Bug List – ArmA: Armed Assault Talk

From Bohemia Interactive Community
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Text replacement - "\[ *((ftp|http)s?:\/\/[^ ]+)([^{])=([^}])([^ ]+)" to "[$1$3{{=}}$4$5")
 
(129 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Move the Bug List?==
==Bug Tracking System==
Since the bug list entries are constantly cluttering up the edit history (and probably will continue to do so for a while), how about we move it to a different name space (e.g. [[Help:Contents|Help]]). For the normal users it wouldn't make much of a difference, but for those that use the log, the bug list edits (and probably the wish list as well) would then only show up if you select the "Help" name space in the drop-down menu.<br>How about it? --[[User:Kronzky|Kronzky]] 05:49, 4 January 2007 (CET)


I know what you mean but I'm not in favor of changing the name space as many people link here already. [[User:Hoz|hoz]]
As there is now "unofficial" bug tracking system running, containing all bugs from this page imported, I think we should consider closing this page and redirecting users to that system (check it at http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view_all_bug_page.php). An alternative could be to having some volunteers doing synchronization for those who prefer reporting bugs here, but I doubt anyone would be willing do that. (Off course, another alternative is the majority of the community may prefer bug tracking being done solely here, which I doubt, but if it is the case, we can reopen the page again and continue as it is now). Please, voice your opinion here. Until we decide, this Wiki bug list is protected and user cannot change it. --[[User:Suma|Suma]] 11:10, 14 February 2007 (CET)
: I think the tracking system has a stronger implication that an official response will be given to each bug. As it stands, the wiki page is just a list. An official word stating the intention of the public listing/tracking of bugs could help (eg, BI have an internal bug reporting system and this is just a secondary). --[[User:Ceeeb|Ceeeb]] 14:15, 14 February 2007 (CET)
::As this is a community tracking system, there is no guaranteed response from us (yes, we do have other system we use internally). Its primary purpose is for the community to have a list of known issues, workarounds for them... However, as you can see in the bug history in the tracker, chance of getting response from us are quite high, esp. for fatal or major issues. --[[User:Suma|Suma]] 14:27, 14 February 2007 (CET)
::: Too bad there seems to be no edit feature for bugreports on boeckler.org. thus it's imposible to fix errors (wrong Category etc )  --[[User:Bdfy|bdfy]]
:::: Oh it's there, It's just the access matrix, what prevents that (an Updater can do that). This could  be discussed in the notes of the issue. IMHO it's in the responsibility of the assigned person whether the category fits. --[[User:Boecko|Boecko]]
:::: On the other hand, we can discuss the initial access right of users. --[[User:Boecko|Boecko]]
::I find the new list a lot more confusing especially the priories. But I can live with it. Should I lock the Biki bug list then? [[User:Hoz|hoz]]
::: I tried to map the priorities to the BTS-priorities  AND to severities. One (with manager access) can changethis on the fly (Filter given priority, "Update Priority" at the bottom of the page. --[[User:Boecko|Boecko]]
::: Hoz, Boecko is trying to express that both priorities AND to severities can be configured to ones preferences - the priority descriptions are the defaults values of the mantis. also i think both priorities and severities should only be possible to get changed by the BTS admins - i think one can configure mantis that way.--[[User:WGL.Q|WGL.Q]] 20:28, 14 February 2007 (CET)
:::Now i see - after several reports i became and updater and got edit option.--[[User:Bdfy|bdfy]]
:: Please, provide repro steps. They may be obvious to you from the bug description, but they often are not. Example of issue I would like to have repro steps for is http://www.boeckler.org/mantis/view.php?id=1914 --[[User:Suma|Suma]] 22:10, 14 February 2007 (CET)
:OK. So what now? Shall we close the list here, and replace current content of the page with a link to the bug tracker and instructions page {other options are returning to using the Wiki page, or using both) --[[User:Suma|Suma]] 11:08, 21 February 2007 (CET)
:: My biased opinion ;) .. keep the BTS (close this list). There about 20 new registered people in the last week and people seem to have adoped it. There are 49 active users. --[[User:Boecko|Boecko]] 11:24, 21 February 2007 (CET)
:: Question is whom do you ask? The community is pretty tiny atm. I personally can only work with a BTS, I had even problems to find your question in this looooooong list. What I can see is that more & more guys with scripting knowledge dropping TTs in the BTS so it seems to be accepted.--[[User:INNOCENT&CLUELESS|INNOCENT&amp;CLUELESS]] 12:01, 21 February 2007 (CET)
::: I confirm - bug-tracker is much more comfortable then biki --[[User:Bdfy|bdfy]]
:::: Same for me. I saw some comments on how complicated it was, but for me it's way easier to find what has already been reported, and to report something. Has well has having comments and dev feedback. --[[User:Whisper|Whisper]] 14:22, 21 February 2007 (CET)
::::: Definitely '''for''' closing the Wiki page, and forwarding any bug reports to the BTS. We seem to have just as many contributors/reporters there as we did on the Wiki. So it seems that people are already getting the hang of it.
::::: What about the "wishlist" and the "bug or feature" page though? Should they be integrated into the BTS as well? --[[User:Kronzky|Kronzky]] 17:04, 21 February 2007 (CET)
::::::
Feature requests/change requests are in, but hoz closed TT with the reason "more a wish". Hence boecko created a new project called "ArmA features" and I moved the related TT there. The project was private to avoid confusion, I made it now public. The problem is that until now we did not discussed really the TT flow and responsibilities nor agreed on. So if we could agree that the SEVERITY "feature" means that it is not a bug we could use the project "Armed Assault" as usual and I could move the TTs back. We have anyway time since I guess that BI is so busy that they are not really open for resource consuming feature requests for the next weeks. I opened a TT in the project "mantis bts" where we could discuss the treatment of feature requests and close it if we come to an agreement http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view.php?id=1992 .--[[User:INNOCENT&CLUELESS|INNOCENT&amp;CLUELESS]] 10:28, 22 February 2007 (CET)
:Since it seems that we're way past the "point of no return" regarding the BTS system, I've updated the bug page now.
:Once we've decided on how to handle requests and bug/feature determinations we should update that paragraph as well. --[[User:Kronzky|Kronzky]] 17:13, 22 February 2007 (CET)


Well, we could keep this page, but forward it to the new Bug List page. That way they can keep their links, and we can keep the log clean. --[[User:Kronzky|Kronzky]] 23:26, 4 January 2007 (CET)


==Questionable Bugs==
=== Voices against ===
This is a little late, but I was not able to participate in the discussion up until this point.  I was in the process of preparing a comprehensive argument against.  I see that this has gone forward, but I would like to post my unfinished argument for the record (chiefly because I have already spent a lot of time on it). --[[User:Plaintiff1|Plaintiff1]] 01:38, 15 February 2007 (CET)


:I'm not completely sure what this bug tracking system is hoping to achieve beyond an increased level of automation.  I'm not entirely convinced that a list for bugs requires such an automation or the resulting increase in complexity and diffusion of community resources.  Such a programme would be no more useful than any other list.--[[User:Plaintiff1|Plaintiff1]] 01:52, 15 February 2007 (CET)


===Older Entries===
:We are not tracking bugs for BIS, but rather, listing what the community perceives as bugs.  If I am not mistaken, the discressionary priority we assign the bugs is more or less a way of sorting the information beyond the pragmatic categorical sorting.  Without BIS staffers minding the list, these methods of sorting the information is largely arbitrary and are the result of a educated guessing game.  This list isn't even usable as a list of bugs:  It is more like a collection of reports from beta testers, not a collection of bugs for them to act on.  They need processing to actually turn them into bug reports they can use.  We are simply throwing down some information that we hope will be useful for BIS and for other community members in their troubleshooting efforts (i.e. to confirm the responsibility of a known bug for a certain problem behaviour).--[[User:Plaintiff1|Plaintiff1]] 01:52, 15 February 2007 (CET) 


