The Man Without Qualities

Everlasting issue since OFP is that the object library is not properly maintained. There are still objects (e.g. small objects like empty oil barrels or half rotten fences, traffic light poles) which are indestructible. Both AI and human do not consider this as blocking obstacle and bounce into a stable orbit.

Yeah, AI tactics for vehicles are non-sense in ArmA, all flying staff is using anything like German Stuka, all rolling tries to roll as close as possible and do not stop at optimal range. Humans are indeed not better then AI in many cases :-)

http://www.ofps.net/viewforum.php?f=6 1st would be to maintain your forum. I got the impression that forum is not used any more while the OFPS mission itself made huge progress (with or without Benny, IDK). I see you, spanish, often playing, I enjoying OFPS too from time to time, but despite discord (and not even that) there is no reliable way to communicate with the "OFPS team". And the OFPS code is "obfuscated", it was a nightmare to "crack" it, I do not want to do that again and again just in case I need a different mission parameter default set. So when OFPS still want to "encrypt" its mission in order to "protect" the investment in Benny, it will be hard to convince others to participate I assume.

What I see is that mainly CUP and RHS tanks using kinda water ski slalom style of pathfinding beside the streets - maybe the addons need to be adapted to the "new" tweaks made by BIS. The rest stays the same: - BIS vehicles always find the single, lonely rock in a wide field and flip over or stuck on it - every lamp post or house corner is a welcome sex parnter for allways-horny BIS vehicles for rub their iron testicles for minutes - new is that crew has a much longer delay before following waypoint commands - don't know if intended to be more realistic of if this is just an unintended bug

It is a combined design fuckup by BIS in place since OFP: crew bails out simply when vehicle received a certain damage...and before the crew can escape, the vehicle explodes in a cineastic explosion and kills the crew that just escaped. Then, for the few cases when the vehiclke did NOT explode, the crew, just excaped out of the vehicle - maybe injured too, is able to kill the AT gunner with an short AK74 with iron sight on 100m+ distance with one single shot. This forum and it's ancient predesessor is full with complaints about this chain of brain farts - but it was never really solved. The only cure is https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/allowCrewInImmobile ...but then the crew stays no matter what. So it needs a more sophisticated approach where (at low resource consumption) a few more parameter are considered to calc the bail-out-decision: - enemies around? - am I able to detect enemies? - is my vehicle burning? - am I able to fight? all togehter might result in a more realistic bail out behavior of AI. Then, the reception of injuries inside an impacted vehicle and the general capabilities of an AI beeing injured needs to be tweeked. Usually humans with destroyed eardrum, severe burns and injured lung are not able to place headshots 0.87 seconds after bail-out.

So if it is not the detailed simulation of the bandwidth of surface temperatures and their presentation in todays IR systems but just some changed texturing - then it should be a quick tweak.

Hi Cyclonic Tuna That would mean that each and every item (and it's surface and inner material) must be modeled and simulated as in real life in terms of absorbing, reflecting and emitting energy. That would come in 10 years :-) That is one reason why I support game scenarios in 1930s to 1985 when radar, IR and its sensors were not that advanced so that BIS would be able to simulate at least this level of technology.

Hi, tested a lill' bit... GUI: The items in equipment GUI are hard to select - almost no telling description. The faction selection leads into many units selectable in units shopping GUI - needs better structure - maybe by addon-set or era or whatever Gameplay: Dunno if it is introduced by BIS or mission logic, but AI squads tend to move straight from base into opposite direction compared to target direction before entering into a wiiiiiide bow... Unit markers remain visible at MAP as placed during mission creation until command center is up. Tested on Zargabad, was nice experience if I ignore AI driving capabilities. AI did expressive fire fights starting at long ranges.

Just to summarize: - OFPS moved hosting location - standard OFPS missions are WITH AI (squad member and town defenses) but WITHOUT AI commander and WITHOUT AI squad leaders as in MFCTI/crCTI/WFBE/BECTI - there is a BECTI clon called "guerillia mode" hosted @ OFPS which employs AI routines for AI commander and AI squad leader???????? May you clarify this? Because whenever I play on OFPS I enjoy when it is full, but it sucks when to few players at server and no AI squads filling up the battlefield.

