POOK SAM PACK (May 2022)

[Masnooper 42]

Interesting as online sources indicate 40 not 100.  People bitch when it is 40.  People bitch when it is 100 LOL

People bitch when they finally uderstand that online sources are not always correct.

I literally used ZU-23 for two fucking years. Correcting others in a polite way is not bitching, you know?!

[hcpookie 3770]

I'll change it to 100.  People are going to bitch.  LOL

 

100 = 2x 50 round belts which according to all sources "ONLINE" indicate this is how the ammunition is stored and transported.

 

I have had OTHER ZU-23 operators tell me directly that 40 round magazines were their standard.  I give up LOL

 

 

There is an ammunition shortage for 23mm ammunition at present :)

[Masnooper 42]

100 = 2x 50 round belts which according to all sources "ONLINE" indicate this is how the ammunition is stored and transported.

... and being used. 50 on left and 50 on right side. It means total 100.

Thank you for being criticizable after 3 times that I tried to tell you this :)

Not all the bitchings are bullshit. Some of them are right.

[dragon01 902]

You're from Iran, right? Well, that just means Iranians used 2x50 round belts. 40 round magazines might have been the standard in whatever country the other ZU-23 operators come from. This thing's belt-fed anyway, so in theory, length of a single belt is rather arbitrary.

 

That said, 40 rounds is a bit low for such a fast weapon. 80 (2x40, one 40 round mag for each side) sounds more likely, in that case the gameplay difference would be somewhat academic.

[serjames 357]

Hmm, instinctivly I thought that 40 rounds just didn't sound right... Much too low....

 

BUT look here

 

 

From this video - 

 

or here  https://youtu.be/HaYCjfvHIsQ?t=21s

 

Looks to be about 40 each side ?

 

The belts are short.... The ammo bins look like they could carry a lot more though, Perhaps there is an official length used in some countries and more in others ?

[kecharles28 197]

Updated mod v4.1 available at withSIX. Download now by clicking:

[Masnooper 42]

As hcpookie said:"100 = 2x 50 round belts which according to all sources "ONLINE" indicate this is how the ammunition is stored and transported (and being used)"

So this conversation is over. Thank you all :)

[Kirill Shidenko 0]

Regarding "shooter" error

 

Looks like spawner scrip spawn incorrect units (for example if I tried to use SA20 for BLUFOR) and then site script cant find proper units for assign targets

That error exist on Russian side with RHS addons.

 

Script work just good when exacly SA20 launchers spawned (in editor it under Russian Federation Army). In other cases it spawn SA10 launchers with SA20 radar  

 

SA10 work just good   

[hcpookie 3770]

Hmm, instinctivly I thought that 40 rounds just didn't sound right... Much too low....

 

BUT look here

 

---

Looks to be about 40 each side ?

 

The belts are short.... The ammo bins look like they could carry a lot more though, Perhaps there is an official length used in some countries and more in others ?

 

Yep that's why my ZSU-23-4 versions now have smaller magazines now.  Makes it more... interesting.  Documentation "everywhere" indicates 40-50 round belts are standard loads.  Just guessing on my part here - I doubt seriously the crews link all the belts into a super-long chain.  I doubt there would be room to do so.  Again, guesswork on my part until I see the insides of one :)

 

BTW That vid is one of the inspirations for the new AAA / FLAK ammo explosions sounds.

 

 

All of the "shooter" errors have been acknowledged... thanks for reporting... no need to re-post these errors until I can get it fixed.

[Masnooper 42]

Of course that 50 rounds belts are standard load of ZU-23 but that 50 rounds BELT goes into a cartridge and ZU-23 loads two cartridges at the same time that makes it 100

Two barrels changes after firing each 100 rounds with reserved barrels those are in the barrel carrying box which is filled with gasoline to get cold.

[hcpookie 3770]

REGARDING THE "_SHOOTER" errors.

 

 

After playing in the editor all evening with no errors, I finally managed to repro this problem!!!

