RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[diabolical 428]

20 hours ago, da12thMonkey said:

Was simply the poor choice of phrasing:

"I just made my own using all the rhs goodies"

We've had a couple of instances of people ripping the AK-74s from RHS.So statements like that can be confusing, without the full context of how the RHS parts are used

On 03/04/2018 at 7:53 PM, PuFu said:

i'd like to know the same

 

apology's for the confusion. I know what its like having assets stolen also. coming outta the gate with insinuations is a little harsh but understandable when you have people in certain parts of the community that do rip legitimate modders

shit. 

I could have phrased it more like "here is a thing I made, uses RHS as a dependancy".

I'am currently one of the asset creators for the IFA3 mod and have been working on WW2 era stuff for so long that I just wanted to do something different and RHS gave me the inspiration todo so.

So I will say again, great job guys and keep it up.

[Selvo Domenico 17]

On 03/04/2018 at 9:11 AM, diabolical said:

nice job on the prank guys. 

I've been waiting for an RPK release for a while, a couple or releases has been and gone but instead of whinging I just made my own using all the rhs goodies. keep up the good work guys.

 

 

Will we see this on the workshop, or is it just something you created for yourself? :)

[Sgt.Makarov 19]

I've looked through previous questions about this topic on this thread but didn't find them very helpful so I am asking myself - 

How do I reliable get the DUKE to work? I have both done lots of testing with it and used them in operations with my community, and get very different results. Sometimes it works like a charm and indeed mutes TFAR radio signals outgoing from the MRAPs and prevents IEDs triggered with ACE clackers or cellphones from going off, but sometimes it does neither. 

Also I've noticed that all 4 M12xx MRAPs have DUKE antennas on them, but I am only able to activate the DUKE on 2 of them (think it is the M1232 and M1237), are the other 2 not supposed to have antennas or are they supposed to work?

 

Obviously when testing this I used many other mods, but most important ones being ACE and TFAR. 

[FlyingVolvo 13]

@Sgt.Makarov I believe that question would be more fit for the ACE3 Slack or the TFAR Discord. In my personal experience from my years of following Red Hammer Studios I've seen a policy of only guaranteeing compatability with the already existing system of what works in vanilla(the scroll bar detonation system in this case), but so far plenty of smart people in the community have been able to make their mods compatible. 

[Sgt.Makarov 19]

1 hour ago, FlyingVolvo said:

@Sgt.Makarov I believe that question would be more fit for the ACE3 Slack or the TFAR Discord. In my personal experience from my years of following Red Hammer Studios I've seen a policy of only guaranteeing compatability with the already existing system of what works in vanilla(the scroll bar detonation system in this case), but so far plenty of smart people in the community have been able to make their mods compatible. 

 

RHS (think it was reyhard) confirmed themselves that the DUKE system is supposed to be compatible with TFAR in a post back in late 2016, maybe it's not the case anymore.

[dragon01 902]

On 4/5/2018 at 10:05 AM, diabolical said:

 

apology's for the confusion. I know what its like having assets stolen also. coming outta the gate with insinuations is a little harsh but understandable when you have people in certain parts of the community that do rip legitimate modders

shit. 

I could have phrased it more like "here is a thing I made, uses RHS as a dependancy".

I'am currently one of the asset creators for the IFA3 mod and have been working on WW2 era stuff for so long that I just wanted to do something different and RHS gave me the inspiration todo so.

So I will say again, great job guys and keep it up.

Ever considered donating the model to RHS? The quality is there, it depends on RHS and it doesn't seem to be a start of a distinct weapons pack. I'd say it'd be right at home there. :) 

[zilfondel 11]

I'm a mission maker for a major unit, would like to use these amazingly detailed assets but would like to hand them over to AI as well, since we primarily run coop missions.  But I've ran into some major, major AI related issues with the tank assets.

 

Here's what happened:  

In a single player mission, I had an entire platoon of M1A1 drive up to a truck full of OPFOR infantry, and shoot a few rounds from the coaxial to disable the front wheels.  Then they stopped.  And waited... for the infantry to dismount.  The infantry then throw grenades, exploding next to the M1.  The crew to the M1 bailed out, and were immediately killed by the dismounted infantry.

 

So I've done some basic testing tonight of the RHS vehicles' AI.  Was not very impressed with the AI behind the MBTs.

 

Setup included pitting a single tank vs a bunch of light trucks, BTR-60s, and a T72.  The vehicles were unarmed/no gunner.  Distance was about 200 meters.

 

Results:

 

BLUFOR - USMC and US Army tanks would wait ~15 seconds, then start and continue sporadic machinegun fire on the tank and BTRs.  They would normally allow the trucks to drive off unharmed, although occassionally they would kill the occupants. The BLUFOR tanks (M1 variants) seem to flat-out refuse to engage enemy ABCs and IFVs with their main guns, period.

