AWE Repo updated

[Amentes]

It appears we've been graced with the long-awaited Repo update.

 

Download size: 13GB

 

All hail Soziopath and Ghostdragon.

[Amentes]

BAF has had some optional extras relocated to make those optionals useable.

 

AW_FIR has had its bisign issue fixed.

 

RHS is the bulk of the download, as usual; a few improvements, a lot of fixes.

 

ACE is updated. I believe this includes some new tools for Zeus. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GdudKylWrM). Also adds a new pylon change feature for vehicles, giving access to dynamic loadouts in-mission.

 

CBA_A3 s updated.

[Noah_Hero]

Isn´t @AhoyWorld Outreach there for posts like this?

[Amentes]

POOK is being a pook. Removed for further investigation.

[GhostDragon]

Removed POOK due to faulty PBO. 

 

Will investigate and re-add when the cause is found. 

 

Sorry for any inconvenience.  

[hobnob11]

Arsenal white list needs some hammering, AT can no longer access SMAW, and the logi crates need updating

[Ryko]

Which mission? And pls 'splain what you mean about logi crates

[Pancake]

Where's that sweet P90 though? That's what I'd been looking forward to

[hobnob11]

the logi crates for mat and hat ammo, as well as the white listed smaw in the arsenal were the task force variants, since the repo update removes this they are empty.

 

also, the silver box doesn't contain any of the smaw / maws ammo anymore.

 

all that needs to happen is the mat boxs you spawn with the logi pole need to be updated to use the RHS ammo, and the heavy at slot needs to whitelist the RHS smaws as it only had the task force one.

[Ryko]

41 minutes ago, Pancake said:

Where's that sweet P90 though? That's what I'd been looking forward to

Alas, it was producing a config error during testing so it wasn't included in this update.

 

37 minutes ago, hobnob11 said:

it only had the task force one

Yep, that makes sense.  I'm pretty sure I updated the arsenal whitelist to change the smaw from TF47 to RHS, but maybe it didn't get propagated across all the missions.

[LEO]

14 hours ago, Amentes said:

BAF has had some optional extras relocated to make those optionals useable.

 

AW_FIR has had its bisign issue fixed.

 

RHS is the bulk of the download, as usual; a few improvements, a lot of fixes.

 

ACE is updated. I believe this includes some new tools for Zeus. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GdudKylWrM). Also adds a new pylon change feature for vehicles, giving access to dynamic loadouts in-mission.

 

CBA_A3 s updated.

ACE mine detector is bugged its making vannila nosies

[Pancake]

2 hours ago, Ryko said:

Alas, it was producing a config error during testing so it wasn't included in this update.

I've just spent an hour or so dicking around with it active alongside the current AWE modpack and apart from that popup on the main menu saying something about no entry for standardscope.sound it's worked fine. Was it really by merit of that popup that it wasn't included? Cos plenty of other mods have given those kinds of errors in the past yet they were still used.

[Ryko]

It was indeed on the basis of that error that we didn't include the mod. Yes in the past we did include mods that produced errors on launch or in-game, but after a few problems we decided not to continue that practice. So until someone produces a fix for that error, unfortunately, we will not be able to include that mod. 

 

Arma is just too delicate a program to just assume that a configuration error doesn't have cascading consequences. 

[BenjaminHL]

@Ryko Why restrict content based on presumptions of non-functionality? It is a whole different story if something doesn't work, but one config error in a massive mod seems like a very small problem and weak justification to hold back a new mod. Also, who knows if this error will ever get fixed and if it does how long until then. Also whenever there is a fix new problems arise especially with large mods. Pook may never be error-free, so are we just not going to use it?

[Minipily]

22 minutes ago, Ryko said:

It was indeed on the basis of that error that we didn't include the mod. Yes in the past we did include mods that produced errors on launch or in-game, but after a few problems we decided not to continue that practice. So until someone produces a fix for that error, unfortunately, we will not be able to include that mod. 

 

Arma is just too delicate a program to just assume that a configuration error doesn't have cascading consequences. 

Yeah I'm kinda with Ben on that, I mean sure ArmA can be a bitch to work with and it's difficult to trust errors to not mess with other stuff. However, if we stop allowing a mod because of errors, then that is surely going to restrict a lot of mods, now and future.

 

Most likely, most mods that experience config errors will never receive fixes. Hell, they may not receive fixes because said error is too minor to be receive work. If this is the case, why not give it the benefit of the doubt? I assume if it breaks then one can just scrap the mod and be done with it there. Sure things like these may get annoying from time to time but I would have thought putting work into this sort of stuff would be a little important like other works on the server.

 

Just my thoughts, not telling you how to do your job, just implying that perhaps benefit of the doubt on small errors (what I assume at least) would not be straying too far down the rough road.

[Ryko]

There are a lot of assumptions at work here, and I appreciate the points you raise. However from a server/mission maintenance perspective what you are suggesting is very problematic. When an issue arises in the mission, we have to address it from a starting point that the component parts are functioning properly: a seemingly "minor" issue can bely larger consequences. If you've crashed to desktop from a RotorX error, you'll know what I'm talking about.

 

As for the ADR97 mod, it's new content, and I would be surprised if someone didn't address the root issue: it's BI content, after all.

 

I was also looking forward to using the Taliban units, but again, a config error is present there. I am investigating using the uniform textures in another AW-produced mod, as those are just ports from A2 Takistan (and frankly that's all we were going to use from that mod, anyway).

 

Quote

Pook may never be error-free, so are we just not going to use it?