Currently, silenced ammo, that is presumed to be subsonic, generates supersonic cracks. Maybe it's a bug, maybe it's a engine limitation. I suggest adding a wish list entry for config [[boolean]] isSupersonic, or something like that. Opinions? --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 22:43, 15 December 2006 (CET)
:As for the community's interests, I think that adding another superfluous protocol to learn in another system on yet another page is like whimisically adding a fifth, suspended, steerable wheel to a concept car- however shiny and feature-laden it is, there isn't a community side need for it.  It would just add bulk and complexity to a larger community resource that is only yet finding its legs.  The current resource is easy to use, easy to find, easy to interact with, easy to discuss, and easily policed. I think that if this bug list is moved into a bug tracker format that it should be clearly stated that this move is for BIS's benefit and why, as I cannot see any end-of-the-day benefit for the community.  We are not trouble shooting, solving or interacting with the bugs in any way other than finding them and listing them.--[[User:Plaintiff1|Plaintiff1]] 01:52, 15 February 2007 (CET)
:Add it to the audio bugs list, and possibly your wish to the wishlist. then clean this up. :) [[User:Hoz|hoz]]


:Supersonic crack is generated only when ammo is moving at supersonic speed. There is no need for any flag. Some silenced weapons really do fire supersonic rounds. Which weapon / ammo do you think the behaviour is currently wrong? --[[User:Suma|Suma]] 13:05, 18 December 2006 (CET)
=== Ease of use ===
:The voices of the proponents for a community bug tracker seem by-and-large programmers.  These are people who are already familiar with the concept of a bug tracker.  Some people express a hesitation to learn the Biki based on their fear of the alien protocol.  Let us not lump another level of complexity onto the pile.  To use another automotive metaphor, using a tracking program for the bug list is like having a 600 horsepower car. What do you need it for?  Only enthusiasts would want such a thing and a small percentage of those would even be able to make use of it. There are features within the bugtracker that simply aren't of any use to the person that this list was designed for- the average community member seeking to share his or her knowledge and experience with BIS.--[[User:Plaintiff1|Plaintiff1]] 01:38, 15 February 2007 (CET)
:: As I am programmer, I cannot be unbias on this. However, submitting bugs to Mantis seems much easier that writing them to Wiki. There is plenty of people you never edit Wiki, only browse it. I suppose for them filling web forms (which is what Mantis does) is much easier than getting familiar with the Wiki template syntax to be able to fill in the record. The Wiki Edit feature is far from easy to use, esp. on long pages. --[[User:Suma|Suma]] 09:11, 15 February 2007 (CET)
::: I switched on the simple bug report in mantis (i disabled it before).  Try it --[[User:Boecko|Boecko]]


::I've looked trough the config, and noticed that you can assign different sounds to cracks too, so my wish is already there. Since we have two types of ammo for the M4, and weapon sounds are assigned to weapons now instead of ROF and magazines, SD ammo would be a logical choice to have subsonic ammo for M4. SD ammo for M4 currently generates cracks. I also believe that MP5SD6 uses subsonic ammo (currently generates supersonic crack), and there are also two magazine types for it (MP5 mags are not "named", small bug which I will submit), so I'm assuming one is SD, and could be made subsonic. I'm not sure about other weapons, but, since weapons now determine sounds and not magazines, I would suggest making all magazines that have their SD variant subsonic. And we can still use the non SD variants as non-subsonic ammo. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 14:54, 18 December 2006 (CET)
Out of Plaintiff1 comments I read the fears that 1.) the biggest part of the community would not be able to use mantis and hence would not report bugs because of this and 2.) the maintenance and management of the bugs would cost more time then it safes.
To 1.): Someone who is able to speak/write english (if not his mother toungue) is usually able to assemble a telling TT in mantis. For those which are not able to write english it is possible to write the description of the TT in his language, the mantis managers will try to translate into english without loosing the sense of the original TT (we might have problems with mandarin :-) ).
Like we did it for WGL there is always the need for the managers to browse the forum as Q created it here for WGL bug reporting: http://ofpc.de/wargames/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewforum.php?7
to pick up some bug reports out of some discussions. But to keep track if/how/when the bug is fixed - there I do not see any other option then a BTS.
So Plaintiff1 is right if he says mainly BI & experienced developers/scripters/addonmakers taking the most benefit in the 1st line - but what is wrong with that, usually they can deliver already a very good pre-analysis of the issue and if they are served all other community members would participate from the more reliable engine and more excellent content in the 2nd line.
Btw from experience also weekend gamers where able to drop telling tickets in the WGL BTS bugzilla we used there initially and later in trac and those two are not as user friendly as mantis in my opinion.
To 2.) A TT system safes time in the long run by ensuring that no issue is forgotten, several TTs with the same root cause could be mapped together by the developer, developer could send the TT creator a request for further information...Let's try and see what happens during the regression testing of 1.04/1.05 --[[User:INNOCENT&CLUELESS|INNOCENT&amp;CLUELESS]] 10:17, 15 February 2007 (CET)


:::To make clear my point - if a config-side fix it is much cleaner to really make the ammo speed subsonic than to disable supersonic crack for ammo to pretend it is subsonic. --[[User:Suma|Suma]] 14:59, 18 December 2006 (CET)
:To clarify 1, my point is not that people will be unable to learn, it is that they will be [i]unwilling[/i] to learn. Reference [http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?s{{=}}d97916afb30e88124d4105382c57c642;act{{=}}ST;f=71;t=57886;st=15 this topic] for examples of people who are hesitant to learn how to contribute to the biki.  The point there is that people are already having to learn very rudimentary wiki markup in order to contribute to the biki.  Fastening on this other appendage adds complexity and more learning, and in my experience, community members can be quite lazy.  Moreover, we have a number of people who are already learning wiki markup in order to contribute on other pages.  They could use that knowledge to contribute here, and the people who learn some wiki markup in order to contribute on the buglist then have the skills to make other contributions to other areas of the biki.


::::Yes, I understand what you were saying, I was just another making a counter-point to my wish. ;) Ammo speed is indeed a cleaner fix. Hence, I suggest making all ammo that has SD counterpart subsonic. For example, 30Rnd_556x45_StanagSD (B_556x45_SD) to be subsonic, but 30Rnd_556x45_Stanag (B_556x45_Ball) supersonic. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 15:14, 18 December 2006 (CET)
:To clarify 2, I'm not saying that programmers will see an added benefit to the BTS.  I simply do not see what benefit there could possibly be.  You find a bug that has been solved, you mark it as solved no matter what you are using to track them.  This could be accomplished quite adequately with a word processor.  I'm not saying that the BTS itself is too complicated for people to use, it is that it adds too much complexity to what is essentially a list of items, NOT a dynamic bug tracking environment.  Programmers who are familiar with a BTS will undoubtedly see them as useful tools- indespensible tools for tracking bugs between multiple programmers seeking to ameliorate those problems. This is not what we are doing here, though.  We are maintaining a list of problems for someone to glance at now and again.  Noone here is fixing anything. I've been maintaining the list for some weeks and I must say that I find the wiki perfectly adequate.   --[[User:Plaintiff1|Plaintiff1]] 11:20, 15 February 2007 (CET)


::1 seems to me to be a dead-end argument.
Actually, the ability to use the BT builds upon knowledge that has been built through regular websurfing, and little else.  In other words, i can't see this as an argument to keep the biki page.