That sucks

I was talking about MHQ in general coming from original MFCTI. I am aware that your mission is far away from this concept since one side is complete AI. Also concept of base construction is different. I was indeed mislead by naming a spawn MHQ. I just wanted to express my disappointment with any unnecessary and unrealistic item in a simulation to act as the ultimate goal. I have tested your mission months ago and hence it might not be the same mission as currently, but I percepted your FOB as MHQ-like and I thought celludriel was talking about this one. Anyway: I love to play totally alone (I guess that might have been the driver why zbug created this mission) but with the opportunity the replace AI at any time by humans, but if they leave the slot, a proper AI jumps in. Sadly all CTI's I know are broken in A3, there are only PvP versions out there with AI utilization just for town defense, base defense etc. Your routines for CSAT are pretty challenging, IMHO good enought to be utilized for a full CTI like MFCTI/crCTI/WFBE/BECTI where one could play it as SP at any slot as commander or not and one could even leave the server if persistant and then AIcomm was fighting the other AIcomm. Coming back to my point when I jumped in: If celludriel was talking about a pure mobile respawn (in classic CTIs ambulance vehicles, FOBs and camps/bunkers in towns act as respawn points) I agree whith him that it is a valid point to enable AI to percept it as high value target. I do not agree with the concept of creating any artificial or mystic AI awareness beside simulated sensors of ArmA engine. Even if I dislike the MHQ concept (I know, it does not really apply to your mission) I have seen a good implementation of AI coordination in one WFBE in A2. If a side has AI comm active and any AI squad was detecting the MHQ (cyclic check was present if detected vehicle type = MHQ) the AI comm routines assiigned a certain amount of AI squads to the task of moving to the area where MHQ was detected and switch there to the S&D routine. The intended simulation was the communication via radio so if any AI was (by its sensors) able to detect the vehicle and classify as enemy (well, the detection as MHQ was kinda hack) the alerted commander was turning units to go after this high value target. A similar routine could be used for CSAT going after respawn points (mobile or fixed if destructible) but I understood that the initial detection is already an issue.

2.) Weird suggestion, I would paradrop tons of AI onto a location where I assume the enemy MHQ if the pure presence of an AI works like a nuke. my 2ct to MHQ: I disliked it and the entire concept since original MFCTI (well and also in C&C - RA). This single item and its survival that decides if you win or loose is so far away from warfare simulation that I really start to hate it. Many players do not even care about conquering anything, they just load themselves with satchels and sneaking to the MHQ. My Preference: No MHQ at all in terms of construction enabler, only as real MHQ with communication enablers - start condition is to own a resource generating object (town, area, structure of interest) with the dedicated ability (generating troops/vehicles) - key building can only be build INSIDE the area of a town or area of interest which generates supply/cash/any resources. To build outside you - entitled players (e.g. commander for key structures, players for defense and support structures..) can build anything everywhere with possible rstrictions: supply/repair vehicles must be in perimeter of construction yard / key buildings only close to villages / certain buildings require also mobile or fixed power plant in certain range....that way you create also high value targets that can be destroyed and hence work as in traditional CTI - "what if last repair/support vehicle is destroyed?" - means you can't build any structure OUTSIDE a town BUT you can build inside a town a supply/repair/anyvehicle-factory and build a new one - the only loose-condition is to loose the last town / area of interest Benefit of my suggestion: - player focus on area gathering and supply chain destruction instead of pointless MHQ hunting - fortifying an area with several towns sufficient to generate as much men & material as you loose during defense would become a working strategy - not only conquer but also securing and defending a certain area would become more important - sudden disappointing game end due to a lucky shot on a MHQ would be eliminated as game experience

Well, since I am a simulation fundametalist, I would rather say that BIS wrecked it completely now instead of fixing AI. My expectation when in comm seat: no driver = nothing happens whatever I press, hasDriver=-1 should be only applicable for vehicles with real remote control capabilities W/S = with a short delay the vehicle moves in that direction with the last set speed, AI logic intervenes when obstacle is in path unknown keys = I need keeys to set and recall default speed and 2 more to increase/decrease by 1km/h A/D = while pressing the steering moves with a moderat turning rate, not as rapid as currently, AI logic intervenes when obstacle is in path

out of.. Does that mean vehicle responds exactly as comm is using driver slot? Weird fix of broken AI if it is like that. If I stop pressing "W" the vehicle stops? ...

I tested the stabilization in A3 recently and compared with a few viedos about tanks. In RL, especially during sudden vertical kicks, the cannon is loosing the alignment to the target for a short moment before it realigns. In A3, the cannon is always aligned when you are as human gunner inside. Ubergyro. With AI, the cannon is both horizontal + vertically always aligned.

