Reality Check

[pettka 694]

Why not have a copy of FIA on the independent side? In real life, factions like FIA can often have fighting with similar groups.

I would like to remind You that they actually are there, just not directly available in editor for several reasons (general confusion on possibly seeing the same soldier fighting on different sides being one of them) and it still may be subject of change (like changing them to visible in editor under certain circumstances, but no promises on that). You can simply use class I_G_Soldier_F instead of B_G_Soldier_F (or even O_G_Soldier_F for OPFOR version) and the same goes for the rest of classes for a mission, but this kind of relies on a mission maker knowing what he is doing - to somehow accept he knows that it may go wrong in some cases :icon_twisted:

[David77 10]

I'm going to say what I feel here, but I will lay a disclaimer. I love this game, this franchise, and I have spent buckets of time on it.

But.

How is it possible that paid professionals who have been working on this game for so long have so little content. I have seen WIP for some amazing modded vehicles by people who are not paid to do that. It is what they like to do. It is disappointing to play from Alpha, to Beta, and now later tonight full release, and only get a few unique vehicles and a bunch of recycled models. It is such a let down to say the very least. I hope they continue to patch in new vehicles. But I seriously doubt that possibility.

Wonky things happened during crucial development time. The team essentially got smaller, as resources were being put towards other projects. Also that other mis-happening... which I don't care to bring up atm =P

[mistyronin 1181]

You can simply use class I_G_Soldier_F instead of B_G_Soldier_F (or even O_G_Soldier_F for OPFOR version) and the same goes for the rest of classes for a mission, but this kind of relies on a mission maker knowing what he is doing - to somehow accept he knows that it may go wrong in some cases :icon_twisted:

That's a really cool information. Thank you!

I would like to remind You that they actually are there, just not directly available in editor for several reasons (general confusion on possibly seeing the same soldier fighting on different sides being one of them)

May I suggest that to solve that you could add a different seal or an arm band for the independent FIA ( will require minimal effort and will provide a lot )? BTW in real life is sometimes hard to know who is who inside the battle, specially in non conventional armies, so it would even be realistic.

[2nd ranger 282]

At 200m you're not going to see some dude's armband. You might notice the AAF camo trousers or smock he is wearing, though, because the guy next to you is wearing the same outfit, except the guy 200m is not your friend.

Although I just thought how cool it would be if there was a CSAT-aligned guerrilla faction, but instead of wearing a mix of civilian clothing and AAF pattern, they had civilian clothes + CSAT hex-patterned stuff.

[gossamersolid 155]

general confusion on possibly seeing the same soldier fighting on different sides being one of them

Right, because all the militaries and guerilla groups around the world all use different camo, I forgot...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_camouflage_patterns

[4 IN 1 0]

I am going to quote myself from another thread because this and that thread is basically the same

For me it was not the number of content , nor the quality of the content that is having problem ,

It is the functionality of the that leads to disappointment.

For example, the titan Launcher, it is still the same tab lock we always have, the only thing they ever change from the Javelin in ARMA 2 is a a delay on locking , a new model, and a USELESS FCS console view, the trap wire AP mine is just an AP mine with a bit larger triggering area, the UAV is fine but still lack proper gyro-stabilization locking function, OH! And don't make me to start on another RUBBISH UI or NO TRANSITION DURING MOVEMENT rant......

[metalcraze 290]

Maybe we should be thankful stuff like TAB-lock issue was not made worse, with what happened to medics, movement, loadouts, damage and all.

