- User Since
- Sep 14 2013, 12:07 PM (453 w, 6 d)
May 10 2016
Thanks for the laugh. ;)
k thx bai
in b4 lock
But I still don't understand why anyone should remove these 2 lines from mission.sqm, even when it's not possible to change them inside the editor...
But the question is, why should you remove those lines in the first place..? A poor example would be to modify a pbo/dll and wonder afterwards why some parts of the game breaks down.
I'm not sure if I understood this correctly... Are you saying you removed some lines from mission.sqm and expect the mission to work properly..?
Because the lines control fog, and fog controls the AI view distance, I'd say this is to be expected...
...Why should a GBU explode if you fire at it..?
Your first suggestion/report is debatable. Will a GBU explode if it's armed and dropped from 1 meter? To be honest, I don't know. But what matters is "should it be droppable in the first place". There are safety features that prevent stuff like dropping bombs (or firing any other weapons) while on the ground / below safe altitude.
I would vote up if the ticket would be about this only. This is one of the reasons why it is not a good practice to put more than one request/issue per ticket. Your second issue is in conflict with reality, and that's why I have to vote the ticket down as a whole.
Have you played A2? If you have, do you remember how difficult it was to clear the buildings when your gun gets stuck in every possible situation? This is probably the reason why they removed it.
"Rifle clips through rock but sight sees beyond."
Yup, just like in real life (except for the clipping). I know you can't put your barrel inside a rock in real life, but it doesn't mean you will automatically have a line of fire even if you have a line of sight.
But I do agree that there should be a clear cue if there's something directly in front of the barrel, even on harder difficulty settings. Or maybe allow clipping inside the buildings (otherwise CQB would be pain-in-the-donkey), but not with rocks...
Yes, adding or substracting will create a new copy of an array. I used it to demonstrate that getVariable creates an actual pointer. But would it be logical if...
_var = getPos player;
_var set [2, 1000];
...would suddenly teleport you midair..? :P
oh wow, this explains couple of problems some have experienced! x)
Sidenote: TC MG is not for air threats any longer. Modern helicopter have good armor and fixed wing aircraft are way too fast.
Also, create one request per ticket. I'm not going to vote up because that would mean I agree with everything you say, and I don't.
PS. Slammer == Merkava. Merkava has a back compartment... Conclusion: It's not impossible. Q.E.D
This has nothing to do with BI, they don't run the servers. If there aren't enough players, then it means that the customers are not playing currently...
"Yes, however, these Units will behave differently unless set to exactly the same values and placed in the correct order"
I have never seen any difference whether you place whole groups or individual units. I'm interested of hearing more about this. Could you explain to me how they behave differently?
Nevertheless, this is one of the "why-not" features, so "why not". Voted up. ;)
Got a repro? I'm 99% sure there's something wrong with the script, and not with the game.
Like I said: got a repro? Go to your local files, find the mission pbo and attach it to this ticket. Until the devs know what the script did exactly, I doubt they will ever find any bugs...
+1 for selector switch & safety!!
...any more questions? :P
The reason why I don't like your idea is that then it's possible that your soldier would start to climb even if that wasn't your intent. This is the reason why I don't like automatic actions like automatic reloading, automatic open/close doors or automatic get-in's.
However, I didn't vote the ticket down. But I did now because of the attitude...
I can understand those who keep it enabled because it could simulate GPS goto-function. On the other hand I don't like it how it's in the game right now (always possible to use).
...But well, it's still better than 3rd person view and show-your-location-on-a-map...
" Had a look on google have you, STFU, it means nothing seeing that line, you need a feeeeekin map with it."
I finally managed to decrypt what he meant. He thinks I can use the wire with a map only (with this compass type, you don't use it with a map, you use the edge of the compass). His statement proves he does not know how to use such compasses.
Because the compass is in the center of the screen, I can use the sight and measure precise bearing to the radio tower. In this example it is about 1300 mils, or 72 degrees (+/- 1 degree). This would be completely impossible if the compass would be somewhere else...
...But maybe precise bearings are not required on servers that have 3rd view mode enabled... Usually they tend to have map-shift click cheat enabled as well.
"Had a look on google have you, STFU, it means nothing seeing that line, you need a feeeeekin map with it "
Same in English, please..?
I really doubt you "used to build bridges and I am a draughtsman specializing in reinforced concrete" either. You're just trying to troll here. And note the word "trying".