 

That is... until I removed the lighter unarmored vehicles.  Then the tanks would reliably engage the armored targets with their main guns.  But as soon as there were enemy infantry or unarmored vehicles that they were aware of, they would switch to exclusively using the machinegun.  The main gun would only be sporadically used in a mixed environment, often leaving heavier IFVs untouched and able to counter.

 

I also tested the BLUFOR IFVs, which would immediately open up with their autocannon and ATGMs on enemy armor, often knocking them out.  They would also fir on the APCs and IFVs with their autocannon, and use the machinegun to engage the trucks.  However, other times it would allow the BTRs to drive right up to the IFV and they would site there for minutes and not do anything.  I'm assuming that kind of behavior may be more due to poor Arma AI.

 

OPFOR - the Russian tanks would typically fire the main gun a bit more often, normally targeting the highest level threat it sited, and then prioritize the lesser vehicles with the main gun, while intermittently switching to the machinegun to engage the smallest trucks.

 

What I've also noticed is that vehicles tend to aim for the turret on enemy vehicles - which unfortunately has the highest amount of armor, making for very long engagements that typically fail to actually destroy the other vehicle (!).

 

So at this point it seems that the MBTs in RHS do not have functional AI.  Has the RHS team not spent any time on the tank AI or do we know when they will get it working?

 

It seems like the AI should #1 prioritize using the main gun to go for main hull/rear shots on the biggest targets, continue using the machinegun as it is, or less.  But to not be afraid of engaging at long distances with its main gun!  Thats what the damn thing is for!

 

Mods:

 

RHSUSAF

RHSAFRF

RHSSAF

RHSGREF

CBA_A3

Project OPFOR

CUP maps

Ares Mod

taskforce radio

[PuFu 4599]

2 hours ago, zilfondel said:

But I've ran into some major, major AI related issues with the tank assets.

feedback.rhsmods.org

 

RHS does not modify AI behaviour in any way, and there is no such thing as "tank AI"

[damsous 329]

Hello maybe someone already respond to this question but there is more than 500 Page...

Will you add in the futur a LAV-25 or Stryker ? I ask that cause there are not avaible anymore on Armaholic they are part of CUP, dont really want do dl 10 Gb of mods just for few vehicle, or if somebody got the LAV-25 and want to share i take it :)

[wsxcgy 1960]

2 hours ago, damsous said:

Hello maybe someone already respond to this question but there is more than 500 Page...

Will you add in the futur a LAV-25 or Stryker ? I ask that cause there are not avaible anymore on Armaholic they are part of CUP, dont really want do dl 10 Gb of mods just for few vehicle, or if somebody got the LAV-25 and want to share i take it :)

please read threads before you post. this was brought up just on the page before, yes they have both of those vehicles in the works.

[kgb613 21]

37 minutes ago, wsxcgy said:

please read threads before you post. this was brought up just on the page before, yes they have both of those vehicles in the works.

There is a screen of Stryker ICV posted here on 1st April and 3D model of LAV-25/Stryker wheel, so yeah, probably coming (: When, we still don't know. Maybe they are waiting for tank update ;)

 

[wendyvonbraun 164]

Still waiting for the full release of the RHS lego set. :/

[andersson 285]

22 hours ago, PuFu said:

feedback.rhsmods.org

 

RHS does not modify AI behaviour in any way, and there is no such thing as "tank AI"

I havent done anything with configs in A3 so excuse me if Im wrong, but values for weapons and threats used to be defined in the units and weapons configs so I guess it's still the same in A3? Maybe some values are not optimal in the M1A1s weapon/ammo config as the AI use the wrong weapon or can't find a suitable one for the threats?

 

Just a thought.

[First Sea Lord Kiwi 54]

On 4/9/2018 at 12:11 AM, zilfondel said:

I'm a mission maker for a major unit, would like to use these amazingly detailed assets but would like to hand them over to AI as well, since we primarily run coop missions.  But I've ran into some major, major AI related issues with the tank assets.

 

Here's what happened:  

In a single player mission, I had an entire platoon of M1A1 drive up to a truck full of OPFOR infantry, and shoot a few rounds from the coaxial to disable the front wheels.  Then they stopped.  And waited... for the infantry to dismount.  The infantry then throw grenades, exploding next to the M1.  The crew to the M1 bailed out, and were immediately killed by the dismounted infantry.

 

So I've done some basic testing tonight of the RHS vehicles' AI.  Was not very impressed with the AI behind the MBTs.

