Jump to content

target_practice

Member
  • Content Count

    449
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

123 Excellent

About target_practice

  • Rank
    Gunnery Sergeant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United Kingdom

Contact Methods

  • Steam url id
    76561198034453741

Recent Profile Visitors

1024 profile views
  1. target_practice

    SQDev - SQF Developing in eclipse

    Regardless of how the command functions, the fact that the data type listed is "ObjectRTD" means SQDev cannot process the command.
  2. target_practice

    SQDev - SQF Developing in eclipse

    https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/collectiveRTD It seems I spoke to soon, objectRTD is the only data type associated with rotorlib. It is however used in many other RotorLib related commands, all of which SQDev fails to process due to this.
  3. target_practice

    SQDev - SQF Developing in eclipse

    Anything containing RTD in the name as far as I can see, such as ObjectRTD.
  4. target_practice

    SQDev - SQF Developing in eclipse

    Just wanted to let you know that the keyword updating feature threw up a lot of errors in regards to syntax and characters. It also seems to lack any recognition of RotorLib data types.
  5. target_practice

    SQDev - SQF Developing in eclipse

    Is this project still under development?
  6. Do targets being detected by sensors from the sensors overhaul increase knowsAbout for the units that detect them? And if so, is this knowledge transmitted if data link is enabled?
  7. target_practice

    Warlords

    What error do you get?
  8. target_practice

    Warlords

    I'm relatively new to scripting my self so I can't guarantee any advice I give to particularly good, but for for delayed removal you could do something along the lines of: [_markerstr] spawn { sleep 180; deleteMarker _this select 0; }; I don't know know if event handler expressions are run scheduled, but I assume not. I'd also add that since MP Event handlers execute their code on every machine according to the BIKI, you'll probably want to create the markers locally or add an !isServer condition to prevent duplicate markers.
  9. target_practice

    Warlords

    They do, most of my time in Warlords is with just AI in fact.
  10. target_practice

    Can this AI behaviour be fixed?

    From my understanding, DayZ is essentially a hybrid of RV3 and Enfusion, with BIS using it as an environment to test components of the engine, such as the renderer. As for it being a new engine, I refer to this post. As the linked post mentions, Enfusion is meant to be a modern engine capable of being scripted to run essentially any game (a la Unreal and Unity) , rather than being limited by hard coded systems. That is true, but if all they wanted to change was the scripting language was the only thing they wanted to change they wouldn't be making a new engine; Enfusion will in all likelyhood have notably different architecture and design from RV, making it impossible to simply port code over. I think BIS have stated on a few occasions that DayZ currently only supports basic AI systems like that of the zombies for this reason. All in all, BIS is much bigger company than it used to be, if they have the resources to build an entirely new engine while maintaining and developing several other games, I really doubt it'll be hard for them to improve the AI in the future on their new platform.
  11. target_practice

    Can this AI behaviour be fixed?

    Given that Arma 4 will almost certainly be an Enfusion game, I don't think they'd be able to copy over old code even if they wanted to. I wouldn't be surprised if BIS does try to use it as an opportunity to redo the entire AI system. After all, they're making a new engine basically scratch, so I doubt they'd refrain from doing that if they believe it to be sufficient benefit. I definitely hope they don't try to go the easy route and dumb down the AI as you suggest in any case, as that would be removing half of what Arma is.
  12. target_practice

    Can this AI behaviour be fixed?

    I have to wonder what Arma's AI code looks like for BIS to have so much trouble tweaking it without breaking things. I imagine it must be nigh-illegible spaghetti at this point.
  13. target_practice

    Warlords

    Can we not try to nerf things like the Rhino? BLUFOR needs to be able to have something to counter CSAT Ankara spam; not to mention that CSAT fast air has a field day blowing up NATO hardware, especially on Altis, so they can't be around for long anyway.
  14. target_practice

    Can this AI behaviour be fixed?

    While I confess I haven't made many mission relying on consistent AI behavior, when I have they haven't really caused that much trouble for me. Sometimes I feel like the AI I have and others have is completely different, as many problems talked about on this forum rarely if ever materialise for me.
  15. target_practice

    Warlords

    So what's this for then? _trackerGrp addGroupIcon ["selector_selectable", [0,0]]; _trackerGrp setVariable ["BIS_WL_dangerState", ""]; _trackerGrp setGroupIconParams [[0,0.8,0,1], "", 2.5, FALSE];
×