* When running the game at 1920x1200 (maybe other 16:10 resolutions as well) the map screen will not fill the screen. The effect seem to be random: sometimes it is placed low/center or low/right with black edges. [v1.02] --Xpz
::Point 2 - the BT will allow automatically mailing the creator of the TT, as well as any others who has set themselves as interested in a bug, to say that we need more information, to say that this has been solved, etc. We have the ability to pretty much discuss the entire bug. "Adding ones 2c worth" is easier than with a wiki.  
: Please remove this entry, a Catalyst driver update fixed the problem. -[[User:Xpz|Xpz]]


* No MP network connection after upgrade to 1.02 1.01 was (and is) fine. ''[1.02]'' <br>Link to [http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?s=8cac1929848de9549424dde60616b053;act=ST;f=68;t=55944 Forum Post]. - [[User:Iron_Eddie|Iron Eddie]] - update your firewall settings --[[User:SniperAndy|SniperAndy]]
::One last detail - It's true that the BT can easily take some more manpower than the wiki, but we're on it already. The wiki may be ''adequate''... But this is probably better. --[[User:MaHuJa|MaHuJa]] 15:46, 6 March 2007 (CET)


* When swimming a long distance weapons fall off, except pistol happens with squads too [1.0.1. CZ] -[[user:MISTA | MISTA]]
== Defining Priority ==


:Not a bug, but a feature. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 18:29, 16 December 2006 (CET)
{{Feature|important| '''Bug priorities'''


* AI can see trough the smoke generated by smoke grenades. Doesn't matter if AI has any prior knowledge of player or other unit behind the smoke. ''[1.02]'' -[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]]
To make it easier for BI people to see important bugs, we introduced bug priority templates. Add new bugs with priority 0. Only [[User:BigDawgKS|BigDawgKS]], [[User:Plaintiff1|Plaintiff1]], the BI staff, and the [[Bohemia_Interactive_Community:Administrators|wiki sysops]] are allowed to set priorities to values higher than 0.}}


: Not a bug but something BIS commented on in the past. It's a performance issue and same as in OFP. Solution would be  creating a addon that spawns a invisible object witz a view geo --[[User:SniperAndy|SniperAndy]]
{{Feature|important| '''BTS - Definitions'''


* Nearly every helicopter is able to do loops. Its a urbane legend that only "some" helicopters can performan them. But it is very material intense and very dangerous (the helicopter can "fall" in its own rotor system...). Even a CH-53 can do loopings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC2E8RJE3Jo [[User:Arbaal|[KSK-D]Arbaal]] 10:31, 16 December 2006 (CET)
We need to adjust these levels to the severity options in the new BTS!}}
 
: Not a bug but a replay regarding choppers being able to do loops now. --[[User:SniperAndy|SniperAndy]]
 
* <strike>Confirming performance drop with v1.02 compared to v1.01 here! v1.02 seems to relinquish some more "task priority" to windows than v1.01 (f.e notepad performance in parallel task on my system is MUCH better now than in 1.01). However I'd like to have the power back in ArmA rather than in Notepad though :-\</strike> cant longer confirm for my system; made a fresh install&patch and looks even better performaing than 1.01. [v1.02] - [[user:wiper|wiper]] 17.Dec.06, 00:20 CET
 
: "striked" by user --[[User:SniperAndy|SniperAndy]]
 
* Missing punch animation. Not a big deal to most, but it is to me!! [1.02] [[User:Zombie Mod|Zombie Mod]]
:Then add to the wish list. [[User:Hoz|hoz]]
 
* No firing sound and firing visuals (muzzleflash, tracer) with MP5 in Multiplayer as spectator.
: Not signed. More information would be good like (what does the reporter mean as spectator? As a seagul, using keygetys spectate script?) [[User:Hoz|hoz]]
 
* Placing Unit-Empty-Sounds-Music produces error message "Cannot Load Texture - ca\data\data\vlajka.paa --[[User:Taggart|Taggart]]
: Already reported, no need to include it in the talk page. [[User:Hoz|hoz]]
 
* AI units which follow over bridges (if so, most don't!) tend to fall off the bridge. They constantly look for different paths sideways off the bridge and occasionally move through the balustrade/bridge wall (see also AI bug reports) [v1.02] - [[user:wiper|wiper]]16.Dec.06, 18:10 (edit 19:24) CET
: Already in AI bugs, fits better there. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 16:18, 18 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Bullets are not going where they should. I am using the M4 Aimpoint, am prone, and when I use single fire, the bullets do not go to the "dot" most times. If this is FADE then let me know, the only thing I have installed is the Czech->English lang pack. [1.02] -- [[User:Zombie Mod|Zombie Mod]]
: Could not reproduce on two systems. If talking about bullet drop over longer distance, that's more of a feature. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 16:18, 18 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Sometimes during a game I have to push and hold a key on the keyboard 1-2 seconds to stand up / lay down / reload /etc. Mouse is uneffected. Even the Game is closed I have to push and hold a key to see any effect, normalizing 15-20min after ArmA is closed. Witnessed in 1.01 and 1.02. [[User:Mantelmann|Mantelmann]] 19:23, 17 December 2006 (CET)
: Never happened on two systems in over a week of playing. Maybe not caused by the game. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 16:18, 18 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Overall decreased performance compared to v1.01  ''[1.02 (german)]'' [[User:Burns|burns]] 01:59, 16 December 2006 (CET)
:Removed this item as, no one else has complained about a performance decrease, there is no images or details as to what the performance decrease is. Is it a blocky LOD problem? or Textures aren't loading? [[User:Hoz|hoz]]
 
* No MP network connection after upgrade to 1.02 1.01 was (and is) fine. [1.02] <br> Link to [http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?s=8cac1929848de9549424dde60616b053;act=ST;f=68;t=55944 Forum Post]. -[[User:Iron_Eddie|Iron Eddie]]- this is posted in the [http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Talk:Armed_Assault:_Bugs_List discussions section] already --[[User:SniperAndy|SniperAndy]]
 
:User issue, Eddie solved it, check forum topic. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 16:55, 18 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Auto-hover in choppers seems to make the chopper rotate left, right on its own accord if you take your hands off the controls (ie: don't move the mouse). It's weird. Wind effects?  ''[1.02]'' [[User:Zombie Mod|Zombie Mod]]
:: It's the tail rotor, if you're damaged it slows down a bit. Taking your hands off the controls might also stop it from automatically compensating for the counter-torque. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]]
 
:::Not replicable without damaging the helo. Also noted that this behavior, on my machine, is less notable on auto-hover than just plain hovering helo without auto-hover on. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 16:55, 18 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Weapons magically stick to dead units ''[1.02]'' [[User:Burns|burns]] 01:50, 16 December 2006 (CET)
:: Would this be more appropriate in the wish list? IMO it's not a bug, but a non-feature (that feature being the bodies dropping their weapons). --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]]
 
::: Same opinion as Kyle. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 16:55, 18 December 2006 (CET)
 
* First Unit placed in a Helicopter still is placed on the co-pilots seat instead of being placed in the back (or the side of an MH-6). [1.02]  -- [[User:W0lle|W0lle]] 04:10, 16 December 2006 (CET)
: I think this is working as designed and not a bug. Its the same way with trucks the cargo position 1 starts in the front seat. [[User:Hoz|hoz]]
 
::: Same opinion as Hoz. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 16:55, 18 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Placing an Helicopter on the map and removing it's fuel still makes the crew "abandon" it's vehicle and proceed on foot. [1.02] --  [[User:W0lle|W0lle]] 04:11, 16 December 2006 (CET)
: This sounds like its working as designed. Why would the crew stick around if it can't fly the helo without fuel? [[User:Hoz|hoz]]
 
:: Similar as Hoz. Maybe this behavior should be a little configured by BIS to depend on the unit behavior, if unit is at "SAFE", maybe it's waiting for a refuel, and it should stay inside, and if at "DANGER" the unit is out of fuel, probably in a life threatening situation, and usually can not fight back, therefore it should exit the helo. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 17:45, 18 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Still no M203 iron sight although the engine would be perect to simulate rl sight behaviour ''[1.02]'' [[User:Burns|burns]] 01:27, 16 December 2006 (CET)
 
