jwllorens

Which is wierd, because in my tests, HEAT is more effective against medium and light armor than either HE or APFSDS. I found during the campaign too, when you are on the last mission and fighting loads of Rhinos, HEAT rounds can knock them out in one go while APFSDS seems to get eaten by slat armor or reactive plates. Slat armor and reactive plates should be more effective against HEAT, no? Only marginally effective against kinetic penetrators?

I know it is pretty late in development, but what are the chances of getting a few more bits of functionality for munitions? Specifically, in real life, the MRLS fires GPS guided missiles, usually with unitary warheads now that can be detonated in an airburst mode. In real life, the airburst detonation is one of the coolest explosion effects out there. Any chance we could get something like this in game? The missiles on the sandstorm should be a lot more accurate to simulate GPS tracking, and switching fire modes could switch between airburst (larger indirect damage radius with lower damage lethal to light vehicles and infantry) or impact modes (smaller indirect damage radius with higher damage to armored vehicles or perhaps buildings too.) It would also be really nice if we got a few extra magazines that we could swap out via script, such as one with cluster munition dispensing missiles (to simulate the cluster missiles that are currently being phased out of the U.S. arsenal in favor of the unitary warheads due to concerns about collateral damage and submunitions.) Should be doable with the recent functionality improvements to submunitions, fits with the theme of the Tanks DLC, and gives a bit of a throwback to the theme of the Orange DLC. It would also be really nice to see proximity fuzes represented in the game. Impact fuzes on anti-aircraft cannon shells haven't really been used since the 40's in any substantial capacity. It would be really cool if the Cheetah and Tigris 35mm guns fired shells that detonated when in proximity to a nearby vehicle. Another thing I would love to see is airburst functionality with a rangefinder for some munitions. I'd love to see this on various HE ammunition, anything from 25mm (stationary GMGs) to 30mm and 40mm (such as the Gorgon or Marshall) all the way up to 105, 120, and 125mm HE tank shells. The way it would work would be simple. Press F to change the fire mode to airburst, laze a target, then fire. The shell would detonate just a meter or so beyond the range that was lazed. Would go a long way to simulate the real functionality of the 25mm GMG and would really fit in the armaverse. The final thing that I would like to add is PLEASE fix 20mm HE rounds. These things have pretty much zero indirect hit damage and terrible penetration, as another poster already pointed out. A 12.5mm is more effective at killing light vehicles and infantry in game.

All that aside, I would have liked to have seen the mine dispenser work as the flip slide of the UXO/mine coin, as a strategic area denial option that requires more work and direct player interaction to use, but in the theme of the DLC provides an option that is much less indiscriminate and safer for noncombatants than traditional landmines that are lamented over by the main characters in the story (for good reason). Plus, I really want some airburst functionality in this game. There are already weapons in the game that are weak representations of their real-life counterparts due to the lack of airburst functionality, like the XM307 static grenade launcher that is in the game.

It looks like the mine dispenser is based on the M7 Spider networked mine in the US arsenal. However, it really doesn't work like it would in real life. A gadget as sophisticated as this, or at least as it looks in-game, shouldn't disperse mines like that. In real life, the M7 spider, which looks VERY similar, detects enemies via tripwire and a man-in-the-loop can then tell the spider to launch an air bursting grenade in the direction of the victim. It specifically works this way so as to AVOID the limitations and dangers of traditional landmines, however the one in the game is the opposite. While it looks new-age and advanced, it is the most dangerous and controversial weapon in the game other than the cluster bombs because it scatters so many indiscriminate mines, and would be even more dangerous to noncombatants years after the war than a single well placed older generation bounding mine. For the mine dispenser, it would be very cool to see it work more similarly to how it does in real life. The dispenser would then instead be a UAV controlled by the UAV terminal. Unlike most UAVs though, it would not have a functional camera, and instead, opening the AV camera while not directly controlling the dispenser would bring up a sort of "radar" centered on the dispenser that would highlight any soldier or vehicle that crosses into its lethal arc as a blinking red dot. Firing the dispenser would be accomplished through an action in the action menu, which would lob a grenade in the direction of a random vehicle or man within its lethal radius (with a high arc) that would airburst. Alternatively, you could set the dispenser to be autonomous and then it would automatically fire on ANY man or soldier that walks into its lethal arc after a short delay, because in autonomous mode it becomes indiscriminate like a normal landmine, and the player would then have to deal with the consequences of that choice to use it in this mode. The dispenser would then provide a tactical area denial option that is unique from other mines in the game in that it is not a hazard to civilians if used correctly, but requiring a man in the loop. That would be a lot of work though. Another alternative is to simply put a self destruct timer on the mines it creates, having them detonate automatically X minutes after they hit the ground and arm themselves. 15 minutes should be fine. This would also be nice for use of the dispenser in multiplayer PvP games, from a performance perspective.

