Jump to content
Rydygier

HETMAN - Artificial Commander

For HAC users: What is the maximum number of simultaneously used by you Leaders?  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. For HAC users: What is the maximum number of simultaneously used by you Leaders?

    • Only one
      3
    • Two
      18
    • Three
      9
    • Four of them
      15
    • Five
      0
    • Six
      6
    • Seven
      0
    • All eight!
      12


Recommended Posts

So if the number of units is reduced, do you still see CPU overload?

No. After such reduction AI gets better, reacts smoother, quicker and sharper. BB's problem is, that should work with such number of groups/units that may overload even not so weak CPU when in combat. Moreover, BB means additional portion of looped code to handle for CPU/scheduler. I affraid, that HAC as a whole reached complexicity level, that has significant impact on this aspect. Probably one loop working on all groups array instead of separate loop for each group with own orders would be better for efficiency, but for now not found a way to implement such change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've just tried what you suggested, and yeah, it works :) Units get orders and get moving. With much greater framerate if you have quad cpu. But there is always a but. It seems that all the debug and the communication needs to be reworked, because I don't get a single message, nothing. I don't know anything about MP scripting, but I think the player(s) is treated differently in MP and SP. I suppose this isn't a big deal to fix for people who know MP scripting.

In short, if you use RydBB_MC for manually defining the battlefield area, HAC will work in dedicated MP, but the communication and debug messages need rework. BTW I didn't even get a task.

No version of HAC has ever given Players sidechat orders in multiplayer on a dedi server (if it was set up properly ie no HAC scripts running in accidental duplicate on clients.) Possibly the Multiplayer framework could be used to re-work this http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Multiplayer_framework

If you play it on a hosted server then the host will see the messages (as they are local to the server). Contrary to Lucidity's post a few back, this is not the same as a dedi server. On a dedi server no player is local to the server.

Edited by jiltedjock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: BTW I never used a dedicated server before either, but it isn't a big deal if you use this tool: http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=11655

I managed to make it running in less than an hour. It works on the same copy as your original Arma2 install.

So I made it. (My first dedicated - wow) :)

Played short time - as mentioned, no sidechats or hints. Map markers on the place. As for human TL orders there should be also special marker on map, and there wasn't any. I guess, that in this mode there is no orders for human at all - code is stuck on some waituntil, or player is not recognized. Tried one thing, without effect. Further tests was too difficult because game was extremely laggy for some reason, also diag_log debug is not working too (RPT is empty), so I can't control code flow in any way. This MP framework should be worth of checking, but I need more free time, that I have currently to familiarize with all this new world of MP scripting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Contrary to Lucidity's post a few back, this is not the same as a dedi server. On a dedi server no player is local to the server.

I never said they were the same and I know they are not, but I have been seeing missing markers, missing side chat, and AI not engaging on my local host which means HAC experiences problems in a multiplayer environment, regardless of the locality. However, I was unaware that the problems are worse on a standalone server.

Hopefully, Rydygier can identify necessary changes to HAC without an entire overhaul.

Edited by Lucidity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Rydygier. Keep it up the good work! I m having lots of fun with your masterpiece. Anyways wait for you to get it MP compatible. :D One question i m trying to set a aircraft just for cargo? what is the best way of doing it with out the leader assigning a empty vehicle to the units? Thank you! I want just the vehicle to be available for AIs. One more thing i was trying to add briefing.sqf it seems not to work. as there a work around? I would like to add some special mission of my own. One more thing why isnt this working RydHQB_Excluded = [Defender1]; I place it on the init of the leader

Edited by Odyseus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One question i m trying to set a aircraft just for cargo? what is the best way of doing it with out the leader assigning a empty vehicle to the units? Thank you! I want just the vehicle to be available for AIs

Earier answer for similar question should be helpful:

Air cargo

BTW IMO using for air cargo aerial units other than choppers is not reliable, as I noticed, that plane always is trying to reach nearest airport for landing - quite reasonable, isn't? MV-22 may be exception here. Still most reliable is always land cargo, means simply trucks and APCs (but also not so spectacular I guess... :) ).

Anyways wait for you to get it MP compatible.

Better compatibility is not guaranteed. I'll simply check some things, will try something etc. But this will take some time, because due to RL stuff recently I have a little free time for Arma, mostly only some evenings. This lack of time may last even whole Winter.