: Should be moved to wish list. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 17:45, 18 December 2006 (CET)
 
* MG´s reload to fast ''[1.02]'' [[User:Burns|burns]] 02:00, 16 December 2006 (CET)
 
: Personal opinion I guess, but open for debate, maybe a forum topic would be adequate. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 17:45, 18 December 2006 (CET)
 
* M203 grenades still explode if impact is closer than 30m. They should get live after about 30m flight path only ''[1.02]'' [[User:Burns|burns]] 01:27, 16 December 2006 (CET)
 
: Should be moved to wish list, as this is a non-feature. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 17:45, 18 December 2006 (CET)
 
* In MP, if you fire once one of the M134 fixed on the blackhawk or the gun from the cobra it will be emptied without causing any damage (except if you press the left mouse button). This bug was already present in the versions before. ''[1.02]'' --[[User:Serclaes|Serclaes]] 10:48, 16 December 2006 (CET)
 
: Already reported. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 17:45, 18 December 2006 (CET)
 
* It is very hard to kick teamkiller if theres no admin. And choosing admin takes too much time. Is there any way to fix it? Maybe teamkiller after few teamkills should be kicked automatically? ''[1.05 Polish]'' [[User:gutekfiutek|gutekfiutek]]
:Belongs in the [[Armed_Assault:_Wish_List|wish list]]. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 23:32, 18 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Only one machinegun on little bird helicopter works. This lowers the chance of hitting what you are aiming at when strafing. Both machine guns should fire. I think Shilka has same problem but is less problemsome. [1.02]'' --[[User:Twisted|Twisted]]
:This is not actually a bug, but design decision. Probably because you can't operate two or more turrets at the same time, but we still don't know that. This non-feature is compensated in other ways. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 15:21, 19 December 2006 (CET) '''Thanks for the feedback. However I do not see how it is compensated for? Surely having one machinegun that doesn't work is a bug? Do missiles also only come out one missile launcher or more than one if the helicopter has them? --[[User:Twisted|Twisted]]'''
: I haven't not heard this is by design and maybe should be included in the bug list unless you have some indication it is by design.[[User:Hoz|hoz]]
:: It's a work-around to an engine limitation. It's the best they can do without modifying the engine, though to what extent I'm not sure. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]]
:::Twisted, as far as I know, you can assign only one point where bullet is generated per gun/turret. Currently, one AH-6 minigun, that you see tracers coming from, fire double the amount of bullets with each click, to simulate both guns being fired. FFAR-Type rockets on the other hand have two exit points, and they alter with each shot, you will see a rocket coming from the right, then left, right, etc. And Hellfire types are also another thing, since they are defined as proxies on the model, but AFAIK (and I'm not sure about this) they are still launched from the defined memory points as FFAR Type rockets. I'm not sure if it's still an engine limitation, but as BIS hasn't done it differently, it's either not possible, or they just did it this way. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 15:35, 20 December 2006 (CET)
 
:::'''Ok I spoke to a dev. This should be added to the bug list as both gunners are supposed to work. '''[[User:Hoz|hoz]]
::::Nice. I have returned the bug into the bug list. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 15:09, 21 December 2006 (CET)
 
* AI soldiers won't run for cover when being attacked by a tank or APC. For example: Take a BMP-2 and fire at a Stryker until the crew gets out. They will just lay down next to their vehicle and wait for you to kill them one by one. ''[1.02]'' [[User:TomasRiker|TomasRiker]]
:Non-feature/wish. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 16:16, 19 December 2006 (CET)
 
* AI soldiers don't care when one of their comrade is killed. When someone of their group is killed, they should know that their location is not safe and run somewhere else, but they just stay there and don't do anything. ''[1.02]'' [[User:TomasRiker|TomasRiker]]
:Non-feature/wish. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 16:16, 19 December 2006 (CET)
 
* The BMP-2's 30mm gun sounds like a toy gun. ''[1.02]'' [[User:TomasRiker|TomasRiker]]
:Wish. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 16:16, 19 December 2006 (CET)
 
* All tracers look the same. For example, the BMP-2's 30mm rounds look just like 5.56mm rounds from a light machine gun. They should have a larger diameter. [[User:TomasRiker|TomasRiker]]
:Non-feature/wish. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 16:16, 19 December 2006 (CET)
 
* The UH-60 minigun will run out of ammo the first time it is fired. The ammo counter just keeps ticking down. [v1.02 (Multiplayer/german)] --[[User:xpz|xpz]]
: This is the same as a report prio 2 by TheVoodoo slightly above [[User:Str1ker|Str1ker]]
:: Similar bug to one already there, commented the one left on the bug list to be more clearer. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 16:19, 21 December 2006 (CET)
 
* MP5 and MP5SD magazines do not have "names". [http://www.surfacezero.com/uploads/Sniperwolf572/nonamesMP5mags.jpg Screenshot] to demonstrate. ''[1.02]'' -[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]]
:Can someone without SickBoy's "Cz/Ger to Eng" patch verify that this is an actual bug, and not an fault on SickBoy's end? --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 17:55, 21 December 2006 (CET)
:: Yes, it's in the unmodified german version  [http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/3029/mp5magsnj9.jpg Screenshot] [[User:Scruffy|Scruffy]] 01:23, 24 December 2006 (CET)
 
* When wounded in legs player cant run for short distance (this feature was in ARMA version 1.0 and OFP). Is this a bug, or feature?  [1.02PL]
: No, it's a feature/non-feature. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 21:48, 21 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Javelin Antitank missile is not top-angle attack as it is supposed to be but fires directely into the target ''[1.02 German]'' -[[User:SOBR|SOBR]]
: Non-feature. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 21:53, 21 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Rahmadi mission created with mission editor. When the weather is set to 'raining' - rain is visible inside some of the buildings you can enter. Looks like the rain just passes right through the ceiling.[v1.02] --[[User:RickOShay|RickOShay]]
: I think this can be called a non-feature. Anyone agree/disagree? --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 23:21, 22 December 2006 (CET)
 
* The Harrier takes almost the entire length of the runway to takeoff and once in the air, flight is very difficult even with a joystick, throttle and rudders. There is also no vertical take off.[v1.02] --[[User:RickOShay|RickOShay]]
: Non-feature. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 23:21, 22 December 2006 (CET)
* Reports of ''glowing stones'' at night. Even with distant fire. [http://www.mitglied.lycos.de/florianbenz/map_pic/GLOW.jpg Screenshot] -[[User:SniperAndy|SniperAndy]]
: Already reported. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 23:32, 22 December 2006 (CET)
 
* When hovering in any helicopter the left and right pedals start to rotate the helicopter as expected, however the rotation becomes a banked turn [1.02 german]-- [[User:Owl|Owl]] 18.11, 19 Dec 2006 (CET)
:Check your control configuration: there should be controls for left and right turn, and then sperate left and right pedal controls. From what I have seen, the left/right turn controls are probably what you're using instead, but I don't know for sure, so if anyone can confirm this please let me know. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]]
::I can confirm that this is an issue with his control setup.  Left Pedal/Right Pedal (called this in the 6thSense ArmA Language Patcher v0.9 anyways) are what he was expecting.  However, as a flight simmer, I must state that if you use those, the response is altogether wrong at speed.<br>
::--[[User:ColonelSandersLite|ColonelSandersLite]]
:::--My controls are set up correctly, and as i said when hovering not at speed, the left and right pedals should control the tail rotor and allow the pilot when at a steady hover to rotate the aircraft not bank. --[[User:Owl|Owl]]
:::: There's a discussion about this on the BI Forum. I remember seeing a screenshot of someone's control configuration in English where Left Pedal/Right Pedal were different controls than Left Turn/Right Turn. Someone needs to get to the bottom of this and confirm wether or not there is actually a bug in the flight model while using pedals (also note that if BIS did it intentionally it's also not a bug but a non-feature). --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]]
}} I left the bug put removed the ongoing discussion --[[User:SniperAndy|SniperAndy]]
 
