AI natural Artillery, without script.

[max power 21]

I don't think it's necessarily bad coding or engine problems that make these strange behaviours. I think it's their commitment to making all of these aspects as light as possible in terms of processor load. I think we're paying for something with something else.

[4 IN 1 0]

I don't think it's necessarily bad coding or engine problems that make these strange behaviours.  I think it's their commitment to making all of these aspects as light as possible in terms of processor load.  I think we're paying for something with something else.

yes it is, thats why someone comes out a idea of PPU

but i really couldnt see how would it affect current CPU load.....

if you want all of these crap work out as they should, design it for one of the Airforce toy, from ground off.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

Oh, I tried to express that it was a design decision of BI in the past where they decided that their method is good enough to simulate the reality. Not a bug.

For my taste it is a little bit outdated. As I expressed in other threads I compare it with early game versions from 1995 on where you could jump onto moving vehicles (without being "locked" into a cargo position); you could free move and fire from moving platforms; if those moving platforms made a sharp turn, inertia made sure you fall down...

That is what is badly required in next engine.

[wolfsblut_ 0]

Exactly

As long as mass, inertia etc are not properly simulated (I mean closer to the reality as currently, I can not judge if BI`s way is state of the art), we will suffer strange effects for projectile flight paths and those flying tanks.

Game2 is a dream that needs a significant rise of manpower inside BI and much better skills in project management to become true.

I would be satisfied if BI makes ArmA as stable as OFP 1.96 until fall this year (I guess they are close to that).

Game 2 should be just a totally reworked physic engine.

ArmA smells for me like 90% OFP in that area.

From game experience point of view, not from the changes they really did to the engine.

I guess with a new engine a lot of current problems would be solved (bouncing tanks; sky-high flying soldiers when hit by shell, strange flight behavior of copters, unreal collision reaction in general, travellingwith/firing from moving objects without using cargo position...)

signed wolfsblut_

[Second 0]

Why not just script and createshell arty? It works, it's simple and AI knows quite well how to use it. I don't care are shells true or created as long as the system works for human and for AI.

It should be useful in massive battles: If attacking unit's strength is aprox. batallion, we are already talking about 80-100 tubes on it's side

[UNN 0]

@Ilaafi (or anyone else)

Assuming someone came up with a simplified (compared to COC's UA) semi accurate trajectory based, high elevation indirect fire addon for the likes of the M119. And assuming the current ammo is under powered. Then how would you modify the following ammo type, to create the correct damage radius?

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class Sh_105_HE : ShellBase {

hit = 50;

indirectHit = 20;

indirectHitRange = 7;

typicalSpeed = 1300;

explosive = 0.8;

cost = 300;

model = "\ca\Weapons\shell";

};

[jasono 0]

The arty pieces currently use tank heat shells, these will never work since once you fire them they get lost in space..

But rockets/missiles would work. If you fire a RPG or M136 straight up into the air you will hear it detonate on the ground shortly after.

Well using my cam script it appears the bomb goes up, and then eventually starts heading down. However after about 20-30 seconds the bomb just disapears and the camera ends (when the rocket/bullet/shell becomes null aka non existant).

If that wasn't removed then it may be better and come into more use. I don't know if you can configure shells to last longer before being destroyed or disapear in an addon (I think you can under magazine class, can't be certain).

[dmarkwick 261]

My idea? Wait for the Chain of Command team to bring Unified Artillery over to ArmA.

http://dslyecxi.com/shackposts/ofp_cocua11.html

Are they porting it over?

[frederf 0]

My info is that neither CoC (including UA) or WGL, my two favorite OFP mods are going to contribute to ArmA.

[Dwarden 1125]

MODedit: merged with another artilery thread ...

[Second 0]

@Ilaafi (or anyone else)

Assuming someone came up with a simplified (compared to COC's UA) semi accurate trajectory based, high elevation indirect fire addon for the likes of the M119. And assuming the current ammo is under powered. Then how would you modify the following ammo type, to create the correct damage radius?

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class Sh_105_HE : ShellBase {

hit = 50;

indirectHit = 20;

indirectHitRange = 7;

typicalSpeed = 1300;

explosive = 0.8;

cost = 300;

model = "\ca\Weapons\shell";

};

For 105mm shell we would be talking value between 'indirectHitRange = 100' and 'indirectHitRange = 150'. If that 'indirectHitRange' means meters and if thinking about IRL fragmentvalues and -distances.

How behaves AI with that? It get killed after few rounds. There should be way to force AI to hit the deck, and find some "hole" which by my experience offers better cover than flat ground in ArmA. Guy can stand very close impact if there ground "between" it and impact, atleast in OFP that was.

