a.i. Tactical Combat Link - TypeX

[oldy41 61]

18 hours ago, AirShark said:

there is something annoying I found in GL4/TCL along time ago, sometimes the Ai is disembarking for no reasons from armed vehicles/static turrets during combat I tested it today with the Zsu-23 if more then 1 airplane flys around it they disembark and run away... even if there is 4 Zsu-23s and only 2 airplanes they disembark and flee away

I wonder if you can improve Ai static Turrets crew/Armed vehicles crew for example like Tank crew by obliging them to stay on their armed vehicles if any enemies nearby when the vehicle is damaged... sometimes for small scratch like damaged tracks will force them to disembark and get their selfs killed... and TCL/GL4 to be honest makes that a little bit worse 😛
 because you are trying to make new features/improvements my suggestion is to force them to stay in their vehicles/turrets unless Fatal explosion will happen or there is no spotted enemy nearby when the armed vehicle/turret is damaged.

 

I noted the same for some APCs from RHS:

It was some Russian APC manned (per default) with a driver and a machine gunner. (I will try to look up its class later.)

Both driver and gunner immediately abandon their vehicle as soon as the mission starts.

Maybe something is broken in the TCL code for deciding, whether a vehicle is damaged or the like?

[chrisb 196]

3 hours ago, froggyluv said:

That video does a poor job of showing anything really other than some basic AI maneuvering. You need to show distance, location and general orientation of the enemy to make a determination how well the AI is behaving. Narration notes or at least timestamps to make your points are helpful as well.

 

And again, there are circumstances where AI need to really just haul ass such as incoming artillery, armor or grenade. Im 48yo in real life and i could run circles around those stooges. Thats why the BI devs provided all of the newer Disable Ai features -they realize that the AI needs more but they simply arent funded to do so. Giving scripters the tools was a very nice gesture

Yep, notes were on there when it was uploaded 4 or 5 yrs back, but YT removed notations on many videos. There could be some of mine on there with fixed notes done prior in an editor, but I'm no longer sure with the amount of ai behavioural videos I've done.

 

And watching the video, if you understood ai behaviour, which I'm not sure you do, because lets face it,  they're not jumping off building onto moving trucks etc, or very hollywood/cod style that you seem to prefer.

Its just a simple self explanatory video really, even without notations, most understand where the enemy is located, how far, etc and the idea of the video.

 

But it seems a few watchers understood, and I thank those that bothered to message me and indeed like. I'm not used to very many watching these videos other than the subs who have been with me for many years now and appreciate ai behavioural videos and who also use/try for high quality tactical ai, with what is publically available.

The behaviour shown in both linked videos, show exactly what they were meant to show, they didn't need to go further (or indeed need an explanation, certainly for those that sub to my YT), that was for other videos and ai behavioural subjects.

[AirShark 147]

Quote

I noted the same for some APCs from RHS:

It was some Russian APC manned (per default) with a driver and a machine gunner. (I will try to look up its class later.)

Both driver and gunner immediately abandon their vehicle as soon as the mission starts.

Maybe something is broken in the TCL code for deciding, whether a vehicle is damaged or the like?

its not only with RHS I tried it with 3cb factions... technicals and cars were more likely to disembark when I tested however maybe your right some 3cb faction units are using RHS class names...  maybe RHS is using different configs they add a lot of stuff into the game wich leads to incompatibility sometimes even with vanilla but this bug is known from GL4 wich put aside the suspicion of RHS so it's definitely TCL thing.

[snkman 351]

23 hours ago, AirShark said:

there is something annoying I found in GL4/TCL along time ago, sometimes the Ai is disembarking for no reasons from armed vehicles/static turrets during combat I tested it today with the Zsu-23 if more then 1 airplane flys around it they disembark and run away... even if there is 4 Zsu-23s and only 2 airplanes they disembark and flee away

Well if that's the case i totally agree with you.

But this should be some A.I. engine related behaviour...

T.C.L. does never unassign A.I. unit(s) from armed vehicle(s) at least not if there is a driver and gunner in the armed vehicle.

Armed vehicle(s) which have A.I. unit(s) in cargo position will unassign them but driver, gunner and commander ( if available ) will stay inside the vehicle.

 

Guess so far i did not test the scenario you described but i will defenetly do and see what i can do if there is a easy way to prevent this behaviour.

 

16 hours ago, chrisb said:

The things you point to as possible improvements for modders/devs like yourself, i.e. (disable) cover, autocombat, path etc, etc that were introduced in A3. These for me, seem to be there for modders/devs, to make the game faster, which is what A3 seems to be, when compared to earlier titles. I wouldn't think these were helpful in a realistic way. Forcing ai through using some of these commands is great if you want the game to feel fast, maybe a perceived excitement (battlefield'ish).

 

I can't see,  -this disableAI "COVER"-, or suppression, to be useful at all, for a tactical ai (just imo), unless your after a faster game. Plus switching to auto combat 'as is default', that seems right for the way we play the game (non story driven sessions), infact its more or less a must.

 

That said, for heavily scripted missions (maybe story based/driven), whereas you have to get the ai to point 'a' or point 'b' at a set time, or to move the game onwards quicker, then I can see why you would use these commands. But looking at what they do seems to just be aimed at pushing the game forward/faster, or isn't it ?

 

How do you see these helping make the game more tactical, it would be good if they do, but we're yet to see other mods use them that way. I see A3 played much faster than previous titles on the whole. I can't see that as a good thing, well, for me at least.

 

Have you an example of a scenario, where you'd find these really helpful in a tactical way, not story driven mission, but with a terrain set out as occupied by ai forces ? i.e. once set out they act in a more independent way ?

Well T.C.L. A.I. unit(s) / group(s) by default have a 50% chance to use "AWARE" or "COMBAT" behaviour.

This will give you a good mix of fast moving A.I. which use less cover and move much faster and some A.I. group(s) which will move slower by using cover and up/down stance.

 

From what i can say! A.I. unit(s) which always only use "COMBAT" behaviour ( as is in vanilla ) are not very dangerouse in distance combat situations because they need very long to get to their enemy position and you can escape them very easily.

If you run straight 500 meters A.I. which use behaviour "COMBAT" and within the same time may made 100 - 200 meters so they never will be able to catch up with you.

 

I'm swirching A.I. unit(s) which lost enemy contact and which are more than 300 - 500 meters away from their target position to "AWARE" behaviour and after reaching their target position back to what behaviour they used befor.

 

Thing is... behaviour "COMBAT" will be used as long as A.I. has any knowledge ( which most of the time will be 3 - 5 minutes ) of any enemy even if their enemy already is far far away which means A.I. unit(s) will use cover and do up/down stance even if there is no real threat nearby...

This mainly was why i was waiting for this command since A2 and which really made me loose my intrest of A.I. modding back in the days.

Its pretty much useless and a waste of time to try modding A.I. which in the end will follow their hardcoded behaviour and ignore almost everything which was told them by the mod.

 

15 hours ago, chrisb said:

But ai have been doing that (with help) for years. Going to cover is something that is well documented in videos, real cover, cover that is well out of the way too i.e. they travel to cover whilst covering other units.

So it isn't really that new, or new at all. Just requires mods, well not even mods, just zeu_findcover pbo plus a little tampering.

Well guess you really can't compare A2 A.I. with A3 A.I.

Just look at the map... It's totally empty... + A.I. "COMBAT" behaviour movement in A3 is much more different to what seen in your video.

In A3 they always go prone > middle > up which really slow A.I. movement down a lot + in A3 there are WAY more objects which A.I. use for cover so they will be in cover almost every 10 sec. and most of the time stay there for another 10 sec. which of course isn't too bad but in some scenarios it makes them kind of stick to their position even if they should advance.

Guess i can tell A.I. modding has become harder with each ARMA title because B.I.S. added a lot of stuff to the A.I. which of course is very nice if you play the game without any mods.

But from a modders point of view it made things much more complicated because you have to know and respect much more things which A.I. do ( behave ) what they did not do in the previouse ARMA title.

You kind of always have to start from scratch if you like to do it serious...

Also i can speak from myself and from my own modding time... The more things you add the more problems may will be pop up this could be seen for coding / programming in general.

To me personal O.F.P. A.I. will always be my #1!!!

Compared to todays A3 A.I. they were pretty basic and simple programmed but they almost every time did exactly what they was supposed to do!

 

8 hours ago, froggyluv said:

And again, there are circumstances where AI need to really just haul ass such as incoming artillery, armor or grenade. Im 48yo in real life and i could run circles around those stooges. Thats why the BI devs provided all of the newer Disable Ai features -they realize that the AI needs more but they simply arent funded to do so. Giving scripters the tools was a very nice gesture

Exactly! That's what it's all about!

Would have NEVER EVER touched any ARMA A.I. mod without them! That's for sure!

 

4 hours ago, oldy41 said:

I noted the same for some APCs from RHS:

It was some Russian APC manned (per default) with a driver and a machine gunner. (I will try to look up its class later.)

Both driver and gunner immediately abandon their vehicle as soon as the mission starts.

Maybe something is broken in the TCL code for deciding, whether a vehicle is damaged or the like?

Okay so i will test this right after i'm done with writing.

 

[chrisb 196]

3 minutes ago, snkman said:

Well guess you really can't compare A2 A.I. with A3 A.I.

Just look at the map... It's totally empty... + A.I. "COMBAT" behaviour movement in A3 is much more different to what seen in your video.

In A3 they always go prone > middle > up which really slow A.I. movement down a lot + in A3 there are WAY more objects which A.I. use for cover so they will be in cover almost every 10 sec. and most of the time stay there for another 10 sec. which of course isn't too bad but in some scenarios it makes them kind of stick to their position even if they should advance.

 

 

 

Its totally empty for a reason 🙄, but I guess it passed you by.

___

Description (for those that need it):

The whole idea of the test for the video shown on page, isn't for anything other than showing the need for finding good cover (way off, over 30-50mtrs) put to side of each force. And have the ai use it, rather than the vanilla attempt.

Then the test was to run two groups (opfor/blufor) straight at each other down the middle of a 'testmap' (its a testmap ;)), to see what the ai script/mod, does for the ai.

Script is 'zeus_findcover, based on SLX_findcover, very good scripts'. But we would still need them to retain their in-built cover routines, for tactical game play anyway (just imo).

 

Empty map, means nowhere to hide, other than the two settlements.

With vanilla your correct, they just go prone and run the routine, prone, middle, up and die (no nearby cover). But this isn't the case in either video. They find good cover, whilst using cover fire. The linked video is in town, the shown video is on a created 'testmap'. After they go to cover they flank ect. But first, they firefight over the distance in-between (no mans land) more realistic imo.

___

 

Reason I put it up was, I was just wondering what taking out or to disable cover for ai, would achieve, (one of those new commands you mention for A3) other than a battlefield'ish type game play (which you just described).  Also the 'disable combat' mode, to replace it with what ?

 

Not that I don't mind how players play, if fast action game play, similar to what I think it would produce and why, I think, BI added them, is the result you want, then that's o.k... I didn't know that.

But not really ai for tactical use. But we're yet to see in a video.

 

Still..  It doesn't matter, it answers my question and indeed some others I had.  😉

 

Good luck with the mod anyway. At my age I need a slower more tactical game play.

[snkman 351]

Okay did some tests...

Tank vs APC

APC vs APC

ZSU and AWC 302 ( AA ) vs A-164 Wipeout

Tank vs Tank

multiple times...

 

All worked as it should?

Crew ( Driver + Gunner ) disembarked their vehicle(s) just right befor the deadly hit.

I was able to shoot their vehicle(s) till 1 hit left to destroy them and which made them leave their vehicle which seems okay to me to not stay in the vehicle and explode with them.

 

I tested it with vanilla... Nothing else besides T.C.L.

