I down-voted the ticket. I absolutely don't agree with the 1 and 2 points. I believe you have managed to put a very poor arguments in there.

1. Is not true on Arma 3 islands and if true in some scenarios (therefore bug) it should be fixed by fixing the LOS system and not by nerfing the AI behaviour.

2. Absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable reason you put there (sorry). We should fix the AI shooting skills itself so that they are less super-human and not making them more stupid in their position selection in order to make them easier to hit.

3 and 4 are relevant points and could be fixed by timeouts before going prone or making cities CQB zones for which AI would have special behaviour. This would be very difficult to do properly IMO because there will be inevitable situations when you would love to have AI going prone even in CQB.

yes

This was assigned the instant I created it. Are all AI movement tickets auto-assigned to oukej or something?

BI could just add each stable patch as a branch (with stable branch always being the latest).

However it could lead to version madness in MP.

Keeping always one stable prior to latest stable would be useful for organized groups/communities in case a new patch introduces serious issues.

I don't know about mags but when I go into Arsenal, and test a loadout with a gun in the launcher, the gun will have a mag loaded but the launcher won't. This is painful if you wanna airdrop soldiers with rocket launchers, since you can't have a backpack and a parachute.

Yes, in Arsenal and Zeus the guns are loaded but not when you copy the loadout into the init field of the editor. The launcher is always empty and if you don't have a backpack with another missile it's useless. The launchers of the default AT riflemen and missile specialists are loaded but they're always missing a rocket from their backpacks.

why not?

Yes, the launch of Arma 3 is a work in progress but as we've seen from the past, they have brilliant ideas, it just takes a while for them to be finished.
Yes the vanilla game itself is a bit of a mess right now (overpowered armor, too much weapon sway, etc), but so far all the DLCs (Zeus, Karts, Bootcamp, if you can call bootcamp a dlc) have produced stellar content, so I have good faith that our future DLCs and shotguns will be great.

karts does not count as a DLC, and so far they have been too lazy and greedy ever since the BETA relase of arma 3.

The problem is not that they get delayed with content, the problem is that they have no reason to be delayed with content, make excuses for being delayed, then they give content that nobody asked for ignoring the community, and then claim that their content was relased.

This, however, its not new, look at the infamous BIS games, look at carrier command, recieving 2 updates for the beta every year.

I have heard BIS claim that they lack the money to upgrade ArmA 3 to do the shit that the people want, a month after i heard that statement, they announced "make arma not war".

See the problem here?

well, i dont expect BIS to do everything well at all

There is an animation ingame for loading a shotgun (along with other features like attaching scopes).

The Air Force is also using the Osprey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV-22_Osprey

i think the osprey may come with the new Helicoper DLC. The Osprey is some sort of a Helicopter, isnt it?

Well, there is a paratrooper class wich is pretty much a rifleman with a parachute and there is a wreck for some kind of fictisious cargo plane, lets hope its not just wreck

Yes, I never thought about that actually! I certainly hope to see it come then.

There are wrecks for BMPs, Humvees, Mi17, T-something, etc around Altis, yet there is none of these in actual game.

but its just used by the USMC

they weren't 'ditched,' they were put in as placeholders to be used for testing/screenshots, etc.
and I'm talking about the F35
I think we can still expect an MV-22 Osprey variant, because in game there are already "crashed" models of the osprey. In fact, there is a static one right at the end of the Stratis Air Base runway (to the southeast), just under the water. You can even see one of the rotor blades sticking out of the water.

No scrapping being done guys
However we ditched both the Osprey and F35 in the official screenshots because of reasons

I am not aware of any scrapping being done.
I'm not sure about the Osprey and XM25, but I know for a fact that the F35 was a placeholder for the purpose of testing. The pictures of the shotguns can be found in Dslyecxi's Game guide here: https://store.bistudio.com/images/screenshots/a3_tactical_guide_print/a3_tg_print_5.jpg

I think this little "definition" problem should be solved now.

The pictures demongod refers to were released in 2012, some of the content was scrapped since then, like the Osprey, the F35 and the XM25.
Maybe with the next DLC we'll have something more.