* The Cobra can not stand still even when "auto hoover" function is on.I have to correct the moves with controls to keep the chopper in place.And everytime the tailrotor is used (X or C) the Cobra starts to spin uncontrolable.[1.02 german]
: No signature. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 21:02, 24 December 2006 (CET)
 
===Newer Entries===
 
Ok, I moved these here because there's already a 50 page thread on the forum about this and the flight model has already been brought to BI's attention. If they're cleaned up and perhaps merged, and can qualify as a bug, then they can be resubmitted. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 22:23, 21 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Rudder controls for AV-8B lose noticeable effect in too slow speeds. Consider this: stall speed for the plane seems to be around 200 (you can barely keep it's nose up). At this speed you should be able to use rudder to adjust the plane heading (for example aligning for runway when landing). Also rudder is used for aiming (to some extent) when firing the minigun. At the moment you can't turn the heading enough with pedals to aid landing or attacking with minigun. Another point; when you bank hard (close to 90deg left or right) you should be able to keep the nose of aircraft from falling with rudder. This issue will probably apply to other fast moving winged aircraft as well. (tested with joystick with rudder axis). 21 Dec 2006. [v 1.00 - 1.02] -[[User:Tuusita|Tuusita]]
: Can we call this a bug? I'm not sure if it's actually a bug or your opinion (wish). --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]]
::I would call it a physics problem.  Rudder physics on all aircraft, fixed and rotary wing, are wrong.<br>
::--[[User:ColonelSandersLite|ColonelSandersLite]]
::: Still, if it's a non-feature and not technically a bug, it doesn't belong here. We all know there is serious debate about the current flight model in ArmA, I don't think we need to continue it here. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 22:23, 21 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Controlling AV-8B throttle with joystick throttle axis is difficult. When you set throttle axis to near center it seems there is "an autothrottle" that increases throttle when nose is pointing up (above horizon) and decreases throttle when nose is pointing down (below horizon). This "autothrottle" is not able to hold speed when you are banking and your nose points slightly down; it will decrease throttle even if your speed is slowing down since your nose points below horizon. Suggested fix: 1)(preferred)control aircraft throttle directly (when throttle axis is designated in Controls) OR 2)make "autothrottle" try to hold the speed (the speed when throttle axis was centered). 21 Dec 2006.  -[[User:Tuusita|Tuusita]]
: Again, I think this is more of a wish than a bug, unless it is a serious issue that makes it unplayable. There's been a lot of dispute about the flight model and there are many conflicting opinions as to how serious a problem it is, if one at all. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]]
 
* Got the full game and cannot start the game. When i click on the game icon , 10 small scare appear and when 8 of the 10 scare is checked, window error message appear and stop the game lauching. What i should do?  -[[User:Bob819|Bob819]]
:Go to BI forums [http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?s=042ba19395d78a832260383a089eb51e;act=SF;f=68 troubleshooting section], this is not troubleshooting but a bug list, you are also not listing your system specs and the actual content of the error message. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 09:24, 25 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Version is 1.02 German, all drivers are up to date in fact it is a new computer. When running the game it will stop after the first screen with the small helo comes up and the game attempts to load, it will then freeze and go to a microsoft error report which I have submitted. I have tried reinstalling, running 1.0, 1.02, 1.02 with lang patch, all to no avail. The game was running fine yesterday.
:Go to BI forums [http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?s=042ba19395d78a832260383a089eb51e;act=SF;f=68 troubleshooting section], you are also not listing your system specs. I encountered this only when I installed addons with faulty config. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 09:31, 25 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Players can perform as many TKs as they want - no kick.
 
We just had two guys (James: 1855235 and Noli: 5173253) walking all crowded public servers to TK at spawn. Once they got into tank, they setup behind spawn and kill everyone. Once one server is cleared, they switch to another one.
 
If its not a bug - then at least its a *big* gap for exploits.
 
So unless this is fixed, one or two "bad" guys can ruin the fun for some hundreds. Until then, dont expect a widespread acceptance of the public servers/ArmA in general.
 
''Solution:'' After a certain threshold (5 kills?), the TK-ratio is measured... if it is > 0.5 -> kick with text to the player. If it was not on purpose - nice, he learned some lesson. If it was on purpose - well, it was deserved. [[User:Weasel75|Weasel75]] 04:00, 27 December 2006 (CET)
: Non-feature/wish. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 19:02, 27 December 2006 (CET)
 
* Rifle-sound sometimes disappears. This seems to be related to have the weapon close to or in? a wall. That happened to me with G-36 twice online, while I am pretty sure it happened to others (so the bug is not just on the client) too - I stood right besides them, no firing-sounds. [[User:Weasel75|Weasel75]] 06:36, 28 December 2006 (CET)
: Already reported. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 03:08, 2 January 2007 (CET)
 
* When player is under water for too long there doesn't seem to be a sound to indicate you are drowning. Or it maybe that the player position in water is not calculated from the position of the player's head. Then again maybe there is no sound.[1.02] --[[User:Rick0Shay|Rick0Shay]]
: Non-feature/wish. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 03:08, 2 January 2007 (CET)
 
* Harrier is very difficult to get into air - takes almost full runway length to take off with flaps down or up. No vertical take off/landing. Limited sensitivity in Y axis in air - tried slider etc. Using MS sidewinder with rudder and throttle. Works fine in LockOn-FC and other flight sims. Seems unplayable at present. [1.02] [[User:Rick0Shay|Rick0Shay]]
: Non-feature/wish. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 03:38, 2 January 2007 (CET)
 
* Harrier on ground (runway) allows multiple ejects. [1.02] --[[User:Rick0Shay|Rick0Shay]]
: Non-feature/wish. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 03:38, 2 January 2007 (CET)
:: Are you sure about that? It's about as realistic as throwing hand grenades and then pick them up for reuse. -[[User:Xpz|Xpz]]
::: I'm sure, reusing a hand grenade is equally bogus in terms of gameplay as it is realism, reusing the ejection system on an aircraft isn't. Besides the game doesn't even simulate ejector seats (not by default at least), if it did then you could argue that this is a bug, otherwise you're talking about a bug in a feature that doesn't even exist. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]]
 
* When parachuting user controls don't seem to have any effect on the flight direction and speed of the decent. This might be a bug or a feature I'm not sure. since it detracts from realism (the ultimate game/sim objective) I would say its a bug and a non feature - but hey that's just me. Its also interesting to note that this basic ability is present in quite a few other combat games that have been around for over 3 years. [v1.02] [[User:Rick0Shay|Rick0Shay]]
: Non-feature. Also certain parachutes are intended not to be steerable (at least not easily), such as during large scale jumps to prevent collision. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 21:29, 3 January 2007 (CET)
 
* "Scrolling in the map screen is very choppy or don't work at all. This applies to up/down, not left/right. [v1.02]"
: Priority 5? This bug is really irritating and destroys the gameplay. Imagine planning an assault and not being able to scroll the map. It's a disaster. -[[User:Xpz|Xpz]]
:: Provide a video or more detailed description and it can be better assessed. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 00:40, 6 January 2007 (CET)
 
* player ejects from vehicle when destroyed and player ejects from soft vehicles when caped (killed without destroying vehicle armademo ver 1.3.0.5110 -[[User:NipWup|NipWup]]
: This is necessary to ensure the player respawns, it was a problem in OFP that was fixed by ejecting the players. So I'd say it's more of a bug fix, perhaps someone has a different opinion? --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 00:40, 6 January 2007 (CET)
 