Once again: The reason why compass must be in the center of the x-axis is so that you can use the sights! See that vertical wire? Small hint: it's not just a decoration! Other reason is that in real life the compass is in front of your face blocking your view as well.
You 3rd person view players always try to want features that would decrease oldskool community members gameplay. That's all.
Excuse me, but don't you think it's extremely silly to jump into conclusions like that when you know absolutely nothing about me? What makes you think I don't know how to use a compass? I know very well how to use the compass we have in Arma. In matter of fact, I have the same model in real life and I use it time to time.
I think this is the moment I have to shake my head and give up... I have given my vote and it seems there's nothing more to add to this discussion...
No, you can't use the sights if the compass is not in the middle. If the compass would be somewhere else and you allign the sight with a landmark, you would get a wrong bearing...
First of all, how could you be able to move it? You can't point & click because mouse controls your aim. Yet another keys for "move compass left", "move compass right", "move compass up" and "move compass down"?
And yes, you can get a bearing if you use a compass like a casual civilian on a hiking trip... But not if you use it properly to get extremely accurate measurements. You simply can't use the sight if the compass is not exactly in the middle of the screen. Just think this for a minute. If it's on the right side of the screen and you aim at a radio tower 2500 meters away and read your compass bearing, it's not the bearing to the radio tower...
The reason why the compass is in the middle of the screen is so that you can use the sight to get an accurate bearing...
Have you tried using BIS_fnc_MP for example? If you're one of those who think respawn is a great feature in missions ( I don't ;) ) then on respawn you just have to repeat it...
Edit: it seems you have.
Then a tiny script that uses variablespace and every time it changes (read: you respawn) all clients update the skin of that unit. Just an example...
Not needed, because this can be scripted (or by using MP function) extremely easily.
Try moving your artillery location. This is due to the altitude difference.
This is completely different issue.
You can't access binoculars if you shift+preview instead of just preview.
Known issue. Also affects some land vehicles as well. It happens when you start the mission as gunner. Try hopping out and back in and it's fixed.
How much camo nets can take damage is irrelevant if AI will keep shooting _AT_ the camo nets instead what's inside of them... Camo nets themselves should never be a target. If there's a vehicle inside the camo net then AI should target THAT instead of the camo net (and after that the damage issue starts to be a problem).
I'm hoping we could still have different colors for different factions (so a total of 9 camo nets are required).
I indeed can tolerate other opinions as long as they are either backed up with evidence or solid arguments are used.
Now, while we're at it, could you give me a source showing me that real-life military shoots at camo nets, no matter what's inside of it, or could you start to use solid arguments why AI should keep wasting their ammo and ignore other contacts? No? Thought so...
*sigh* I said earlier that camo nets are used for other than high-value targets! Are you seriously going to spend 30 sabot, 10 HE and some thousands round of coax ammo so you can destoy enemys food supplies..?
Whatever, kid... ;)
Go to army and start shooting some camo nets & get a promotion for your excellent service...
We have two easy options:
- AI will engage camo nets
- AI will not engage camo nets
Not engaging will be much better alternative, because that's what humans would do. There's absolutely ZERO reason to engage a camo net that doesn't have anything inside or a camo net that you don't know what's under it. No soldier in real life would start to shoot AT camo net. Read my earlier post to know why. After that we have two other options:
- AI will react to camo nets
- AI will not react to camo nets
Of course it would be better if AI would react to camo nets and start to scan the general direction where he saw the nets. However, same goes for burning camp fires, empty vehicles, open doors, 9001 inventory objects put out of place (cargo containers in the middle of a forest for example). Unfortunately it's an impossibility, and to be honest not relevant to this ticket.
If "not shooting" is ignoring, then yes: AI should definitely ignore them. Humans won't fire at them, neither should AI.
You're trying to be clever with your words. Not working. Human players will also react if they see a burning campfire in the middle of a forest. It could be an enemy camp, and extreme caution should be used when approaching one. What will the AI do? Well, if the waypoint goes past the camp, so will the AI group. You can never take every single thing into concideration. It's an impossibility to make AI as smart as (some) humans can be. But even if it's an impossibility, it doesn't mean they should do stupid s*** like firing at camo nets until they run out of ammo.