In my mind, CQC=CQB. It doesn't matter, we knew what he meant.

but in modern days CQB is related to close firefights more than anything else, while CQC is used mostly to mention unarmed combat

No, they're synonyms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_quarters_combat

CQB, CQC means melee/unarmed combat.

Shotguns are probably coming. There are picture of the AA12 and the Kel-Tec KSG. They'll either come or they won't, a feedback tracker post isn't going to affect that.

How did you even get the arsenal to be at night? The VR world doesn't seem like it's supposed to be used at night.

oh I see what you mean
yeah there should be like NV mode or something

Big vote up here. Very annoying not being able to see your gear.

You can add the arsenal to normal missions too as a Virtual Ammo Box: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arsenal

It's impossible to lock first person and use the cinemaBorder function in vehicles - am I missing something? :)

yep
there is a seperated BI forum thread about it:
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?180959-unexpected-script-runtime-issue-when-putting-much-code-into-variables-by-a-seperated

now to how everything gets callen, where what is defined, etc.
but due the size of the projects i will stick to those section inbound in this problem (i will use github links so everyone can check the code without asking for it)

the functions are defined in 3 config.cpps:
https://github.com/X39/XLib/blob/master/X39_XLib_KeyCatcher/config.cpp
https://github.com/X39/XLib/blob/master/X39_XLib_ActionDialog/config.cpp
https://github.com/X39/XMS2/blob/dev_X39/X39_MS2_Scripting/config.cpp

registering of the button actions:

1. (auto) https://github.com/X39/XLib/blob/master/X39_XLib_KeyCatcher/Functions/init.sqf
2. (auto) https://github.com/X39/XLib/blob/master/X39_XLib_ActionDialog/Functions/init.sqf

2.1 https://github.com/X39/XLib/blob/master/X39_XLib_KeyCatcher/Functions/registerKey.sqf

3. (auto) https://github.com/X39/XMS2/blob/dev_X39/X39_MS2_Scripting/Functions/initMod.sqf

3.1 https://github.com/X39/XMS2/blob/dev_X39/X39_MS2_Scripting/Functions/initModHelpers/addInteractionMenuEntries.sqf
3.1.1 https://github.com/X39/XLib/blob/master/X39_XLib_ActionDialog/Functions/registerAction.sqf

executing a button action

1. initial key event registered by X39_XLib_KeyCatcher
2. https://github.com/X39/XLib/blob/master/X39_XLib_KeyCatcher/Functions/cb_KeyDown.sqf

2.1 https://github.com/X39/XLib/blob/master/X39_XLib_ActionDialog/Functions/createDialog.sqf
2.2 https://github.com/X39/XLib/blob/master/X39_XLib_ActionDialog/Functions/initSystemVariables.sqf
2.3 https://github.com/X39/XLib/blob/master/X39_XLib_ActionDialog/Functions/initActions.sqf
2.3.1 depending on what button was pressed (and if the condition of the actions return true) different code registered in https://github.com/X39/XMS2/blob/dev_X39/X39_MS2_Scripting/Functions/initModHelpers/addInteractionMenuEntries.sqf will be executed

for the working part it is more or less the same but that you register the actions then directly inside the debug menu so you only got the https://github.com/X39/XLib/blob/master/X39_XLib_ActionDialog/Functions/registerAction.sqf call (no seperated one)

Your code logic is somewhat complex and as such I may misunderstand your intent.

{
if(_x getVariable ['X39_MS2_var_UnitInitialized', false]) then
{

		_unit = _x;

};
false
} count attachedObjects X39_XLib_var_ActionDialog_Executor;

This design seems not safe/defensive programming.

---

My suggestion:

private ['_attachedObjects','_unitFound'];
_attachedObjects = attachedObjects X39_XLib_var_ActionDialog_Executor;//not necessary
_unitFound = false;
{
private ['_currentUnit'];
_currentUnit = _x;
if (!isNil '_currentUnit') then
{

		if (!isNull _currentUnit) then
		{
			if(_x getVariable ['X39_MS2_var_UnitInitialized', false]) then
			{
				_unitFound = true;
			};
		};

};
if (_unitFound) exitWith {_unit = _x;};
} forEach _attachedObjects;

If you can be sure _attachedObjects doesn't contain undefined units or removed units, the isNil and isNull check is obsolete.