Edited by Rydygier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Rydy. I m runing into a problem again, I have on the map LeaderHQ, LeaderHQB and LeaderHQC, i place 2 trigger that are set to true and have this lines trigger 1 RydHQ_Excluded = [drom01, avenger01, antiair01, antiair02, avenger02, avenger03, avenger04, avenger05, soldier01, soldier02, soldier03, soldier04, soldier05,soldier06]; and trigger 2 RydHQB_Excluded = [Defend01, Defend02];

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Rydy. I m runing into a problem again, I have on the map LeaderHQ, LeaderHQB and LeaderHQC, i place 2 trigger that are set to true and have this lines trigger 1 RydHQ_Excluded = [drom01, avenger01, antiair01, antiair02, avenger02, avenger03, avenger04, avenger05, soldier01, soldier02, soldier03, soldier04, soldier05,soldier06]; and trigger 2 RydHQB_Excluded = [Defend01, Defend02];

I just read this, I don't see any information on the symptoms of the problem, can you give more information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

units still receiving order from commander. It is weird because i touch it was working before

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best for bughunting is always uploaded troublemaking mission (repro). For now, if this is a problem, - just be sure, that names used in Excluded array are names of group leaders, and, perhaps, that for sure these triggers are activated at the beginning. Also, for clarity, always better is to use init.sqf for all init config.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those are single units not groups. I will try to place it in the int.sqf see if solve the problem. So me adding B or C to the end of the RydHQ is the right way to do it right!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So me adding B or C to the end of the RydHQ is the right way to do it right!?

Yes. Single units (but units, not their vehicles) are OK - these are own "leaders". Any further conclusions needs more data - best is repro. If mission was working, and now it isn't, this must be of course about some change made after last test, when mission was working. From my experience I know, that effects always have their causes. :)

Edited by Rydygier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right maybe is something i did! :D i will double check and try to run you debug. What about briefing.sqf is it possible to add one to my mission?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about briefing.sqf is it possible to add one to my mission?

Sure, you can add any other files you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got it. Briefing works. Only one problem HETMAN task over writers briefing task! Are there any workaround it? I try to set my to taskobj_2 but it did not work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, indeed, it is possible. Never tested HAC's tasks with pre-made briefing. Do not know any workaround right now. I'll see, if something may be done for the next release, till then - not know. The only solution may be avoid pre-made tasks (simple "Notes"/diary entries with passive info "go there and do something" instead?).

OK. Seems, that tasks can be "marked" with setVariable, so I can remove only marked by HAC tasks instead of all before adding new one. Should be done in next release.

Edited by Rydygier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rydygier one when why do you use this GAir = group this; and G1 = group this on the cargo mission?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This way I get in handy form a name of given group, that can be used in init config arrays, that should contain group names. G1 = group this means simply "Let G1 will be the name of this unit's group". So I can use in my init.sqf for example RydHQ_Garrison = [G1]; to make G1 group garrisoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can i use the same way to disable units to disable usage of specific empty vehicles??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This way can be used wherever name of group is useful (if "the way" is refering to such group naming). Also, if "the way" means usage of init field, for sure can be used for disabling usage of vehicles by this lock true in the init field of given vehicle and for lots of other things too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey ryd did you ever ran into a problem where enemy does not fire at you!?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing is amazing...it might actually present a challenge in warfare mode if it could be adapted to warfare

Anyone have some good missions for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oK I THINK I FOUND THE REASON TO WHY THEY WERE NOT SHOOTING AT ME. tOO MANY ENEMY AI ON THE MAP. I GUESS WHEN THERE ARE TOO MANY AI's it take some time for the script to work. Does it make sense?

Edited by Odyseus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many AI on the map indeed is a reason for such blindeness. I saw this, some other people too. This is far below HAC level though. Each unit in Arma, that know about enemy/is engaged in combat means launched danger.fsm code (unless some custom made model has this disabled). Too many launches of this means big delays with execution, so unit is passive in combat (as it is danger.fsm, I believe, that makes unit do things in combat, not sure, maybe not only). How many is too many? Depends on CPU and situation (counts units engaged in combat and probably in move, as there is, I think, another fsm used for movement in formation). Why delays? Someone told somewhere (do not know, if this is true, but explains some things), that fsms are partially scheduled, means execution parts of it (states) have along with all other scheduled scripts (as HAC's sqfs) only given part of CPU power to its disposal. Rest must wait for another frame (and another, and another - "queue" in circumstance of constant overolad will be growing...). According to the same source another part of fsms - conditions - are not scheduled, means, that are executed regardless of CPU load. This may explain FPS drop when many units in combat/movement.

HAC "fault" here is, that beacause of its growing complexicity HAC took many of CPU power given for all scheduled scripts. Similar for any other active scripts/scripted addons.

BTW. Some people say, that fsms are the future of arma scripting. I have doubts here. FSMs, as far, as I learned them, seems to have very few features, that sqfs haven't (visual coding method is not important for final result, so there is only partial scheduling (rather difference than advantage) and possibility of usage via unit's config instead of default danger or formation fsms), and more limitations (each fsm - another loop - bad for CPU/scheduler, some stuff will not work in fsm).

Edited by Rydygier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway to by pass it? If not could another script may be causing the delay??? Thank you brother!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×