[frl]myke 14 Posted March 18, 2011 @anarcho glad you sorted it out. Have fun with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fisgas 10 Posted March 21, 2011 Hey Mike, i love your work, you've been releasing awesome stuff. I would like to suggest something tho. I assume it's not probably high on your priority list but can you enhance the F-16's sound? Right now it doesn't sound as big or intimidating as it should be. Here's a link to an airshow to demonstrate what i mean: Well done and keep up the good work! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nealsch 10 Posted March 22, 2011 Myke;1820397']I don't know' date=' somehow tonight i'm in the mood to create some tailmarks. Now the belgian Airforce: Hope you like it. could you please post a download link for this addon(belgian F16) if its possible BTW good job love your F16:bounce3: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nealsch 10 Posted March 22, 2011 Coud you please post a download link for the belgian F16 if it's possible (PAGE 32) BTW love your F16 verry good job Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[frl]myke 14 Posted March 22, 2011 Coud you please post a download link for the belgian F16 if it's possible (PAGE 32)BTW love your F16 verry good job It's not yet released. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nealsch 10 Posted March 22, 2011 ok srry i'l just have to wait it of keep up the good work Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dkraver 1 Posted March 22, 2011 Myke how is the update going?? Any chance of a danish skin in it?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sickboy 13 Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) Hey Myke, I've found the following issues with the GLT MissileBox, would you be so kind to solve them? 1. You're using Extended_Fired_EventHandlers, and things like nearestObject [position (_this select 0),(_this select 4)]; Please use Extended_FiredBis_EventHandlers and replace the nearestObject call simply with _this select 6 (which already contains the projectile, provided by the engine). This saves (possible) expensive call to nearestObject, while it also uses the new BIS Fired EH format available as per b1.54.73642 http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cca/wiki/Extended_Eventhandlers#New-in-303-Extended_FiredBIS_Eventhandlers-and-support-for-addons-that-do-not-support-XEH 2. You're using spawn in rapid-firing events, like Fired Eventhandler on Helicopter and Plane. e.g: _this spawn GLT_createBomblets It's executing for every fired projectile from every Helicopter/Plane based vehicle, which is a waste of resources (script performance is a major issue in A2 because of queued execution, which can form big problems for scripts where timing is crucial) It is recommended to change this to a call instead of spawn. Then inside the GLT_createBomblets function, you would use spawn after checking conditions, and only when you need it: if ((getNumber (configFile >> "cfgWeapons" >> (_this select 1) >> "GLT_bomblets")) > 0) then { _this spawn { private ["_bomb", "_pos", "_vel", "_i", "_h", "_velrand", "_type", "_numb"]; _bomb = nearestObject [position (_this select 0),(_this select 4)]; _type = getText (configFile >> "cfgWeapons" >> (_this select 1) >> "GLT_bombletType"); _numb = getNumber (configFile >> "cfgWeapons" >> (_this select 1) >> "GLT_bomblets"); while {alive _bomb} do { _pos = getPosATL _bomb; _vel = velocity _bomb; sleep 0.01; }; if ((_pos select 2) > 40) then { for [{_i=0},{_i<_numb},{_i=_i+1}] do { _h = createvehicle [_type,_pos,[],2,"CAN_COLLIDE"]; _velrand = ((_vel select 0) + (_vel select 1))/5; _h setvelocity [(_vel select 0)+(random _velrand) -(random _velrand),(_vel select 1)+(random _velrand) -(random _velrand),(_vel select 2)+random 5.0-random 5.0]; sleep (random 0.075); }; }; }; }; This will save unnecessary spawning of threads, and thus reduce script-lag because now only a thread is spawned when it is needed (when the condition is met). Another example of a rapid-fire event is AnimChanged. For not-rapid-fire events like Killed, GetIn, GetOut, it is less important, though in essence the same counts, and it is recommended to use call until the last possible moment, and then spawn only when you need it. I haven't checked the other addons, but if the same methods are used, it is also recommended to be changed. Edited March 23, 2011 by Sickboy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xeno426 10 Posted March 25, 2011 Noted bug: The KAB-500L ammo refers to the model "GLT_KAB500LE_fly.p3d" instead of "GLT_KAB500L_fly.p3d", resulting in an error upon loading a mission with that weapon in use. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.kju 3239 Posted March 29, 2011 I suggest to split off (gameplay effecting) changes to BI classes itself to a separate addon. A visual replacement is OK, yet anything else is no longer a replacement but a change. Yes it is some additional work, yet it is essential to establish the missilebox in MP in my view. Thanks for the consideration. PS: I like your modifications, yet the all-in-one bundle is no good to ensure fair play in MP, especially as both are tied to the same key implicitly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sickboy 13 Posted March 29, 2011 I suggest to split off (gameplay effecting) changes to BI classes itself to a separate addon.A visual replacement is OK, yet anything else is no longer a replacement but a change. Yes it is some additional work, yet it is essential to establish the missilebox in MP in my view. Thanks for the consideration. PS: I like your modifications, yet the all-in-one bundle is no good to ensure fair play in MP, especially as both are tied to the same key implicitly. I think you just said in ~few lines what I been japping on about for pages in the Duala thread... Ode to you! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[frl]myke 14 Posted March 29, 2011 @Sickboy bugreport is noted and will be reworked. @Xeno426 Thanks for the report. Indeed there is(was) a typo in the config. @PvPScene Will be taken into consideration. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xeno426 10 Posted March 29, 2011 Good to hear. What missiles are you planning to add in the next version? If you're open to suggestions, I've got a few. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ANZACSAS Steven 389 Posted March 30, 2011 @GLT Myke, The GLT missilebox has me concerned also that if i running the F16 the default wep,ammo,mag values have been altered to the values of your opinion.This is a classic case of a "dirty addon".If i d'load an F16 i expect to get an f16 not a mod that alters the defualt game values in place's who knows where and what. If you really want to give ppl the option of running the weps and ammo's with the values that in your opinion are better you use a module in the editor that enables your cfg edits thru the mission editor by mission editors choice. There is no benefit in modding the whole game to make your cfg edits work better in 1 addon....If you wish to then make a seperate addon. This isnt just an Aircraft addon .It changes lots of stuff in lots of units and weapons... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spartan 163 0 Posted March 30, 2011 Mike I know your getting bashed on alot lately but do what you think is right. If people don't like the addon they don't have to download it. There is a lot of Gimmy Gimmy but not alot of thank you in these forums as of late. Keep up the great work. P.S. I have added the missle box to the F-5 Tiger II I am working on and the Tornado plus A-4 Sky Hawk it is great as the load out possibilities are much more diverse than stock weapons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[frl]myke 14 Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) Let me elaborate a bit how this whole thing started and where actually my problems are. When i converted the F-16 for ArmA 2, i had quickly the idea to create some more weapons for it. Quickly it turned out that a separate addon for the weapons would have some benefits and from there it was a little step to expand it to the Missilebox you know today. What always bugged me was the ridiculous implementation BIS has done with the weapon systems like Sidewinders going with Mach 5+ and Ch-29T not hitting a target only one kilometer away. So i've started some research and did quite a few testings. Making the weapons 1:1 like the real ones would have been overkill since the maps aren't that big, speaking of planes engagements range, so i scaled the weapons i've made down so they would fit in the ArmAverse. But still, a BVR weapon is a BVR weapon. So at first, someone in a F-16 facing a enemy in a plane with stock BIS weapons had a big advantage, especially when equipped with AIM-120/C or similar long range weapons. So the next logical step was to adjust BIS weapons to more realistic (although scaled down) performance values. According to this, outsourcing the config adjustements into a separate addon wouldn't solve the problem, it would only move it from one side to another. If such a addon isn't allowed on the server but the Missilebox is and also uses planes for it, a player in such a plane would have advantages against a plane using BIS stock weapons which includes all BIS planes of course. So, regardless what i do, it will be wrong. @Xeno426 Sorry, missed your post. So far no new weapons for the next release, just a few equipment like dualrails and triplerails. But i'm always open to suggestions. If i can make them is a matter of reference material i can find for. Edited March 30, 2011 by [FRL]Myke Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.kju 3239 Posted March 30, 2011 What's wrong with splitting the gameplay changes to a separate addon? If you sign them with different keys, the server admin is to decide whether he allows it or not. Sorry - can please explain the problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[frl]myke 14 Posted March 30, 2011 The problem remains with the following combinations: - plane using Missilebox (excluding the BIS default weapon changes) - BIS default planes with default weapons The behaviour of the Missielbox weapons is quite different to Missilebox variants. So the addon plane equipped with Missilebox weapons will have advantage against default BIS planes and it's weaponry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.kju 3239 Posted March 30, 2011 And where is the problem here now? One can use missilebox only or both or only the BI class modifications. It is up to the server admin to decide what he wants to permit (for SP everyone can decide on his own). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ANZACSAS Steven 389 Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) @Myke, Module idea- It is based around how the arty module works. Examlpe, When the bis arty module is enabled in the mission editor its presence in the mission enables code that overwrites the arty units weapon and mag loadouts.It swaps out the "human" weps and mags for special module ones with the relative changes. This missilebox's GLT/bis weapons that you want could be enabled the same way possibly. Drop in the "GLT/BIS Advanced Weapons" module and it swaps all default aircraft loadouts to run your Custom "GLT" improved loadouts that the Module has "acivated". Get my drift? Edited March 30, 2011 by ANZACSAS Steven Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[frl]myke 14 Posted March 30, 2011 @PvPscene Missilebox weapons have improved capabilities compared to BIS weapons. So a F-16 which uses Missilebox weapons would have advantages against a BIS Su-34 @ANZACSAS Steve If this would mean to dumb down the Missilebox weapons as default, this is a absolutley no-go for me. before that happens, i would probably retire all my works from public and cancel all actual activities, except maybe some final bugfixes as they are reported by now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
icebreakr 3098 Posted March 30, 2011 ANZACSAS Steve great idea! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
R0adki11 3945 Posted March 30, 2011 If this would mean to dumb down the Missilebox weapons as default, this is a absolutley no-go for me. before that happens, i would probably retire all my works from public and cancel all actual activities, except maybe some final bugfixes as they are reported by now. I personally would hate to see this happen your Missilebox weapons pack is a great addition to Arma2. Im sure there must be a way to have a replacment pack which only replaces the models and one that replaces the models and your improved config. That would keep both parties happy :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.kju 3239 Posted March 30, 2011 What is the problem of the disadvantages? The player or the server admin is to decide what he prefers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[frl]myke 14 Posted March 30, 2011 @PvPscene You don't get it, don't you? The additional, non-BIS weapons from the Missilebox gives advantages over BIS weapons. So if in a mission a addon plane using the Missilebox (for say weapons that BIS doesn't have like a R-3 or a AIM-120/C) faces a BIS plane as opponent, the player having the Missilebox weapons would have a advantage which shouldn't be there. To avoid that case i've included the config changes to the Missilebox so also BIS planes will have equal weapons to fight with. Removing these improvements now would disbalance the aerial gameplay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites