Mapfact.net releases DAC

[zigzag 0]

your crazy man , one question and you pop pop and heres the answer, its nice that you help so much, i love what your doing to DAC and i cant even imagen whats going to happend to the next version, thank you for what your doing

the "pop pop" is your script writing

[verde13 0]

Hi Silola,

Congratulations on a excellent job.I'm looking forward to v1.2

[madrussian 347]

Man Silola, that was quick!!!

It’s extremely exciting to see you already had this in the queue.  And the new script has many useful parameters that I had not even contemplated! (i.e. adding them to multiple zones, the last parameter set, etc)  Got to try this tonight after work!

It appears adding non-infantry is a bit more difficult to implement   ... do you think we'll see this at some point in the future?

In the mean time, I’ve got a few other things I’ve been thinking about.

First off, I understand that the DAC currently requires zones to be rectangular and oriented upright (at zero degrees), for technical reasons.  However, given these constraints, it would be nice to be able to create zones with the waypoints in the shape of an oval.  Seems it would be fairly simple to implement, by applying a trig function for ovals that checks distance from the zone center, when the waypoints are chosen (throwing out the ones which do not conform).  So all the waypoints would still fall inside the bounds of the zone.  I wonder if there’s anything I’m not thinking of here?

Next, have you considered providing an option to disable using the group lead defined in the unit config for infantry groups, and instead pick the leader from the pool, on a case-bay-case basis?  There are plenty of situations where one might want to randomize the group lead.  Currently when using small group sizes (and the same unit config), you tend to keep seeing the same (leader) unit.

Finally a couple of very minor things:

DAC currently has many useful error messages (hints) that pop up to let you know when things have gone awry, such as if a necessary dummy is missing.  However, I don’t think there’s an error message for if any of the dummies are killed during initiation.  I personally got stumped on this for a couple of hours the other night.  (My east dummy was drowning in shallow water.   )  In any event, that one might save a few users some frustration.

Also, about the issues surrounding not defining more than one DAC zone at the same point… I had been doing this for some time, and was not aware of the impact.  Perhaps an error message to the user would be useful here as well?

In any event, thanks for everything… glad to see you re-energized!

This is Silola:  

This is Silola on DAC:  

Any questions?

[kutya 0]

Quote[/b] ]Next, have you considered providing an option to disable using the group lead defined in the unit config for infantry groups, and instead pick the leader from the pool, on a case-bay-case basis?  There are plenty of situations where one might want to randomize the group lead.  Currently when using small group sizes (and the same unit config), you tend to keep seeing the same (leader) unit.

IMO it wouldn't be hard to implement. I did it several times (in my work, not DAC) without problems. Just replace the "XXX select 0" part with some randomization. And a small tweak for the regular soldiers.

[silola 1086]

hi,

thank you all again for the fine support and the unbroken interest in DAC

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">It appears adding non-infantry is a bit more difficult to implement ... do you think we'll see this at some point in the future?

That should not represent a large problem. Perhaps it is built additionally into the Patch :-)

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">First off, I understand that the DAC currently requires zones to be rectangular and oriented upright (at zero degrees), for technical reasons. However, given these constraints, it would be nice to be able to create zones with the waypoints in the shape of an oval. Seems it would be fairly simple to implement, by applying a trig function for ovals that checks distance from the zone center, when the waypoints are chosen (throwing out the ones which do not conform). So all the waypoints would still fall inside the bounds of the zone. I wonder if there’s anything I’m not thinking of here?

In my opinion, a zone is not really necessary in the form of an oval.

No serious advantage results from this conversion.

There I know more meaningful features.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Next, have you considered providing an option to disable using the group lead defined in the unit config for infantry groups, and instead pick the leader from the pool, on a case-bay-case basis? There are plenty of situations where one might want to randomize the group lead. Currently when using small group sizes (and the same unit config), you tend to keep seeing the same (leader) unit.

Here a small tip, as you can reach the random selection for the Leader (like kutya it already said ):

In the script “DAC\Scripts\DAC_Group_Soldier.sqs†you must replace the line 58 ...

The original :

---------------------

if(_groupside < 3) then {_leadertyp = _TempUnits select 2} else {_leadertyp = _TempUnits select (random ((count _TempUnits) - 1))}

Modified :

---------------------

if(_groupside < 3) then {_leadertyp = _TempUnits select (2 + random ((count _TempUnits) - 3))} else {_leadertyp = _TempUnits select (random ((count _TempUnits) - 1))}

that's all.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">DAC currently has many useful error messages (hints) that pop up to let you know when things have gone awry, such as if a necessary dummy is missing. However, I don’t think there’s an error message for if any of the dummies are killed during initiation. I personally got stumped on this for a couple of hours the other night. (My east dummy was drowning in shallow water. :mock: ) In any event, that one might save a few users some frustration.

