ansin11

The side chat. You have more or less three options in this case: Considering that at one kilometer out you usually are already starting your landing approach and assuming that the area is not safe, land where you were planning to. Mister Hol-van-Pluto-LZ probably will get out at that point. If he doesn't, check out LZ Hol-van-Pluto and decide wether you can go there. If you can, you are now able to offer him to go there after the others got off. Assuming you are a good pilot and you are not currently being shot at, you can attempt to come around for LZ Hol-van-Pluto. Or you offer him to go there after the LZ of your choice. Involves looking at the map, not ideal halfway into an AO landing. Screw that guy and his LZ that he marked in the wrong damn channel, this is your helicopter. Why have I written this...

Show me how to land without Autohover!

Why the hell is your GUI blue and not green?

No. It's more than a lot of work to implement. It would't exactly be beneficial for performance.

That seems like a legitimate reason for a ban to me. And you should probably see it coming or at least have a remote idea as to why you got banned after making such tasteless contributions to the chat.

If a member of staff could post the chatlog that would sure help and allow anybody else to see for themselves. It is indeed wrong to recieve warnings for the use of the word 'gay' in the 21st century. However, referring to it as "just another bullshit gender" is not the way to go either. I'm certain that there's more people, members or not, who do not understand the way community management is done by the moderator / admin / staff team and I have to agree that the amount of sometimes highly questionable actions taken / decisions made, misunderstandings and just downright unprofessional behaviour is too high to call it very rare incidents. But that's just my opinion and I'm not writing this because I want to complain but because I am convinced that there is a dire need to get this issue fixed in order to keep AW attractive and, actually, if I think about it, alive.

Run upon player login to ensure a new UAV OP gets the action added after the old OP left.

Meaning we can or can't run addAction in it with or without remote execution?

What does the service script run on? Client or server?

Any mods required?

What you want to use is setTimeMultiplier and not skipTime, neither of which are broken as far as I know. Then again I have no idea how well they perform in a client-server-environment.

I was just saying. And it really is a lot of fun especially with vehicles.

Well yes you can setMass of any object you can retrieve. Play around with it in the editor it's a lot of fun.

Now the gunner AI is OP, but I'm not so sure about the driver AI... As far as I remember it's trash. Trash as in it won't arrive anywhere near where you want it because it's gonna run into something. It'd probably also run players over if they happen to stand in its way.

Pressing the report target key (I believe T by default) is helpful. The exact way the engine determines if you as the player actually have knowledge of a target is not known to me, but knowsAbout and reveal tell us that each unit has a knowsAbout float value for each other unit. Read more in the wiki. What is also obvious is that the engine tries to determine if you are within hearing distance of e.g. gunfire or if objects block your view. Often, at least that's what I think, that algorithm's outcome is faulty, revealing unspotted targets on the map or, as you describe it, not reveal targets visible to the player. T often helps convince the engine of the contrary. On a side note, contacts on your map are only shared with members of your group as far as I'm aware, so it's best to place markers.

Changing the loadout to less AGMs is no issue, but if I can choose between 2xGBU-12 and 2xMacer I'll just go with the GBUs because they are more versatile. Bombing things from 2000 m is incredibly easy and precise, I don't see a reason to do the strafing runs most UAV OPs do. What recon UGV is there? The Stomper is basically to carry supplies for a support team and the Stomper RCWS is the armed variant. If you've played the last mission of the Apex campaign you know that the RCWS is just the most OP weapons base when you leave the gunner seat to AI. It's basically just Drive to a vantage point Watch as OPFOR gets obliterated Repeat

Okay.

Can I have the file for some testing?

Helicopter doors *cough cough*

@Eagle-Eye The use of triggers and loops is strongly discouraged by the development team for the sake of server performance.

RIP MROTs on the helipads

Alright then

Yea that's how mines work. They kill you because you didn't pay attention. this addItemToBackpack "MineDetector"; It might be possible, since I didn't put any testing to this, that one unit per group is sufficient. If you allow me to run one instance of code per group (or even if necessary unit) I can do that.

The carrier is a landmark object, if it were a simple object you couldn't use the catapults and doors. But those seven objects more or less on the server don't really influence performance, especially since they spawn there as part of the mission.sqm. Mines are actual objects, you can look at them. That is actually not true. Using the very very very simple setup shown below I can show that AI equipped with a minedetector can walk (in fact, since I forgot to change the waypoint speed, this brave man runs) through a randomly generated minefield (in this case APERS mines), avoiding mines placed along his path. What I have no experience with is BIS_fnc_taskPatrol, but it does have a blacklist parameter, allowing you to exclude certain areas from the randomly generated patrol route. I can also think of a script determining OPFOR unit distance from the minefield and placing an adjusted waypoint (using move or doMove) when the unit gets too close.