I find it a weird 'feature' I consider it a bug.

Please keep. I like the statistics it gives

@InstaGoat

You can get the same screen by calling endMission "end" though. No reason to keep an accidental addition because of that.

confirmed

No details yet to give people, but on DEV version 0.77.109860 over to last two days my PC just Freezes/Crashes the only way to get back is to reboot my PC, not great help I know but I think somethings not right.....

Haven't had a repeat issue, therefore probably a hardware issue; closing.

So I have played for the last few hours with no crash. Tested with the same missions and editor situations. The only change I made was reducing the view distance from est 4600 to 2100. Not sure which part of my hardware the view distance draws most, but usually bsods are down to low/faulty RAM.

.bidmp and .mdmp files were not created? These files should be created with .rpt file after every crash.

Duplicate http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13658

Strangely no, they didn't appear in my dump folder.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14019 Also shown here.

T-72 could be cooked off because ammunition were stored on floor unprotected. So you penetrated the armor and caused fire inside compartment you had change to cause shells to explode and then whole turret could fly off. It is famous for T-72 from media but it rarely happened and when did crew had time to get out safely.

Same thing is today with Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams if you hit to correct location, but damages are severely limited because special blow doors what causes the explosion to expand outside instead inside (as long arrow did not penetrate ammo rack when loader is loading and door is open at that moment.

It is just false believe that when an MBT is shot it blows up, or even that APC always blows up.
Firing a APFSDS to APC most likely does nothing than arrow just penetrate the thin armor without even causing severe spalling to injure crew, infantry or gear.
Instead HE shell can be more serious as it blows the whole armor edge causing severe spalling on large area injuring or killing crew and infantry.
HEAT again penetrates more likely well (especially tandem) and the copper spreads well inside as well.

Fuel trucks and other (like HEMTT) unarmored would blow up with HE easily but again APFSDS would just penetrate like hot knife on butter doing little if at all damage unless you hit directly to critical part (like engine block).

It is different story when APFSDS is fired against MBT or other heavily armored vehicle as just hitting them does not cause severe damage unless you get penetration and then hit something critical behind armor. More likely causing just leak of somekind, possible fire if something.

OK thx for details.
Could be there is no bug if I understood.

So I ll check how it feels inside when shot with differents kind of ammo.

Anyway I was surprised that a static flying chopper hit by the ammo still fly without any appearent damage... (yes playing with editor like a child in the sand :) )
Also the armour vehicle did not looked damaged after shoots...
That's why I found it hard to believe.

Maybe it is just a graphic bug

PS :
shooting building with HE resulted also in no apparent damage...

In the "patrol" missions of the Adapt campaign, if you edit the mission file, you can find some CSAT - friendly FIA units. Not sure how they did this, but I hope this helped. There are many features not apparent to many people in the campaign / etc. files.

You can edit your mission.sqm file as text and just redefine any unit as EAST instead of WEST.

Have you checked how much the components and people inside the vehicle take damage from "standard" rounds?

Not personnaly, never been to war hopefully ! :)
Seriously, I did not enter the armour after having shooting it.

But I would expect him to detonate... If I remember well gulf war, armour are exploding when hit by this kind of ammo.

But I am not an expert so...

@jtgibson

Where does the scope end? …

You are missing the crucial fact that, in contrast to your example, the independent FIA units already exist in the game, they are just deliberately hidden from the editor.

Let me get this straight. 1) Instead of it seeming like an arbitrary switch we now have a perfectly reasonable explanation on why they made the change, and 2) a viable workaround exists (scripting using the "unit join group" function, such as the provided example above -- you could even do it just using the Init boxes in the editor).

Where does the scope end? My mission utterly depends on having a rogue NATO pilot flying an AAF jet for the CSAT. I guess we'd better add all of the forces to all of the sides: AAF as BLUFOR, OPFOR, and Independent; NATO as BLUFOR, OPFOR, and Independent; FIA as BLUFOR, OPFOR, and Independent; and CSAT as BLUFOR, OPFOR, and Independent. Nothing else will suffice to cover all our usage scenarios.

