ansin11

It doesn't matter where on the map you call landAt, the fixed-wing asset it is being used on will land at the runway specified by the id parameter. Even if the AI behaviour code (which is not written in SQF as far as I know) or the UAV Terminal code references landAt, it appareantly just defaults to either id 0 or 5 (Altis). Since we do not have access to that AI behaviour code or the UAV Terminal code, we can't do anything about that; that's is why this is an issue only BIS can address. Then again it's also not unlikely that the AI doesn't even make use of landAt (because you actually give it a waypoint - that waypoint could be faulty as well, in which case, again, we can't do anything). I don't know that. I just mentioned landAt because the issue is known and can SQF-wise be avoided using landAt, at least where landAt can be used. It's probably implementable for MP, but - using SQF - not as a UAV Terminal feature.

According to @ansin11, the one and only, there is no feasible MP solution for your problems @Sneaker (because landAt is for AI only). Now as Wulf already told you, telling BIS about issues referencing I & A specific location markers (FOB Guardian? Where is that supposed to be?) is absolutely... I'll stick to the expression 'pointless', the other ones that cross my mind seem rather offending. Since this problem has probably been there since the first alpha builds, the community poked BIS about it multiple times, but this is pretty low on their TODO list - it's easy to circumvent for AI and, well, everything else is player controlled, and players can land themselves...

...

@Stanhope same goes for the position sharing via data link, default spawn helicopters have it enabled, but not after respawn (see setVehicleReportOwnPosition).

Does anyone actually know?

We play games...

Probably doable.

@JANXOL not with vanilla Arma, so probably just with ShackTac. Since I don't do MP, I don't really know, but as far as I can see, there is no way to create a marker via SQF that is only visible within a certain channel (see allMapMarkers: difference between editor placed markers and _USER_DEFINED #<PlayerID>/<MarkerID>/<ChannelID> markers - createMarker doesn't allow for <ChannelID> to be defined). I also tried finding the function that is called when you place a map marker during runtime, but I didn't find anything helpful. What I did find is BIS_fnc_markerPath, so at least I finally know how BIS draws the lines in the Bootcamp triangulation task, had been wondering for years... I also agree on the map clutter with markers for every group member, but that probably wouldn't be too bad if the markers are set to a size around 0.1.

If it's not running the way we want it to we will poke it until it does @Sentri

I'm having a really really bad day, so I probably shouldn't access the internet, but anyways. Unless you alter Arma 3 at a level lower than SQF scripts, you can not achieve what Max wants to achieve - and I'm not sure if you could achieve it that way either. If you wish to alter Arma 3 at a level below SQF you will have to, among other things, write your own CFGs. I & A is supposed to be run on vanilla Arma 3. Writing new CFGs is on the one hand a lot of work and on the other hand creates entirely new classes. That is what mods give you. If a mod adds a new plane to Arma 3, then it ships a new CFG for that plane with it. That is why you have to download mods. That makes this approach unfeasible for I & A. Now on to why I don't think you can do it in a practical way at all. What @TheScar changes in the settings is the map colour assigned to a side. Now unless you want to add - again, via mods - enough sides to Arma 3 to assign every new group to a new side with its own colour, you're not going to have differently coloured units on the map. Oh yes, and did I mention side relations need to be defined as well? Yea, that is not happening any time soon. It's a basic game mechanic that unit map markers use the colour assigned to the unit's side. Unless BIS decides to change it we can't have it. This is just what my understanding of Arma 3's design and mechanics is (basically a somewhat well educated guess), so it might be entirely wrong. (It's probably not) If you show me a way it can be done I'll be pretty impressed.

As far as I can see it is impossible to edit this kind of marker via scripts after the mission has loaded - and I'm not even sure if they could be edited prior to mission load.

It doesn't really matter what I think, BIS says BLUFOR units get blue markers and Independent (AAF, FIA, Syndikat) units get green ones. So thats where people who are used to that might ID their targets wrong. Then again I don't think it's possible for the unit symbols. The squad symbol wouldn't be a problem, but that's not what you're looking for.

How is @TheScar the best driver on that list, I can recall a day where i sat on the road around waiting for the third replacement Prowler in a row. Guess who was driving (not me)

Do not use the VR map to train your marksmanship, as it's flat and open. Use some real terrain.

Gotta love this line.

You don't write custom functions for EU3?

@Stanhope BIS doesn't allow us to touch any landing gears with scripts. Saying it now, just in case.

@MinipilyattachTo can do anything.

More like 10 years ago (Don't trust @Stanhope)

I assume you want to verify one's "identity" and not "identify" (Google Authenticator description).

The implementation is Place module Synch module to the high command unit But I can't really make any predictions about what players are gonna do there; I mean it would feel stupid for the guy in the slot if nobody followed his orders.

Some select few know about high command. But have you ever tried to use that? It's pure horror. Now thats with AI, I don't really want to know what random public server players would do, sooooooooo yea. Leaving out the uhhhh EU1 spirit, players are just attacking uncoordinated defenses, there really isn't much to coordinate at EU1's AI setting.

Play R6 Siege