 

Setup included pitting a single tank vs a bunch of light trucks, BTR-60s, and a T72.  The vehicles were unarmed/no gunner.  Distance was about 200 meters.

 

Results:

 

BLUFOR - USMC and US Army tanks would wait ~15 seconds, then start and continue sporadic machinegun fire on the tank and BTRs.  They would normally allow the trucks to drive off unharmed, although occassionally they would kill the occupants. The BLUFOR tanks (M1 variants) seem to flat-out refuse to engage enemy ABCs and IFVs with their main guns, period.

 

That is... until I removed the lighter unarmored vehicles.  Then the tanks would reliably engage the armored targets with their main guns.  But as soon as there were enemy infantry or unarmored vehicles that they were aware of, they would switch to exclusively using the machinegun.  The main gun would only be sporadically used in a mixed environment, often leaving heavier IFVs untouched and able to counter.

 

I also tested the BLUFOR IFVs, which would immediately open up with their autocannon and ATGMs on enemy armor, often knocking them out.  They would also fir on the APCs and IFVs with their autocannon, and use the machinegun to engage the trucks.  However, other times it would allow the BTRs to drive right up to the IFV and they would site there for minutes and not do anything.  I'm assuming that kind of behavior may be more due to poor Arma AI.

 

OPFOR - the Russian tanks would typically fire the main gun a bit more often, normally targeting the highest level threat it sited, and then prioritize the lesser vehicles with the main gun, while intermittently switching to the machinegun to engage the smallest trucks.

 

What I've also noticed is that vehicles tend to aim for the turret on enemy vehicles - which unfortunately has the highest amount of armor, making for very long engagements that typically fail to actually destroy the other vehicle (!).

 

So at this point it seems that the MBTs in RHS do not have functional AI.  Has the RHS team not spent any time on the tank AI or do we know when they will get it working?

 

It seems like the AI should #1 prioritize using the main gun to go for main hull/rear shots on the biggest targets, continue using the machinegun as it is, or less.  But to not be afraid of engaging at long distances with its main gun!  Thats what the damn thing is for!

 

Mods:

 

RHSUSAF

RHSAFRF

RHSSAF

RHSGREF

CBA_A3

Project OPFOR

CUP maps

Ares Mod

taskforce radio

AI are notoriously retarded.  RHS makes assets. They don't program behavior. 

[soul_assassin 1745]

2 minutes ago, First Sea Lord Kiwi said:

AI are notoriously retarded.  RHS makes assets. They don't program behavior. 

Well there is some truth to that, but unfortunately its not as easy as that. AI seems to be heavily affected by the vehicle configuration and setup, in many ways that we also don;t understand. So partly it is the vehicles, partly the behavioral programming.

[PuFu 4599]

On 4/10/2018 at 10:29 AM, andersson said:

I havent done anything with configs in A3 so excuse me if Im wrong, but values for weapons and threats used to be defined in the units and weapons configs so I guess it's still the same in A3? Maybe some values are not optimal in the M1A1s weapon/ammo config as the AI use the wrong weapon or can't find a suitable one for the threats?

 

Just a thought.

yes that still stands true(based on cost values that define attractiveness if defined in vehicles and cfgammo for weapons that provide the priority in relation to vehicle costs), but as SA said, some of the entries are either very sensitive or hardly at all...

 

edit: and that report is ok and the more the merrier (besides some wrong assumptions on how some things work), but it should be posted on our feedback tracker instead

[ayylmao 30]

is there a patch coming out soon? the new DLC has completely f*cked all of the RHS armour, pretty much only thing working is the infantry gear

[Damian90 697]

13 minutes ago, ayylmao said:

is there a patch coming out soon? the new DLC has completely f*cked all of the RHS armour, pretty much only thing working is the infantry gear

 

The team is working on it, be patient.

[reyhard 2082]

22 minutes ago, ayylmao said:

is there a patch coming out soon? the new DLC has completely f*cked all of the RHS armour, pretty much only thing working is the infantry gear

 

On 9.04.2018 at 9:11 AM, zilfondel said:

I'm a mission maker for a major unit, would like to use these amazingly detailed assets but would like to hand them over to AI as well, since we primarily run coop missions.  But I've ran into some major, major AI related issues with the tank assets.

 

Here's what happened:  

In a single player mission, I had an entire platoon of M1A1 drive up to a truck full of OPFOR infantry, and shoot a few rounds from the coaxial to disable the front wheels.  Then they stopped.  And waited... for the infantry to dismount.  The infantry then throw grenades, exploding next to the M1.  The crew to the M1 bailed out, and were immediately killed by the dismounted infantry.

 

So I've done some basic testing tonight of the RHS vehicles' AI.  Was not very impressed with the AI behind the MBTs.