* when change weapon to full automatic the use binoculars then change back to weapon it is automatically set back to semi auto armademo ver 1.3.0.5110 -[[User:NipWup|NipWup]]
: Non-feature (also it's not like you can't instantly switch it back). --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 00:40, 6 January 2007 (CET)
 
* commander seat in tank cant command, or very hard to, revert back to OFP mothod of commanding, and why can the driver issue orders armademo ver 1.3.0.5110 -[[User:NipWup|NipWup]]
: Non-feature/wish. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 00:40, 6 January 2007 (CET)
 
* weapon kit consistiong of AT launcher, M4A1 and hangun, go for a swim and when you get out of the water you only have the handgun the AT launcher and M4 dissapears armademo ver 1.3.0.5110 -[[User:NipWup|NipWup]]
: Feature (weapons are dropped to allow you to swim). --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 00:40, 6 January 2007 (CET)
 
* hit a tree dead on with sabort blows the tree down a heat round does not armademo ver 1.3.0.5110 -[[User:NipWup|NipWup]]
: Non-feature I suppose, since HEAT rounds don't do as much damage as Sabots, try 2 or 3. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 00:40, 6 January 2007 (CET)
 
* cant "drop ladder" when started climbing from the base of ladder armademo ver 1.3.0.5110 -[[User:NipWup|NipWup]]
: You can indeed drop off the ladder if you start from the base, at least on the really tall ones. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 00:40, 6 January 2007 (CET)
 
* at far distances if BRDM is spotted ai will keep shooting at it, trying to get its attention ? then BRDM turns and kills them all (rule no1 don't piss the tank off) armademo ver 1.3.0.5110 -[[User:NipWup|NipWup]]
: What part of that is a bug? --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 00:51, 6 January 2007 (CET)
 
* havent been able to reproduce bug, ai equiped handgun in prone possition then got stuck, was unable to move or stand up, all he could do was pivot on the spot, he could aknoledge orders but couldent carry them out armademo ver 1.3.0.5110 -[[User:NipWup|NipWup]]
: Cannont be reproduced, as he says. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 00:51, 6 January 2007 (CET)
 
* ai donot respond to grenades when they land next to them armademo ver 1.3.0.5110 -[[User:NipWup|NipWup]]
: Non-feature. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 00:51, 6 January 2007 (CET)
 
* ai do nothing when they find a dead body, can players hide bodies ? armademo ver 1.3.0.5110 -[[User:NipWup|NipWup]]
: Non-feature. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 00:51, 6 January 2007 (CET)
 
===Realism Bugs===
 
I would like to call into question the validity of the realism bug category.  I simply do not see how this category can exist without turning into a wishlist.  Observations such as vehicles burning underwater are valid imersion concerns- however, this is not a gameplay or stability issue:  It is a lack of feature which belongs on the wishlist.  Asking for a rethinking of the armour values algorythmns or assignments are also wishlist material.  Things that BIS *INTENDED* to happen are not bugs, and those that were left out due to engine constraints are also not bugs- they are things BIS intended not to happen due to performance or other considerations.  To be honest, we need a copy of the design document in order to ascertain what a bug is.  In absence of that, I think we can safely knock off the reaslism bug category, as there are more much more pressing matters.
 
I should probably say that it's not that realism problems aren't bugs, however, ALL bugs that aren't stability related could be said to be realism bugs, and realism may or may not have been the ultimate goal in most areas of the gameplay scope.  Furthermore, game balancing issues which may fly directly in the fact of realism are *features*, the direct opposite of bugs.
 
This list will not be completely controllable, as anyone can write on it, but I think that with careful structuring of form, users can be coaxed in the right direction.  If this is a desirable state of being for this wiki, that category completely flies in the face of it.  --[[User:Plaintiff1|Plaintiff1]]
 
:: Well, as we don't have access to any design documents we have to guess what a bug really is. I think we all can agree on using simple common sense. If it is implemented in OFP, it certainly should be in ArmA. -[[User:Xpz|Xpz]]
::: I partially agree.  Common sense would dictate that if there is a glaring stability or gameplay issue, that it is probably a bug, so common sense is one tool we can use to judge bugs.  However, there are a lot of ways in which ArmA and OFP are different, so I don't think that they should be compared for this purpose.  This doesn't, however, address the validity of the 'realism bug' category. --[[User:Plaintiff1|Plaintiff1]]
 
==Multiple reports about same bug==
* Rudedog's and Pennywise's bug reports about MP shooting bug are one and same, they should just be combined into single bug report. It affects all weapon in multiplayer, with unpatched German client and whether you Join-In-Progress or not. This bug is in 1.03 demo dedicated server as well. --[[User:Feersum|Feersum]]
:: I wasn't able to find the dupe. Someone else must of removed it. [[User:Hoz|hoz]]
 
* AI walking through walls reported by bt_1900 and Lujon
And isn't this sort of an engine limitation? AI can walk through everything since OFP, the LODs just tell them not to do it most of the time. [[User:Scruffy|Scruffy]] 22:30, 5 January 2007 (CET)
 
==Defining Priority==
 
{{Important| '''Bug priorities'''
 
To make it easier for BI people to see important bugs, we introduced bug priority templates. Add new bugs with priority 0. Only [[User:BigDawgKS|BigDawgKS]], [[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]], the BI staff and the [[Bohemia_Interactive_Community:Administrators|wiki sysops]] are allowed to set priorities to values higher than 0.}}




How does one define a '''priority'''?  
How does one define a '''priority'''?  


'''Priority 1'''
'''Priority immediate'''
*Any issue that causes a CTD (crash to desktop)
*Any issue that causes a CTD (crash to desktop) during a normal gameplay. CTD using mission or content creation are not considered priority 1, esp. when caused by scripting and it is possible to avoid the CTD by not using the construct triggering it.
*Any issue that prevents the game from loading.
*Any issue that prevents the game from loading.
*Any issue that prevents installation of a patch
*Any issue that prevents installation of a patch
Line 277: Line 78:




'''Priority 2'''
'''Priority urgent'''
*Issues that prevent MP game play
*Issues that prevent MP game play
*Any other issue that causes a CTD, including mission scripting.
*Any issue that prohibits game play as per design
*Any issue that prohibits game play as per design
*Issue that prevent the operation of a vehicle/unit/object as designed. (can't get in vehicle, helicopter moves incorrectly)
*Issue that prevent the operation of a vehicle/unit/object as designed. (can't get in vehicle, helicopter moves incorrectly)
Line 284: Line 86:
*Significant performance issues (low fps in situation where decent fps would be expected)
*Significant performance issues (low fps in situation where decent fps would be expected)


'''Priority 3'''
 
'''Priority high'''
*Annoying behavior, such as Repeated voice command.
*Annoying behavior, such as Repeated voice command.
*Sounds that aren't working as they were designed.
*Sounds that aren't working as they were designed.
Line 292: Line 95:
*Scripting commands that do not work as intended and/or at all
*Scripting commands that do not work as intended and/or at all


'''Priority 4'''
 
'''Priority normal'''
*Any issue that causes an in game error (missing paa, missing name)
*Any issue that causes an in game error (missing paa, missing name)
*Graphical Nuisances (missing textures)
*Graphical Nuisances (missing textures)
Line 298: Line 102:




'''Priority 5'''
'''Priority low'''
*Missing sounds which maybe were never intended.
*Missing sounds which maybe were never intended.
*Spelling errors
*Spelling errors
*Minor mission issues that don't affect the game play
*Minor mission issues that don't affect the game play
==Talk about the Priorities==
So, what have we decided on other users changing bug priorities? I've just noticed some more [http://community.bistudio.com/wiki?title=ArmA:_Bug_List&curid=5071&diff=26958&oldid=26938 subjective] bug rating. --[[User:Sniperwolf572|Sniperwolf572]] 18:12, 23 December 2006 (CET)
: They should leave them at 0 so the proper people can see them easier and make sure they're properly prioritized, IMO at least. --[[User:BigDawgKS|Big Dawg KS]] 19:16, 23 December 2006 (CET)
: I agree, not that it matters or that I change priorities but I think this would be the best way to see what is happening. Also for users. But I think the bug list should have a content list as well to the sections like the talk page. It makes locating sections much faster --[[User:SniperAndy|SniperAndy]]
::Someone will always try to increase the priority, I think thats a given. Best we can do is just keep an eye on it. Lets try to keep as much chit chat out of the bug reports as possible. If the chat helps with the problem then so be it, if it takes away from the report then copy it to here with a link. Good job so far in maintaining the list. What about a separate section for the demo bugs, I noticed one or two and these bugs should be minimal(hopefully) to warrant lots of sections?  [[User:Hoz|hoz]]
: Why bother with a bug list for the demo? I don't think that the demo will be patched or get any attention in the future!? --[[User:SniperAndy|SniperAndy]]
== Demo bugs ==
* ARMA demo [1.3.0.5109] performance issues where menus and functions lag performance, dropping frame rates to 0 or producing connection lag. I’m not sure which. Switching between Map and 1st person takes a few seconds, makes it very hard to navigate without getting killed.
:Getting in and out of vehicles or switching positions sometimes takes a few seconds.
:Overall performance setting: very low
:My stats:<br>
:Amd Athlon 64 x2 4800 (I know its not optimized for dule core)
:NVidia Quadro FX 3450/4000 x1 [no sli]
:Mem 2 gig
:Sb Audigy X-fi
:Connnection : Cable
* Starting the game with Crossfire enabled causes the game not to start.  The ArmA mouse cursor loads to a black screen.  Esc allows you to exit the program.  Windows claims that 'memory could not be written'.  The RPT file alludes to a driver problem. RPT excerpt available on the talk page. [Demo v1.03] --[[User:Plaintiff1|Plaintiff1]] 10:43, Dec. 27th
* Server crashes every time when CTI (Capture The Island) mode is started. [Demo 1.03 build 5110] - [[User:Osmo|Osmo]]

Latest revision as of 18:27, 28 April 2023

Bug Tracking System

As there is now "unofficial" bug tracking system running, containing all bugs from this page imported, I think we should consider closing this page and redirecting users to that system (check it at http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view_all_bug_page.php). An alternative could be to having some volunteers doing synchronization for those who prefer reporting bugs here, but I doubt anyone would be willing do that. (Off course, another alternative is the majority of the community may prefer bug tracking being done solely here, which I doubt, but if it is the case, we can reopen the page again and continue as it is now). Please, voice your opinion here. Until we decide, this Wiki bug list is protected and user cannot change it. --Suma 11:10, 14 February 2007 (CET)

I think the tracking system has a stronger implication that an official response will be given to each bug. As it stands, the wiki page is just a list. An official word stating the intention of the public listing/tracking of bugs could help (eg, BI have an internal bug reporting system and this is just a secondary). --Ceeeb 14:15, 14 February 2007 (CET)
As this is a community tracking system, there is no guaranteed response from us (yes, we do have other system we use internally). Its primary purpose is for the community to have a list of known issues, workarounds for them... However, as you can see in the bug history in the tracker, chance of getting response from us are quite high, esp. for fatal or major issues. --Suma 14:27, 14 February 2007 (CET)
Too bad there seems to be no edit feature for bugreports on boeckler.org. thus it's imposible to fix errors (wrong Category etc ) --bdfy
Oh it's there, It's just the access matrix, what prevents that (an Updater can do that). This could be discussed in the notes of the issue. IMHO it's in the responsibility of the assigned person whether the category fits. --Boecko
On the other hand, we can discuss the initial access right of users. --Boecko
I find the new list a lot more confusing especially the priories. But I can live with it. Should I lock the Biki bug list then? hoz
I tried to map the priorities to the BTS-priorities AND to severities. One (with manager access) can changethis on the fly (Filter given priority, "Update Priority" at the bottom of the page. --Boecko
Hoz, Boecko is trying to express that both priorities AND to severities can be configured to ones preferences - the priority descriptions are the defaults values of the mantis. also i think both priorities and severities should only be possible to get changed by the BTS admins - i think one can configure mantis that way.--WGL.Q 20:28, 14 February 2007 (CET)
Now i see - after several reports i became and updater and got edit option.--bdfy
Please, provide repro steps. They may be obvious to you from the bug description, but they often are not. Example of issue I would like to have repro steps for is http://www.boeckler.org/mantis/view.php?id=1914 --Suma 22:10, 14 February 2007 (CET)
OK. So what now? Shall we close the list here, and replace current content of the page with a link to the bug tracker and instructions page {other options are returning to using the Wiki page, or using both) --Suma 11:08, 21 February 2007 (CET)
My biased opinion ;) .. keep the BTS (close this list). There about 20 new registered people in the last week and people seem to have adoped it. There are 49 active users. --Boecko 11:24, 21 February 2007 (CET)
Question is whom do you ask? The community is pretty tiny atm. I personally can only work with a BTS, I had even problems to find your question in this looooooong list. What I can see is that more & more guys with scripting knowledge dropping TTs in the BTS so it seems to be accepted.--INNOCENT&CLUELESS 12:01, 21 February 2007 (CET)
I confirm - bug-tracker is much more comfortable then biki --bdfy
Same for me. I saw some comments on how complicated it was, but for me it's way easier to find what has already been reported, and to report something. Has well has having comments and dev feedback. --Whisper 14:22, 21 February 2007 (CET)
Definitely for closing the Wiki page, and forwarding any bug reports to the BTS. We seem to have just as many contributors/reporters there as we did on the Wiki. So it seems that people are already getting the hang of it.
What about the "wishlist" and the "bug or feature" page though? Should they be integrated into the BTS as well? --Kronzky 17:04, 21 February 2007 (CET)

Feature requests/change requests are in, but hoz closed TT with the reason "more a wish". Hence boecko created a new project called "ArmA features" and I moved the related TT there. The project was private to avoid confusion, I made it now public. The problem is that until now we did not discussed really the TT flow and responsibilities nor agreed on. So if we could agree that the SEVERITY "feature" means that it is not a bug we could use the project "Armed Assault" as usual and I could move the TTs back. We have anyway time since I guess that BI is so busy that they are not really open for resource consuming feature requests for the next weeks. I opened a TT in the project "mantis bts" where we could discuss the treatment of feature requests and close it if we come to an agreement http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view.php?id=1992 .--INNOCENT&CLUELESS 10:28, 22 February 2007 (CET)

Since it seems that we're way past the "point of no return" regarding the BTS system, I've updated the bug page now.
Once we've decided on how to handle requests and bug/feature determinations we should update that paragraph as well. --Kronzky 17:13, 22 February 2007 (CET)


Voices against

This is a little late, but I was not able to participate in the discussion up until this point. I was in the process of preparing a comprehensive argument against. I see that this has gone forward, but I would like to post my unfinished argument for the record (chiefly because I have already spent a lot of time on it). --Plaintiff1 01:38, 15 February 2007 (CET)

