ALiVE - Advanced Light Infantry Virtual Environment

[friznit2 350]

Two slightly different requests here:

1. Player task to deliver AI groups by helicopter - this is unlikely to be a thing as ALiVE is predominantly designed for MP. You can create non-profiled groups and transport those around. If set the Profiler to only profile synched units, anything spawned with MCC should stay unprofiled.

2. AI Logistics and/or OPCOM to deliver AI groups by helicopter - the Logistics module may use AI driven support helis to deliver reinforcements and other materiel if we can get it to work reliably. For OPCOM, there is an outstanding task to get AI groups (both profiled and visual) to use transport vehicles.

[i wub pugs 15]

2. AI Logistics and/or OPCOM to deliver AI groups by helicopter - the Logistics module may use AI driven support helis to deliver reinforcements and other materiel if we can get it to work reliably. For OPCOM, there is an outstanding task to get AI groups (both profiled and visual) to use transport vehicles.

I want this almost as much as I want persistence to be ready. I don't even care that much if the res/rep convoy/helos don't run perfectly. I just want to have logistics hubs and some convoys as potential targets.

I am so very eager for this.

[thenach 10]

Hey guys, I found the following problem.

As AAF. I put a mortar team as support with all the needed modules.

I'm able to see the mortars in the support tab.

When I request Smoke round and starshells it works without any problem.

But when I ask for HE it always say to me that is out range, no matter how close of far I request the fire mission.

[SavageCDN 231]

^ this is a bug with Arma 3 at the moment see here for details:

https://dev.withsix.com/issues/73521

[oktyabr 12]

I want this almost as much as I want persistence to be ready. I don't even care that much if the res/rep convoy/helos don't run perfectly. I just want to have logistics hubs and some convoys as potential targets.

I am so very eager for this.

I kind of assumed that logistics and persistence are a bit intertwined. Persistence, indefinite ending persistence, is a bit of a moot point unless you can have an infinite resupply pool and a way to get them into the ongoing mission, i.e. logistics. For example the very heavily populated mission I am working on gets to run all night while I am asleep. When I get up in the morning it's study time to see what could further be tweaked. More often than not both blufor and opfor sides are reduced to a mere fragment of the forces they began with, even though both opcoms have the logistics module in place.

[highhead 20]

I want this almost as much as I want persistence to be ready. I don't even care that much if the res/rep convoy/helos don't run perfectly. I just want to have logistics hubs and some convoys as potential targets.

I am so very eager for this.

Your wish may just come true :)

I am almost as eager for this as you!

[redarmy 422]

Two slightly different requests here:

1. Player task to deliver AI groups by helicopter - this is unlikely to be a thing as ALiVE is predominantly designed for MP. You can create non-profiled groups and transport those around. If set the Profiler to only profile synched units, anything spawned with MCC should stay unprofiled.

2. AI Logistics and/or OPCOM to deliver AI groups by helicopter - the Logistics module may use AI driven support helis to deliver reinforcements and other materiel if we can get it to work reliably. For OPCOM, there is an outstanding task to get AI groups (both profiled and visual) to use transport vehicles.

To point 1 friznit,the only issue there from an immersion POV is that those unprofilled units,will simply be on their way/already in a zone with enemy profilled units,thus upon respwning profiled units you get a very crazy unintentional CQB situation.Ahh never mind,was just a thought.

On a seperate note,while playing around in the editor with Alive,i decided to put placements to minimum numbers,and populate the opcom controlled factions by hand,after doing this i noticed that the placements seemed to not be spawning 9/10 times,and when they do,its a hell of a long initilazion time.

So im wondering,does populating the map(with reasonable numbers) of AI opcom controlled units,does i lead to performance hampering or any sort of errors? as from playing around with it i cant seem to make previously working MP and moreover CP to populate untill i remove said hand placed units.

[arjay 7]

To point 1 friznit,the only issue there from an immersion POV is that those unprofilled units,will simply be on their way/already in a zone with enemy profilled units,thus upon respwning profiled units you get a very crazy unintentional CQB situation.Ahh never mind,was just a thought.

On a seperate note,while playing around in the editor with Alive,i decided to put placements to minimum numbers,and populate the opcom controlled factions by hand,after doing this i noticed that the placements seemed to not be spawning 9/10 times,and when they do,its a hell of a long initilazion time.

So im wondering,does populating the map(with reasonable numbers) of AI opcom controlled units,does i lead to performance hampering or any sort of errors? as from playing around with it i cant seem to make previously working MP and moreover CP to populate untill i remove said hand placed units.

Hi redarmy, I think you will need to check the RPT to check for any obvious errors. The faction youare using may be causing an issue.