Maybe something wrong with R.H.S.? Idk...

 

1 hour ago, chrisb said:

Its totally empty for a reason 🙄, but I guess it passed you by.

___

Description (for those that need it): 

The whole idea of the test for the video shown on page, isn't for anything other than showing the need for finding good cover (way off, over 30-50mtrs) put to side of each force. And have the ai use it, rather than the vanilla attempt. 

Then the test was to run two groups (opfor/blufor) straight at each other down the middle of a 'testmap' (its a testmap ;)), to see what the ai script/mod, does for the ai.

Script is 'zeus_findcover, based on SLX_findcover, very good scripts'. But we would still need them to retain their in-built cover routines, for tactical game play anyway (just imo).

Okay i get your point but this does not reflect the game as is normal.

Just like testing A.I. without enemy.

If you really like to have a full realistic and authentic example you always should use the game as its played normally.

 

I tell you something from my older modding days...

Back in the days guess it was in GL3 times i had almost the same idea you had...

Writing my scripts by using a game logic as enemy ( which will never be a real enemy to any side ) just to save some time with making A.I. aware of any enemy and doing the same procedure all over and over again because they killed each other...

Well i spend some days writing my scripts testing them and they all workd perfectly!

A.I. did exactly what they sould do!

Guess what happend after i tested those scripts with some real A.I. enemy(s)?

Almost nothing...

The way of how the scripts / A.I. behave with real A.I. enemy(s) were totally different.

After this i never ever wrote any script without having A.I. in a real combat situation.

 

I see what you are trying to show there but just as i said... If you like to have a full authentic example do it by using the game as it is normally.

Bet if i would remove all rocks and bushes from A3 Malden my A.I. stuck / refuse to move problem would be already solved!!!

 

Please don't get me wrong chrisb!!! I'm just telling you this from my own experience and what i've learnd during all my year's of ARMA A.I. modding.

 

[chrisb 196]

4 minutes ago, snkman said:

Okay did some tests...

Tank vs APC

APC vs APC

ZSU and AWC 302 ( AA ) vs A-164 Wipeout

Tank vs Tank

multiple times...

 

All worked as it should?

Crew ( Driver + Gunner ) disembarked their vehicle(s) just right befor the deadly hit.

I was able to shoot their vehicle(s) till 1 hit left to destroy them and which made them leave their vehicle which seems okay to me not to say in the vehicle and explode with them.

 

I tested it with vanilla... Nothing else besides T.C.L.

Maybe something wrong with R.H.S.? Idk...

 

Okay i get your point but this does not reflect the game as is normal.

Just like testing A.I. without enemy.

If you really like to have a full realistic and authentic example you always should use the game as its played normally.

 

I tell you something from my older modding days...

Back in the days guess it was in GL3 times i had almost the same idea you had...

Writing my scripts by using a game logic as enemy ( which will never be a real enemy to any side ) just to save some time with making A.I. aware of any enemy and doing the same procedure all over and over again because they killed each other...

Well i spend some days writing my scripts testing them and they all workd perfectly!

A.I. did exactly what they sould do!

Guess what happend after i tested those scripts with some real A.I. enemy(s)?

Almost nothing...

The way of how the scripts / A.I. behave with real A.I. enemy(s) were totally different.

After this i never ever wrote any script without having A.I. in a real combat situation.

 

I see what you are trying to show there but just as i said... If you like to have a full authentic example do it by using the game as it is normally.

Bet if i would remove all rocks and bushes from A3 Malden my A.I. refuse to move problem would be already solved!!!

 

Please don't get me wrong chrisb!!! I'm just telling you this from my own experience and what i've learnd during all my year's of ARMA A.I. modding.

 

 

I can't answer that really. I have done just over 400 videos regards ai, most all ingame with everything as normal, plus all with enemy (fancy that), those videos also had enemies. 😉

Didn't have grass though.. Damn!! that must have made the difference.. 🤣

Sorry couldn't help it..

 

But it doesn't matter, as said, you answered what I thought.