I'm not completely sure what this bug tracking system is hoping to achieve beyond an increased level of automation. I'm not entirely convinced that a list for bugs requires such an automation or the resulting increase in complexity and diffusion of community resources. Such a programme would be no more useful than any other list.--Plaintiff1 01:52, 15 February 2007 (CET)
We are not tracking bugs for BIS, but rather, listing what the community perceives as bugs. If I am not mistaken, the discressionary priority we assign the bugs is more or less a way of sorting the information beyond the pragmatic categorical sorting. Without BIS staffers minding the list, these methods of sorting the information is largely arbitrary and are the result of a educated guessing game. This list isn't even usable as a list of bugs: It is more like a collection of reports from beta testers, not a collection of bugs for them to act on. They need processing to actually turn them into bug reports they can use. We are simply throwing down some information that we hope will be useful for BIS and for other community members in their troubleshooting efforts (i.e. to confirm the responsibility of a known bug for a certain problem behaviour).--Plaintiff1 01:52, 15 February 2007 (CET)
As for the community's interests, I think that adding another superfluous protocol to learn in another system on yet another page is like whimisically adding a fifth, suspended, steerable wheel to a concept car- however shiny and feature-laden it is, there isn't a community side need for it. It would just add bulk and complexity to a larger community resource that is only yet finding its legs. The current resource is easy to use, easy to find, easy to interact with, easy to discuss, and easily policed. I think that if this bug list is moved into a bug tracker format that it should be clearly stated that this move is for BIS's benefit and why, as I cannot see any end-of-the-day benefit for the community. We are not trouble shooting, solving or interacting with the bugs in any way other than finding them and listing them.--Plaintiff1 01:52, 15 February 2007 (CET)

Ease of use

The voices of the proponents for a community bug tracker seem by-and-large programmers. These are people who are already familiar with the concept of a bug tracker. Some people express a hesitation to learn the Biki based on their fear of the alien protocol. Let us not lump another level of complexity onto the pile. To use another automotive metaphor, using a tracking program for the bug list is like having a 600 horsepower car. What do you need it for? Only enthusiasts would want such a thing and a small percentage of those would even be able to make use of it. There are features within the bugtracker that simply aren't of any use to the person that this list was designed for- the average community member seeking to share his or her knowledge and experience with BIS.--Plaintiff1 01:38, 15 February 2007 (CET)
As I am programmer, I cannot be unbias on this. However, submitting bugs to Mantis seems much easier that writing them to Wiki. There is plenty of people you never edit Wiki, only browse it. I suppose for them filling web forms (which is what Mantis does) is much easier than getting familiar with the Wiki template syntax to be able to fill in the record. The Wiki Edit feature is far from easy to use, esp. on long pages. --Suma 09:11, 15 February 2007 (CET)
I switched on the simple bug report in mantis (i disabled it before). Try it --Boecko

Out of Plaintiff1 comments I read the fears that 1.) the biggest part of the community would not be able to use mantis and hence would not report bugs because of this and 2.) the maintenance and management of the bugs would cost more time then it safes. To 1.): Someone who is able to speak/write english (if not his mother toungue) is usually able to assemble a telling TT in mantis. For those which are not able to write english it is possible to write the description of the TT in his language, the mantis managers will try to translate into english without loosing the sense of the original TT (we might have problems with mandarin :-) ). Like we did it for WGL there is always the need for the managers to browse the forum as Q created it here for WGL bug reporting: http://ofpc.de/wargames/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewforum.php?7 to pick up some bug reports out of some discussions. But to keep track if/how/when the bug is fixed - there I do not see any other option then a BTS. So Plaintiff1 is right if he says mainly BI & experienced developers/scripters/addonmakers taking the most benefit in the 1st line - but what is wrong with that, usually they can deliver already a very good pre-analysis of the issue and if they are served all other community members would participate from the more reliable engine and more excellent content in the 2nd line. Btw from experience also weekend gamers where able to drop telling tickets in the WGL BTS bugzilla we used there initially and later in trac and those two are not as user friendly as mantis in my opinion. To 2.) A TT system safes time in the long run by ensuring that no issue is forgotten, several TTs with the same root cause could be mapped together by the developer, developer could send the TT creator a request for further information...Let's try and see what happens during the regression testing of 1.04/1.05 --INNOCENT&CLUELESS 10:17, 15 February 2007 (CET)

To clarify 1, my point is not that people will be unable to learn, it is that they will be [i]unwilling[/i] to learn. Reference this topic for examples of people who are hesitant to learn how to contribute to the biki. The point there is that people are already having to learn very rudimentary wiki markup in order to contribute to the biki. Fastening on this other appendage adds complexity and more learning, and in my experience, community members can be quite lazy. Moreover, we have a number of people who are already learning wiki markup in order to contribute on other pages. They could use that knowledge to contribute here, and the people who learn some wiki markup in order to contribute on the buglist then have the skills to make other contributions to other areas of the biki.
To clarify 2, I'm not saying that programmers will see an added benefit to the BTS. I simply do not see what benefit there could possibly be. You find a bug that has been solved, you mark it as solved no matter what you are using to track them. This could be accomplished quite adequately with a word processor. I'm not saying that the BTS itself is too complicated for people to use, it is that it adds too much complexity to what is essentially a list of items, NOT a dynamic bug tracking environment. Programmers who are familiar with a BTS will undoubtedly see them as useful tools- indespensible tools for tracking bugs between multiple programmers seeking to ameliorate those problems. This is not what we are doing here, though. We are maintaining a list of problems for someone to glance at now and again. Noone here is fixing anything. I've been maintaining the list for some weeks and I must say that I find the wiki perfectly adequate. --Plaintiff1 11:20, 15 February 2007 (CET)
1 seems to me to be a dead-end argument.

Actually, the ability to use the BT builds upon knowledge that has been built through regular websurfing, and little else. In other words, i can't see this as an argument to keep the biki page.

Point 2 - the BT will allow automatically mailing the creator of the TT, as well as any others who has set themselves as interested in a bug, to say that we need more information, to say that this has been solved, etc. We have the ability to pretty much discuss the entire bug. "Adding ones 2c worth" is easier than with a wiki.
One last detail - It's true that the BT can easily take some more manpower than the wiki, but we're on it already. The wiki may be adequate... But this is probably better. --MaHuJa 15:46, 6 March 2007 (CET)

Defining Priority

⚠
Bug priorities To make it easier for BI people to see important bugs, we introduced bug priority templates. Add new bugs with priority 0. Only BigDawgKS, Plaintiff1, the BI staff, and the wiki sysops are allowed to set priorities to values higher than 0.
⚠
BTS - Definitions We need to adjust these levels to the severity options in the new BTS!


How does one define a priority?

Priority immediate

  • Any issue that causes a CTD (crash to desktop) during a normal gameplay. CTD using mission or content creation are not considered priority 1, esp. when caused by scripting and it is possible to avoid the CTD by not using the construct triggering it.
  • Any issue that prevents the game from loading.
  • Any issue that prevents installation of a patch
  • Any issue that decreases performance significantly, up to the point of making the game unplayable. (especially if this was working better in previous ver)


Priority urgent

  • Issues that prevent MP game play
  • Any other issue that causes a CTD, including mission scripting.
  • Any issue that prohibits game play as per design
  • Issue that prevent the operation of a vehicle/unit/object as designed. (can't get in vehicle, helicopter moves incorrectly)
  • Issues that allow cheating. (example: sniper sites allows a person to see through walls)
  • Significant performance issues (low fps in situation where decent fps would be expected)


Priority high

  • Annoying behavior, such as Repeated voice command.
  • Sounds that aren't working as they were designed.
  • Collisions in models which affect game play. (such as doors which prevent entry, invisible wall)
  • AI not doing as they should/designed. (stuck, not running for cover, etc)
  • Mission issues that prevent the completion or playability.
  • Scripting commands that do not work as intended and/or at all


Priority normal

  • Any issue that causes an in game error (missing paa, missing name)
  • Graphical Nuisances (missing textures)
  • Annoying collision issues.


Priority low

  • Missing sounds which maybe were never intended.
  • Spelling errors
  • Minor mission issues that don't affect the game play
Retrieved from "https://community.bistudio.com/wiki?title=Talk:ArmA:_Armed_Assault:_Bug_List&oldid=340027"