 

Setup included pitting a single tank vs a bunch of light trucks, BTR-60s, and a T72.  The vehicles were unarmed/no gunner.  Distance was about 200 meters.

 

Results:

 

BLUFOR - USMC and US Army tanks would wait ~15 seconds, then start and continue sporadic machinegun fire on the tank and BTRs.  They would normally allow the trucks to drive off unharmed, although occassionally they would kill the occupants. The BLUFOR tanks (M1 variants) seem to flat-out refuse to engage enemy ABCs and IFVs with their main guns, period.

 

That is... until I removed the lighter unarmored vehicles.  Then the tanks would reliably engage the armored targets with their main guns.  But as soon as there were enemy infantry or unarmored vehicles that they were aware of, they would switch to exclusively using the machinegun.  The main gun would only be sporadically used in a mixed environment, often leaving heavier IFVs untouched and able to counter.

 

I also tested the BLUFOR IFVs, which would immediately open up with their autocannon and ATGMs on enemy armor, often knocking them out.  They would also fir on the APCs and IFVs with their autocannon, and use the machinegun to engage the trucks.  However, other times it would allow the BTRs to drive right up to the IFV and they would site there for minutes and not do anything.  I'm assuming that kind of behavior may be more due to poor Arma AI.

 

OPFOR - the Russian tanks would typically fire the main gun a bit more often, normally targeting the highest level threat it sited, and then prioritize the lesser vehicles with the main gun, while intermittently switching to the machinegun to engage the smallest trucks.

 

What I've also noticed is that vehicles tend to aim for the turret on enemy vehicles - which unfortunately has the highest amount of armor, making for very long engagements that typically fail to actually destroy the other vehicle (!).

 

So at this point it seems that the MBTs in RHS do not have functional AI.  Has the RHS team not spent any time on the tank AI or do we know when they will get it working?

 

It seems like the AI should #1 prioritize using the main gun to go for main hull/rear shots on the biggest targets, continue using the machinegun as it is, or less.  But to not be afraid of engaging at long distances with its main gun!  Thats what the damn thing is for!

 

Mods:

 

RHSUSAF

RHSAFRF

RHSSAF

RHSGREF

CBA_A3

Project OPFOR

CUP maps

Ares Mod

taskforce radio

Seems something weird is happening on your end - please try to turn out all additional mods one by one and see if issue persist. It might be also related to your difficulty settings but if you have some specific scenario then best to proceed with it on our RHS feedback tracker.

 

"What I've also noticed is that vehicles tend to aim for the turret on enemy vehicles - which unfortunately has the highest amount of armor, making for very long engagements that typically fail to actually destroy the other vehicle (!)."

Turret usually is not that super armored on Russian tanks but usually thing is that there is not that much to cause catastrophic blast since our vehicles are not caring munition outside autoloader. One thing that you have also to take into account that there is SINGLE memory point for AI aiming - either we can put it on weakest spot and have AI constantly one shot sniping at that spot or have something reasonable realistic -

Also bear in mind that same memory point is used for deciding whether it should or not engage enemy units. It was recently improved with new parameter "sensorPos" but still doesn't solve a lot of issues so current aiming pos is sort of compromise in order to achieve somehow realistic engagements while remaining fun.

[Polyus 139]

On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 4:54 AM, PuFu said:

feedback.rhsmods.org

 

RHS does not modify AI behaviour in any way, and there is no such thing as "tank AI"

 

Man, ain't that the truth!

[AZCoder 921]

I reported a bug on the tracker that must have been caused by the A3 update. I keep getting a no entry popup for RadioProtocolRUS (and CZ) for SentCovering. No idea how the two would be related, but I've never seen it before the update. I created a quick OPFOR vs INDEP battle and the error came up quickly.

[AZCoder 921]

I just discovered that the Su-25 takes off very slowly and is not able to get off the ground at "normal" length runways like Zargabad, but the massive runway at Altis main airport is long enough. Was this an intentional change in a recent RHS update? Or because of the Arma 3 update? Before it would take off from Zargabad with no problem.

[PuFu 4599]

it is due to DLC update. please use the feedback tracker for all related bugs, not the forums

 

[AZCoder 921]

Even if it's a question? I didn't want to report a bug if it's not a bug.

[PuFu 4599]

2 hours ago, AZCoder said:

Even if it's a question? I didn't want to report a bug if it's not a bug.

my reply was partly directed at you,  but the worst thing that will happen if you report something that isn't a bug is that the ticket will be closed. It takes the same amount of time and effort to report something than ask if it is a bug and if it needs reporting.

 

Unlikely request and question about "what if, when etc" bug reports is not something we will be sarcastic about...