[alexsegen 17]

I want to report something. I don't know why but when I give an order to the air transport unit (Combat Support Module) to go RTB, the chopper just lands like 100m away from my position, not at the base. It happened almost everytime last night. I was using your "Hell of Zargabad" demo mission. (Yes, I added Air Transport Support to it).

Any logical reason?

Any help?

[SavageCDN 231]

^ My guess is that there was not enough room for the chopper to land?

[friznit2 350]

That's due to pilot AI and the way the map is made, and not influenced by ALIVE. The AI seem to look for helipads first and then flat areas (that is,map defined 'flat area' as opposed to what might look flat to a human player). Chances are there's a nearby helipad or the pilot just thinks it's a better place to land that your chosen spot. Placing a helipad under the CS icon might help.

[legio4777 12]

Hi Gunny

Many thanks for your support here.

I wanna report you a bug in UTES.

After several tries the choppers in the combat support module doesn´t recognize the US Carrier like available to land.

"Unable to comply the order at designated coordinates".

Do you know why is this caused for? Is there any solution.

Thanks again.

Hey Guys,

Thanks in advance.

Do you have any idea here?

BR

[SavageCDN 231]

Try placing an invisible helipad at the carrier deck height

[alexsegen 17]

That's due to pilot AI and the way the map is made, and not influenced by ALIVE. The AI seem to look for helipads first and then flat areas (that is,map defined 'flat area' as opposed to what might look flat to a human player). Chances are there's a nearby helipad or the pilot just thinks it's a better place to land that your chosen spot. Placing a helipad under the CS icon might help.

There wasn't any helipad nearby. Last night I was using the insertion option in the montains to snipe from there. Then the pilot (as you said) was looking for a 'flat area' to land, it took him like 2min to find a good place above the mountains lol

Try placing an invisible helipad at the carrier deck height

I always do that :D to keep my base pretty ^^ I think I'm gonna check the space at the landing zone.

Thank you!

[gunny1979 3]

Hey Guys,

Thanks in advance.

Do you have any idea here?

BR

I have coded the LAND Task so that the Heli does not try to land in the water, and drown you all. The code does a surface check, the carrier's deck is not config's properly so it thinks its water.

Try what Savage recommended.

[oktyabr 12]

To point 1 friznit,the only issue there from an immersion POV is that those unprofilled units,will simply be on their way/already in a zone with enemy profilled units,thus upon respwning profiled units you get a very crazy unintentional CQB situation.Ahh never mind,was just a thought.

On a seperate note,while playing around in the editor with Alive,i decided to put placements to minimum numbers,and populate the opcom controlled factions by hand,after doing this i noticed that the placements seemed to not be spawning 9/10 times,and when they do,its a hell of a long initilazion time.

So im wondering,does populating the map(with reasonable numbers) of AI opcom controlled units,does i lead to performance hampering or any sort of errors? as from playing around with it i cant seem to make previously working MP and moreover CP to populate untill i remove said hand placed units.

This is a tough one to nail down. I've been experimenting for a week to optimize performance on a fairly messy mission I've been working on. Just when I think I've got everything just the way I want it something tips the balance and initialization and/or overall performance flies out the window. A recent example? I added one additional custom priority game logic (I already use several just like it) to a spot I thought the opcoms should be paying more attention to and synced it to both. At mission startup instead of having all the profiles placed in the first 60 seconds or so it suddenly changed to 10+ minutes. I removed that single game logic and things went back to normal. I've seen simply changing the size of a marker, and it what it covers, change performance drastically.

Basically all I can tell you is to keep experimenting. Manually placed AI (that become profiles) shouldn't greatly hamper the system any more than profiles ALiVE sets down by itself. Experiment with whether they are in a marker or not, how far they are from a MP/MCP, etc. Try to use groups of AI rather than lots of single units, where you can, and always keep a close eye on the debugging messages, especially total profiles for an opcom and total number of objectives.

[Gudsawn 93]

Can I ask why every client that joins a server requires ALiVE to be running? We're currently running a public Insurgency server and simply use ALiVE modules to spawn and profile enemy units. This is all done server-side, so why do clients require ALiVE too?

Although ALiVE is fantastic, it also means that every player who joins our server must have downloaded ALiVE (not a big issue, but a large percentage of public players simply haven't heard of ALiVE. When they join our server without it, they get kicked). What features require ALiVE to be running on both the server and client?

J

[SavageCDN 231]

-CQB units spawn on clients not server

-CAS tablet interface

-ALiVE menu

-all the persistence stuff

I'm sure there's more as well....

[legio4777 12]

I have coded the LAND Task so that the Heli does not try to land in the water, and drown you all. The code does a surface check, the carrier's deck is not config's properly so it thinks its water.

Try what Savage recommended.

Hey guys!

I´ve tried it out and doesnt work at all. :(

"Unable to comply".

It seems that doesnt recognize the carrier to land.

I´ve you test it?

[Gudsawn 93]

-CQB units spawn on clients not server

-CAS tablet interface

-ALiVE menu

-all the persistence stuff

I'm sure there's more as well....

Yeah I can see where in certain situation ALiVE does require a client-side addon (which, as opposed to remote exec, is the best option). However, for situations (like ours) where we aren't using features like player persistence or the ALiVE menu or the CAS tablet - why do all clients still require the addon?

Let's say I use one module - the Garbage Collector. Anyone that tries to join that mission without ALiVE will get an error message (missing/mismatching version).

I'm interested in the CQB units part - why do AI units spawn on the client and not the server? What was the technical reason for this?

Thanks

[highhead 20]

Yeah I can see where in certain situation ALiVE does require a client-side addon (which, as opposed to remote exec, is the best option). However, for situations (like ours) where we aren't using features like player persistence or the ALiVE menu or the CAS tablet - why do all clients still require the addon?

Let's say I use one module - the Garbage Collector. Anyone that tries to join that mission without ALiVE will get an error message (missing/mismatching version).

I'm interested in the CQB units part - why do AI units spawn on the client and not the server? What was the technical reason for this?

Thanks

Hoi,

As Savage mentioned client server architecture is tightly integrated together, whereas some modules might could be split off to a serverside only architecture this would mean many tradeoffs and potential bugs, and even then you would have CBA as a dependency. We already discussed that in the very early stages and decided to not go that way. And the message that a user cant join with missing vehicles in a mission.sqm is a default behaviour. CQB can spawn on every locality, the core runs on server and determines which host to spawn the units on, clientside now for performance reasons.

latersh

[Gudsawn 93]

Thanks for your reply highhead.

The message I was referring to is an ALiVE specific error message (similar to the "CBA version mismatch" messages). All required addons have been removed from the mission.sqm so that can't be the issue.

J

[serjames 357]

Yeah I can see where in certain situation ALiVE does require a client-side addon (which, as opposed to remote exec, is the best option). However, for situations (like ours) where we aren't using features like player persistence or the ALiVE menu or the CAS tablet - why do all clients still require the addon?

Let's say I use one module - the Garbage Collector. Anyone that tries to join that mission without ALiVE will get an error message (missing/mismatching version).

I'm interested in the CQB units part - why do AI units spawn on the client and not the server? What was the technical reason for this?

Thanks

They might not be active on Zargabad, but those features are needed on Takistan :)

[redarmy 422]

This is a tough one to nail down. I've been experimenting for a week to optimize performance on a fairly messy mission I've been working on. Just when I think I've got everything just the way I want it something tips the balance and initialization and/or overall performance flies out the window. A recent example? I added one additional custom priority game logic (I already use several just like it) to a spot I thought the opcoms should be paying more attention to and synced it to both. At mission startup instead of having all the profiles placed in the first 60 seconds or so it suddenly changed to 10+ minutes. I removed that single game logic and things went back to normal. I've seen simply changing the size of a marker, and it what it covers, change performance drastically.

Basically all I can tell you is to keep experimenting. Manually placed AI (that become profiles) shouldn't greatly hamper the system any more than profiles ALiVE sets down by itself. Experiment with whether they are in a marker or not, how far they are from a MP/MCP, etc. Try to use groups of AI rather than lots of single units, where you can, and always keep a close eye on the debugging messages, especially total profiles for an opcom and total number of objectives.

Yes i also noticed that once i have a mission set up and working well,simply adding something like another game ogic custom objective can throw everything out of sync,its really hard to nail down just why this happens.

In regards to the profiles i spawned i tested them in and outside of the placement zones,spread out,grouped up ec it never let my placements spawn untll i drastically reduced the numbers of hand placed units.I never used single units,infact the point of me doing this is to make my groups bigger i.e, instead of a group containing 8 infantry,i group 2 together so when opcom sends a "goup" (or what is usually 3) it will actually send twice the amount of units.I do this because opcom dosent seem to notice an enemy placement that is a size of say 200,it will only send 3 entities,so i make those three be twice the size.

Im still messing around with it.Do you ever get the max duration error by putting too many obj game logics down? And also you said you changed the game logic objective size radius? is that possible?

[highhead 20]

Thanks for your reply highhead.

The message I was referring to is an ALiVE specific error message (similar to the "CBA version mismatch" messages). All required addons have been removed from the mission.sqm so that can't be the issue.

J

This actually is the CBA versioning, we use that for ALiVE - its just a warning that the server/client version isnt matching, and thats good as it is, as we are sorry that we can't support any issues that are related to out of sync versions. I even wanted to put in a kick function if versions dont match, but i decided to just use a warning.