We were all set to go with Pook, that is to say, it was not producing a config error like we saw with the ADR97. We're looking into why it wasn't working properly on the server: in that case, the mod was not allowing players to join the server. I'm not as concerned for Pook because there's a larger issue concerning how to integrate those anti-air units into the mission: they are incredibly potent threats with ranges well beyond visual range for pilots. It's one thing to say "well, we just won't fly into the AO" but when the SA-10 is shooting missiles at you when you're still on the carrier, that's another thing entirely.

[Amentes]

1 hour ago, Ryko said:

"...there's a larger issue concerning how to integrate those anti-air units into the mission: they are incredibly potent threats with ranges well beyond visual range for pilots. It's one thing to say "well, we just won't fly into the AO" but when the SA-10 is shooting missiles at you when you're still on the carrier, that's another thing entirely."

 

Will it shoot at unmanned aircraft and/or personnel?

 

I was thinking the best way to integrate POOK would be to replace your current Anti-Air mission with POOK, full stop, no additional use on Stiletto.

 

That leaves it for use outside of Stiletto, where I'm sure someone will demand that we fly Chinooks NOE at some point, but I don't see it working as a permanent threat on Stiletto.

 

4 hours ago, BenjaminHL said:

Why restrict content based on presumptions of non-functionality? It is a whole different story if something doesn't work, but one config error in a massive mod seems like a very small problem and weak justification to hold back a new mod.

 

It's not exactly like this specific one is massive either.

 

It adds what, the Vanilla P90 and its real-world variants? Not worth risking side-effects over, IMHO; let alone investing Staff time into solving.

[Eagle-Eye]

2 hours ago, Ryko said:

they are incredibly potent threats with ranges well beyond visual range for pilots. It's one thing to say "well, we just won't fly into the AO" but when the SA-10 is shooting missiles at you when you're still on the carrier, that's another thing entirely.

If simulation is in any way realistic, unless terrain masking works to a T and you like hugging trees, you shouldn’t fly in ArmA when there’s an active SA10 around. Period.

 

Depending on version, the real SA10 has publicly known engagement ranges between 40 and 200km laterally (read: bigger than most ArmA maps), from 10ft (3m) to 98,000ft (33km) vertically. Probably the only way to engage it from the air would be to send in an armada of SEAD aircraft, from all directions simultaneously, and have a dozen CSAR helo’s on standby.

 

With ArmA’s limited focus on air combat, you’re definitely up against all odds.

[Amentes]

I believe terrain masking was working when Christiansen used it for MSO. That was a year ago, if not longer, so I will assume (hope) that it's now even better.

 

It does mean we'd have the ability to enforce a no-fly zone, which is great.

[Stanhope]

4 hours ago, Ryko said:

they are incredibly potent threats with ranges well beyond visual range for pilots. It's one thing to say "well, we just won't fly into the AO" but when the SA-10 is shooting missiles at you when you're still on the carrier, that's another thing entirely.

3 hours ago, Amentes said:

Will it shoot at unmanned aircraft and/or personnel?

The only reason they do it is because of how arma determines if something is a ground or an air contact.
It takes the vehicle's position ATL (above terrain level) (ASL if you're out in open sea), if this number is greater than X (i think it's somewhere around 3-6 meters) it's an air contact according to arma.  If it's less than 3-6 meters it's a ground contact.
The aircraft carrier isn't terrain according to arm, meaning that you are at least 6 meters above sea level and are thus an aircontact while standing on the aircraft carrier.

(I hope that makes sense.)

 

But no it will not shoot at unmanned vehicles, if it can detect personnel it will shoot at it.  And if you enter any vehicle it will open up if it can see it.
 

2 hours ago, Eagle-Eye said:

4 hours ago, Ryko said:

they are incredibly potent threats with ranges well beyond visual range for pilots. It's one thing to say "well, we just won't fly into the AO" but when the SA-10 is shooting missiles at you when you're still on the carrier, that's another thing entirely.

If simulation is in any way realistic, unless terrain masking works to a T and you like hugging trees, you shouldn’t fly in ArmA when there’s an active SA10 around. Period.

Because of arma limitations if you fly NOE you are according to arma a ground target.  So the chances of it engaging you drop significantly (presuming you are really hugging the earth, being under 5 meters at all times).  And you can often use mountain ranges to avoid detection.  The missile might be able to hit you if you are behind that mountain range but if they don't know you're there they can't shoot at you.

 

I'd personally only use POOK SAM and SHORAD vehicles in stiletto for maps that are larger (Altis, the desert map which name is escaping me at the moment, ...)  and only at the prio AA mission.
The AAA vehicles like the static ZSU, S-60, ZSU-23, KS-12, KS-19, ... can be used perfectly for other missions.  We currently already have them, these are just a slightly different.

 

And stilleto doesn't necessarily have to use the big boy SAMs like SA-10s or SA2/3 or S300  it can also use the SA-15, 19 and 22.  Which are just a tad, not much but at least a tad, less dangerous.  

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

 

Also i suggest reading the guide that is included.  Especially from page 70 onwards.  POOK comes with anti-radiation missiles and other fun things.

pook_SAM_guide_v4.3.pdf

 

 

[hobnob11]

Confirmed not happening on gorgona, but on stratis the new aircraft spawn inside the deck

[Amentes]

Have you tested the remaining aircraft? I was spawning A-10, F-15, F-16 and F-22 on Stratis carrier without experiencing that issue.

[hobnob11]

a10 works, but all vars of the f14, 15, 16 and 22 did what you see in the image for me

[Ryko]

Next version will spawn the jets a bit in the air so they can drop down into position.