[Request: Disable VON, but allow text on selected channels.]

Looks like a reasonable idea to me. Being a local command it should be run in onPlayerRespawn.sqf I guess.

[How does the dead/destroyed despawn script work?]

I actually don't know if AW runs custom garbage collection on its servers, but except for removing markers and objects such as radio towers you usually don't need to make such a script as the engine does that for you.

When building a scenario in the editor you can go to Attributes > Performance and edit Dynamic Simulation and Garbage Collection settings for your mission. Have a look at that feature of the editor and you'll know how it works immediately.

[New game-mode idea: SpecOps - Mission]

1 hour ago, Ryko said:

 

The problem with these problems is that it tends to lead to players disconnecting, and there's no point making a game mode that people don't enjoy. Yes, it's more difficult, and more rewarding when it works, but when it doesn't work, or if players feel like it's too much of a hassle to play, then they will stop playing.

 

Well it's clearly a far more MILSIM scenario :-)

[New game-mode idea: SpecOps - Mission]

8 hours ago, Ryko said:

Hi GrandBravo,

 

The problem as you state it:

 

 

I agree, there is a certain security in being able to always RTB after a mission is complete. I do like your idea, but there's one major problem: what do you do if the players are wounded, killed or run out of ammo or supplies necessary to complete a mission?  In both I&A and AWE, if you're near to the next AO and you have no particular need to RTB, you probably won't - most players want to get on with the next mission.  But if players are out of ammo, or half the group has died and is in the spawn area waiting for pickup - it doesn't make sense to just continue on to the next objective.

 

If you've got a good solution for that - I'm all ears.

 

Well thats exactly the type of problems @GrandBravo wants the players to face as far as I understood.

[I need a little bit of help]

First of all, tho I am not sure if the file is in such format because you shared it, so I'll just doubt that, Description.ext should be a .ext file, not a .txt. To achieve this, select "Save As" and then choose "All Files" and then name the file Description.ext.

 

I didn't test your code, but I had a look at it. The opened { curly brackets don't add up with the closed }; ones and you forget a whole bunch of semicolons all over the place.

The code should probably look more like this (hidden because lots of code):

Spoiler

class CfgORBAT {

	class 7thBattalion {

		id = 1;
		idtype = 0;
		side = "West";
		size = "Battalion";
		type = "Assault";
		commander = "Edwards";
		commanderRank = "Lieutenant";
		text = "%1%2%3";
		textShort = "1%3%";
		color[] = {0, 0, 1, 1};
		description = "Camp Rogain will be under the command of Lt. Edwards and will provide infantry support on Stratis.";
		assets[] = {{B_APC_Tracked_01_rcws_F}, {B_APC_Tracked_01_rcws_F}, {B_Heli_Light_01_armed_F,4}, {B_MRAP_01_hmg_F}};
		subordinates[] = {Battalion};

        class 1stPlatoon {

            side = "West";
            size = "Platoon";
            type = "Support";
            commander = "James";
            commanderRank = "Lieutenant";
            text = "1stPlatton";
            textShort = "1st Platoon";
            color[] = {1, 1, 1, 1};
            description = "A support unit for 7thBattalion.";
            assets[] = {B_Mortar_01_F}, {B_Mortar_01_F}, {B_MRAP_01_gmg_F}, {B_MRAP_01_gmg_F}, {B_MRAP_01_gmg_F};

        };

        class 6thRegiment {

            id = 2;
            idType = 0;
            side = "West";
            size = "Regiment";
            type = "MotorizedInfantry";
            commander = "Dixon";
            commanderRank = "Sergeant";
            text = "6thRegiment, motorized infantry, they help 1stPlatoon";
            textShort = "1stPlat";
            subordinates[] = {1stPlatoon};
            color[] = {1, 1, 1, 1};
            description = "A small group reinforcing 1stPlatoon.";

        };

	};

};

 

 

Notice that classes 1stPlatoon and 6thRegiment are part of class 7thBattalion, making them both subordinates of the 7th Battalion, yet you list none of them in the subordinates array of class 7thBattalion. What you do list there is a class you didn't make at all. At the same time, 1stPlatoon is a subordinate of 6thRegiment but not part of its class?

As the BIS documentation for the assets array is not unambiguous about wether to put its definition in curly brackets or not, I used both options in the code; you'll find out what works.

