8Ball596

My new comp from cyberpowerpc: Core 2 Duo 3.0 GHz 3 Gb ram Nvidia 9600 GT 1Gb Windows XP Pro I can run it on all high, 1440X900 resolution with a view distance of 5000 with no problem. I can go to 10000m distance, but at higher altitudes it slows down. Cutting the anistropic down to just high makes it run perfectly, even in multiplayer.

I'm having the same problem with no clouds.... I haven't found any fixes for it. Anyone else have any luck?

Great job on the mission it is fan-freakin-tastic! I dont, however, really like the idea of the penalty for an AI death. In my case, I set up on the hill overlooking the first town (Paraiso?) and set my 2 AI units up for overwatch. I snuck a little into the town, then had my soldiers open fire on the soldiers guarding the radio tower. I sprinted over and layed two satchels down, then sprinted back and set them off, but as I tried to make my escape over the hills, my AI guys didnt want to disengage, and one got killed  The penalty is good discoruagement against using them as fodder, but I think it will penalize more for just regular combat deaths and less for misuse. Of course, 500 points isn't that much, but still... Anyways, excellent job on the mission, its exactly what I needed.  Â

What is the norm when it comes to using scripts others have posted here or on OFPEC? Do you need to ask permission directly, give credit, what? Thanks in advance.

Yes and no. It's really cool when it works properly, and can be great fun. Alot of people have said that the SP is crap. Some of the missions in SP are infuriating, don't work properly, or both, but the engine is there and when a mission is really good - check out the Airport Seizure mission in the user missions, it's one of the best missions out there so far - the game really shines. ArmA will be just as good as OFP was after BIS irons out the bugs, so patience is necessary. AI seems to be about the same I'm no expert, but at least on my computer, I experience a TON of CTDs on multiplayer. Not much lag though. Runs pretty well on low, though I have some LOD problems sometimes. Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4400+ Nvidia 7300 LE, 2 Gb RAM No wife, just Girlfriend. and since we don't live together - no problem. Overall, good game, could, and I have faith that it will, be great. But not yet.

Well, I had a big long rant about how great this mission was, but my browser crashed before I sent it, so you'll get the short version. Basically, this mission is the best one I've played including the campaign! I've had similar feelings as everyone else on this board about the whole 4 man team behind enemy lines thing, and this is just the thing I needed! Keep 'em coming apex, you're doing great! (yes, I know I had alot of exclamation marks)

I noticed in the controls-options menu there's a section where you can edit the 'bulldozer' controls. Where's the bulldozer? It would be awesome to be able to make your own entrenchments and such. Any one know anything about it?

The thoughts about terrain are very good points. Along with posing problems, the individual AI seems incapable of figuring out what good positions are, and how to take cover, aside from just laying down - once again, another immersion killer. As for the narrative, I'm not sure it's completely necessary to have a full blown story with cutscenes and such. I think a better approach, both from a design and immersion standpoint would be to make the island as alive as possible. This means civilians that talk to each other, sleep (not sure how that would be possible, maybe disappear at ngiht?), and drive to other towns. That means soldiers that talk to each other, clean their guns, etc. Actual supply convoys. Making Sarahni as realistic as possible in terms of its population and their actions, both military and civilian, would make the mission as immersive as possible while not sacrificing replayability.

I think if you're trying to create such an open-ended mission, a NN or some form of similar logic structure is necessary. The same AI problem arises when creating robots to autonomously function in the real world. There are so many what ifs that programming them all in is nearly impossible, and certainly impractical. Thinking about it now, probably the best thing to implement would be a hybrid structure. What I mean is, you keep the basic tree you created, elaborate on it a little, mainly adding in how the AI does things, not just what it needs to do, and then allow more generic things to take over the infinite number of what ifs. Example of the priorities a commander would have: 1. Hold all current territory Identify key positions Establish defensive positions Defend any areas that come under attack 2. Defeat enemy [this is TJ's plan] Recon/Locate Enemy/Assess Enemy Dispatch appropriate attack force Engage Enemy/Establish frontline/Supply lines Assess results/formulate counter strategy. And then for the smaller goals, it would know what was needed. I.E: Establish Defensive Postions: Dispatch units to positions that need to be defended (The defensive procedures would then be handled by the lower officers) Defend any areas that come under attack If recieve reports of attack, wait. If reinforcements required, allocate reinforcements from reserves Now this probably looks alot like the tree structure, but the way TJ (seemed) to propose it was an if then structure for all different situations. What I'm saying is that by allowing some situations to be handled by other, lower AI, and then grouping other situations, such as the defensive meaures, the system becomes more efficient.