I get all that. I'm just saying that if I am lugging around a couple hundred lbs of missiles and a launcher, I'd imagine that it would be easier to do so if most of that weight was in a backpack rather than a metal tube with sights and handles and whatnot poking out of it, slung over my shoulder. I'm just saying that if the encumbrance system represents how easy it is for the character to move about rather than how much weight he is carrying, then it isn't that big of a bug and could even be a feature. My point is that trying to carry 50lbs of 2"x4"s while wearing a swimsuit would be harder than carrying 100lbs of fishing weights while wearing a backpack.

I think that is what I said. Heavier when the tube has a missile in it. Not as heavy when the tube is unloaded, and the missile neatly packed in a backpack. Or, instead of heavy, "unwieldy." But I've never carried a pack full of missiles nor a launcher, so I dunno. I suppose I'm just fishing for a reason why gaining load equivalent to half the weight of a missile after loading it into the launcher doesn't bother me.

Maybe we can think of it in terms of a missile being less unwieldy to carry when packed neatly into a satchel as opposed to being inside of a giant tube with optics poking out the side slung over your shoulder.

I REALLY hope it is a revamp of the high command (and commanding system in general). A "new perspective" could easily be the perspective of a commander. I'd love to see a high command that we can hook into with scripts, and is more streamlined and functional. Commanding AI to board and unload from helicopters and whatnot should be easy and fast. Commanding stationary gun teams to unpack and point a gun in a certain direction. Commanding artillery to fire. A better waypoint system that allows us to input waypoint parameters before placing it down, and some stronger and smoother waypoint functionality. Imagine a high command where you could tell a rifle squad to load up into a helicopter, tell the helicopter to land on the far side of a forest and the rifle squad to disembark, then have the rifle squad move up to a treeline outside of a village and wait while a mortar squad sets up somewhere, and then queue up waypoints to have the mortar squad fire some rounds into the villiage at a specific time of day, and have the rifle squad move in 40 seconds after. I would LOVE this. I wouldn't be mad about more naval assets though. Some fast attack craft would be nice, naval artillery in the form of mortars, anti air, ect. Landing craft would be cool with the new vehicle in vehicle transport. Nothing huge, we don't need destroyers, that would just be silly given the map sizes. But some gun boats larger and more varied than what we have would be cool. Personally, I hope it is NOT VR. I don't care how cool it is, I wont pay out the ---- to wear something on my face while I play. I'll be skipping that DLC if it is VR, and I think the VR community is still a minority of players, so from a business standpoint it doesn't sound smart to dedicate resources to that. I hope its not VR....

