Jump to content

Machiya

Member
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

18 Good

1 Follower

About Machiya

  • Rank
    Lance Corporal

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes - many thanks. I find GCS tends to spilt squads into individual units (but need to test this more, as it may be a MOD clash).
  2. Once the mission is built, run and processed/cached -- is it straight-forward to add more units in the editor? ie. Does the SQL database update if the units are moved/new units added between missions. I am just trying to predict how I would plot a campaign out using GCS. I cannot tell if you plan in detail whole series of missions with ambient enemy units. STOP (ie. don't add more stuff). Play that through. Start again.
  3. Machiya

    LAMBS Improved Danger.fsm

    Sorry if they are not ideal videos, but I hope they are interesting to a few people. I don't have a vast amount of time to do these tests. I don't see other people doing comparative tests, so I have put them up. My hope is that they are OK 'as is'. (honestly, if I get a pile of static I just won't post them). I don't give my opinion, as we all have our own bias. This is not a 'king of the hill' thing. There are very clear differences between the MODS (and I did try to simply label which mod was running). Each mission is: 3 Fire-teams with SENTRY + GUARD WP and a fourth with a 'Seek and Destroy'. Both sides are identical. I chose the terrain to have an initial blocking obstacle, with narrow exposure with trees on one side and a sloped field on the other. @LSValmont - if you can suggest a preferable scenario/arrangement, I would be very interested. p.s the video before is me beginning to explore a long-held view that ARMA throttles decision making over 50-80 active Ai. At 160 Ai (subjectively) the engine appears to be 'dumping' hit detection.
  4. Machiya

    LAMBS Improved Danger.fsm

    Just ran a comparison between Vanilla / LAMBS / VCOM 3.4.0 beta (19/06/2020).
  5. Machiya

    LAMBS Improved Danger.fsm

    A user was suggesting that the ARMA 'engine' degraded decision-making when there were more than about 60-80 Ai. I ran a few tests (1) Vanilla 32 units/side; (2) Vanilla 80 units/side & (3) LAMBS 80 units/side. Interesting to see the differences: (1) lots of units get shot; (2) & (3) proportionately ALOT less get shot (for the increased fire volumes) - Vanilla 80 vs 80 and LAMBS 80 vs 80 are pretty similar.
  6. Thank you -- that's very useful information. Great Mod overall.
  7. May I ask a couple of questions, (1) I read, (Page 6 here) and elsewhere, about PiR vs. body-armour. I couldn't find a changelog to look at. How does the system currently deal with 'hitpart' if it has body-armour protection. (2) Is it possible to direct a medic (on your squad) to treat/revive a squad member. It did seem to trigger if you told the medic to 'move' within a certain distance? Does a medikit change his response or is it only IFAK? How does this work within an AI squad (distance, %chance, something else)? Many Thanks.
  8. Machiya

    LAMBS Improved Danger.fsm

    + 1 to the list of people loving this MOD. Awesome work. 11/10! One of the things with AI 'finding cover' is that the squad breaks-up (and never reforms). This works well for guerrilla tactics, less so for trained troops. VCOM; ASR same. TCL squads were a bit more coherent, MCC4's Gaia just set waypoints [it was more of a Macro AI Mod] -- but you go the sensation you were facing a squad (#fully support you not touching WP!!!) I would be intrigued to hear your perspective on above? You write, "Added isolated squad leaders will try to regroup" in the release notes. I think squad integrity is an aspect of tactical group movement that is worthwhile. Those of us that play with AI squads would (I imagine) be definitely up for something that stops squads 'evaporating in four directions' when you back is turned (whilst getting all of the 'good stuff' -- i.e. not simple stripping them of the MOD). Food for thought perhaps.
  9. Machiya

    LAMBS Improved Danger.fsm

    @nkenny I can confirm that the disabling the 'group' for zeus AI groups and BOTH 'group' and 'AI' for player groups (if you have AI in the player group) seems to work well. Looking forward to future versions.
  10. Knowledge Error from RPT (https://pastebin.com/UbrnDh9y)
  11. @snkman Long time since I have had a chance to catch-up... been involved in projects IRL) Will have a look at TCL this week - like the sound of some of the changes. Can I ask about the current status of Zeus stuff? - Are you including units placed after the first 5 secs? - I see you are with-holding TCL control from units that are given Zeus WP... is this all TCL stuff or just some?
  12. re. AI inits Yes, it's a Zeus thing, but also about a handles for other MODders to interact with TCL (e.g. like turn it off, so they can do something, and then turn it back on again). Essentially, it might be good to be able to re-init a unit, even as a function. re. Zeus Waypoints OK.
  13. Dug this link out from Shay_gman & Spirit's GAIA AI in MCC, https://mccsandbox.fandom.com/wiki/GAIA_cycles
  14. A couple of Zeus thoughts. A Zeus 'Hold WP' or 'Garrison WP' making a squad 'TCL_Hold' would be great. A Zeus 'Seek and Destroy' WP ought to make a TCL squad push inside the 300m zone. I was trying to think of a way that you can use Zeus WPs to automatically alter TCL_Status or a squad. One less thing to worry about. I could think of something that would naturally work for 'TCL_Defend' -- other than a Zeus Guard WP (but that comes with a pile of BIS hard-coded stuff).
×