Walking On Moving Vehicles

[benreeper 0]

There is no such thing as "customizable weapons". All it is are a bunch of weapons made up of every combination which are chosen, but made to seem like it's chaqnging: you can do this in OFP already. Also, most other FPS's have just a 1st person animation for weapons, while in OFP it's all 3rd person, which is alot more work.

It's also unfair to state the "XYZ game" does this why can't OFP? Do posters on the forums for "XYZ game" say "OFP has 400 sqKM's of terrain and 500 units of AI on the screen at once, why can't this game?" Probably not, as they are different types of games.

However, it would be useful to have units walk on ships. It would probably the easiest to code of all walking vehicles.

--Ben

[mattxr 9]

Well if we can move up and down in a lift and not fall through and screen go all jerky it can be possible to mod it into ArmA walking in vehicals?? right.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Well if we can move up and down in a lift and not fall through and screen go all jerky it can be possible to mod it into ArmA walking in vehicals?? right.  

Im not sure

1. Buildings arent the same as a vehicle class

2. lifts only go up and down, vehicles go everywhere

[[aps]gnat 28]

Yeh, and was the people ACTUALLY going up and down in a lift or was that an animated "door" (up/down animation), and you just get SETPOS'ed at the top or bottom at the end of the run .....

[Pierrot 0]

It's also unfair to state the "XYZ game" does this why can't OFP?  Do posters on the forums for "XYZ game" say "OFP has 400 sqKM's of terrain and 500 units of AI on the screen at once, why can't this game?"  Probably not, as they are different types of games.

So, you mean not only AmrA but also Game2 will never be possible to support walking on moving vehicles?

[NeMeSiS 11]

Gnat @ Sep. 04 2006,01:47)]Yeh, and was the people ACTUALLY going up and down in a lift or was that an animated "door" (up/down animation), and you just get SETPOS'ed at the top or bottom at the end of the run .....  

It looked like a real lift, after all the door animation was broken (thats what the guy in the vid said) because the door didnt close, and we could actually see the walls moving along

[hardrock 1]

Gnat @ Sep. 04 2006,01:47)]Yeh, and was the people ACTUALLY going up and down in a lift or was that an animated "door" (up/down animation), and you just get SETPOS'ed at the top or bottom at the end of the run .....

If you look at the BIS Wiki, you can spot the new animation type "Translation" (thus, a linear animation along a line as opposed to the rotational animation in OFP). In the lift video it was stated that the whole lift is scripted, so I suppose they used this new Animation type there to animate the lift. If the player sticks to the moving platform (probably a roadway LOD) this can be done easily.

Regarding transporting vehicles, it's enough if we get better and more accurate scripting commands. If the scripting commands work well enough, scripting vehicle transport might not be much of a problem.

[[aps]gnat 28]

so I suppose they used this new Animation type there to animate the lift. If the player sticks to the moving platform (probably a roadway LOD) this can be done easily.

Yes, but the Kuznetsov has "similar" lifts using the Rotation anim but as soon as you stand still you either stay in mid-air or the floor passes through you.

This little OFP problem may of course have been fixed in ArmA with ..... a new Roadway LOD ?

And if it is "sticky" maybe this same new Roadway LOD can be used on ships !! .... Geez .... seems too good to be true lol a longshot I know.

[hardrock 1]

Gnat @ Sep. 04 2006,17:01)]And if it is "sticky" maybe this same new Roadway LOD can be used on ships !! .... Geez .... seems too good to be true lol a longshot I know.

As much as this is pure suggestion, don't forget that we deal with different object types. While the lift belongs to a plain static object, the aircraft carrier still has to be categorized as moving vehicle. And as we know from OFP modding, this tiny difference can lead to immersive problems.

[UNN 0]

With all the new Arma commands I can't see why you won't be able to script some form of walking around on a moving Carrier. Ok, so you might not be able to walk up and down stairs and it could be a nightmare to synch in MP. But all the tools are there. But is being able to walk around that important? The important thing IMHO, is landing aircraft and maintain an element of ambiguity regarding your strategic position. Walking around is probably bottom of my list. Of course it would be nice, but nice says it all.

It's easy enough to get carriers based on static building classes to move and not that much harder to land aircraft on them. The only real issues is doing it all in MP. If that can be cracked then I can live without walking to and from aircraft and settle for teleporting about around the Carrier.

[Pierrot 0]

With all the new Arma commands I can't see why you won't be able to script some form of walking around on a moving Carrier.

Is there any method to walk in the air using ArmA scripting commands? When you press 'W' key, you walk straight ahead at a certain altitude. When you press 'S' key, you go back at a certain altitude. The altitude can be set freely in the scripts; in most case it is set as high as a flight deck of an aircraft carrier. So that you seem to walk on the aircraft carrier.