Also, 3) "avoiding spoilers" so another person goes ahead and posts spoilers anyway, and 4) you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Let's call the campaign buggy and insult BIS for failing to make this switch, it'll get results for sure! ;-)

I get that people are annoyed that they can't use BIS assets for a purpose other than their original intention as easily as they used to, but if I were a BIS developer I would have already pushed this to the very bottom of my list based on reaction alone. I'm sure BIS is nicer and better to its community than I am, however, but bear in mind that were you to use this language in an indie dev community or a modding forum you could more or less forget about it ever seeing the light of day. =)

With the whole give FIA a CSAT leader "Solution" i've run into the issue where they only receive the first waypoint and not the following ones.

people has been nice to BIS for too long.

now they are out of money because someone thought it was a good idea to make 4 games at the same time, being a small indie dev company.

there are many things that the WHOLE community has been requestin for since years, things wich are in VBS, so they are compatible with the engine.

that's why there are people (like me) who are angry at BIS.

maybe if they could just TRY to make a new engine instead of using an 10 years old one they wouldn't recieve so much hate

I agree, the FAA for opfor, blufor, and independents should all be visible and place-able in the editor.

In all reality BI likely wont make this change because it would make things too easy. Based the tickets that have been resolved it is apparent that they don't cater to the new people in the community who can't script and mod and don't have hours upon hours of free time to dedicate to learning it, They only cater to the scripters and modders that are working on/trying to finish their game for them.

Oooooo I'm with viper

not me

Either way editing sqm of or join group or sqf spawning is silly...

If it was put on both sides the following can happen.

-players who wish to use them against blufor can....
-players who like them as they are can easily set it to friendly blufor...
-no scripting needed
-arguments no more

Or make then visible blufor and opfor and the same result (as above) will occur.

I really don't see the problem with them being visible in blufor and independant!!
Hell you can make them fight each other!
Friendly towards opfor, spawn the independant FAA and spawn the blufor FAA or whatever it's called and so forth..

It would be a win win situation for everyone!

Is anyone with me?

well, i just tested the campaign, and besides the fact that even after being delayed, relased post-relase, and tested in dev branch, is bugged as fuck.

Now i see why the AAF is indfor, its because in-main-story they are pro-opfor.

i still wish i could be able to set different independient teams that are not one of the 3 fighting factions

You can just spawn them, they exist in all sides as a faction. No need for join group or hand editing SQMs, just use SQF to spawn them.

Now that the Survive campaign is out, I'm pretty sure people understand why the FIA faction is BLUFOR instead of independent. It's next to impossible to mention anything further without doing spoilers.

If you want these units as insurgents, you will have to use the join-group method, or will have to hand-edit your .sqm file.

On the other hand, "unlocking" the independent FIA units shouldn't be too difficult for BIS, so I'm not sure why that configuration edit isn't being done, other than pondering that maybe the configuration editors under Joris are all tapped to the extreme working on the campaign at the moment.

"you will have to use the join-group method, or will have to hand-edit your .sqm file." - " just use SQF to spawn them. "

Ok, but I have never done any of these before (like many of the newer people in the community)...how EXACTLY do I do that? I only have minimal knowledge of scripting/modding. Also I have a life and work so I only have a couple hours each day to try an learn all the things I need to do just so I can make the missions I want to make, so I can play the game how I want...

Or they could enable it and I can skip the learning and just place, make and play, it's kind of funny that in the 320 hours steam shows as the time I've spent in game, I guarantee well over have of that was spent just LEARNING how to make missions that I can play...not actually doing what I bought the game to do in the first place which is make missions and play the game.

i like vipers comment....

i mean why make it invisible... what was the actual point?

its like drinking AIR but the water is invisible.

Just proving my point, BIS is getting lazy nowdays

Hmm... I don't see the problem of this posted issue. Just try out my simple solution 9 posts above... or download my attached "mission".

On the other hand, Viper is right. Sometimes I think, the developers randomly pick out issues they like and work on them, it doesn't matter how many votes the other issues have.

A roadmap for future updates would be nice.

I hope they solve this...

@Viper:

I created several single FIA-units close to each other, so they will group automaticly. Then I grouped one after another to the non present CSAT-unit and it worked for me.

You don't need to sync any units, just group them.

I didn't test it with the latest dev-branch yet.

I try to test it later this day.

@Viper: I can verify, that my solution is working even in the latest dev-branch.

I found out, what your problem was. You created a FIA-Squad over the group button, created a single CSAT-unit and a single NATO-unit as a player. You tried to connect all FIA-squad-members with the single CSAT-unit, but in the preview, the FIA-units didn't shoot at your NATO-unit.