[snkman 351]

Well i just told you my personal point of view of how i see it and what i experienced during all my time with O.F.P. / ARMA series.

May you got something wrong... It wasn't my attempt to fool you chrisb!

 

Guess every one has its own way of how to enjoy/play ARMA or what to do with it and how to use it.

 

At the end that's all what it's all about! Right?

 

Enjoy the game enjoy what ever and how ever you do it.

 

[oldy41 61]

2 hours ago, snkman said:

Okay did some tests...

Tank vs APC

APC vs APC

ZSU and AWC 302 ( AA ) vs A-164 Wipeout

Tank vs Tank

multiple times...

 

All worked as it should?

Crew ( Driver + Gunner ) disembarked their vehicle(s) just right befor the deadly hit.

I was able to shoot their vehicle(s) till 1 hit left to destroy them and which made them leave their vehicle which seems okay to me to not stay in the vehicle and explode with them.

 

I tested it with vanilla... Nothing else besides T.C.L.

Maybe something wrong with R.H.S.? Idk...

 

 

This may very well be a problem related to how the RHS vehicles are configed.

And of course I totally understand if you do not want to spend time investigating sophisticated issues with 3rd party mods, but this might still be interesting:

 

One of the classes affected is rhsgref_BRDM2_HQ_msv. It is a variant of the BRDM2 wheeled APC, which RHS chooses to categorize as an MRAP.

It has no 'real' turret, but an open hatch with an MG.

The unit is stand-alone with no waypoints.

As soon as the action gets near (idk what exactly is the trigger) the complete crew disembarks and engages by foot.

 

[AirShark 147]

44 minutes ago, oldy41 said:

This may very well be a problem related to how the RHS vehicles are configed.

And of course I totally understand if you do not want to spend time investigating sophisticated issues with 3rd party mods, but this might still be interesting:

 

One of the classes affected is rhsgref_BRDM2_HQ_msv. It is a variant of the BRDM2 wheeled APC, which RHS chooses to categorize as an MRAP.

It has no 'real' turret, but an open hatch with an MG.

The unit is stand-alone with no waypoints.

As soon as the action gets near (idk what exactly is the trigger) the complete crew disembarks and engages by foot. 

  

i was getting the same issue with arma 2 when I used GL4 so... RHS is using arma 2 configs because most of their stuff are ported from vanilla A2... same for cup and 3cb factions 🤔

 

Quote

One of the classes affected is rhsgref_BRDM2_HQ_msv. It is a variant of the BRDM2 wheeled APC, which RHS chooses to categorize as an MRAP.

It has no 'real' turret, but an open hatch with an MG.

 

I tested it with ZSU-23... which is configed as a real turret and the same thing happened 

[snkman 351]

@oldy41 + AirShark

37 minutes ago, oldy41 said:

This may very well be a problem related to how the RHS vehicles are configed.

And of course I totally understand if you do not want to spend time investigating sophisticated issues with 3rd party mods, but this might still be interesting:

 

One of the classes affected is rhsgref_BRDM2_HQ_msv. It is a variant of the BRDM2 wheeled APC, which RHS chooses to categorize as an MRAP.

It has no 'real' turret, but an open hatch with an MG.

The unit is stand-alone with no waypoints.

As soon as the action gets near (idk what exactly is the trigger) the complete crew disembarks and engages by foot.

 

Thanks for your feedback oldy.

Well to me it sounds like somehow this BRDM2 kind of return no gunner position?

 

With T.C.L. i check each vehicle position ( Driver / Gunner / Commander / Cargo ).

If vehicle(s) are armed, have ammunition and are able to drive the Driver + Gunner ( Commander if any ) will stay in the vehicle and the cargo unit(s) ( if any ) will disembark only.

 

I will test it with R.H.S. just to see what's going on and if there is an easy way to fix it but if it's some kind of config problem... Just as i said... With vanilla it all works fine.