You also forgot to add that UAV still have invisible human crews (an issue people were asking to fix for four years because it's impossible to place RC vehicle without it just driving off blasting enemies on its own. It's funny how BIS forbids you to group UAVs/UGVs for a sole reason of hiding the fact that they have a human crew from you (you could see human crew in ArmA2 by grouping them to yourself)

[pettka 694]

You also forgot to add that UAV still have invisible human crews (an issue people were asking to fix for four years because it's impossible to place RC vehicle without it just driving off blasting enemies on its own. It's funny how BIS forbids you to group UAVs/UGVs for a sole reason of hiding the fact that they have a human crew from you (you could see human crew in ArmA2 by grouping them to yourself)

That's right the reason why they have a separate simulation UAVPilot, nice try :icon_twisted:

[4 IN 1 0]

Maybe we should be thankful stuff like TAB-lock issue was not made worse, with what happened to medics, movement, loadouts, damage and all.

I am going to agree with you with medic, and possibly with damage as well, and I would like to point out that Squad command is also in the same company with these things, I am going to disagree with movement.

[metalcraze 290]

That's right the reason why they have a separate simulation UAVPilot, nice try :icon_twisted:

Right, I guess I need to pretend they are just controlled by another dude somewhere who just kills things with them but has no problem giving away the control as soon as I use a drone terminal. What an awesome way to fix years old issues.

[Varanon 892]

That's right the reason why they have a separate simulation UAVPilot, nice try :icon_twisted:

With all due respect, if you do something like "name driver vehicle player" when controlling a UAV, you still get a name of some pilot (other than your own), which makes me think that there actually still IS an AI pilot. In essence, it might be a different class than the usual human AI, but this is still a pilot. Otherwise, there wouldn't be an "Empty" UAV, either, and using createVehicleCrew on the UAV makes it active... it may be nitpicking, and in essence, it doesn't matter if there's still a separate AI entity controlling the UAV, but technically, there still IS a pilot.

[pettka 694]

With all due respect, if you do something like "name driver vehicle player" when controlling a UAV, you still get a name of some pilot (other than your own), which makes me think that there actually still IS an AI pilot. In essence, it might be a different class than the usual human AI, but this is still a pilot. Otherwise, there wouldn't be an "Empty" UAV, either, and using createVehicleCrew on the UAV makes it active... it may be nitpicking, and in essence, it doesn't matter if there's still a separate AI entity controlling the UAV, but technically, there still IS a pilot.

There is a specific simulation for the UAV pilot that does some specific stuff (eg. doesn't disembark, burn, suffocate, suffer damage from collisions and many other I don't know or forget about). I don't know why does it use names, but I suppose there is some reason deep in engine that has been taken by a shortcut as it isn't that important (at least that is my guess) :icon_twisted:

One exception is for autonomous turrets, where it doesn't work as intended and creates invisible shape in place where gunner would be that has blood impact effects, but that is to be fixed soon-ish with additional love for static weapons :icon_twisted:

[Varanon 892]

There is a specific simulation for the UAV pilot that does some specific stuff (eg. doesn't disembark, burn, suffocate, suffer damage from collisions and many other I don't know or forget about). I don't know why does it use names, but I suppose there is some reason deep in engine that has been taken by a shortcut as it isn't that important (at least that is my guess) :icon_twisted:

Ah, thought so. Thanks for the clarification.

but that is to be fixed soon-ish with additional love for static weapons :icon_twisted:

Nice. Will you add different camos for the static weapons ? Right now, with all of them the same coloring, it's really hard to tell the difference, especially since the autonomous ones don't even have a gunner that you would recognize...

[maddogx 13]

Ideally they should receive more than just different camos. Different models for the static weapons and autonomous vehicles would allow recognition based on the silhouette.

[Varanon 892]

Ideally they should receive more than just different camos. Different models for the static weapons and autonomous vehicles would allow recognition based on the silhouette.

Yeah, that would be great, also with the UAVs... in low-light or NVG situations, it's impossible to tell them apart, which is my main gripe with using the same look on all of them.

[metalcraze 290]

I like how pettka denied and then confirmed my point.:rolleyes:

But how about actually doing UGV/UAVs properly instead of just marginal changes to autonomous systems?