Admit you were wrong, stand corrected and let us all move on. :P
Answer d: report it to your superior if relevant. Inform your gunner that you have spotted an enemy camo net, but can't see what's under it. If you can't see what's under it why on earth you should order the gunner to fire there (read what I posted earlier)?
Here's a real life quiz for you: image you are a squad leader and you spot an enemy camp. No matter what you order your subordinates to do, they just keep firing at the camo nets...
I used camonets during my military service for breaking the silhouette of the station's radio antenna, comms vehicle and our tent, but also used it for some crates and water canisters. Those supplies sure are extremely high-valued targets and should be engaged instead of enemy infantry...
This is a silly bug and has absolutely zero correlation with the reality. Camonet doesn't mean it's a high-value target, especially when there are direct threats nearby as well... What matteris is what's inside of it. A heap of supplies? Ignore it. Manned IFV? Engage!
Not necessary before we have an option to brush our teeth too (not all things should be in Arma).
Is this possible in real life? Ya, kind of... Does it happen often? No, not really... What happens when you try to pick up the weapon in Arma? You try to find the right spot for 2 seconds? You scroll through your action menu for 2 seconds? You try to drag the item ot its right slot for 2 seconds. Now compare that to the real-life situation. This is why this shouldn't be in Arma; it's not possible to simulate it properly.
Indeed, it's weekend. I know how bad some of the customers feel about this, but it's weekend. I'm sure everything will be back on track tomorrow (if they can't fix it fast, they will most likely downgrade the "stable" to an older version).
Like Fireball said it, I don't understand why they released a "stable" version (Arma 3 stable version is an oxymoron...;) ) on friday. What's even more puzzling is that why didn't they test it in the dev branch first and only after it has been verified it's not as fubar as it is now, only then upgrade the stable branch.
Oh well, bad decisions are decisions nevertheless. :)
You can check the inventory as well. The problem is that the game thinks you want to grab the weapon. Try moving slightly and access the inventory again.
But it's still a problem, sure.
There's another ticket for this, it was reported earlier.
Don't use !alive, use !canMove... Much better that way.
Even one shot from PCML will completely disable a ghosthawk. I'd say the damage is ok. It doesn't matter if it's not exploding, it's still destroyed (even if damage < 1 and "alive chopper" returns false.).
Not visible from distance, you have to get closer.
I have nothing more to add to this discussion: "*facepalm*"
k thx bai
Instability of a chemical compound != zomg they must explodez when u shoot 'em
120 mm HE rounds have absolutely nothing to do with this ticket.
Copypaste me saying bullets don't cause heat or shock when it hits something. I'm questioning your claim that it's enough to detonate explosives! QUESTIONING! That doesn't mean I make a counter-claim. I'm demanding you provide satisfactory evidence to back up your claim.
"If the bullet hit the object, that object will be exposed to strong impact. Do you need proof of this? "
We need proof that the impact is strong enough for the explosive to detonate! How many times do I have to repeat myself?!
You Have Absolutely No Idea How Burden Of Proof Works! There's a saying "put up or shut up". I know which one should be used in this case.
Yet another quote mining. That article has absolutely nothing to do with bullets...
Trust me, I'm not.
It's pretty clear now that you're either unable or unwilling to provide us satisfactory evidence to support your claims. You're intellectually dishonest if you still keep claiming such things you can't proof.
This conversation is pointless and will not lead anywhere. 86,96% disagrees with you. The situation would be completely different if you can prove you're right and 86,96% are wrong.
I don't have to prove anything because I didn't claim it makes it safe (I only called your quote mining), the burden of proof is still on you. You're the one who is flooding here by not presenting evidence to support your claim. If you can provide concrete evidence that you can explode explosives with bullets (and don't just say "you can because the fuses are unstable", because thats not your claim), or even better; an article or video (with enough details so we can verify what really happens) where this method is used in real-life situation (say, an EOD team makes detonates an explosive by firing at it) then I'd be happy to change my pose (from "I don't know if it's possible" to "you can detonate explosives with bullets").
In this situation absence of evidence is evidence of absence, at least to me. If it would be possible to detonate them by just firing at them then why haven't I read about it? *As far as I know* this method wasn't used, ever. If it wasn't used then maybe it belongs to Hollywood?
