its not a redundant implementation if it also applies on the player!
currently, im in need of such a function
it is also possible to do a workaround but ... thats not the same as if i just need to call a single line of code

i would please you to extend this
it also would be nice if we are able to disable some default menu actions for mods (i need to remove the medikit action somehow ... but have no clue where to start)

it should not be the solution to use isEqualTo instead of ==

bump

still not even a review?
also
i would like to know why people downvote
because it just makes sense to compare two booleans for equalness (instead of value)
see the example above
because
when you got this case:
_b1 = false;
_b2 = false;
and compare both with &&
you need to do two compares for a single "is equal" check!
(_b1 && _b2) || (!_b1 && !_b2)

another bump because of importance!

^^ there is also a overview problem if you need to compare boolean values and after that integers and so on
which looks like so:
((_boola && _boolb) && (_inta == _intb))

bump

Tested it a few seconds ago
Its true
works like expected in dev version
it would be nice if i could get the knowledge about when the next update will arrive (because i need this function for my small mod im currently writing)

bump
its important to fix this!
some of those animations are essential for specific types of mods (for example: treatement animations for medical mods)

@drebin052 how would that solve the problem?
for now: all uniforms would be male
not female
also, the female average in ArmA is about how high? 1%? 5% if we take life mod into account?

in general: this is a feature request for a non-priority group
there is more reason behind when asking for good PC ports then asking for female player soldiers (ask for world peace, more likey to happen w/o budget)

simp1y@hotmail.co.uk: +1 low prio "issue"
rogerx: tard ... your "argument" is not helping the "discussion" about wehter or not it is useful
Dr_Death: regardless of if you play ArmA life or non-life modes ... in the end: the modder behind would mostl ikely skip AI entirely as thats just a hell of a shitty work to do behind it ...

just imagine a math exam with the importance of the last 10 you wrote
it is at the same work load then what "you would expect" :)
rogerx: BS! civilian AI is always set to non-enemy unless you explicitly set em to non-friendly or non-civilian!
freexavier: its a SJW stupidity issue ... that BS is like asking why more ppl are for women rights then for human rihghts .. whilst in those countries where the human rights are not rly something to ask for anymore are those which already conclude women righst (you might now ... most man are having less rights in this world then women have))

so ... in the end: never ask why this is second highest! ask why ppl are willed to vote for this bullshit

greetings X39

haha
Je we all laughed
As i see you dudes can do it for way less i and hell lot faster
Give you a week
Then show me your mod

Bi already said they do not have the ressources and i showed you why
Ignoring the fucking reality is easy but being that dump?

Im out
Go hate some more

For sure they get
but they get paid for different stuff

its not like when they do not work on this they are just idling around doing something

in arma is a ton of stuff still to be added and researched fe. how to improove the performance on multi-core systems

the question is thus not if you want to tell the idle developers to do something for their money, the question is do you want to invest that much of money for a full implementation of the female gender
i say no simply because its too much work to do it proper
thus either dont do it at all in this arma generation or JUST add the voices and faces ignoring everything else
problem here: due to the fact that it is already implemented by a mod, why should BI care then?
more or less wasting money to implement the same a mod already did? the community would rage just like it always does

@Echo

good you just read quickly over my post and took whats most important for you
SJWs are definitly in this threads which every non-retarded can see just by reading through the notes above (just like stupids are in between there too ... but thats a different story)

also it is not like i say three times the same with different words
its three different aspects of the same underlaying basic argument
people usually call that "explaination"
if i would just have said "it costs ressources" (which i also did for people like you in the very end at the TL;DR section) there would have been questions like "ye? so wher zis taks rez?!"
to avoid them i simply show them where the work will happen

in regards of the unrpooven facts ...
head over to here:
http://3drt.com/

and now imagine you would make a special model just for you instead of spreading it all over the world (as theese here are not made specially for somebody and instead sold to multiple individuals or companies)

