Arma 3 Version: 1.82 (stable)
CBA Version: 3.6.1 (stable)
ACE3 Version: 3.12.1 (stable)
Achilles: 1.0.2 (stable)
Mods:
- CBA_A3
- ace
- Achilles
Description:
Affected Modules (incomplete):
ModuleMine_FModuleRemoteControl_fModuleArsenal_F (possibly affected in future)Links to Relevant Folders:
Cross Reference:
Which ones?
I haven't looked into it in detail yet, but ModuleMine_F comes me to mind.
Edit: Updated the description with a list for modules.
The modification to moduleMine is the same in both, just that Achilles removes the code which reveals mines while ACE adds settings to toggle it.
Similar for moduleRemoteControl, ace adds a toggle setting for the wind sound. Achilles removes it.
Well, in both instances we got requests to get rid of it.
This would mean to get it consistent (independent of the order the addons are loaded), the code for Achilles should check for the ACE settings such that it has the same behaviour.
Regarding the Arsenal we are not yet sure what to do. There is on the one hand the Arsenal module, which is currently only modified by ACE and there is the attribute window button provided by Achilles. While the former only uses ACE Arsenal, the latter only uses vanilla Arsenal. The thing is that we realized that our users prefer to have vanilla as well as ACE Arsenal at their disposal. It would be best to have the same solution for both the module as well as the button.
Edit (Correction): I see that the ACE modification checks for the ACE Arsenal addon.
^ use the current master branch instead of stable, or the 3.12.2 RC, i've split up the arsenal module for BI VA and ACE Arsenal.
Good, so there will be no problem with the Arsenal module.
If we don't want to worry about mod load order or seperate compats then I think the best solution would be to write a standard function that does what we both want it to do. And then have both mods just set the function to that.
something like
// bis code
if (isClass (configFile >> "cfgPatches" >> "ace_zeus") then {
// ace code
};
if (isClass (configFile >> "cfgPatches" >> "achilies") then {
// ares code
};
Can also use ace settings that may not exist safely with stuff like getVarriable ["ace_setting_x", false]
Are there any conflicts in the changes that we both make?
hell, at that point why not make an api and add it to CBA^?
hell, at that point why not make an api and add it to CBA^?
I agree
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
No longer relevant as Achilles is deprecated.
Most helpful comment
hell, at that point why not make an api and add it to CBA^?