About damagevalues i don't know...

EDIT:

But even with those original 'indirectrange'-values damage is bad what i've see in my artyscripts (usually one gun shoots and reloads in ~6 seconds and 3 or 4 guns firing, shells land inside about 120x120 meters box).

[Heatseeker 0]

I dont know how coc's arty worked, i only know that it worked very well... maybe it deleted/created the shells, maybe it increased the shell life and forced its ballistic path? There are ways to simulate features that OPF/Arma doesnt have and they deserve a great deal of praise for their complexity and achievement but...

Nothing beats built in features that are programed in the game. They are fully integrated, much easier to use/set up, reliable and perform better plus they are not additions so will have a higher probability of being widelly used.

Examples of this are the new vehicle classes or multiple gun turrets .

Arma features a great deal of amunitions and weapon systems, from handguns to laser guided GBU's, from FFARS to lockable missiles. Arty shells are just missing... but i do believe that they were considered so i would like to have them .

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ]For 105mm shell we would be talking value between 'indirectHitRange = 100' and 'indirectHitRange = 150'. If that 'indirectHitRange' means meters and if thinking about IRL fragmentvalues and -distances.

Thats a start, cheers.

Quote[/b] ]How behaves AI with that? It get killed after few rounds. There should be way to force AI to hit the deck, and find some "hole" which by my experience offers better cover than flat ground in ArmA. Guy can stand very close impact if there ground "between" it and impact, atleast in OFP that was.

How the AI react to and implement, indirect fire as been a long standing issue. The engine, along with many other things suffers from cause and effect. What appears to be a single issue quite often branches off to three or four others. In this case the event handlers and the distance command offer all the triggers we need. It’s just a case of working though each branch, sequentially.

Quote[/b] ]Nothing beats built in features that are programed in the game. They are fully integrated, much easier to use/set up, reliable and perform better plus they are not additions so will have a higher probability of being widelly used.

True, if and when they appear for this particular application, then I'm sure they will be warmly welcomed.

But in the mean time, if you don't know how coc's arty worked then you probably won't appreciate the past and present restrictions the game engine places on such things. I'm sure it can't harm to experiment with all the available options? Even trivial things like pointing the shells in the right direction.

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]I dont know how coc's arty worked, i only know that it worked very well... maybe it deleted/created the shells, maybe it increased the shell life and forced its ballistic path?

I think it simply made a new projectile midair that had the same position and velocity as the old projectile right before it "timed out"

Shoot a big shell with a TTL of 20 seconds and at 18 seconds you quickly remove it and put another new shell in with the same pos/velocity and you just bought yourself 20 more seconds of flight time.

[Second 0]

Quote[/b] ]How behaves AI with that? It get killed after few rounds. There should be way to force AI to hit the deck, and find some "hole" which by my experience offers better cover than flat ground in ArmA. Guy can stand very close impact if there ground "between" it and impact, atleast in OFP that was.

How the AI react to and implement, indirect fire as been a long standing issue. The engine, along with many other things suffers from cause and effect. What appears to be a single issue quite often branches off to three or four others. In this case the event handlers and the distance command offer all the triggers we need. It’s just a case of working though each branch, sequentially.

Your right, it's easy to atleast force AI to lay low...

I'm not arty-guy so i'm not expert, but about that 'indirectHitRange'... I missed couple things. What is used fuze-type:

In ArmA shells act as fuze would be "hard" and ground would be soft (no rocks etc...). Shell sinks inside ground and most of fragments stops to soil, only fragments that would fly upwards (in about 45 degree arc) aren't caught in ground. But mostly it is used against bunkers and other hard targets.

There is also "light" fuze which detonates more easily, basicaly it can detonate on tree's branches. That kind shell is much more dangerous. It shouldn't sink in ground so fragments are flying in lower arces (in about 0-20 degrees from ground level).

Then one truly ugly is "timed" fuze... It blows up in mid-air, spreading fragments freely to all directions.

@Heatseeker

I think too that BIS should implent somekind arty-system to ArmA, because built-in-system will become standart and i think that it has best possibilites to work properly for player and AI (yup. I'm not coder...). I haven't seen that many missions using arty at all... And what buggs me most is that AI is usually left out.

Just today i played my mission where AI spotter crushed my company's assault just as we were regrouping. Almost half of my company's men were killed in barrage and enemy AT-guys hunted down our remaining APCs (sweet/bitter power of arty)

[sickboy 13]

My info is that neither CoC (including UA) or WGL, my two favorite OFP mods are going to contribute to ArmA.