this still not includes the employee costs which can vary (dont know the ammount of money for BI employees but still we can assume they are in averange at least)
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/221533/Game_Developer_Salary_Survey_2014_The_results_are_in.php
according to this fancy thingy
93.251$ for the programmer, which is needed to implement a way to differ between gender & the different models (one person + a week should be enough for this thus 23.312$)
54.833$ for the QA, so we dont get totally bugged shit (depending on the QA team size can vary, should require at least 2 weeks to test enough with at least 4 people thus 109.666$)
74.349$ for the actual artists which change the different models needed for the secondary sexual characteristics of the female body (AKA tits + in theory shoulders and hips too due to different average) (let it be 3 people working there, per model one man day + an additional day fixing stuff caused by the new model for each available animation/model which hopefully gets done after a month making additional 223.047$)
95.682$ for different audio set caused by females (for simplicity we take the same ammount due to me having no idea how to get this at least in a realistic ammount ... so 95.682$)
73.864$ for the game designers which alter ALL configs and scripts of the vanilla game which should also take another month and make 5 people busy for the lil ammount of 369.320$

so lets add up:

23312$

109666$
223047$

95682$

+369320$

821027$

nearly onemillion fucking dollars for a minority of people in ArmA 3 and pretty much all mods which provide new content being broken to unusability (and yes ... believe it or not! i KNOW there are female ArmA players and those 4 i met out of a few thousand male ArmA players have been mostly just playing the game because their boyfriend does (3 of those 4))

great deal if you want to cause heavy rage at every modders "workplace"

also this assumption not even took in account all those other fancy costs which would be caused due to this and assumes that everything works fine instantly without any thinking time or whatsoever
thus youre more realistic if you assume 2.000.000$ for that change

i hope i could show you something out from my "cave" why i fucking said in the end (which you most likely did not read just like the other idiots who just answered to my note)
new models? no fucking way
just face models and voices? spent the money

but i think it was easier to ignore what i actually said and just rage about my comment

PS
if you dont want to get insulted then why you did that with me!? so go **** yourself
X39

My 50ct

1. cant believe how many retarded SJWs are here blowing this tracker with their bullshit without knowing anything about the actual game ...

2. (the actual useful thing) I do not think Female soldiers should be added to the game because of the following quite simple arguments:
3. Requires duplicates for pretty much all models + a way to detect the gender (more scripting stuff needed)
4. Pretty much all mods which bring in new content would be broken as soon as female soldiers wear that stuff
5. Keeps away personell from the actually important stuff: <fill in here your desired vehicle/weapon/expansion>

and btw. thats the reason why pretty much ALL games just use the gender of their main audience which is for ArmA (and most shooters) the male part of humans
it is simply expensive to create extra everything for both genders (in both: time and money)

so i please BI to not do it unless they really got nothing else to do as there is like a ton of other stuff to do in ArmA 3 before we even can spend time on wasting ressources to duplicate everything for just little changes like tits ...

if the "request" would just "need" faces & voices then well ... do it
but that would also just cause a shitstorm of SJWs and a new ticket to give the tits to the people ...

to conclude this post (AKA TL;DR)
<Dont do it as there is pretty much no female ArmA player and the ressource need for this task would be way too high>

... no wonder the light is flickering when you disabled your AA processing (FSAA in this case)

PPAA is applied AFTER the game scene has been rendered
meaning that the FSAA is one of those AA methods wich will also smooth your light while PPAA is not (well ... it is too but in a different way which is the reason why you see the flickering)

Enable FSAA and check if its still happening (if yes then keep cool ... its expected for all video games which got such light)

it could be the same thing that happens on the airport
as on the airport the small position lights are disappearing when they are only fitting a single pixel on the screen (even if the lightbubble they create is larger)

i also could imagine that the graphical options are important in this case (as its a graphical bug) so posting your settings could help fireball

RESULT: CANNOT REPRODUCE (or partly as when im moving backwards it seems to be flackering a little but also could be the movement)

Settings: see screenshots

• http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/509202254375446187/6645D351282C7D34F546105350A9648A1555F308/
• http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/509202254375441005/AC1474AA387A13FE5D8036DC280491C977292F4F/
• http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/509202254375436191/26B9F1E08F111DD7BA1A05883F69F3091A2D7552/

not related to this ticket but as short note:
removing dead corpses etc. can be done through iterating through http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/allDead

youre not in the software buisness and just to let you know
i voted this ticket up

