ArmA: Bugs List-version-1.01.5094 – Talk

Discussion: Maintaining This List

How do we deal with this list after the next patch is available? Topic is up for discussion, I think we have two options.

• Option 1. Delete the list and start fresh, in some cases bugs may have been addressed but aren't listed in the changelog and getting everyone to retest their bugs maybe a monumental task. If the bug is important, submitter will resubmit it the new list.

• Option 2. Allow users to recheck their bugs, and scribe out the bug. This has its downside as many people might be lazy in this dept. therefore bugs never being cleaned up.

hoz 20:14, 6 December 2006 (CET)

Should the old reports be deleted? --Serclaes 00:01, 3 December 2006 (CET)

Which old reports? Things that are fixed meanwhile? Yes ;) --raedor 09:15, 3 December 2006 (CET)

Please use <del>deleted material</del> syntax instead of actually removing them. Example:

Some bug reported in first release [fixed in 1.xx.xxx] --Vic 00:27, 5 December 2006 (CET)

Only if it is fixed, not if it has nothing to do with bugs. --raedor 00:50, 5 December 2006 (CET)

How do we know if it's fixed yet or not? I mean you could have posted something here but it may not have been fixed Oo --Serclaes 01:26, 5 December 2006 (CET)

The only source for knowing that can be History logs of patches, as you saw it for patch v1.01. --raedor 01:29, 5 December 2006 (CET)

I just noticed the being under the ground bug when getting out of boats was added to the physics bug list, i added it to the general bugs, what's the correct place for it? --Johnnie walkerz 15:09, 5 December 2006 (CET)

Just because something is different in the game from how it is in reality doesn't make it a bug.
As it says in the quoted Wikipedia article: "A software bug is an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program that prevents it from behaving as intended (e.g., producing an incorrect result)."
So - if the developers intended for pigs to fly in the game, it is quite irrelevant whether they do so in real life. It's still not a bug... ;) --Kronzky 00:27, 8 December 2006 (CET)

I know, all the more reason it shouldn't be in the bug list. Unfortunately, going through the list I see a lot of questionable bugs, some obviously not, and are rather non-features or even possible wishes. I think someone should go through the list and determine which ones qualify as bugs and which do not. It might also be good to use that oppertunity to find reports that aren't as useful as they could be, as some seem to contain little useful information (and aren't following the exemplified format). --Big Dawg KS 22:14, 8 December 2006 (CET)

---

Items Removed

I moved these topics here for deletion as they are pretty useless descriptions of bugs and are not signed but the editor. There fore we can't ask for clarification.hoz 00:34, 6 December 2006 (CET)

• Accuracy on all weapons is way off. [1.01.5094]
  • What Weapons?
• Some Weapons have no recoil. [1.01.5094]
  • What weapons?

- Isn't the accuracy related to the server.cfg and settings? "precisionFriendly=0.750000". So it would have to be seen if the accuracy is different if this is set to 1. Then it is no bug, is it. --SniperAndy

More questionable entries:

• "we lost our primary gun when we swim about 30sec"
  • This is not a bug, it appears to be intentional (for realism purposes).
• "when you shoot a AI (near 1 meter) with the M256 of M1A1, he doesn't died."
  • Using a sabot? If so, not a bug, sabots shouldn't have any splash damage.
• "Possibility to turn off the integrated communication system that allows you to hear other players [1.01.5094]"
  • Is this a bug or a wish? --Big Dawg KS 23:38, 7 December 2006 (CET)
    • Its a wish. I haven't had time to go through the list much today. Hopefully tonite. hoz 22:11, 8 December 2006 (CET)

Ok, I'll move it to the wish list if you don't mind. --Big Dawg KS 22:25, 8 December 2006 (CET)

• Under General: "Can't climb on the little rock or put an ai on(in the editor)...the AI is inside!" - What rock and how about setops the unit? --SniperAndy

• Game did not start after install. tried the patch but got the same error message : "data file too short 'addons/weapons.pbo'." [1.01.5094]
  • This is more of an install problem. hoz

• AI can't recognize any terrain in the city except the streets. The soldiers always walk around big places and don't use any stairs or so...

(wrong^^ / already seen AI´s using stairs and walking around upper levels twice) [1.01.5094] burns 19:44, 8 December 2006 (CET)

• One cannot step over bodies laying on the ground (dead or alive) [1.00.5087]
  • Really a bug? Don't think so.

• • When I swim in the water weapon in hand, when I reach the shore all my equipment is lost. MrFreezeFR 14:01, 7 December 2006 (CET) [1.00.5087]

(loosing weapons in water isn´t a bug but a feature) burns 19:28, 8 December 2006 (CET)

• As a seagull you cannot view the mission's notepad when looking at the map. [1.01.5094] --Kronzky 19:24, 5 December 2006 (CET)
  • Its also like this in Elite, I think its by design.hoz
    • ..besides, seagulls have been known to keep all mission details in their heads, as opposed to having notepads and whatnot.. ;o) --teaCup 22:35, 10 December 2006 (CET)

• Getting stuck on bigger rocks [1.01.5094] burns 15:34, 5 December 2006 (CET)
  • Useless without picture/location.

• we can't climb ladders into church
  • What church? What location?hoz

• we lost our primary gun when we swim about 30sec.
  • Non bug as designed. hoz

• When firing the west M249 MG in multiplayer and getting ammo from truck via the quick-ammo icon, your MG gets filled up with 4*30 rounds stanach magazines. [1.1.0.5094]
  • Not necessarily a bug as M249 can fire M16 Mags in real life.

• .50 cal Bullets ricochet off Water [1.01.5094] burns 11:06, 6 December 2006 (CET)
  • I don't think that this is a bug. I have seen 7,62 x 51 mm bullets ricochet on water in Real Life (The time I was in the Army). --- [KSK-D]Arbaal 22:24, 6 December 2006
    • Indeed bullets can ricochet off of water. hoz

• Weird LOD choices reported sometimes [1.00.5087]

Marking Important/Critical Bugs

What about marking the most important or critical bugs, so that BI know what they can start to fix with. Otherwise I think they will get a collapse when they look at these huge list and this could prevent them from doing some suicide attempts --T_D 15:32, 10 December 2006 (CET)

I don't think this is feasible. I'm sure BI is prioritizing the bugs. I think we will wipe the list clean after the next patch and start fresh and moderate the list a little better. If the bug was important then it will be reported perhaps in better detail. hoz

Yes, we prioritize bugs for our own purpose, Still, it would be quite helpful for us to know what are bug priorities as perceived by the community. However, if this is to be helpful, community would need to be able to agree on a very small number of high-priority problems. If anyone can mark anything as important, I suppose very soon most reported problems would be marked as important. --Suma 14:59, 11 December 2006 (CET)

Bug tracking system?

Hi,

why don't you just take an real bug tracking system (BTS)?

• It would be better than a wiki page
• it's searchable and you could close duplicated things easily
• you could make categories
• it's state of the art

It would be great to see such a thing. I've made good experience with Mantis.

Thanks

Boecko 13:55, 11 December 2006 (CET)

Erm... this is a user-powered bug list. It's not exactly officially supported by BIS (or it wasn't when I started it), it was just a simple way to keep a (hopefully) comprehensive, unified and collaborative bug-list and hope the devs take these reports into account. I'm sure BIS uses a bug tracking tool internally, but as far as user reports go, I think what we do is already above what happens in other communities. --Vic 14:28, 11 December 2006 (CET)