 

To repro:

 

1.  When I place a site spawner "unit" in the 3D editor for the first time, it works fine.

 

2.  Only when I return to the editor, delete and THEN place a new site, the errors pop up constantly, like it is broken.

 

 

 

Based on this behavior, I am forced to assume that ONCE AGAIN this seems to be a 3D editor problem, and how the scripts assume that the vehicle is in play.  (This worked fine before the 3D editor). 

 

There is no "if 3D editor" check in the "scanning" script, only in the "INIT" script.  Therefore, when you remove something in the 3D editor, as you may know, it is removing it "from the game".  PRESTO you have a fucked up mission.  The script identifies the "shooter" as one of the alive launchers in the site.  If you go into the 3D editor and delete the site, guess what, there are no more launchers!  This means that the script craps its pants because those entities that were there a moment ago are no longer there!

 

 

 

SO.

 

How to fix this...

 

I will add a 3D editor check in the "scanning" loop of the script.  That's the only thing I know how to do.  This shitty 3D editor doesn't seem to have any "pause" function, so we are stuck trying to check if the 3D editor is "active" or not.  I would be more kind to the 3D editor if it had the ability to "pause" functions and scripts that, as you would expect, would "PAUSE" the action since it is a frikking editor.  Like the 2D editor does by default...    #bringbackthe2deditor   

 

 

MY REQUEST:
 

Those w/ the "shooter" script errors.  If you could let me know whether or not the error appears upon placement of the FIRST site, or whether it happens upon placement of a subsequent site AFTER the first site is placed?  This will help immensely.

 

 

I am going to add that check in the scripts anyway, just in case I got lucky and actually identified root cause.

 

I am also tweaking some of the popup issues that have been reported, and some that have not!  :)

 

 

 

ALSO:  I am adding support for external jamming/ ECM scripts.  This will add an new layer of "realism" to the jamming scripts.   Stay tuned in this space... more to come!  :)   

 

Based on "shooter" feedback, an update should be soon.  Very soon.

[serjames 357]

Great work Pook. I'm going to double check the placement issue for you this afternoon.

[serjames 357]

Hi mate. tested the theory and it doesn't seem to make a difference.

 

I just placed a Patriot site and didn't mess around with it in anyway i.e. delete it and it doesn't work.

 

[hcpookie 3770]

Thanks for this vid, it is VERY helpful!  I'm reviewing the way the script works to try to avoid this issue.  I've been approaching the testing a little differently.  The "Shooter" is a randomly selected launcher in the site so ammo isn't completely drained from the "first" launcher of the site. 

 

So it is either not recognizing who the 'shooter' is, or the 'pool' of launchers to select from.  I see how this could break if any of the launchers were destroyed so I can re-check that every time.  I'm also increasing the range so user-placed supplemental launchers of the same type can be controlled in this fashion.  Both of these changes may alter the behavior so "shooter" is never unknown.  I'll play with it some this week.

 

 

Also "OH" that's how you use the zeus mode in SP  :)

[serjames 357]

Glad it was useful... So my subtly with Zeus didn't go un-noticed eh :-).

It's pretty much indispensable mate once you have gotten used to it.

If you wanted help getting the "module" concept cracked a couple of our mission builders had some interest.... Let me look back and see what function they mentioned hang on

[serjames 357]

It was https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/remoteExec

[hcpookie 3770]

I think I have it now.  Going to do some more testing.  I'm making it re-check for the available shooters every time now.  This should allow supplemental launchers that are hand-placed nearby to be controlled by the site in a limited fashion.

 

I am also checking 'if in 3d editor' so it won't try to run the scripts before it should.  That alone should fix quite a bit of nonsense.

 

 

I have bumped up the indirect damage values to stupid-high values and they simply don't do the job against a BIS plane.  The new damage model seems to be really fucked up for planes.  An indirect hit of 300 should make that plane a flying lawn dart.  Instead it just shrugs it off, no big deal.  That's with the "correct" explosive value of "1".  So it should transfer "all" damage in the calculation.  The planes can take 3-4 hits.  Of course when I get in a plane and fly around, it barely survives 1 hit alone!  :(  It is as if the AI planes have better damage settings or something, and if you're in it the plane damage behaves differently.