Also you should not need to private _x as its a special variable as the engine sets the scope itself (at least thats the current knowledge and how Squint handles it).

Overall I don't get why you use the {} count array construct here.
If you want to catch the last unit in _attachedObjects that contains your variable, just ditch the exit condition of my design.
Ref: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/count

changed the design many times trying while to fix that problem
the first attempt did not contained any variable as you can solve everything without a single one (attachedObjects will return an empty array if no object is attached)

im using count because it is faster (at least it was ... not sure about now but im used to this by today ^^ works the same way but without the _forEachIndex variable) but ... yeah
already tried it with foreach too

-----edit-----
Also the code is working (just how/when/whatEvar it is registered using the registerAction function makes the difference)

can be closed due the comment i received on reddit ...
http://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/2bn5gu/sqf_i_surrender/
buttonSetAction does not supports SQF? the fuck BI?

raising new bug soon for this

is there a thread in the BI forum about it?
how do you call/execute the code? what is the call/execution tree? where is the code defined and where is the file to be found?

omg i feel like dumb right now, that's exactly what i was looking for

you mean something like this?
https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/addCuratorEditableObjects
https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/removeCuratorEditableObjects

Mass-closing all resolved issues not updated in the last month.

Please PM me in BI Forums (http://forums.bistudio.com/member.php?55374-Fireball) if you feel your bug was closed in error.

Yes, related to the map the icon size changes, which is bad. :) You are right that the actual markersize stays the same. Would like to have a way for marker-icons behave like ellipse and rectangular marker-areas.

One way would be of course to have script altering the marker sizes when zooming out or in, but with much markers that isnt good way.

try this: http://killzonekid.com/arma-scripting-tutorials-automatic-marker-resizing/

Thanks :),

will still wait for possible official method. Having hundrets of markers on map so that could become quite heavy. Unless I just use it for certain markers (placed in array, and replacing that allmapmarkers).

I think he is saying he doesn't want them to change in relation to the map (i.e. when you zoom out of the map, the marker stays the same size meaning it covers more area.

Strange, I could swear markers do not change size at all. Just tested, always the same size regardless of zoom.

Edit: unless you mean ellipse and rectangular marker?

Hello, I cannot reproduce the problem, could you please screenshot and attach your visual settings? Thank you!

Issue is presumably due to inconsistent textures used on object models vs satmat. Uploaded images to clarify (graphics settings are irrelevant), taken in dev build 1.53.132850

You are correct, there must be a mod that i'm running that is probably affecting the reload of the MX-SW. However the reload animation is still busted for the UGL's.

yup, would be happy to see the ammunitions getting loaded in the launchers (including grenade launchers)

the MX-SW doesn't have the reload animation from Arma 2. How did you see that?

Duplicate of #290.

With the DLC coming out, and considering it's very focused in Sniping, maybe this would be a good time to fix this?

6 months later, still happening.

Exactly. 3D scopes were poorly implemented, i wish they would be more like Red Orchestra 2.

This is clearly an oversight of the feature implementation and not a feature in itself.

Recently BI fixed an issue that allowed players to run around with magnified vision if they started moving while looking down a magnified optic. This is the same variety of issue.

This is a feature, stop complaining.

Be great to get this addressed...

First issue seems to be resolved with "-maxmem=2047"

• server still has crash issues on #missions command

I just played a Zeus scenario with a working custom medic loadout. There must be a solution to this issue but I can't get my medic to heal others with the medkit (the large black one).

Ok, I just tested several loadouts in a Zeus scenario with a friend and after reinstalling Arma 3 it worked but not as expected. In fact all soldiers created with Virtual Arsenal are medics AND engineers. All they need to heal/repair/defuse is a medkit/toolkit in their backpack.

There are quite a few soldier classes. One of them being "B_medic_F". The units abillities are defined there, i bet. It shouldn't be too hard to make the loadout-module look at the loadout first and then decide what class to spawn, or even change the class on the fly.