de world country its a small fortune (with the current exchange rate etc etc). In actual fact a large percentage of our populace dont even get that p.m. That is why I was suggesting a solution or alternative business practice which doesnt disadvantage BIS nor the clients and keeps to BIS policy of "features free, content paid for". Like you stated you pay 30$ for "new Island, a lighting and water overhaul,a coop campaign,new factions,vehicles,weapons". Why not separate those to 3 or more packages with three or more pricing structures: Map Map & Faction (With weapons, vehicles etc) Map, Faction and coop campaign. They have proven it is feasible with their DLC policies. Why not take it a step further?

I am not a developer nor do I work in IT so I cant comment on it. But yes I can reason that that would probably be the most expensive part of APEX. I just threw some numbers together to give an example. They can obviously charge 60% for the map and the rest however they choose. As I tried emphasising, I dont want to "steal" money from BIS, in actual fact I have supported them with their DLC policies and most of their business practices. I just want to give a solution to a problem that is plaguing the gaming community abroad. The fragmentation of the community through the selling of DLC that prohibits one playing with your friend. Developers for games like Rainbow Six Siege are already giving the maps for free to bring the community closer together (And have the added benefit of promoting their game for being "progressive" and "client friendly"). Also I would argue that more people would actually buy into the expansion if it costs less. Its that whole argument about "units shipped" against "price per unit". Anyways, it was just a suggestion to a problem which immediately became apparent not only in our community bit also on these forums.

Its really sad. Hope you guys can fully restore/rewrite it. Cheers.

As always, amazing work. Unfortunately that is how life works. The more you give, the more it demands. Luckily its a game, so you can just ignore the moaners/demanders.

Yea thats really not an option for us. Trying to keep the mod count small and adding more mods to fix other mods, just isnt a solution. I know the new way vests are handled in 1.54 introduce is overall better, just sad that this mod is now a bit broken since it is amazing and brought so much variety. Dont mind vanilla even after 1300h but variety is the spice of life.

Any news regarding this mods update for latest version of ARMA? Is teriyaki still trying to recover his models? If not we might have to remove this mod from our repository which will be a sad day indeed.