Solution: You have to change the rank for your single CSAT-unit from Private to Sergeant or higher. The rank must be equal or higher to the highest rank in the group.

For an easily reproduction, I attached a simple mission, that you can load and preview over the editor. Just download it and move it to "[...]documents/Arma 3/missions"

Ok BI what's the deal, latest dev branch had feedback issue fixed it is labeled as priority - none, severity - none with 5 votes up zero down...this has 113 votes up zero down, ton of comments including an example of a moderately experienced editor user having difficulty getting around this issue...apparently there are ZERO ***ks given any suggestions that would improve the use of the editor...no matter how simple they may be.

I wonder how long until they start closing issues with "Resolution: Wait for Community Fix"

@Koala this does not work at the squad level I was referring to.

1. placed Nato Player
2. csat, c.o.p. = false
3. fia weapons squad synced
4. grouped each squad member of fia to csat
5. preview = they did not attack nato player

@viper0317: Yeah, I see, what you mean. Bohemia uses 12 years old methods for mission editing.

I've tested my solution one minute ago and it works pretty well.

As long as there are no FIA-look-a-like-units for every side available, my solution should give you guys an alternative way without scripting.

I personally hate it to script for such simple things.

The same for the equipment. I hope, the developers release the equipment editor for the sandbox editor (you can see it in the beta livestreams below the "edit unit box" in the middle).

@viper0317:

My solution for the problem works at the squad level too. You have to place a FIA-squad, set the squad leader as the player and then connect all units (the player unit too) with the non present CSAT-unit. The CSAT-unit is now a temporary group leader. But if you press "Preview", you will start the mission as the FIA-group leader.

That works with waypoints too. You just have to set all waypoints for the non-present CSAT-unit, but if you preview the mission, you can see the next waypoint as the "new" FIA-group leader.

I hope, it helps you guys out there!

Have fun :)

Thanks for the verification Koala, Couldn't bring myself to reinstall the game to test. It would still be nice to see the previously discussed changes implemented, we shouldn't have to use work arounds and worry about grouping to actually utilize the sandbox aspect of the game.

Hey guys, there is an alternative to set up a mission against the FIA. It doesn't matter, which side they are related to and you don't need to script.

1. Create a NATO-unit as a player
2. Create a FIA-unit
3. Create a CSAT-unit and set "Condition of Presence" to "false" (the unit is not physical present in the mission)
4. group the FIA-unit with the OpFor-unit (not the other way around) via the group connector (press F2)
5. preview the mission and the FIA-unit will attack you.

That works with every Side... even OpFor attacking OpFor and Civilian attacking Civilian.

Have fun!

@Zek
I almost created a ticket for that, but because I'm such a realist I decided that it would be pointless. ;)

+1 for putting FIA to IND/OFP as well. Would increase sandbox quality.

That's handy, but that is a lot of grouping if you want to have multiple squads for large scale missions. Problem with that, probably doesn't work at the squad level, it makes a non-present unit a squad leader, need to test with way point squad movement.

I know it's too late but I think that it would be better to allow us to decide which factions belongs to each side in the editor, so we can make missions like Nato and CSAT working together without any strange workarounds... mmm maybe for arma 4 :P

Between what NMDanny said about guerrilla factions and kylania is saying about having copies of FIA for each faction and having them be place-able in the editor without scripting would be great for mission making, and significantly expand the types of missions we can make without having to do additional and complex scripting that could otherwise potentially and adversely affect gameplay/performance.

+1 for FIA being available for editor placement for each Side! (Opfor, Blufor, and Independent)

Totally agree with you kylania, should be included again in the editor.

There are already three groups.

BLUFOR FIA in the editor. B_G_Soldier_F and so on.
OPFOR FIA available via scripting: O_G_Soldier_F and so on.
INDEP FIA available via scripting: I_G_Soldier_F and so on.

Mission makers can already decide who's fighting who without resorting to setFriend, changing gear or anything excessive. You could probably make a client side only mod to add these to the editor even.

I totally agree that they should all be available in the editor, I can't think of any reason not to do so other than confusion, but this system is proving just as confusing anyway! :)

why not make 4 groups?

Blufor
Opfor
Independent FAA
Independent FIA

this way mission makers can decide better who's fighting who.