WGL is coming back in a different name afaik. Last I heard, the UA would be ported sometime, but im not that close to the CoC guys so sure I am not

The COC UA is a masterpiece. Especially with the great small 'computer' you could use instead of the action menu stuff. If the CoC guys wouldnt port/rewrite it to ArmA, then I'm sure, if they will give permission for it, that someone else can/will.

Bravo6; There is no way you are going to make Artillery really work without scripting and/or changing configs (which is way more problematic than scripting).

If the current scripts available suck, I would rather suggest someone writing better scripts.

BIS Promised us full optioned Artillery? Source?

[Second 0]

If the current scripts available suck, I would rather suggest someone writing better scripts.

BIS Promised us full optioned Artillery? Source?

I have about dozen arty-scripts for different kinds of use. I'm guy who uses only selfmade stuff, If your implyilng to me with that first line ... Not that everything else would suck (not at all), but i like to use my own things.

About that last line:

Some article(s) before releasing ArmA... I atleast had bit higher hopes, just like with suppression. Now there are guns using direct fire and suppressive fire, but no suppression and indirect fire. Difference is that arty is easy to script but suppression... i'm not so sure, i once tried in OFP but it didn't work out... ArmA's scriptingcommands might suit better for it.

Anyways back to arty. So basicaly BIS didn't break it's promise and i don't care did they break promises: They are creators of OFP and ArmA! But if they would have done built-in system for arty, arty would have become standart. Now i don't think that arty is standart, even when there are plenty of scripts for that.

Maybe BIS can create something for arty in future patches? I'm hoping for it. No-one will wage a war without arty. Take away tanks, take away jets and choppers, but give us arty... Hammer of god!

EDIT Not necessary to take seriously that "Take away tanks, take away jets and choppers, but give us arty... Hammer of god!"

[sickboy 13]

Quote[/b] ]I have about dozen arty-scripts for different kinds of use. I'm guy who uses only selfmade stuff, If your implyilng to me with that first line ... Not that everything else would suck (not at all), but i like to use my own things.

Wasn't refering to you at all m8

Quote[/b] ]Some article(s) before releasing ArmA... I atleast had bit higher hopes, just like with suppression. Now there are guns using direct fire and suppressive fire, but no suppression and indirect fire. Difference is that arty is easy to script but suppression... i'm not so sure, i once tried in OFP but it didn't work out... ArmA's scriptingcommands might suit better for it.

yep suppression would be a cool feature, but I think we can work some ideas out for this by scripting; haven't looked to deeply into it yet. I don't care what they said either, but what I do care is that endless crap about "They Promised this" and "They Promised that" and all that other crap. I'm sure half of the options that get labelled as "Promised but not Delivered" were probably never said, or never said that way, more like... "We are thinking about implementing a well laid out artillery system"  "We are aiming for a full multiplayer campaign" etc. etc.  gets read and remembered as 'promises' and I think it's a load of bullshit "BIS-Bashing" which we all don't need, anyway... Same as popular addon makers making hard remarks about the BIS engine, only because they don't know how a certain thing works (yet), I think this is bad and harmful too, such persons are in some kind of 'representative' position to my opinion.  Loads of off-topic, but it simply annoys me.

About the hopes, ArmA was always known to me as OFP 1.5, and I think they did that quite well. AFAIK all the biggest changes in gameplay aspects are planned for Game2.

Quote[/b] ]But if they would have done built-in system for arty, arty would have become standart. Now i don't think that arty is standart, even when there are plenty of scripts for that.

Agreed

Quote[/b] ]Maybe BIS can create something for arty in future patches? I'm hoping for it. No-one will wage a war without arty. Take away tanks, take away jets and choppers, but give us arty... Hammer of god!

Hehe, I think it would be cool to see Arty better supported in the game, but I personally think that they should concentrate on all the stuff they are doing now, and leave the Arty up to us, later implement or go for Game2 for that one

[Ilaafi 0]

@UNN

I dont know how to model that explosion but a standard D-30 122mm HE should be as effective as 2x satchel charges. Same amount of TNT but arty shell has thousands of shrapnels with v0 about 2000m/s. So the lethal radius should be much greater than it is now. And telescopic sight now in ArmA D-30 is for indirect fire only, actully it is supposed to be pointing backwards to collimator to aim the gun to correct direction. Direct fire sight is quite similar to real life T-72 sight (not Arma) with distance scales etc.

Heres few videos about D-30 and Finnish field arty in action if youre interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03zKy7Dq-ec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....search=

And also I would like to add that there is allways one artillery battalion (18 guns) minimum firing at the same target. Typically 3-5 battalions so the feeling at the target is quite miserable...