The proper handling of height, awareness about partly hidden targets and resulting actions is a permanent issue in many aspects of ArmAs methods of "calculating" the "visual" AI awareness. Eigther totally ignored even if only partly hidden by an obstacle as in your example or permanent awareness even if totally hidden. One would expect that AI would be able to calculate which part of the tank is not hidden by an obstacle and hence trying to hit it. But even the concrete barrier should not hinder, AI could "know" that visual shape belongs to an MBT and "guess" where the other parts are and trying to get through with kinetic rounds. Edith (the bitchaaaa) I just noticed...BIS closed the OLDER ticket and kept the newest alive...kinda statistics tweaking? So Vasily reported this issue somewhere somehow in 2014...then opened a TT in November 2016 and Nightmare an duplicate in July 2017 and the current result after 9 months minimum or 2+ years maximum is......dear BIS?

I can answer that for you easily: NO (internal) YES (oursourced to the customer)

Fuck nuke bomb.

I fired up my game PC after holidays to play a CTI. I gave up after few hours, one reason was actual pathfinding (my A3 is updated by steam, so always up-to-date). I've seen following AI driving brilliance: - Hunter vehicle hammering a lamp pole until wheels broken - LAV accelerating and breaking in high frequency because a truck was blockinh the street and that until truck was pushed to the side - few support trucks unfortunately ordered to stop on a road, but AI of next vehic recoged to late, started breaking but slammed into with still to high speed - all 4 vehics lost in fireballs - vehics still kill you when you order them with 1-1 to your position In addition, my "golden setup" in launcher did not work (wich I tested out in April/may and which was running "stable" ) with the new release, my client crashed several times due to memory handling issues. So WTF we have? For sure NOT a mature game.

I got lost! Isn#t that solved with sensors update?

just don't play with weather, leave it to the gods.

https://warisboring.com/we-now-know-how-many-t-14-armata-tanks-russia-will-build/ So T-14 does not count because no real performance data available, they will act just as platforms to keep the knowledge of design and build excellent tanks, but RU cannot produce a modern tank army because of economical situation. But 100 with 1/3 ready for combat all the time is good enought to conquer rest of Ukraina and also Belarussia.

@Vasily.BTitan Vanguard is not intended and not tailored for mass market. And it looks like pre-A2 when I look at trailers. And no real information on feature set, performance etc. To your addon: will crew receive damage inside the tank? Your addon would need to touch the vehicle addon as such IMHO to make realistic harm to a crew when exposed to blast etc inside vehicle. @lexx: Feeling came from the SP stories, that was proper done in OFP + OFP:Res. For MP you need an extensive and complete set of weapons for Land/Air/Water for at least 2 factions at release to use it as mission maker. A1 was quite OK, but vehicle models were pretty limmited (remember, commander without turret-MG), A2 set was a joke, A3 was incomplete and futuristic crap. And I stick to my general complaint: if you cannot simulate high-tech weapons....don't do it. Weapons until 1985 gave lots of fun already. And sensors upgrade improved a lot, but status is still far away from acceptable simulation of sensors+tracking vs. countermeasures.

Why is the ArmA series such a success and the best game of this kind? Because there is zero competition. No other company is willing to develope and maintain such a game sandbox - don't ask me why. 80 % or more of all shooter titles in this market can be done in A3 with acceptable results compared to the original game. DayZ as a mod was in fact an own game in A2. There were C&C like mods, deathmatch games which would be own titles if done by other game studios. This is the sexy part on OFP/ArmA and why I love it - despite all the bickering. The odd part is: despite some brilliant ideas in 2001 and before, BIS is not really focussing on developing a brilliant game engine with some example assets (content like islands and vehicles) and some example missions, no, BIS is still trying to develope and release GAMES. There they fail on regular basis. The engine, proper support of addon maker and mission maker - proper DOCUMENTATION of all functionality - and we would have a solution. Missing would be an authority to balance all created addons to achive in itself working weaponary (like it is done by RHS today) to be used in missions. The good game ideas coming from outside BIS - DayZ-A3 and PUBG as an example. I am waiting since OFP that the "instant disembark of crew when reaching certain damage level" is fixed. Now we have a parameter that is supressing this half-way, the crew is still bailing out within the fraction of an second - and kills you via iron-sight 20 miliseconds after bail-out. IF at company at this globe would decide to release its engine (with similar capabilities) with a similar or better modding support as BIS is providing....what do you guess, would I keep on waiting for A4?

With working AI, no issues on AI squad leader respawn?