All of this is very cool. I really want to see this new tech used to broaden the gameplay of various vehicles, not just jets. Specifically, I would love to see more variety in missile guidance, both from shoulder fired weapons and from vehicles. Shoulder fired missiles: -For gameplay reasons and balance, it would be nice if the NLAW functioned more like the M47 Dragon and was SACLOS guided. NATO doesn't have a light anti-tank weapon that is comparable to the RPG, so it would help from a balance perspective to ditch the fire and forget capabilities of the NLAW in favor of SACLOS. It would also diversify the gameplay by having an anti-tank weapon that has to be guided with SACLOS, as there is little reason to use the SACLOS functionality on the Titan AT when you can just lock on and let it loose. -A top-attack mode would be amazing for the Titan AT. If this weapon is analogous to the FGM148 Javelin, it would be very cool if we could lock on to and do a top attack on any point aimed at in the game world with the Titan AP missile as well. The Javelin can lock on to much more than just vehicles, and can be used to target structures and more. Call of Duty was the last time I saw this type of functionality, but it really would have a place in a game like ArmA where its tactical use could be realized and enjoyed. On the topic of RWR and warnings: -ARH and SARH are the easiest types of guidance to detect, as they require only a radar receiver on board the vehicle to pick up the targeting signal. Both requires that either the missile or firing platform "illuminate" the target with a radar emitter, which makes it easy for the target to know when they are being targeted. (SARH is much more common than ARH, so I would love to see aircraft having to maintain a lock on a target to guide a missile in to a kill while the target tries to ditch the lock by dipping lower or dumping chaff). -Laser guidance is also fairly easy to detect, though I am not sure the tech in ArmA exists to implement any sort of warning that your vehicle is being lased or there is an enemy laser marker nearby. This requires another dedicated sensor (LWR), however. -IR, non-laser guided SACLOS such as wire guidance, contrast seekers, and Passive Radar homing threats are much harder to detect. These guidance types do not require any signal to be emitted, and incoming ordnance with these guidance types must be detected with some sort of on-board sensor. Modern active protection systems often use some combination of auditory and radar sensors to detect the noise when the weapon is fired and radar to track the trajectory. Of course, these weapon types have a smaller radar cross section, so they would be detected far later (at a close distance) than non-stealth aircraft (a high-flying Orca, for example.) I guess the best way to do this is to lump in detection of IR missiles with "passive radar" detection. It isn't unrealistic to assume that any vehicle with IR missile detection will also detect radar emitters. AI and countermeasures: -AI should drop flares and chaff not all at once and immediately when a missile is fired, but in bursts at short intervals once the missile is detected depending on the above factors. Each flare dropped should have a chance of distracting the missile, depending on the missiles resistance to countermeasures (this chance would apply to players as well). GPS guidance: I would really love you guys if some sort of GPS guidance was implemented in the game. Hell, it could even be implemented through the in-game map and marker system fairly easily. If the player has a GPS or is in a vehicle equipped with GPS, then when placing a marker on the map a new marker type option is available called "GPS Marker" with a unique icon. Unlike other markers, these would not be shared across the current radio channel and players would have to verbally communicate coordinates to other players with a GPS. Then, with a GPS guided weapon equipped (some bombs or artillery rockets/shells) the player could tap "R" to flip through the GPS markers and soft-lock on to them, and they would be labelled in 3D on the HUD with the text given to them on the map so you could identify which is which when flipping through them. It would be great to see this on the self-propelled guns, the Scorcher, and maybe on some bombs included in the jets DLC. Simply aim at the marker until you get a solid lock, release the bomb or fire the rocket, and you will get pinpoint accuracy. New jet loadouts: -I know you guys aren't planning on having a way to adjust a vehicle loadout on the fly, but it would be cool if some new weapons were included for these vehicles and the vehicles were included in the game as new assets, just with different loadouts. The Buzzard AA and CAS versions are examples of what I am talking about. With the GPS system I mentioned before, these could be included on a more bomb-heavy loadout for the Wipeout and Neophron. There could also be a more missile heavy loadout for anti-armor missions, and the existing loadouts would best be described as multirole. Assuming the new DLC jets are fighter craft, they could have AA, CAS, and multirole loadouts as well. -It would also be great if addWeaponTurret worked better on aircraft and the weapon's ammo were visually represented. For example, if you try to move the DAR missiles on the Falcon UAV from the gunner seat to the pilot seat (because the Falcon AI doesn't work) then you lose the CCIP and the rocket pods don't visually appear to have rockets in them. With a wider variety of weapons in the Jets DLC, this could be used to great effect by players to design their own custom loadouts in missions. I know it is a lot, but I love this game! Off topic, but it would be really nice to get a different version of the artillery computer as an option in the difficulty settings for the scenario, instead of a point and click map, it would open a window where we could input coordinates, select an ammo type and propellant load from those available on the vehicle, and it would give an azimuth and elevation. The current artillery computer is frustrating if you want a scenario with artillery and want to use the built-in radio spotting, because artillery targets come up as targets that you just click on and there is no player communication. Alternatively, you can turn off the automatic marking of enemies on the map to encourage communication, but then the communication required just to engage infantry becomes a bit much for players like me that are more casual. An optional more hands-on artillery computer is a solid middle ground.

