Why do scripts work differently in different missions?

[callihn 10]

Having one hell of a time making a decent parajump, seems the default of:

execVM "ca\air2\halo\data\Scripts\HALO_init.sqs";

Has no Altimeter or speed and does not steer right, or wait, does it.....

Checking out some of the latest Domination missions and they are using the same script called when from inside the mission and it seems to fix all of that, but for some reason it's not consistant, that method used in some missions causes the camera to jitter badly during the jump and you can't look around very well.

So, I went looking at the mission for para training and find it uses this:

exec "ca\air2\halo\data\Scripts\HALO_getout.sqs";

Though when I place the player in air and call it nothing happens I never get the action added to the player.

What is going on here please?

Edited September 15, 2010 by callihn

[Evil_Echo 11]

You are using the wrong command - execVM is for sqf scripts not sqs.

[callihn 10]

You are using the wrong command - execVM is for sqf scripts not sqs.

Thanks, doesn't change anything in this case though, the same issues still exist:

Using:

 
[_unit,_unit call XfGetHeight] exec "ca\air2\halo\data\Scripts\HALO_init.sqs";

No altimeter, no speed and chute leans rather than turns, exactly the same when called with execVM.

Using:

 
[_unit] exec "ca\air2\halo\data\Scripts\HALO_getout.sqs";

Just like in the para training mission, but when I use it the action never gets added to the player to open the chute. Calling with execVM causes ArmA to crash.

and using this method:

[_unit,_unit call XfGetHeight] execVM "AAHALO\Scripts\HALO_init.sqf";

with all the scripts local under that folder and the camera jitters horribly, though it seems to work in some missions.

In short I can't seem to get anything working excect the first option and it sucks because the chute does not even steer correctly and it has no altimeter and no speed. Why did all of this have to break, I feel like I just paid $40 for a downgrade. Do we have to what on the 82nd Airbourne DLC or what? :(

Edited September 14, 2010 by callihn

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Just for fun, ref:

Although most of the airborne forces of the world still use round parachutes, some specialized units use the Ram Air Canopy as their primary means of infiltration.

So if we ever got a 82nd, I'm hoping they would use round chutes and utilize low altitude combat jumps (line jumps) rather than MFF. For the added variation, but without the previous erratic behavior of the T-10 chute :p Using setPos (or was it attachTo?) using a normal round chute just wasn't the same :D

Domination has old version (with extra "jitter" and altimeter) and new version (less "jitter" but no altimeter). I prefer the new version. Why not edit the scripts and add altimeter yourself? Can't be that hard...

[callihn 10]

Just for fun, ref:

So if we ever got a 82nd, I'm hoping they would use round chutes and utilize low altitude combat jumps (line jumps) rather than MFF. For the added variation, but without the previous erratic behavior of the T-10 chute :p Using setPos (or was it attachTo?) using a normal round chute just wasn't the same :D

Domination has old version (with extra "jitter" and altimeter) and new version (less "jitter" but no altimeter). I prefer the new version. Why not edit the scripts and add altimeter yourself? Can't be that hard...

Yea, good point, but we only have one chute with any directional control.

I guess that's my next project then writing my own para script.

The real question is, if it's not that hard then why hasn't anyone already done so?

But a key point that is being missed here is why does the last example work in a BIS mission and not in ours?

 
exec "ca\air2\halo\data\Scripts\HALO_getout.sqs";

The action does not even get added for me.

I tried the scripts from your mission Carl and the jitter is like 10x on mine, you can't even look down in third person.

Edited September 15, 2010 by callihn

[CarlGustaffa 4]

More ref:

The T-10-series and MC1-series parachutes are used during static line airborne operations. The T-10-series is a nonsteerable canopy and the MC1-series is a steerable canopy.

The round MC-1 has limited steering (compared to MC-5 square chute). You may talk about the MC-1. I'm talking about the T-10 which has (virtually) no steering - and may well be just thrown in as a model where we jump without steering, and use MC-5 for wherever steering is wanted.

Means that bailing pilots would get a proper chute, that we could simulate other time eras, and have a choice between nonsteerable (default Eject or scripted) or steerable (catch via script or scripted) chutes. Well, it's a dream anyways :p

Why it doesn't work? Sorry, that just too hard to guess at. Why nobody else have attempted to do themselves? Why, if they can get the default scripts to work. And if they do try, it's probably best to base it on the default scripts. There really isn't much need for improvements, but sometimes you have mission specific needs forcing you to make adjustments to the original scripts and put them in your mission.

Example is the function inTrigger, which I couldn't use as is, because I needed to do checks against markers instead. So I copied it from the functions library into my mission and made the needed adjustments.

[callihn 10]

Maybe because the default scipts don't work right and the chute leans rather than steers, the rest of that is pointless as there are never enough soldiers in game wanting to jump, nor conditions to justify a line jump and there most likely never will be, so the MC-6 is a much better option.