[I & A Striders]

That is pretty sick and I have to say I have never seen the Gorgon one. If it's only there since I & A 3.2 then that explains why I have never seen that on the server. Am I the only one who hates looking at that file? I always use editor for sqf and this is one of the I & A files that comes unformatted in editor :-)

[I & A Striders]

Out of the top of my head I can list the To-199 Neophron, all HEMTT and Hunter variants, the Bobcat, the M2A1 and A4 Slammer, the T-100, the MBT-52 Kuma, the FV-720, the AMV-7 and the Panther for examples of vehicles without alternate camos. Those enough?

 

Question resolved tho, should have read the I & A code before.

[I & A Striders]

Could we run

this setObjectTexture [0, "a3\soft_f_beta\mrap_03\data\mrap_03_ext_co.paa"];

on unarmed Striders and

this setObjectTexture [0, "a3\soft_f_beta\mrap_03\data\mrap_03_ext_co.paa"];
this setObjectTexture [1, "a3\data_f\vehicles\turret_co.paa"];

on armed variants?

For BLUFOR ones only, of course. It's a skin BIS never fully finished and thus never put in the game, the files come with every copy of Arma anyways (for a brief time after Apex release a tickbox slipped past BIS and this camo was selectable in the Virtual Arsenal). The interior remains kinda AAF-ish, but the outside of the vehicles looks less inviting for friendly fire.

 

[Gunship gunner issue]

Defenitely looks like Arma messing around to me.

[Gunship gunner issue]

This man tells nothing but lies

[Gunship gunner issue]

That is a thing I have never heard about before. Double-Alt was not the issue? Did you

1. Run any mods
2. Restart you game before testing it in the editor?

[Jets DLC Sensor Range vs. View Distance]

Buzzard AA seems more like a ground attack aircraft with air-to-air missiles. The Gryphon is indeed better sensor-wise. Stealth is a pretty major factor against fifth-generation fighter jets such as the Shikra and the F/A-181; you can't shoot what you can't detect, and as the initial test done for this thread shows we are talking about a few kilometers here.

[Jets DLC Sensor Range vs. View Distance]

I don't fly the Gryphon much, but I know that it is slower than both the Shikra and Black Wasp II. Both the NATO and CSAT jets are available in stealth variants, I don't know wich variant spawns in I&A, but obviously the stealth technology offers advantages in defensive flying. 

I would leave this judgement to a better pilot like you tho, Jason. 

[Jets DLC Sensor Range vs. View Distance]

I would do a few days of testing on the public server with a respawning F/A-181 Black Wasp II running AA loadout.

[Jets DLC Sensor Range vs. View Distance]

1 minute ago, Cryo said:

100% balanced

 

(no seriously this is how it work normally IRL (I think))

 

It is how radar and other sensors work in reality. And it is balanced in my opinion, or at least can be.

 

See, I had to spawn the Mi-48 high up in the sky (at an altitude you wouldn't normally fly a helicopter at with AA or air-to-air threats) so that the radar reflection from the ground doesn't eliminate the helicopter's reflection. So, against fighter jets, just fly low, slow and without active sensors and they might just not see you at all or only at a much much closer range. Next, I had no AAA or hostile CAP to worry about, it was just the Kajman and me. Now normally, you fly with your radar off, because tracing the signal back to its source is even easier than using it to detect stuff yourself. Thus, I probably would't be flying with active radar looking for targets to avoid getting detected by enemy forces in a combat environment.

 

Now all this is indeed not balanced at all on the I&A servers because CSAT has complete air superiority there. The players get no counter to the relatively frequently spawning Shikras and Gryphons. As far as I know, at least the Shikra outruns the Cheetah's AA capabilities (Iranzan and Scar both reported not being able to take down a single Shikra that was not going for a landing) and all we get for CAP duties is a Buzzard AA, a plane that has struggles taking on Neophrons and Wipeouts, both ground attack aircraft and not fighter jets.

[Jets DLC Sensor Range vs. View Distance]

Your test results are here, Amentes!

 

Since you doubted that the new sensor's detection range goes beyond the player's view distance, I ran a quick test.

Spawned a Mi-48 above Molos Airfield (few hundred meters in the air to eliminate ground noise for the radar) and took off in a F/A-181 from Altis International (distance Altis International - Molos Airfield: ~15 km). My view distance is around 4250, i could lock that Mi-48 for AMRAAMs at more than 10 km - well above my view distance.

 

Thought you guys might be interested in this.