 

 

 

I'm still not sure what a module would include.  A real air defense network would make everyone aware of all enemy planes like an early warning system.  Giving control to other sites is about the only thing I could think of, where you would have several sites "slaved" to a "master" site but that is a bit beyond the scope of this, considering any map is only 20km across.  If/when the "whole world" map functionality is introduced to the Arma series it could prove beneficial.  Otherwise, what advantage/feature would "a module" provide.

[serjames 357]

I think the module for me would be something I could drop down in Zeus and then group to a SAM or radar system and then have it run your clever stuff in the bacground. I.e. Tracking and BVR. Wouldn't have to do anything more clever than that really :-)

[hcpookie 3770]

So... basically what my scripts already do :)

 

The point of the self-spawning sites is precisely to remove that burden from mission builders.  ;)

 

I am expanding the query for the radar control unit to find and control any SAM / AAA units (of the correct type) within a 600m diameter, doubling the original 300m size.  That should be PLENTY for people who want to add a super-site of however many SAM or AAA launchers they wish.  The extra ones won't have the AI control, so the "extra" placed stuff may not behave perfectly, but it lets extra stuff be added to the sites.

 

Other than the automatically placed bunkers etc. the scripts don't do that much more... each site's radar controls what they can/cannot see in an approximate 15-20km range depending on the type.  That isn't really suitable for networking, again until we get "full world" maps.

 

 

 

Edit to add - I believe I discovered the reason my SAM missiles don't do the damage they should.  It would seem the missile is fine.  It would seem the issue is how the "proximity damage" configuration is generated.  I've been testing all morning and I can destroy the planes with the current values and the updated "proximity damage" configuration.  This should work MUCH better now :)

[teddymosart1 40]

Any upgrades for Pantsir and RBS-70 systems? Upgrades for Stinger? Maybe a enterable radar /command site? Some way to spawn a site with troops that protect it ?

[hcpookie 3770]

Why do you post random questions in my topics?  None of that is in this mod.  Please limit comments to useful feedback. 

 

Requests for new things should go here:

 

https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/190389-arma-3-addon-request-thread/

[hcpookie 3770]

Update ready... download from OneDrive location in first post.  I believe I have addressed all of the "shooter" popup errors, and some other things as well!  :D

 

 

 

 

V4.2:  9/6/2016

• FIX:  100 rnd Zu-23 magazines (2x 50-round belts).  This appears to be correct based on numerous sources
• FIX:  Corrected CUP US Army faction editor listing
• FIX:  Spawner preview pic errors in 3D editor
• FIX:  Site spawner script placement errors.  Should address the “shooter†popup errors
• FIX:  Minor SNR-125 radar 3D model issues
• IMPROVED:  Site spawner scripts now clear launcher positions of all trees and terrain objects within a 40m diameter. This should improve engagement behavior
• IMPROVED:  Site spawner scripts improved embankment placement
• IMPROVED:  Added check for 3D editor within site spawner scripts.  This should address the “shooter†script popup errors
• IMPROVED:  Increased site “assignment†distance.  This will allow manually-placed launchers to be controlled by the site within 600m of the radar control unit
• IMPROVED:  Significantly improved indirect damage settings for proximity fused systems
• NEW:  Added support for external ECM / Jamming scripts.  Information contained in the Appendix at the end of the Guide

[ski2060 167]

Hell yeah!  You da Man!

I'll download and start checking things out as soon as I can. :D

[serjames 357]

I'll give it a run - looking forward to seeing it in action again.

 

Love the ability to place more units down and have them included - very clever.

 

Ref the Module, yes your scripts do it in the editor..... but the module concept we're tossing around is designed for use by Zeus only.

 

Why is that so important for us ? Of the 4 operations we run a week, 3 of them are Zeus built and guided and all the mission builders have expressed excitement over getting your kit into the game, but at the moment only 1 Op which is pre-scripted and built in the editor would work properly with SAMs

 

Anyway great to get them working 1st, that's key obviously.

 

SJ

[sammael 366]

• IMPROVED:  Significantly improved indirect damage settings for proximity fused systems

SA 20 .one hit -fatal ?