Quote[/b] ]It's easy enough to get carriers based on static building classes to move and not that much harder to land aircraft on them. The only real issues is doing it all in MP.

Sounds a nice idea, but is it difficult in MP?

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ]Is there any method to walk in the air using ArmA scripting commands?

Well there is with OFP, so I guess the same applies to Arma. Although I would not exactly call it a reliable method. That’s why I never pursued it further. Perhaps if Arma allows you to use SetVelocity on infantry (the way you can with vehicles) then it might work out better.

But if you take a simple example, like just walking around on the flight deck and not up and down stairs. Then you don't have to worry about that. The main issue is just matching the units velocity along the X & Y axis, with the Carries velocity. Roadways in OFP work fine when it comes to keeping him at the correct height, as long as it remains constant.

With arma you can at least query the unit’s current animation, so detect what direction and speed the player wants to move in. After that it would be down to using setpos, to make sure he keeps up with the moving Carrier, before adding the extra movement relative to the carrier itself.

Quote[/b] ]Sounds a nice idea, but is it difficult in MP?

Gnat would be the best person to answer that one. AFAIK he is the only one to try and synchronise multiple objects together, to make them appear as though they are moving as one, in MP. At least he is the only person I've seen, who posted his results and nobody else has been able to offer him a solution? Unfortunately I have limited access to a dedicated server, so I could not offer any help either. But from the sounds of it, it's not an issue that can be overlooked?

That’s why keeping things simple, seems to be the most likely route to success. The velocity of aircraft, landing and taking off can be matched with the Carrier. When a unit gets out of an aircraft, just teleport him into a suitable cargo position propping up the Bar or something So that just leaves the MP problems of synching AFAIK.

[nephilim 0]

i think the actual problem making a scripted version of walking in vehicles is that you need numerous things to be used.

such as pos of vehicle pos of player

direction height velocity , bank, pitch and some more

now its easy to "attach" a soldier to a vehicle with setpos commands

you can even crouch go prone, shoot or turn around this way but you cant walk around on it.

to do so youd kinda would need to negotiate between the slave vehicle´s setpos and the unit´s setpos walkin in the vehicle.

and thats quite tricky or basically impossible to realize

without tons of scripts.

also lifts have been mentioned.

this stuff works already in ofp but is also limited.

also bear in mind that the lift uses an animation

vehicles are MOVING/driving (!! and arent animated so to speak like the lift using the animate command.

putting this to the same level is kinda wrong to be honest.

but lets see maybe if there isnt that feature in the first arma release maybe there will be a patch or so.

[[aps]gnat 28]

I didn't understand it at first but now I see this command could be helpful in sync'in objects in MP;

type createVehicleLocal pos

Quote[/b] ]Vehicle is not transferred through network in MP games.

So you can create 1 set of locally synch objects for every player, attached to one actual MP object. Thus the addon will never "break" as the lag separates the different objects, because there is ONLY one base object synch'ed to the server.

.... but that only helps to make a moving MP Carrier, it doesn't help with the Walking bit.

Towards Nephilim's idea ..... if you could capture KEY strokes properly we could possibly simulate walking by SETPOS (new ArmA commands with height corrections) and SETDIR. i.e. walking on "air" but calculated relative to the ship and your walking speed/direction.

But that seems script and maths heavy again

[hardrock 1]

Well, I don't get at all why you actually need moving carriers . . . Moving ships, alright. And synchronizing different parts of a ship won't be a problem anymore in ArmA, as we'll get the multiple turrets.

But carriers? Why should carriers move? First of all, no-one of us would really like to drive an aircraft carrier in MP nor in SP. Second, does it give us any tactical advantages? Nope. So I think this "problem" is pretty nonexistent. Normal ships are possible, and aircraft carriers can just be static as well.

[VISTREL 0]

I can live with non moving carriers. But I want to be able to walk on them, land choppers / aircraft there, explore, etc.

[Mogley 0]

Being able to move about a carrier, and takeoff from it was possible in BF1942, and yes people would actully drive the carriers as well. There were also submarines and torpedo bombers after the carriers, who were supported by battleships and destroyers.

There are tactics involved with movable carriers, now it wasnt as useful on the small battlefield maps. But imagine a Capture The Island game mode, where one side already controls the island(or almost all) and the other side must attack from the sea. The placement(and movement) of the carrier would be very important and could make for some very nice games. Imagine the size of the map to hide the carrier in. It was really hard to hide the carrier on the bf1942 maps. Now imagine it in Arma, would be alot easier.

So I think if it were possible it could really open up the game play.

I think if its not possible in Arma then BIS really needs to look at the amount of added gameplay the naval warfare could add to the game. And there are some ex-navy and marines who would love this stuff.