I don't know if this is helpful, but I use this to create a variable in the object namespace of the player object when they respawn. This variable contains the string which is identical to the string that is displayed by the "role" that they selected in the respawn screen. I use this to create roles like "pilot" with the BIS default respawn screen and enforce other custom restrictions such as only allowing pilots to get in the driver seat of aircraft. You may be able to look at the respawn functions in the functions viewer in the editor and find some important variables, and use those in a function similar to this to get a reference to the player object that the respawn position is on, and then setPos the respawning player after they spawn to a more suitable location. disableSerialization; params [ ["_unit", objNull, [objNull], 1] ]; _rList = uiNamespace getVariable (["BIS_RscRespawnControlsMap_ctrlRoleList", "BIS_RscRespawnControlsSpectate_ctrlRoleList"] select (uiNamespace getVariable ["BIS_RscRespawnControlsSpectate_shown", false])); _rName = _rList lbText (lbCurSel _rList); _unit setVariable ["JWL_respawnRole",(toUpper _rName)]; true I call this function from onPlayerRespawn.sqf, and pass the new unit ("_this select 0" in onPlayerRespawn.sqf) as the only parameter.

That isn't really what "switch do" is for. Try using setVariable to set a missionNamespace variable to either 1 or 0. On your keypress, retrieve the variable, then do one of two things. If the variable is 0, then run the script and set the variable to 1. If the variable is 1, then set the variable to 0. In the script itself, I am assuming it is already a loop, so in the loop check the variable as well. If the variable is 0, then abort the script. You could do "if ((missionNamespace getVariable "myToggle") == 0) exitWith {terminate _thisScript;};"

If you want to accomplish something like this and you are new to scripting, then your first step is to break down what you want to do into the smallest individual tasks you can. In your case, you want runway lights to turn on and off in sequence. So break that down. What do you actually need to tell the ArmA engine to do in order to accomplish that? Well, the first task seems pretty obvious to me. You need to obtain references to the objects (the runway lights) themselves. You can't do anything to them if you can't reference them. Then you need to organize them by distance to the end of the runway. Then you need to calculate a time to toggle whether they are on or off based on their distance from the end of the runway. Then you need to toggle whether they are on or off at this calculated time. Start with the first task. Do a little research about nearEntities, nearestObjects, and other similar commands on the BI wiki and choose one that you think is most suitable for returning a list of runway lights. (hint: you need to find out what the class names of the runway lights are to pass to the command (dig around the 3DEN editor for runway lights), runway lights are probably NOT considered "alive" (but they might be so don't write off a command alltogether!), and you are going to want the runway lights to be ordered from nearest to furthest in the list returned by the command (but remember you can sort the list by distance if the command doesn't do it automatically if you have to)). Do that, and then you can actually start trying things.

I realized that rarely would you need the most prolific element in an array without needing all the elements that were considered but rejected. Rather than repeat the task of isolating all unique elements in the array, I took a look at my function and poked around to see if I could re-use the results of some of the operations that were performed for finding the most prolific element in order to also return the unique elements that were not the most prolific. Why? For example, if you need the most prolific element to do some task (choose one of many markers and change the color to indicate that the region is "active", in my case) then you would also need all the elements that were rejected in order to iterate through them and ensure that they do not need to have their color changed back if they were previously active. So I adapted the function to return an array in the following form: [_mostCommonElement,_arrayOfAllOtherElements] where _arrayOfAllOtherElements contains only unique values from the original array passed to the function that were also not the most prolific element. params ["_array"];_elmts = []; { _elmts pushBackUnique _x; true } count _array; _elmts2 = _elmts apply { _y = _x; [({_y isEqualTo _x} count _array),_y] }; sort _elmts2 false; _mCom = (_elmts2 select 0) select 1; _lCom = (_elmts - _mCom); [_mCom,_lCom] I don't know. It "looks" fast, it is just a few lines of code. But it does use two loops, one of which is n^2 (ouch). Could have scary overhead if you pass it a huge array. For my purposes I will be passing it an array that is equal to the number of players on the server. So it will run one loop equal to the number of array elements passed to it, and another n^2 loop equal to the number of unique elements in the array times the number of elements in the array that was passed to the function.

This is what I came up with but I can't test it yet. If anyone has a better idea im all ears. params ["_array"]; _elems = []; { _elems pushBackUnique _x; true } count _array; _elems = _elems apply { _y = _x; [({_y isEqualTo _x} count _array),_y] }; sort _elems false; (_elems select 0) select 1

I have an array of strings, eg: ["tskATK_LumberYard_WEST","tskATK_DieselPlant_WEST","tskATK_LumberYard_WEST","tskATK_LumberYard_WEST","tskATK_TempleRuins_WEST","tskATK_DieselPlant_WEST"] I need to return the string that appears most often in this array. Is there a command to do this? Or a fast way to do this? In the above example, I would need it to return "tskATK_LumberYard_WEST" because this string appears three times in the array, which is more than any other string appears in the array..