ArmA 3 just has the problem that the issues the game has are more visible
if you go and check other games then you will see that they are more bugged and so on like this game
also the performance is no reason to not release the game as the performance is fine on the correct missions and SP

yes they know that the netCode is kinda weird but no its not a reason to skip the (usual in soft. buis.) winter vacatation

also
please exactly name why:
-the game does not work
-it is not finished

for you

stupid
the game is working ...
the problem is mostly that missions are not optimized for servers + the crappy netcode which results in the case "bad server FPS = bad client FPS"

varies on implementation
also
its not the power at all which would be the big thing
instead
it would be that youre then able to load much more objects at the same time (also includes higher viewDistance and so on in theory)

^http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/tech/computers/what%E2%80%99s-the-difference-between-32-bit-and-64-bit?page=1
check that page out
its nothing about arma directly (as the 2GB ram limit is windows for 32Bit + (not sure if rly but should) the compiler because of using 32bit commands)

@tOBdavian
Compiling for x64 and x84 at the same time is pretty easy
the problem is that x64 can have issues which wont appear at x84 (and so on)
this includes issues which prevents compiling the program correctly (meaning that at the end you could end up in changing nearly the entire code just because you need to change something simple. Its also possible that nothing happens but ... yeah there needs to be a BIDev as i have no idea about their source code)

@Killzone_Kid
im not for LUA at all (me personally: Java, C/C++ as script lang.)
i just dont want SQF (the main thing i really hate it is because of the missing return ... its just ... GNARHGH -.-* no return ...)

@Killzone_Kid
i know youre pretty experienced but even you need to accept that its true
SQF is not a good script language

many things of modern languages are just missing (just lets take as example a simple "return BLABLAVALUE" command)

dont missunderstand me! I really enjoy that ArmA even has the ability to mod but it still is pain in the ass to code as 100000000 things are just handling much different then in usual languages (Java, C/C++, C#, Lua) and even SQF itself is not at all points consistent (lets take the thing that "_array = _array + [1]" is much slower then "_array set [count _array, 1]" which is kinda stupid if you see (and yes ^^ i know that the _array + [1] is generating a new array assigning it to the old one and destroying the old one! but its still frking stupid as it could be MUCH more simple))!

(((gnargh ... got about 300 mistakes in the upper text ...)))

kindly regards X39
PS
upvoted just to get rid of SQF
every language is better then the current (why dont give us a full range of C/C++ headers ^^ also would be funny to handle with memory leaks :F)

does not matters
we got no informations about it (as far as i know) so as more duplicate the more those clowns who think their game dont currently need linux server binaries mention that WE the community NEED linux server binaries (the other solution is that BI is buying me the server license of windows. I also would be fine with that solution but ... yeah)

think you should expand the steps to reproduce and provide a example mission (should be better for them to test then)

its possible to use AllInArma so that you get all maps in arma (who thought this could be that what AllInArma does ... yeah)
Through that you get really interesting pictures ^^

ArmA2:
http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/633036564922300961/6812568C0550CC99663D8CD6D0F80E768D5F978B/

ArmA3:
http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/633036564922300961/6812568C0550CC99663D8CD6D0F80E768D5F978B/

The ArmA 2 Chernarus in ArmA3 :
http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/633036564915023986/6EED77BB6DBF3FF262D5E2737C5257C67852EE4A/

The ArmA 2 zargabad in ArmA3 :
http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/633036564915019408/81B7639FAB8AABF6A003A8D728B7D857742C35FB/

you never said that ^^

works in build 0.73.107682

currently im using the DEV branch (and im using the dedicated server (arma3server.exe in arma3 main directory).
The markers are created serverside and no player who joins gets the markers synched correctly.

extraNote:
used this mission here
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62623528/arma3/MPMissions/Insurgency-X39/Insurgency-X39.Stratis_UC.zip

the script which is creating the markers is using gameLogic objects INIT (the gamelogic object is calling "Scripts\InsInit\Init.sqf" which will detect all houses from interest within a specific range. After that it creates a marker for each 100x100m grid where such a house is located at. The markers are finally created in the "Scripts\InsInit\CreateMarkers.sqf" script.)

i added the client part today so that they get at least grey markers
hopefully this helps more

screens are also missing and an exact way to reproduce
so think if it does not changes this will be closed soon

@Statek
i cant agree
the problem is that these things NEED TO have a hitbox (just because it makes sense!) if youre worried about your car then drive like in reality: Safe and without risking your life.