Point being the topic is not about searching parachute systems on Google, it's about shelling out another $40 just so we can have scripts broken that once worked in a quickly dieing game and it's easy to see why it's dieing. If missions are only about what the small majority are concerned with then there is little point in anyone but the small majority making them or playing them so we keep the ten mostly empty servers in the U.S. and the hand full of people that play on them with little chance of gaining anymore unless they are people with like views, the community for the most part other than a hand full of people that help in here seem to be elitist and even snobish and far too superior to answer such stupid questions or assit someone with such a trival task, after all you might land up making something better than theirs and they wouldn't want that, particularly if your an American.

Edited September 16, 2010 by callihn

[CarlGustaffa 4]

All I'm saying is that we are now getting a non steerable square chute when we simply eject. That is plain wrong. If it's going to be non steerable (and I think it should as a valid and realistic option), we should get a round one and it would "work". And I can think of several missions where mass paradropping has been a key feature, so if you haven't played them it doesn't mean they don't exist :)

I've used the Domination system in Domino and the new system (copied from the tutorial mission) in singleplayer missions with no hazzle. To me that means that something else must be wrong rather than the scripts. And do use the updated ones, I've always had "jitter" with the old Arma2 ones. With the new ones, it's a smooth ride.

[callihn 10]

There are round steerable cutes (MC-6) as well as square ones that do not steer (T11), but no I do not believe there is a non-steerable ram air chute like the pilots have in game.

You can of course make anything happen in your mission but I do not see the numbers of troops nor the conditions to justify a static line job.

I don't know I can't get them to work copied them right out of Domino and they are too jittery, no third person control allowed because of it all you can do is see strait ahead and first person is almost as bad but at least you can look down. As mentioned the on used in the training mission does nothing, the player just falls to the ground and dies, not that important really just an interesting observation.

Seems the scripts worked fine in A2 though, that's what I really don't get and personally I do not think people should have to spend thirty minutes to place a small object in the map because it is so far off, nor six months trying to get a basic function like a para jump into their mission either, you would think they are buying from us rather than the other way around.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

So you don't want a non steerable round chute to replace the non steerable square chute for regular non steerable jumps? What are the conditions to justify a static line jump? Afaik it's the most commonly used exit technique, and MFF requires more training. True HALO is most certainly not for everyone.

You couldn't get them to work copied. Did they work for you in Domino/Domination? If that is a yes then surely it's not a problem with the scripts, but something else at your end (other mission scripts or mods) causing the jitter?

I just tried my modified version of the training mission (nothing with the actual controls changed), and it's working just fine for me. So if you just falls to the ground and dies, but I don't, then don't blame the script. I'm not running any significant mods.

[callihn 10]

So you don't want a non steerable round chute to replace the non steerable square chute for regular non steerable jumps? What are the conditions to justify a static line jump? Afaik it's the most commonly used exit technique, and MFF requires more training. True HALO is most certainly not for everyone.

You couldn't get them to work copied. Did they work for you in Domino/Domination? If that is a yes then surely it's not a problem with the scripts, but something else at your end (other mission scripts or mods) causing the jitter?

I just tried my modified version of the training mission (nothing with the actual controls changed), and it's working just fine for me. So if you just falls to the ground and dies, but I don't, then don't blame the script. I'm not running any significant mods.

No, I'm saying I'm fine with either the ram air type ( rectangle and very steerable, like the one it has, so this one obviously does not behave right ) or the newer MC-6 ( round ) and steerable, though the AIM MK3 might be more realistic for ejection seats and the Mk63,70,71,72,73, etc.

http://www.airborne-sys.com/productlisting.htm#emergencyescape

Static line jumps are best for training and large-scale aerial deliveries of personnel and are not well suited to smaller groups who need to land in closer proximity to each other.

http://www.airborne-sys.com/productlisting.htm#troopparanonsteer

On a side note, this PURIBAD looks interesting:

http://www.airborne-sys.com/productlisting.htm#aerialplatforms

But again per topic we are dreaming here, we can't even get a decent para script in game and keep it without it getting broken so this much realism is way over the top IMHO.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

But my point is we can't have steerable for normal eject. Steerable requires a lot of scripts running, scripts I guess you are experiencing as troublesome. So for me a nonsteerable T10 would make sense in these situations. If we want the steerable round chutes, there is need for a third chute class/object; BIS_Steerable_Round_Chute (or whatever), pluss associated scripts (could probably use the current one with reduced control magnitude), but that wouldn't kick in during a normal eject.

Bottom line is, I just want a round chute model I can move player into if I want to. :) Okay by me if they also add a steerable chute, but it's really not what I need, the nonsteerable round one is the crucial one for me. If it supported really low exist, then all the better. I'm looking for combat jumps, and from the link you gave, I see they are down to 76m Lower than expected.

I agree, this is dreaming, but dreaming is what keeps me alive :D

I still claim to have no problems with the scripts myself. No jitter, smooth as silk. I haven't tried in a high load MP scenario though with plenty of players. Maybe the issue is bandwidth?