I agree with that, as I said, you can't let story restrain gameplay. I think the best type of mission in the 'dynamic mission' idea is a mission that is long, open-ended, and is very difficult, due to both excellent enemy AI and an effeicient and reasonable randomization algorithm. The AI issue is one that I believe is part of the foundation of having an enjoyable mission, especially one like this. It's no fun to have to attack a location - an airport, for example -and have the defenders just standing in the open, nicely arranged in formation. In order to have a realistic situation, you'd have soldiers talking, some manning MG's, some sitting down, others sleeping, etc. And the AI, mainly on the officer's level, needs to be able to comprehend, or at least allow its subordinates to do other things when not in action, and then when it does have a goal, efficiently organize and command them. The individual AI then needs to be able handle itself efficiently, taking cover, and not doing stupid stuff like running out in the open to engage a BMP. This is being discussed in another topic though: AI discussion As I think about it, it becoming clearer and clearer that a mission or campaign of this scale wouldn't just be a mission; it'd almost develop into a mod/addon unto itself. If one were to really want to make Sarahni a living, breathing island, and warzone, It would require an immense amount of scripting, and, in some cases, additional animations and models. Thinking about a single, massive mission like TJ72 described, it's not hard to think about many other things in war that aren't touched on. Supply lines, for example. It's possible (maybe) to script an entire system of supply lines, where trucks carry ammo to bases, and then the ammo crates at the bases are replenished with ammo. You could then enivison resistance forces ambushing the trucks. I'm thinking the Resistance camaign, but with one mission. The player could determine what to attack, where to hide out, etc. If one could pull it off, it would be possibly the best single-player addon EVER, as well as a testament to the amazing engine BIS created. If you could get it to work. And so, the one major problem is complexity. Given the already massive specs ArmA seems to require, having the computer calculate a new AI system, supply system, and everything else that could be added on, it seems to me that it would be nearly impossible. So to sum everything up, a new AI system or new scripts for AI are needed. Depending on what type of mission is wanted, new scripts that deal with supply, C&C, artillery, etc, would be required and/or beneficial. All this must be balanced with performance and what is practical to develop. P.S. Could someone give a definition/definitions as to what exactly they mean by 'dynamic mission'? It seems as though people have different definitions, and that can lead to alot of confusion.

If you don't care about looks, you could just change out the weapons. Otherwise, you're SOL.

What exactly are you trying to do? Because if you want a medic with a different weapon, you could use a removeWeapon and then addWeapon script in the init.

Fer you brought up some excellent points, I really hadn't thought about why someone would put staying alive over completing the mission. Ironically, I was just playing Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops before this, and one character told Snake that he had suspended concern for his personal safety to complete his mission. Someone trying to tell me something maybe??? Anyway, while I seee some of the points brought up about needing a story and context, I belive that you can't allow a story to limit the gameplay or open-endedness (is that even a word?) of the mission. However the context could create some very interesting AI when it's fully thought out, for example, RACS solider putting the mission over their lives because they're fighting for their homeland, while SAL soldiers putting life over the mission. If people really are interested in working on a mission/campaign like the ones discussed on this topic, I'd love to help out, I can't really help with the actual scripting, but I'd love to contribute what I can.

I'm still new to OFP and ArmA (I was introduced to it through OEP: E), but even using Elite's simplified editor I made a series of missions that were interconnectedl; basically a US assault on Everon, from the first recon units to the assaults on the cities close to the water. And yes, it is VERY interesting, and also very fun. Given an effecient randomization system, it would excellent. I've been wanting a mission exactly like what TJ72 has been describing since I started playing OFP, and absolutely love the idea. Another thing that would be needed, however (this is probably pretty minor) is the ability to fast forward time faster than the time compression, in order to help move the mission/war along. With regards to the AI, what is needed, and maybe this is what is meant by need-based, is an AI system much like the one created by Rodney Brooks at MIT. Basically it's a pyramidal logic structure. So for the LGB scenario, the pilot would have his goals arranged as such, in order of importance: 1. Stay alive 2. Complete mission And then within those, there would be multiple parts: 1. Stay Alive   - Avoid AA      -If shot down, don't try to attack target, but find cover, activate beacon   - Avoid terrain 2. Complete mssion   -Bomb target   -Return to base And it would go from there, deeper and deeper with more levels of detail. Eventually the engine would end up handling the most basic actions, such as flying and dropping the bombs, etc. Regards, 8Ball

Is it possible to change the charcteristics of the weapons in ArmA? What I need to do is increase the magnification on either the binoculars or Laser designator to a much higher level for some LRS (Long range surveillance) missions that I'm making. If it is possible, could someone please give a brief explanation as to what would be required? On a side note, I'm not sure whether this is the appropriate board to post in, but I couldn't find one that seemed better. Sorry if this isn't.