Driving with 100KMh onto a stone also will crash your car or destroy your wheels! So
Add the hitboxes
Upvoted

stop playing wasteland then

since arma is using physx now BI could use PhysX to simulate the water more propper (dont actually know if its possible with such large areas covered with water so ... yeah)

its a must have!
this or they remove all other interiors! (because NO ONE likes half implementations of a feature! you also dont build a house without a roof and walls!)

@Dwarden
thats true but as most people are not "smart" enough to connect using RCON there needs to be a solution around

it also would be nice to add very own chat commands (all that in combination would make it possible to develop a real admin interface for arma by the community)

As it IS possible to use RCON for multi admins
what about event handlers for chat?
that would make it possible to redirect the chat command directly to a modification instead of arma so that the modification can connect to RCON directly using (for example) a c/c++ interface

the eventHandler could look like

add-/removeChatEventHandler[<HandlerType>, <Code]

and have 2 handler types:
Chat - Triggers everytime when the chat was used (text commited using ENTER) & awaits a BOOL as result (false: continue using ArmAs default implementation; true: stop ArmAs default implementation as the scripts implementation was used)
Command - Triggers everytime when a command was issued & awaits a BOOL as result (false: continue using ArmAs default implementation; true: stop ArmAs default implementation as the scripts implementation was used)

greets
X39

PS
a markup plugin would rly be awesome for this mantis tracker ... makes formatting much easier (bbcodes would also be acceptable)

i would enjoy something like a folded map at the ground where you just can view the ground and a bit around (just a high resolution texture version of the map) or something like that

also
i think
for flying and driving or something like that its not and never was a good idea to open the map!
stand still and do it while youre safe
thats the point
before that there is no need of reorientation

just to make sure you remember
"tanks are not included in alpha"
so
this is something you should take care about when the first tank is out

would be a nice feature to see but to be more exactly
it would be nice to have!
just think about missions which are productive and helpfull for civilians in arma
just would be beautifull (for example: operation helpfull; Your job is really easy! the civ in that area need our help because one of their dam has broken so get out to there and rebuild it. after that create a bridge at chack chack so that the civ. can get over the not existing river)

but to be sure
no "i build my own base" thing please ...
for example:
a mission maker could create user editable terrain areas

could imagine something like an vehicleServicePoint for this

How long can this take Oo omg ...
its now close to one month since this was reported so?

also agree
this is a userscript and has nothing to do with arma 3
downvote

am im the only one who is not able to run multiple instances with this workaround anymore?

upvote but i agree
this is something that should not be in the arma 3 main game (or at least it should be serverside configurable)

agree
silence in and out could generate a new mission style in arma (covert ops)

also want this feature but not when using the scope! im more interested in having it at the animations while walking for example (when the view then randomly gets onto the ACOG scope)

not agreeing for this state of game!
adding a women model would require (just thinking) to create the different setups (for example: the west) for the women character also
means they need to (currently) waste time to create it.

@Bohemia
add them but do it when you got free ressources (not like now)

not agreeing for this state of game!
adding a women model would require (just thinking) to create the different setups (for example: the west) for the women character also
means they need to (currently) waste time to create it.

@Bohemia
add them but do it when you got free ressources (not like now)

not agreeing for this state of game!
adding a women model would require (just thinking) to create the different setups (for example: the west) for the women character also
means they need to (currently) waste time to create it.

@Bohemia
add them but do it when you got free ressources (not like now)

agree!
but not with everyting
shadows = yes but post processing is just something that everyone has to decide!
i rly hate the effect it creates ... so i turn it of (nothing is shape anymore, motion blur, ... GAH just hate it)

random question to the ArmA devs:

shouldnt it increase the performance on multicore systems if you use a threadpool and task system?
most of the simulation should still work fine
Pro:

• would increase performance (in theory) on multicore systems

Con:

• would require a callback system for a lot of things
• will cause a heavy ammount of work on engine (regressions)
• possibly unstable if a task is not implemented correctly

+1

but please make it user configurable