[benreeper 0]

I see a system where a unit is assigned a seat as normal. Therefore they are alway part of the vehicle, the same way they are now. You then allow them to roam the vehicle, on pre-defined paths that seem random and non-restrictive. At any time, you can click an action and be returned to your assigned seat. It would be like the proxies we have now but being movable.

--Ben

[DrBobcat 0]

The nice thing about ArmA is that all the collision detection problems are (supposedly) fixed and non-moving carriers will be no issue at all (again supposedly). While I could see the important of moving carriers in BF1942 or BF2, I see very little use for them as most of OFP/ArmA's combat takes place on land. Of course carriers would be quite useful as many islands simply do not have large airfields or any at all. They defintely serve a tactical position on the battlefield but anti-ship combat is much different than in WW2 so perhaps we should just worry about we do get and what we don't?

My 2 centiunits of sahrani currency,

dRb

[UNN 0]

For Carriers I think it would just be:

pos of Carrier

pos of player

direction of player

Current animation (walking, side step e.t.c)

velocity of Carrier

Height can be constant if restricted to the flight deck alone.

Pitch and bank are nor required (again only for carriers that’s is)

Quote[/b] ]and thats quite tricky or basically impossible to realize without tons of scripts.

Yeah, heavy scripting will be unavoidable.

Quote[/b] ]also lifts have been mentioned.

I will prevent infantry travelling on aircraft lifts.

Quote[/b] ]vehicles are MOVING/driving (!! and arent animated so to speak like the lift using the animate command.

I'm talking about static (in OFP terms, not static as in they can't be moved) building objects being moved, so the animations work the same way they do with current Carriers based on the static classes.

Quote[/b] ]Towards Nephilim's idea ..... if you could capture KEY strokes properly we could possibly simulate walking by SETPOS (new ArmA commands with height corrections) and SETDIR. i.e. walking on "air" but calculated relative to the ship and your walking speed/direction.

I can capture the required keystrokes in OFP, that’s how I do the Harrier VTOL controls. With Arma you can return the current infantry animations, so I have at least two alternatives available.

Quote[/b] ]But carriers? Why should carriers move?

With a very large expanse of water, big enough to hide an Aircraft Carrier in. Then moving them around allows you keep your opponent guessing about your actual position. But I will have to see what scaling options come with Arma maps. As a last resort, I will make use of the infinite ocean you get outside the current map boundaries.

@Benreeper

Yeah, like I said the freedom to run around on Carriers will be nice, but I can live without it. It's worth trying, but I won't loose sleep over it. A carriers sole purpose is to operate aircraft, not to act as a platform to fire an M16 from.

[[aps]gnat 28]

For those of you who dont play CTI then the application of movable Carrier is probably over your head

With bigger maps and native CTI to ArmA then it will become essential to have mavable naval units. As Mogley and UNN have suggested, its a WHOLE new game.

25kmx25km maps are already usable in OFP MP and imagine scouting for the Enmy Base Carrier, finding it, then 20 minutes later when you return in force finding its no longer there ....

Other larger movable ships also act as escorts (wonder if ArmA has some new formations ).

Towards this I've already been at work a while, my WaterWorld and crCTI mission already takes advantage of CleanRocks new automatic Chopper Insertion tactics ...... very cool to be holed up on your own island then have a bloody enmy chopper scream across the water and para-drop a shyt load of troops right into the middle of your base

WaterWorld, not quite fitting into the screenshot;

[mattxr 9]

looking good, with a static carrier you can easly walk around and such, and also spawn planes back onto the carrier, but with a moving version that is impossible unless you have a lot of scripts.. [stops there] ok i dunno wot im talking about no more lol

[Pierrot 0]

How abount making aircraft carriers as a moving object and covering a transparent layer which belongs a static object onto a flight deck of the aircraft carrier? You can walk around, sit down and lie down on it without any script except only one; a script which keeps the transparent layer always on the moving aircraft carrier.

[hardrock 1]

How abount making aircraft carriers as a moving object and covering a transparent layer which belongs a static object onto a flight deck of the aircraft carrier? You can walk around, sit down and lie down on it without any script except only one; a script which keeps the transparent layer always on the moving aircraft carrier.

That's not the problem. You can easily make the ship walkable, but the problem start once the ship or any other walkable layer start moving. Then the objects won't stick to the ground anymore.

[UNN 0]

@Gnat

Is that available for download? I'm curious to see what ratio of water, landmass and objects you can have on the largest maps. But still keep a good frame rate.

Quote[/b] ]25kmx25km maps are already usable in OFP MP and imagine scouting for the Enmy Base Carrier, finding it, then 20 minutes later when you return in force finding its no longer there ....

As Mogley mentioned, WW2 would perfect for such situations. Especially when you think about some of the events during the Battle Of Midway. Deciding how your going to use your aircraft e.t.c But if you bend the rules a little and pick the right era, I'm sure you could do something similar with Modern ships and aircraft.