And bonus:

Real life ArmA trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....search=

[Second 0]

And also I would like to add that there is allways one artillery battalion (18 guns) minimum firing at the same target. Typically 3-5 battalions so the feeling at the target is quite miserable...

And bonus:

Real life ArmA trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....search=

I once simulated that... It was quite ugly feeling when barrage of about 2 batallions started to close in my trench, and first mechaniced infantry company (A2 ) and tanks started to roll forward. Man what amount of firepower and mayhem... It was just amazing to watch how night turned to day, and everywhere around was expolding... Framerates were guite low too.

[Ilaafi 0]

Yeah, the cold war era: "mechaniced infantry company A2 Yellow" was used here in Finland because we could not say Russian bastards are coming . Now we can

In Ihantala, Carelian isthmus, -44 when Soviet Union made an final strategic offensive to capture Finland, we concentrated 21 artillery battalions fire on Russian attack preparing zone, just 1 minute before they would have started their attack. And it was calculated that every cannons first round hits the target area at the same second so there was no warning and time to hit the dirt.

(Our radio intellegence had captured and decoded russian orders about the attack and the exact attack time).

So as you can imagine, the attack was not at all succesfull.

[UNN 0]

I think it simply made a new projectile midair that had the same position and velocity as the old projectile right before it "timed out"

COC used ammo based on the LGB class, it gave them an extended time of life. Can't remember off hand, but it was something like 150 seconds. They were still limited to OFP's strange trajectories, but their Neural Network could compensate for that.

Quote[/b] ]My info is that neither CoC (including UA) or WGL, my two favorite OFP mods are going to contribute to ArmA.

I would be surprised if COC didn't and I know WGL will be. But I think there is also room for a simpler script based Arty as well.

So basicaly BIS didn't break it's promise and i don't care did they break promises

Yeah. What’s read in an interview should not be taken as a promise. But it is nice to know they are at least considering it.

I dont know how to model that explosion but a standard D-30 122mm HE should be as effective as 2x satchel charges. Same amount of TNT but arty shell has thousands of shrapnels with v0 about 2000m/s. So the lethal radius should be much greater than it is now.

Cheers, would not be hard to work something along those lines.

Nice video links BTW. Surprised to see how stable the D-30 is and what little effect it has on it's surroundings. Apart from the smoke ejected from the breach, Arma is not far off.

[Ilaafi 0]

D-30 is stable if you use small or half charges, like in that video. (And its nailed to the ground ofcourse, every leg with 70cm 'nails'. Those charges are perhaps for 5-7 kilometer range. If you have separate ammo like in typically howizers, you can put as many gunpowder bags in cartouche what is needed to 7 km range. As you can figure there is no need to fill the cartouche full with gunpowder bags if you only need to fire shorter distance. As I recall, D-30 has 5 different charges to different distances. Cannons may have even 7 different charges to different distances. Basic is, SAVE gunpowder

With full charge of gunpowder bags, range 14km, even D-30 is an animal

@UNN you can see shrapnels speed and trajectory from that "bonus" video where they have thermal image of an artillery target area..

In my rookie time, I had to work as an gunner in russian made 130mm cannon with full charge.

http://tietokannat.mil.fi/kalusto...._54.jpg

Damn, with triple ear-protection, you did no hear anything but the launch was like kick to the balls and punch to the belly at the same time

Also we have this russian cannon:

http://www.mil.fi/maavoim....ment=21

I do not remember its russian name, but its russian nickname was something like 'krokus', the flower, because of the enormous long barrel. This is not stable cannon. Actually, in Finnish artillery, its forbidden to shoot it with full charge in peacetime, because guns barrels mouth pressure from fireing is so great it damages the guns crew! Unbelievable but true!

Maybe it was not so good purchase after all, because we have many times better Finnish cannons like:

http://www.mil.fi/maavoim....ment=31 This one even with own engine to drive around and shoot to 40km

http://www.mil.fi/maavoim....ment=30

And last point, you maybe noticed velocity radar on top of every howizer? That also measures of every cannon/howizers projectiles individual speed of every launch and calculates the best trajectory to this single cannon/howizer.

[frederf 0]

The real life pictures of the D30 are far more impressive looking than the one in game.

It'd be nice to have a "range everywhere" artillery piece in ArmA and of course smaller calliber 60, 81, and 120mm mortars for shorter range engagements.

[ijozic 9]

Besides D30 is a high velocity anti-tank gun not an indirect fire artillery piece.

An anti-tank howitzer? That would be the first..