Seriously... Wouldn't it be easier to just find an article about exploding explosives with bullets instead of roaming around the net desperately trying to find a chain of quotes that would validate your claim somehow..? Or maybe there isn't one, and that's why you post quotes like "Detonating cord is insensitive to friction and ordinary shock, but may be exploded by rifle fire" (nice quotemining, btw. This is the original quote. It's about detonating cord, not fuses...)?
I'm not sure if I followed your line of reasoning correctly...
you can use B to do something to A
B has a certain characteristic
Conclusion: A has the same charasteristic B does
Did I get it right?
Downvoted becauce I don't believe everything that's in Hollywood films...
I know very well that hand grenades go bang. I have throwed some real ones too. You're using strawman arguments all the time.
I'd like to ask one last time: I don't really care what you think will happen when hand grenade explodes near explosives if you're not willing or able to back your claims with evidence. Link a youtube video where a hand grenade detonates explosives, and that it's possible to identify the device is actually a hand grenade. Anything, not just your common sense (once common sense said that the Earth is flat or that the Sun revolves around the Earth).
If you're unable to provide evidence when asked, you must step off and reassess your claims.
Which is it?
I'm not claiming that the pressure don't rise. I'm not claiming that there are no flying debris. I'm not claiming that the temperature don't rise. I'm not claiming that the grenade is not ferromagnetic.
On the other hand, you are claiming that the pressure can detonate pressure triggers. You are claiming that there are enough flying debris that can detonate some explosives. You are claiming that the temperature will activate temperature triggers. You are claiming that the grenade will have big enough magnetic field that it will activate magnetic detonators.
No. You listed 4 claims that didn't explain anything but your opinions how they should be. If you can provide concrete evidence (not just your opinions) that this is actually true then I would be more than happy to admit I was wrong.
Don't bring any deities into this discussion, especially if you don't understand how burden of proof works, and because it would have absolutely nothing to do with blowing explosives with grenades...
Are you seriously going to shift the burden of proof over to me?! It's like saying that "prove to me there isn't a celestial teapot orbiting between Mars and Earth. You can't, therefore there is"! The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're making a claim, I'm demanding satisfactory evidence. This is how it goes in real world.
You made 4 claims. Now provide _evidence_ to back those up. Give me an article or an actual test )with more than just a topic "antitank grenade") that demonstrates you can detonate mines by throwing grenades at them.
"If a mine is triggered by falling bullets and explosives..."
Yes. "IF"! You're making an _assumption_ that this is the case. If you're unable to back your claims with evidence, then there's no real reason to claim it is so...
Name of the video: antitank grenade.
No mention what exactly happens in the video. No mention what was thrown, nothing.
You could copy the movie and change the topic to "exploding chicken eggs".
You can't use your example with pressure/detonator type explosives... Surely your common sense says that?
Give me evidence that supports your claim and I'm willing to stand corrected. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim (you).
"But the anti-tank mines and anti-personnel mine definitely needs to interact with a grenade, as the explosion of a grenade creates all the necessary conditions for the destruction of mines, such as pressure, temperature and shrapnel damage. "
Got a source?
"Common sense" -argument, eh? Sorry, I don't believe your common sense unless you can provide us with credible evidence to support your claim.
Before you can provide it, I have no reason to believe you can detonate explosives with grenades and bullets in real life.
Disregard my last post, it seems I didn't wait long enough. It just takes a lot more time. If a unit is alone, it takes 15 seconds until he preps his AT weapon.
Prone stance is not an issue. The AI won't shoot in the repro mission even if you put 'this setUnitPos "MIDDLE"' to its init field.
Can't repro. I added 1 AT specialist to the same groud and they were unable to engage the vehicle.
Placed a dozen or so AT specialist to one group and put them on the runway. Placed AFV in front of them and not even one wanted to do something else than just lying on the ground, aiming the vehicle with their rifle.
I'd say it's quite a flaw if NATO/AAF don't have even one single AT weapon that can be used in such situations against wheeled vehicles. RPG-42 is the only weapon in the game that the AI can use.
This has already been fixed in the dev branch...
Confirmed, no duped backpacks any longer.
You can make pretty much everything disappear, from buildings to a huge rock formations by turning slightly.
An old "feature" we have had since the early ages (iirc this was a problem in OFP as well, 100% it was in Arma-series). Nevertheless, voted up.
You haven't roamed enough. There are 5 airports on Altis. ;)
Intl airport, aac airport locted south of intl airport, one on the mountains, one in SE and one in NE. I don't count the salt lake, it's just a placeholder for me. ;)
Then edit the ticket so that it's obvious.