[fycj 9]

About the disembarking problem, i tested it with IFA and all vehicles worked fine except for a little t60 tank that disembarked everytime, the only difference that that tank had is that it doesn't have commander slot defined in config or by default, so maybe it's about tanks (tracked not wheeled) without commander slot

 

only requested units as reinforcement disembarked though, like they got into combat range (700-1000 m) and they disembark, vehicles in combat range didn't had that problem (although as i said in IFA the only tank that had that problem was the t60)

[snkman 351]

44 minutes ago, fycj said:

About the disembarking problem, i tested it with IFA and all vehicles worked fine except for a little t60 tank that disembarked everytime, the only difference that that tank had is that it doesn't have commander slot defined in config or by default

 

only requested units as reinforcement disembarked though, like they got into combat range (700-1000 m) and they disembark, vehicles in combat directly (although as i said in IFA the only tank that had that problem was the t60)

Many thx fycj!

[AirShark 147]

2 hours ago, snkman said:

With T.C.L. i check each vehicle position ( Driver / Gunner / Commander / Cargo ).

If vehicle(s) are armed, have ammunition and are able to drive the Driver + Gunner ( Commander if any ) will stay in the vehicle and the cargo unit(s) ( if any ) will disembark

and if there is no driver like in turrets ?

so when the driver dies the gunner will disembark...  

iirc i saw that happens in GL4 I killed driver and the gunner disembark while he could finish me with his heavy machine gun...

disembark with combat behavior is an issue here unless its in safe/aware 

im currently using this code to keep vehicles crew in  

  _veh = vehicle _x;
  _veh allowCrewInImmobile true;
  

 

[snkman 351]

30 minutes ago, AirShark said:

and if there is no driver like in turrets ?

so when the driver dies the gunner will disembark...  

iirc i saw that happens in GL4 I killed driver and the gunner disembark while he could finish me with his heavy machine gun...

disembark with combat behavior is an issue here unless its in safe/aware 

im currently using this code to keep vehicles crew in  

  _veh = vehicle _x;
  _veh allowCrewInImmobile true;
  

 

Well it depends...

For example: Jeep's with weapon(s) ( Hunter / Prowler ) as soon as the gunner get's killed the driver will assign the weapon and use it for some time.

If the driver get's killed same goes to the gunner he will disembark after some time.

 

This is like already explained because of A.I. formation movement ( not movement ) if one or multiple unit(s) of the group are not able to catch up with the group formation.

At some point it will make all A.I unit(s) of the group to stay at their position not moving anymore till every unit is in its correct group formation position.

 

All this vehicle / static weapon feature(s) would be much more easy to do if it would not depend on A.I. movement but one of the main features of T.C.L. is A.I. movement.

So at some point i have to make sure every unit of a group is able to get into its correct formation position.

 

About turrets:

Yes pretty much the same will happend for Tanks and A.P.C.s all vehicles which are "LandVehicle" class.

But killing the driver of a tank in combat will be much more harder i guess. Needs some kind of lucky shot.

Still after the driver of the tank was killed the gunner ( turret ) will stay in the tank for some time.

 

Or did you mean static turrets?

If yes they use another part/script of the mod which will make them disembark the turret if enemy contact was lost or if they are more than 300 - 500 meters away from the groups current move position. ( Because of what i explained above )

[zephyrsouza 123]

Is the mod version suppose to be plug and play on servers?

Currently running it on a dedicated server and the AI are not showing any TCL behaviors.

 

Edit: Ran both modded, and scripted versions of Beta v.1.0.19 on a dedicated server.

AI showed no changes, didnt no garrison buildings or move to engage etc.

When running in editor on the same mission (Scripted) AI showed proper behavior in a non dedicated server enviorment. 

[snkman 351]

9 hours ago, zephyrsouza said:

Is the mod version suppose to be plug and play on servers?

Yes it is.

 

Does the server have UserConfig > TCL folder and -filePatching enabled?

Any errors related to T.C.L. in your Server.RPT ( Multiplayer.RPT )?

 

Also you could try T.C.L. v.1.0.21

 

[zephyrsouza 123]

7 hours ago, snkman said:

Yes it is.

