Confirmed fixed on latest dev branch. Thank you!

Still present. This is a MAJOR issue, that breaks any mission that has transporting.

Furthermore, this has prevented me from starting work on my tutorial series for a few years, and still is.

This seems to have been fixed.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?138736-Introducing-Server-side-Event-Logging-Blocking

Upvote http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=21141 instead. This is less active and will be closed.

@firefly2442: It's a relatively new command.
But you can also use one of BIS' functions:
_windSpeed = wind call BIS_fnc_vectorMagnitude;

No need to add a command for every tiny conversion needed.

Simply get the length/magnitude:
_windSpeed = vectorMagnitude wind;

It takes a unit.
It returns 0 if you pass it a vehicle.

Eh, what?

The problem is that if you use a joystick you can throttle from 0 to full instantly, but if you're using the keyboard it takes forever.

The same reason I'm not using a controller?

And it doesn't give me a more steady control at all. Just like mouse acceleration doesn't give any kind of control, at all...

They used to run 24 km/h. Then people complained they ran too fast, so they made them run in slow motion.

Can't have both.

It's always been like that. Disable head bobbing if you don't want it.

Unable to reproduce. Looks like you're using a FOV mod, and that's what's causing it.

Also happened to me at one point after alt+tabbing back in.

That is the intended behaviour of disableAI "MOVE";

It should not be made to behave any differently, as it would defeat its purpose entirely.

Unable to reproduce 1.33.127551 DEV. Have not tried previous versions.

Duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16207

How would assigning true to a variable make it trigger?
You need to use the condition field of the trigger.

This belongs on the forums...

Then, for the love of god, remove the limit and just disable editing if the camera is looking up.

_isLookingUp = [vectorDir curatorCamera, [0,0,1]] call BIS_fnc_dotProduct > 0.0;
if (_isLookingUp) then
{

// Whatever to disable editing.

};

That's really Valve's problem, not yours. Shift+Tab is a common shortcut, and it was a bad idea to choose that as default.

Besides, ARMA supports changing the focus of controls both forwards and backwards already using Tab and Shift+Tab.

Cool. Could you make it Shift+Tab for backwards, though? To reflect how Tab/Shift+Tab works everywhere else.

Ya, it's impossible to get planes in the air.

Confirmed.

Confirmed.

In the meantime, this can be used as a work-around:
if (isNil "_var") then
{

nil;

}
else
{

_var;

};

Confirmed.

Unable to reproduce.

@AD2001: This is Mantis Bug Tracker. It's not a Bohemia product (mantisbt.org).

Confirmed. I've been able to bring up the sights once.

No mods.

Ya, I wanted this too.

But I think it'd be better to change the icons of the objectives on the map and in the edit tree view, to indicate the objective's status.

But I think it should display the task hints at the top of the screen when the status changes, so you can see what player's see, like with Sector Controls.

@Moricky:

I'm assuming you're talking about the existing units with (knowsAbout > 0)'s unwillingness to fire at new enemies (or stop firing at new friends). I haven't noticed any side effects other than that.

Anyways, I made a function that works around that problem:

MTP_fnc_setFriendship: http://pastebin.com/383qEeK3
MTP_fnc_setFriendshipGlobal: http://pastebin.com/Ab0a3tLr

Small video: http://youtu.be/CDkOhox5CEg

@Koala: That does NOT solve the issue.
That doesn't make sides allies.

It just adds units with uniforms of other sides.

Sector Control, etc. would report that BLUFOR had seized a sector, if the independent are on BLUFOR.

We don't want units from other sides to BE on other sides. We want them to be allies.

It should be a module that changes the friendship of all centers, so you can make BLUFOR/OPFOR allies, etc.

That's because there's no ammo type called "B_IR_Grenade". "B_IR_Grenade" is a magazine. You need the ammo. You're looking for "B_IRStrobe".

The Remote Control module isn't even there.

I know it's intentional, and it makes sense for all the game types, except Game Master.

Otherwise, the lightning should have a warning too...

Isn't that the point of Game Master?

"Nothing in this scenario is predetermined. No playthrough is the same. EVERY STORY, LOCATION AND EXPERIENCE IS INVENTED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GAME MASTER. By Zeus."

Already possible. "Play Radio Message" module.

They just need to add more phrases to it.

@Varanon: "when using setAccTime 0 in Zeus mode". Zeus mode is a multiplayer mission, so speaking about using setAccTime 0 in Zeus, implies using it in multiplayer.

Doesn't matter that it can be executed in singleplayer. All missions can be executed in singleplayer.

Eeeeh. setTimeAccel? You mean setAccTime? Since when did setAccTime work in multiplayer? >.>

Wrong. They use the combat mode selected, unless under attack.
It takes a little for them to lower their weapons and walk after changing to relax, but they do change.

Making a mission compatible with multiplayer isn't just a matter of flipping a switch. It makes it manyfold harder, and massively increases the time needed to make the mission.

That's why they decided not to make COOP in ARMA 3.

Sure. I'm all for optionality. As long as I can have a thunderous voice, I don't care what everyone else have :P

Now that we're at it. Zeus should be able to show his face http://www.dneg.com/images/gallery_419_0.jpg

@Koala: The game has volume sliders...