Them having an invisible pilot makes it impossible to have them in missions without them just behaving like a crewed APC breaking whatever plans you had because you can't just order them to stay put and hold fire (unlike an actual crewed vehicle) while you are not in a direct control. I wouldn't call that "unimportant", that's pretty gamebreaking.

[krycek 349]

One exception is for autonomous turrets, where it doesn't work as intended and creates invisible shape in place where gunner would be that has blood impact effects, but that is to be fixed soon-ish with additional love for static weapons :icon_twisted:

Finally A3 brought up my obsession with sentry guns(blame Splinter Cell).Can't wait to see the improvements.Oh and metalcraze has a point,maybe add a hold fire/fire setting when you aren't in control of them.

[Varanon 892]

Them having an invisible pilot makes it impossible to have them in missions without them just behaving like a crewed APC breaking whatever plans you had because you can't just order them to stay put and hold fire (unlike an actual crewed vehicle) while you are not in a direct control. I wouldn't call that "unimportant", that's pretty gamebreaking.

Agreed, a possibility to prohibit certain behavior would be nice, like, allow or disallow them to fire. Although, I made a ticket some time ago, asking for a more fine-grained possibility of restricting player access to UAVs. Might fit in there as well

[maddogx 13]

Long story short, the autonomous vehicle AI should be much less autonomous. ;)

[windies 11]

Long story short, the autonomous vehicle AI should be much less autonomous. ;)

No, it should be a more controlled autonomous. Autonomous just means that it carries out pre-programmed commands. Whats lacking is the amount of commands we can give it, like Hold Fire, Open Fire etc...

[Guest Ti0n3r]

At 200m you're not going to see some dude's armband. You might notice the AAF camo trousers or smock he is wearing, though, because the guy next to you is wearing the same outfit, except the guy 200m is not your friend.

Although I just thought how cool it would be if there was a CSAT-aligned guerrilla faction, but instead of wearing a mix of civilian clothing and AAF pattern, they had civilian clothes + CSAT hex-patterned stuff.

Now THIS is a good idea dude! Lots of new scenario possibilities out of the box, esp nice for vanilla multiplayer servers.

Personally I actually like the whole 2035 West vs East scenario and I think its worth expanding upon. Ultimate upgrades, anyone? hehe :)

Edited September 12, 2013 by Ti0n3r

[metalcraze 290]

Windies you are wrong. It shouldn't even fire or attack on its own. Or even move. It's just a radio controlled car/plane.

The correct solution is still quite easy for BIS to do if they don't want to do it the right way. Just hold fire/hold position at all times without anything cancelling it ever. Since when the player takes control hold fire/hold position don't matter as they are not enforced on the player.

Then when you want AI controller - an editor module would solve that. AI connected to it will play the kneeling/using terminal animation while drone will lose its hold fire/hold position command. Obviously this can be done better.

In any case the drone must be controlled by someone 'real'.

Edited September 12, 2013 by metalcraze

[dale0404 5]

Windies you are wrong. It shouldn't even fire or attack on its own. Or even move. It's just a radio controlled car/plane.

The correct solution is still quite easy for BIS to do if they don't want to do it the right way. Just hold fire/hold position at all times without anything cancelling it ever. Since when the player takes control hold fire/hold position don't matter as they are not enforced on the player.

Then when you want AI controller - an editor module would solve that. AI connected to it will play the kneeling/using terminal animation while drone will lose its hold fire/hold position command. Obviously this can be done better.

In any case the drone must be controlled by someone 'real'.

Wow dude, you do come out with constructive ideas every now and again then!! I actually agree with you here.

[liquidpinky 11]

Windies you are wrong. It shouldn't even fire or attack on its own. Or even move. It's just a radio controlled car/plane.

the clue is in the name Autonomous.

They do need to only go off unattended if told to do so though.

[krycek 349]

That's why a hold fire/fire is the perfect setup even when they aren't directly controlled by us.Even today the MQ9 can fly autonomously.