I’m going to talk to OP

nils for out of bounds _index might not be really needed as there is

vehicle magazinesTurret [turretPath, includeEmpty]

to get empty magazines so you can find the count yourself.

Maybe its time to finally fix this command. Lets be honest, 99% of usages of this command are to get currently loaded magazine. Who needs *random* magazine ammo count? Lets make this command prioritize loaded magazines.

This still happens even in Reforger so don't get your hopes up =p

Ok this could to be perhaps related to the Ai not forgetting their old generated path? When teleported around the Ai will still try to device a path that uses their previous path point which is now very far away and that makes the process use a lot more resources. A solution could be that the setPos command always resets the Ai path which after being moved has to generate a completely new one (path) without considering their previous paths.

rev 149907

You too ;D

Still assigned to "None", still present in the same way in 2.10.
5 years anniversary of the post.

And me?

Always a pleasure to give you weird bugs to fix <3

next dev or prof v4

I think I also found the issue with nested ifdef's because of you :D
When it finds a if or ifdef with a false condition, it then proceeds to skip all data until the next #endif
But, that also means it skips if's and ifdefs, causing it to misscount the #endif

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3:_Unusual_process_exit#0xC0000135_-_STATUS_DLL_NOT_FOUND
Please try the steps in the link above and let us now if that fixes the issue.

What he means is that on version 2.XX.149887 this should be fixed, so if your on any branch that has that or equal revision it should have the fix.
i think Dev gets updated as one of the first branches.

Wont fix, it could change how dialogs handling key presses now, and break something

In T167185#2351280, @sharp1337 wrote:

If this is confirm to happen on all missions and not only in your particular mission setup then I hope devs can look into it and resolve it.

My mission setup was nothing special, opening editor, placing a single soldier (player), and creating units at runtime (exactly like in the video). I'm able to reproduce this on any map, Altis, Stratis, even VR.

Fine with the fleeing restriction personally, and I look forward to testing the update. I would have thought that allowFleeing 0 was appropriate for any use case where you wanted to be stricter about following waypoints.

"rev 149887" is a revision number, a change number. There have been 149,886 logged changes to the Arma 3 code before this one - see how this other fix, committed right before this one, is 149886. The current dev branch contains revisions up to 149863, so 149887 will probably be included in the next dev branch update (this week?). It will probably come to stable in the next release, but it's not guaranteed - the next stable release is likely to be the thermals hotfix, and it's possible that's already locked down for QA, which would push this change out to 2.12.

Yes, but until no understand version "rev 149887" - you mean current dev version? Does this mean that this will be fixed in the next stable release?

What he means is that on version 2.XX.149887 this should be fixed, so if your on any branch that has that or equal revision it should have the fix.
i think Dev gets updated as one of the first branches.

In T167056#2353704, @BIS_fnc_KK wrote:

It is fixed in rev 149887 but not for fleeing units, clearer now?

Yes, but until no understand version "rev 149887" - you mean current dev version? Does this mean that this will be fixed in the next stable release?

no, fleeing units should not accidentally complete waypoints when they run for cover

In T167056#2353704, @BIS_fnc_KK wrote:

It is fixed in rev 149887 but not for fleeing units, clearer now?

It is fixed in rev 149887 but not for fleeing units, clearer now?

In T167056#2353624, @BIS_fnc_KK wrote:

rev 149887

Fleeing units will still ignore completion radius

rev 149887

rev 149886

In T167056#2353571, @jaj22 wrote:

They just use their default type-dependent completion radius (which they don't always reach, separate issue) and ignore the command.

Doesn't work with AI land or air vehicles either, IME. They just use their default type-dependent completion radius (which they don't always reach, separate issue) and ignore the command.

rev 149883 getCorpse

rev 149882

An idea for a better name for the command: isEqualRef to be in line with existing isEqualTo

In T167374#2353278, @BIS_fnc_KK wrote:

I’m like 99.9% sure you made mistake

I’m like 99.9% sure you made mistake

Thank you for the report, we'll look into it.

Thank you for the report, we'll look into it.

Thank you for the report, we'll look into it.