@Faultron: That's exactly what you are. As the official website says: "BECOME ZEUS".

By that logic we should throw out ARMA 3, and just use ARMA 2, as everything can already be done with mods.

You can circumvent that too.

1. Create a BLUFOR unit.
2. Create one or more INDEPENDENT units, and group them to the BLUFOR unit.
3. They now belong to BLUFOR.
4. Remove the leader (the actual BLUFOR uniformed unit).
5. All the grouped INDEPENDENT units stay BLUFOR.

Voilá. 100% INDEPENDENT units in a BLUFOR group.

http://i.imgur.com/h235yj0.jpg

Then to create more, you can just copy the existing ones, and the copy will also be BLUFOR, even when ungrouped.

uuh, what? You just said it didn't make sense to have them on Independent. Grouping them to a blufor unit moves them to the blufor side.

FIA were originally Independent units, and then Bohemia decided to throw them into BLUFOR.

You can still add them to blufor in Zeus. Simply spawn them, then group them to a BLUFOR unit.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=17361

Great, thanks, Karel!

I've deleted some of them. Not sure which ones belong to which crash, but I've attached all logs containing a crash while playing Zeus. Guess you can find the matching dump at the end of the logs.

Seems it's lacking a lot of weapons. Eg. the Katiba.

It's spelling lighting. Lightning is something completely different.

Players can chat to Zeus (And vice versa), and they can press Y to ping him.

Uh. Yes you can. If people could just decide their difficulty individually it'd be extremely unbalanced.

The server decides the difficulty. If you don't want the markers, make or play on a server that doesn't have the difficulty set to easy.

I guess it's supposed to work as a temporal override like setViewDistance.

Works fine for me?

http://i.imgur.com/dmXtlvZ.jpg

Just make sure your image is either JPG or PAA.
The path is relative to the game folder.

So, if your campaign description.ext is located at
Arma 3\Campaigns\Campaign1\description.ext

And your image is located at
Arma 3\Campaigns\Campaign1\cmp_overview.jpg

Your campaign class needs
overviewPicture = "Campaigns\Campaign1\cmp_overview.jpg";

@KGrimes: That's like saying a harvester is a bad solution just because people don't know how to use it.

inc "_i"; is far more readable than _i = _i + 1; or _i=_i+1; for that matter.

@KGrimes: Counters are used often in programming, and they usually increase by one.

That's why most languages support a simple incrementation (or decrementation) of variables.

eg. C++, C#, etc:
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
}

Which is a lot faster to type than eg.
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i = i + 1)
{
}

And it's also prettier.
This is to specifically increment/decrement a variable by 1. If you need more, many languages also provide a += operator, so you don't have to type i = i + 5; but just i += 5; (assign the current value of i + 5 to i).

And even though the syntax for SQF has to be different than what you'll usually see in other languages, it still is faster to type eg. inc "_i";

And += can actually be added with the same syntax as you'd expect in other languages, albeit as a special construct, like the assignment operator (The assignment operator is the only operator in SQF that isn't technically an operator).

@KGrimes: It's not about performance. It's about readability and easyness.
inc "_i"; is not a replacement for _i = _i + 1. It's an addition. People who don't want to use the easy way, can use the cumbersome way.

X39: "the only thing that this command would require is that the parameter is now left and not right"

And THAT is EXACTLY why it's not possible in SQF.

SQF is strictly expression based. The "commands" are operators, which can be either, nullary, unary or binary (except for = which is a special construct).

_var++ makes as little sense as 5 +;

You cannot have a unary operator that takes only a left hand side operand.

And you couldn't make ++ an operator either, and do ++i, because + is already a unary operator, and ++_i is explicitly +(+(_i)). (Just like --_i is explicitly -(-(_i)) that is, negate negate _i)

Which brings me back to my first post.

inc "_i";

inc is unused, and it needs to be within strings, as if you used inc _i; and _i is 5, then _i evaluates to 5, and the expression would be inc 5; which makes no sense.

@X39: Set is a BINARY operator. What's your fucking point?

X39: That's because you don't know SQF.

X32: Yet you keep claiming it's possible with the traditional syntax, while it's not.

If you knew SQF you'd know that the syntax _i++ is impossible. It's down right senseless in SQF.

That specific syntax won't be possible.

It'd have to be

inc "_i";

It could be that it's not supported due to limitations.

What you can do instead is either create a trigger that's as big as the completion radius of the waypoint (or 1 if the completion radius is 0), which then triggers when the player gets to the same position as the waypoint.

Or a better way would be to create a trigger that has a condition of a bool. Then set the bool to true in the waypoint's activation field.

1: http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3774/eja8.png
2: http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/7418/40mb.png
3: http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/2057/bnix.png

It's pretty clear from the Wiki description that it needs to be attached to a vehicle.

And if the description wasn't clear enough it couldn't be more clear from the parameters passed to the handler.

VEHICLE: Object - Vehicle the event handler is assigned to
position: String - Can be either "driver", "gunner", "commander" or "cargo"
UNIT: Object - Unit that entered the vehicle

Okay, I can't make another reply to this without using the words "stupid", "retard" or "simpleton".

Uh, this isn't a bug.

You attach the event handler to the vehicles, not the units.
The player is not a vehicle, so it makes no sense to get a callback when someone enters the player.