rev 150153 (slightly different)

rev 150160

rev 150159

rev 150158

revision 150157

Could you provide a couple of examples
type canslingload type
for success and for failure

It's for diagnostic branch, dunno if available on perfprof @dedmen

are you creating simulated weaponholder by script elsewhere and when player is close to it you get rpt message?

When you approach rearm vehicle in a tank that needs rearming for example you have automatic rearming engaged, at the same time you have a manual option for rearming. What is the manual option all about? @MDCCLXXVI

In T167056#2385841, @Wetzer wrote:

What do you mean? The detection radius cannot be less than vehicle precision, because of the path planning, it will plan path in chunks of the size of vehicle precision so it cannot be less. If you you think the precision is too rough, make a mod and change it, since it is config value it cannot be changed on per vehicle basis.

The idea is not to change vehicle precision itself. the idea is to make it changeable if the value is taken into account for path planning at all. The default would be "yes". When mission creator decides by additional optional parameter of completion radius to switch off precision value, the path planning would take into account only the given completion radius of the specific waypoint.

In T167056#2385760, @Wetzer wrote:

@BIS_fnc_KK
After some testing, I would appreciate the ability to influence the safety range. Maybe as an optional parameter to switch off safety distance.
As new, optional parameter it would not break the default setup and give the chance for existing missions to "react" to the new cirmustances with minimum effort.
An advantage of this would be, that the multplier can be introduced again for Non-PLaer AI groups

should be fixed in rev 150110

Should be fixed in rev 150108

should be fixed in next dev

Could you remove this multiplier?

rev 150093

Thanks for the thorough investigation

alt syntax rev 150092

If those buildings are not added to slow vehicles by the engine, then they wont return, use nearestTerrainObjects for those

I have edited it to the correct description already, don’t think you need a note

Well, not sure why it even worked in the first place. The syntax of the action was wrong, and it doesnt take any additional arguments apart from the unit which player controls. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3:_Actions#BackFromUAV I corrected the syntax on wiki, please let me know if it works in all cases

Reproed

It will be closed after it is dealt with and tested

Practically everything in Arma 3 has localization in many languages, this is why adding things to UI requires localization and it is painful process. But we have other UI tasks planned as well so I guess we can add the tickbox

No it doesn't broadcast and by global effect this means that the unit will not get into free fall animation globally not that getUnitFreefall will return the same value globally. In fact the getUnitFreefall has local argument meaning executing it on remote machine is not going to work.

This is still broken for 2.10, would be nice if this could be addressed.

Maybe, tickbox -> localization -> pain

Good find, scripted interval works fine, it is EDEN that is broken

yeah yeah yeah we know, unfortunately this cannot be fixed globally due to backward compatibility so it will be an option in either createTrigger or setTriggerActivation ...or both

@jaj22 how do you check what the actual radius is

rev 149943

Then why have you posted in Arma 3?

rev 149928

rev 149916

Reproed, [] broken

I’m not sure the versions are correct, here is screenshot in 2.08 https://feedback.bistudio.com/T167429#2354350

I tested in 2.08 on Altis, the return is [] Could you give me Altis position of ATM so I could verify that’s the case?

Please provide exact steps how to reproduce this as well. If I place Land_Atm_01_F or Land_Atm_02_F both get detected. Are you sure you didn place Land_Atm_01_malden_F for example

what map is this?

rev 149910

I’m going to talk to OP

rev 149907

And me?

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

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

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

rev 149887