No need for any of that, just spawn in the OPFOR sided FIA units:

_opforFIAGroup = [getMarkerPos "spawn", EAST, ["O_G_Soldier_TL_F", "O_G_Soldier_AR_F", "O_G_Soldier_F", "O_G_medic_F"]] call BIS_fnc_spawnGroup;

WEST setfriend [GUER, 0]; GUER setfriend [WEST, 0] << Even this would be an exception. But there is no way to set the FIA against NATO yet. The only way I found was to

removeuniform this;
removevest this;
removeheadgear this;
this addUniform "U_IG_Guerilla1_1";
this addheadgear "H_Shemag_olive";
this addvest "V_TacVest_blk";
this addBackpack "B_Bergen_blk"
Only problem is you must do this for each unit
Also don't forget to add magazines and FAK's because the units inventory will be empty (this addmagazine ["example", 5]; this additem "example") use config viewer to find class names

I think calling insurgency for ind or redfor shouldnt be scripted

Any change? Somebody heard anything in the forums?

i think it should be just like in arma 1 and 2, that means, AAF being Blufor, and FIA being the only Greenfor, but i think people should be able to also set factions to make certain things, some people may want to have CSAT and NATO working together for any mission and they dont want to copy and paste the faction to opfor

Completely agree with this issue, we need an insurgent force to play against in the game without having to script everything in, this has been one of the worst things about this game from day 1. fighting the guys with the spacemen helmets gets old quick. There is a heightened sense of danger when the hostiles blend in more with the civilian population...which is STILL a whole other issue in itself. Still nothing full about the "full release" of this game.

FIA units are actually duplicated in INDEP, BLUFOR and OPFOR. Just INDEP and OPFOR are scriptable only, not in the editor for some mysterious reason Pettka mentioned.

If they do that is because a reason. Lets see whats going on after the release. Could be another rebel group on sight.
Dont panic!

At least please duplicate it to both Independent and BLUFOR. That way if us mission creators want the FIA to face off against AAF we can do that. So I see the need for them on BLUFOR.......but I also would want them as an Independent as well.

change it !!!

We're just gonna have a client side only addOn to unhide all these hidden things anyway, so why hide them in the first place?

Make them visible under all the factions for all I care. :)

Either make them appear on both sides (Blu and Ind) or hide them under Blu and make them visible in Ind.

Yeah, not a great idea, BIS. I already had them hiding out in the cave Al Qaeda style, ready to pounce, and now they're like "Oh, hai guys!"

It makes sense considering that NATO supports AL-queida and other terrorists islamic rebels in Syria.

But on a more serious note - WHAT A PIECE OF D**KFACE MADE A DECISION.

voted up

Or they could just keep the FIA in both BLUFOR and independent. That way we can also have FIA vs AAF battles, aswell as FIA vs. BLUFOR.

More options.

What a ridiculous decision.

Completely absurd and nonsense change in the first place, my voice was given on the BI thread about this. Absurd. Please change this back.

The FIA faction was actually *copied* to BLUFOR, though the original independent FIA was set to "scope private", which means they are not visible in the editor.

I've edited the ticket title accordingly.

OK, just saw it on the changelog.

What the fu*k, BIS!?

changelog ...

FIA faction was moved to the BLUFOR side. The other sides still have variants present in config (protected mode). Therefore, the original classes for FIA on Independent side remain in the game (but not visible in editor).

..............

especially "Independent side remain in the game (but not visible in editor)."
is what i dont like... dont wanna change dozen of classnames in the mission.sqm afterwards ....

Agreed with nmdanny. I think both AAF and FIA should remain on the independent side, but if BIS really wants to move someone, they should move AAF, not FIA.

Moving FIA to the blufor faction was very silly. History has proven us how unreliable and unpredictable rebels are, they should have definitely remained as independent. I could understand AAF being BLUFOR since NATO are supposedly helping them against the Iranians, and the rebels being reluctant about a foreign force in their lands.(NATO and CSAT)

Looks like it's actually be part of the ILS. I've been placing the targets on runways.. my bad.

Wait, they changed them to OPFOR?

Only if someone is designating with laser.

Yes, someone as in a UAV which you can control.

I have a video of the ranging bar and pylon appearing, albeit whilst i am not yet air borne:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aJ5ZeH9q3M

If the scenario has a UAV available. And anyway that's beside the point, it's for when you need to drop the GBU on a target that isn't designated.

What exactly is the point of the ranging bar? Isn't the GBU-12 laser guided?