I already built this inquiry into the Patch

Because I had the same problem also

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Also, about the issues surrounding not defining more than one DAC zone at the same point… I had been doing this for some time, and was not aware of the impact. Perhaps an error message to the user would be useful here as well?

That is a good idea. That is also very important that each zone has another position.

Because the sum of the coordinates is considered as clear identification to a zone.

However a minimum deviation in the position is already enough.

ok, I will insert such an inquiry. thx for the tip

This is the DAC AI

and this is silola

this is my family

and this is our dog

bye

silola

[madrussian 347]

Thanks Silola for the excellent continued support (not to mention humor)!  

The new “DAC_Insert_Group.sqs†script is just what the doctor ordered... I've got helos flying in and dropping off the reinforcements (new groups created using grpnull), which join their DAC allies... very cool.

Now, I'd like to also be able to "break out" individual groups from the DAC on command.  Have you considered a "DAC_Remove_Group.sqs" script, which would compliment the insert?

From looking at your code, it appears this would be much more involved than the DAC_Insert_Group script (due to the insert simply setting everything up via calls... where as the remove would have to undo all of that on many levels).

However, if implemented, the overall impact of this new functionality would be HUGE.

For instance DAC removal would allow a DAC group to separate from the DAC (leaving on a temporary hiatus), complete some task (like demolition), and then return to the DAC zone (or a different DAC zone) when desired and reincorporate back into the DAC.

In addition, it would be possible to "shift" groups from one DAC zone to another based on evolving circumstances (as determined by the mission designer).

Example - This area of the front has withstood multiple attacks, but is about to break.  Although our forces in the east can ill afford to spare the men, nevertheless we must bolster the line here!  

To sum things up, IMO the DAC removal functionality described would add a great deal of flexibility and potential to the DAC.  

In any event, thanks a million, Silola!  Keep up the good work!

[silola 1086]

hi

@MadRussian

---------------------

It makes me happy that the solution functions with you.

Your suggestions are in any case very well. I will note the topic as the further feature.

@ALL

-------------

Will it be worthwhile itself to finish the DAC Patch under all circumstances?

I am not safe whether I get this Patch done in time

What will you do, if ArmA became released?

Does OFP remain further a topic for you? Or is it then no longer interesting?

Perhaps it is better to push the whole effort onto ArmA. I do not know it

Which happens, if a demo appears before?

Then the interest is definitely strongly weakened.

bye

silola

[kutya 0]

I vote waiting for ArmA since IMO most people already do nothing else than just talk about ArmA (even if they don't know what to talk about it).

[Zendjir 0]

If you have to give up parts of your social life, girlfriend, decent food, required sleeping time, work etc. to finish the patch I would say wait until arma. It would be a shame to see that all of your hard work has been for nothing because everyone plays the new game. But please do finish if it's not too much work.

[mattxr 9]

hi

@MadRussian

---------------------

It makes me happy that the solution functions with you.

Your suggestions are in any case very well. I will note the topic as the further feature.

@ALL

-------------

Will it be worthwhile itself to finish the DAC Patch under all circumstances?

I am not safe whether I get this Patch done in time

What will you do, if ArmA became released?

Does OFP remain further a topic for you? Or is it then no longer interesting?

Perhaps it is better to push the whole effort onto ArmA. I do not know it

Which happens, if a demo appears before?

Then the interest is definitely strongly weakened.

bye

silola

Got to remeber DAC will work in ArmA too same scripting and all that.. just with new posibilites maybe need to edit a few things but it will not just be for ofp..

I persoanlly hope that you will finish the patch so people who arnt as bright as others [like me ] can get our hands on some of the newer features, like some experts have already added them selves.. so i think you shouldnt give up even if it takes a lot of time due to real life.. and if thats the case let it expand into arma.. Im sure that DAC v1 will work in Arma and that you just have to change the unit codes lines..

[zigzag 0]

I would like another version of DAC cus i dont think i will be abel to play arma untill i buy a new computer so im going to stick to flashpoint for a couple of months more.

i know that real life take to much time from what we really want to do

so if you dont have the time i understand but i hope for some new version

hope you can do even more great things with this thing in arma, thats maybe finished when im coming over to arma

[madrussian 347]

I say ask yourself how excited you are to continue development prior to ArmA...

If it continues to give you satisfaction and enjoyment, then there's your answer!  Plow forward with the patch!!!  

If the anwser is no for now, then take a well deserved break... surely when ArmA arrives, the passion will then return.

Like Kutya said many posts ago, it's your hobby and it should be fun.  

As for us, your ravenous DAC consumers, we'll be here regardless, lurking, chomping at the bit, ready for any new DAC functionality to emerge...

then gobble gobble gobble like a pack of hungry Gremlins!!!

                 <- your hungry DAC Gremlins

[sickboy 13]

Will it be worthwhile itself to finish the DAC Patch under all circumstances?

I am not safe whether I get this Patch done in time

What will you do, if ArmA became released?

Does OFP remain further a topic for you? Or is it then no longer interesting?

Perhaps it is better to push the whole effort onto ArmA. I do not know it

Which happens, if a demo appears before?

Then the interest is definitely strongly weakened.

bye

silola

I would fully understand if you choose to pospone it until arma, but I am very interested still in dac 1.1 or so for ofp

[madrussian 347]

Just had another thought...

If you do indeed choose to wait for ArmA maybe just give us (I can sense Silola's cringe already when he reads this   ) the undocumented, not 100% tested, (dare I say unsupported?) patch with appropriate disclaimers so all your elustrious DAC users will be at least up to date for the time being.  Plus if the next release is indeed for ArmA, at least with the OFP patch DAC for OFP could then be considered "complete"?

Playing devils advocate- Maybe doing that would actually cause you more headaches in the future?

Just an idea, but it would probably make a lot of DAC users happy anyway.  It would be like Christmas in October!

[dmarkwick 261]

hi

Hi to you Silola first of all thanks very much for a very excellent script addon, it's one of my favourite OFP extras. If it's going to help you decide one way or the other whether to continue, take a look at this thread:

Novajev CTI+DAC

I think DAC is the perfect accompanyment to CTI, for the reasons I lay out in that thread. Try out the mission (I can highly reccomend the "busy" version for SP play) and see what you think.

[verde13 0]

Hi Silola,

A little help please.

Is there any way to make DAC units go only to specific user made waypoints?

I'm having a lot of trouble making DAC generated units go to a specific point.I tried using my own waypoints as you describe in the readme,but it doesn't work,the way i want to.I have also tried to use the "inf_z1" as you described in an earlier post but i'm a complete noob when it comes to creating the script.

[mattxr 9]

Hi Silola,

A little help please.

Is there any way to make DAC units go only to specific user made waypoints?

I'm having a lot of trouble making DAC generated units go to a specific point.I tried using my own waypoints as you describe in the readme,but it doesn't work,the way i want to.I have also tried to use the "inf_z1" as you described in an earlier post but i'm a complete noob when it comes to creating the script.

Make a game logic in the desired Zone and make it have waypoints..

at leaste that how i think its done.

[verde13 0]

Yes, i know i tried it.I want to have them move only to user's waypoints and not on merged waypoints.

[zigzag 0]

if you put waypoint to the gamelogic the units will still use them random so you cant make them follow a special way if you now what i mean

put as many waypoints as you set it in the zone and there will be no DAC created waypoints

and you have to set the gamelogic azimut to a specific number

1 infantry

2 unarmed vehicle

3 armed vehicle

4 helicopter

5 camp

[verde13 0]

It doesn't work.They aren't moving further than 10 meters from where they were generated.

[kutya 0]

You should post your mission, for people to see if you're doing something wrong. Or make one which demonstrates what's wrong.

[verde13 0]

I screwed up,that's why it didn't work.Anyway,thanks for the help.

[mattxr 9]

Ok why doesnt this work.. although i get the hint pop up.. the units dont spawn..

Its a DAC Activate thing..

Quote[/b] ]As you see DAC Activate will be 12

Quote[/b] ]The hint shows up in the editor when that condiditon is passed but no units

Any help would be great!

[mattxr 9]

ok i fixed that problem but another one arose..

Unit Waypoints grouped togther??

and so i decided to create a game logic but it still happens the waypoints stuck in one place...

Desipritly need help on this littlething

[silola 1086]

hi,

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Ok why doesnt this work.. although i get the hint pop up.. the units dont spawn..

Its a DAC Activate thing..

I discovered a wrong entry there ...

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">time < 1

It should look however as follows ...

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">time > 1

In addition please examine all zones for same attitudes.

Besides the DAC zones should not be turned.

Test the user-defined waypoints first with only one zone.

That should function, or not?

It can be only one little thing

And thanks all for the assistance at verde13

bye

silola