"The AI don't attack anything past 400 meters"
Yes they will. Vehicles will engage other vehicles even if they are further than 400 meters...
Check your magazine. You were using underwater bullets, and those don't fly far.
Use action menu to swap which magazine type you use.
...I knew something was wrong when I test-drived the vehicle but couldn't tell what. ;)
Majority of players use keyboard for driving. Because you can't adjust how much you are accelerating or decelerating, the driving would look something like this:
It's still there.
Can only repro with Ifrit HMG variant.
Had this problem earlier with Strider VC scope, but was unable to repro.
Confirmed, broken again!
tyl3r99, it's not possible to increase violence/gore because the game is not rated M in every country. Even blood splatter could change the rating, and that's simply not an option.
I'd like to see more blood and gore too, but I'm a realist: it's not possible to change that any longer.
Too late. The game has already been released, and it's not possible to change the age limit afterwards.
Not in Finland for example. It's K-16 (16+ years).
I'm not working for BI. I'm a paying customer.
Try it before creating a ticket:
- launch Arma 3
- go to editor
- place any SPA anywhere, player as gunner
- elevate the gun manually to less than 10 degrees
- fire and observe where the round hits
Summary: It's possible to engage closeby targets. The 500 meters I mentioned earlier is the minimum distance of MLRS in Arma 3.
In other words: you pirated it..?
Ya, it sounds a little bit bad if you ask me...
...Are you absolutely sure the gunner can do that in real life? Lets take an example: Can Pzh2000 gunner engage targets at point-blank range? SPG's have minimum elevation angle: show me even one photo of Pzh2000 where the elevation angle is <= 0. It's not designed for what you want it to be, modern SPG's are not deployed even remotely close to the enemy. In Arma 3 it's possible to hit targets approximately 500 meters away from you by adjusting the gun elevation (not just aiming with the targeting system [mouse]).
You want SPG's to be completely different that they are in real life. What next? Artillery computer for rifles so you can engage enemies on the other side of a hill by using indirect fire..?
Edit: tested SPG's when tried to repro another ticket. It seems SPG's in Arma 3 CAN use minimum elevation! This means they are even better suited for close encounters than they would be in real life. Then again, I didn't serve in the artillery corps, so can't be 100% sure about this. If this conversation keeps going, I will ask couple of friends who did serve in the artillery corps...
I guess I'll have to stand corrected. However: self-propelled artilleries in Arma 3 have a minimum angle of negative degrees. I tested in the editor: it's actually very possible to destroy close targets with it!
And your example is not even remotely realistic. Arma 3 is about symmetrical warfare.
...And by the way... If you can't buy Arma 3, then how do you know you can't engage closeby targets (which you can, by the way)?
This is intended. It's SPA (self-propelled artillery), not MBT (main battle tank).
I guess I forgot to change the difficulty level... Sorry about that. ;)
Confirmed, we don't have external camera crosshairs if using ANY vehicle.
In my opinion this is unwanted and unnecessary feature: downvoted.
Did you try this? Even a minimal hit with MBT will collapse the bridge. And could you explain that the biggest bridge in the game collapses so easily, but you can ram smaller ones full speed and nothing happens..?
Confirmed, but this concerns 2S9 and M5 as well.
I vote it up if you edit your ticket and include those.
I tried the mission. The gunner is still able to move his turret afterwards.
There's something wrong with _your_ Arma...
Just to be sure: Freelook = 2x ALT?
It says you're using dev build. Is this correct?
Can't repro with Slammer or Marshall. Using the dev build.
Confirmed, forgot to create the ticket a long time ago. :)
Agreed, theoretically (in Arma 3) you can do it so that 2 rounds hit the target at the same time, but only in theory. You can use 3 different trajectories with mortars.
In real life Patria AMOS (mortar) can use 7 different trajectories.
How to fix this easily: add more range settings and make sure they are overlapping. Better solution: there's burst in the artillery computer (but right now we can't change the value).
Can't reproduce in dev build.
I agree with Humay. Rolls on a battlefield is pure Hollywood. Besides, combat gear weighs a lot (ceramic plates, etc. For example a magazine weighs a lot when not empty) and makes you extremely clumsy. Rolling while on the ground (Q & E keys) is the most acrobatic feat you could do.