 

Does the server have UserConfig > TCL folder and -filePatching enabled?

Any errors related to T.C.L. in your Server.RPT ( Multiplayer.RPT )?

 

Also you could try T.C.L. v.1.0.21

 

 

Hello, I did more testing and this is my results.

Server does indeed have UserConfig > TCL folder and -filePatching enabled.

 

Test #1:  TCL and CBA enabled, anything Zeus spawned will not work properly.

If its placed in eden TCL will work properly and make the ai react as expected.

 

Test #2: If the server ONLY has TCL (vanilla clients) the same results above are repeated.

If its placed in eden TCL will work properly and make the ai react as expected, anything Zeus spawned will not work properly.

 

Test #3: Client and Server ONLY have TCL. The same results above are repeated.

If its placed in eden TCL will work properly and make the ai react as expected, anything Zeus spawned will not work properly.

 

All tests were done on a sample mission with 0 scripts and only a single unit spawned with the Zeus module synced.

[snkman 351]

Oh Zeus...

If you would have told me this befor.

 

Tactical Combat Link - ( TypeX ) v.1.0.27 ( ChangeLog )

 

Fixed:

( System ) Zeus: Zeus A.I. group(s) created by client(s) in multiplayer was not initialized correctly. ( Beta / W.I.P. )

 

So next version.

 

If i remember right there are some other mods Achilles and/or Ares which may will solve this client / server side problem for you till than.

 

Thanks for your feedback!

Edited June 7, 2019 by snkman

[zephyrsouza 123]

Just now, snkman said:

Oh Zeus...

If you would have told me this befor.

 

Fixed:

( System ) Zeus: Zeus A.I. group(s) created by client(s) in multiplayer was not initialized correctly. ( Beta / W.I.P. )

 

So next version.

 

If i remember right there are some other mods Achilles and/or Ares which may will solve this client / server side problem for you till than.

My apologies, I didnt connect those two dots until I did more testing 🙂

Is there an ETA on this fix?

 

In the meantime I have attempted Achilles/Ares with no luck so far.

Will continue to search for fixes.

[snkman 351]

No need to apologies.

 

9 minutes ago, zephyrsouza said:

Is there an ETA on this fix?

Very soon.

 

Sorry my bad... Guess it was this one which switched A.I. unit(s) locallity: Zeus Integration with Servers and Headless Client

I did not test it but from what i read it may work.

[zephyrsouza 123]

2 hours ago, snkman said:

No need to apologies.

 

Very soon.

 

Sorry my bad... Guess it was this one which switched A.I. unit(s) locallity: Zeus Integration with Servers and Headless Client

I did not test it but from what i read it may work.

Sadly that addon will not work with TCL.

I will wait for the fix to come out before attempting to use the mod currently.

 

Thank you for your hard work 🙂

[snkman 351]

Too bad...

Okay so i know that.

 

Sure no problem you are welcome.

 

Keep in mind!

T.C.L. Zeus dedicated server initialize still is Beta / W.I.P. which means right now A.I. unit(s) / group(s) will be initialized only.

As far as i remember manned vehicle(s) created by Zeus in multiplayer by using a dedicated server did not work properly!

 

I have to test this befor release...

 

To be honest... Don't know if i will be able to get this working till next release...

[AirShark 147]

yesterday, i did more tests and the results was amazing ! 

the Ai split, few of them took cover and mount static turrets others advanced and engage however when i flanked them they somehow got confused and all of them start engaging on one side even when they knew the situation and the position of the flankers...

i noticed something... one of the Ai mounted AT turret (static turret) while the enemy Ai s where infantry side only, no vehicles in the field... he stays there till my Ai s group killed him 😄

im sure it will happens with the AA (static turrets) too, however i will do more tests next week 😉

[Dragon_GER 19]

I noticed it's kinda not working if AI is split between multiple headless Clients. The AI does not reinforce each other and neither are they sharing Information nor alerting other Units nearby, however in Singleplayer everything is working perfectly fine.