Donnervogel

That's not what I have said but somehow I get a deja-vu saying this to you... anyway here is what I said "The enemy can be everywhere at different heights or different vehicles (aircraft) at the same time and the environment can have totally different features depending on the location." GRAW does not work like that and neither does it's AI. From what I have seen (demo experience only) the AI has predefined possibilities and predefined places that tell them where there is cover for what. Obviously it's use of cover is superior I don't argue that. But it is a completely different kind of AI and it would not work in an Arma environment like that. In the Arma environment the complexity for the same AI would increase hugely. I think you underestimate this. But for example pathfinding algorithms can be very complex so they need to be reduced to produce only "acceptable" results instead of the best ones because it is simply too complex to get the best path. But having confined space with predefined "roads" and such alone will reduce the complexity by a huge factor so you can not only make a better pathfinding (by using better approximations), you can also divert spare ressources to other problems. One can go on like this. The thing is that you simply can't compare those two AIs. They are something totally different.

Well that tutorial was never "complete" not even for OFP. But it gives you the basics. And once you figure how they work it should be rather easy to figure out how the other things work with help of the command reference. I don't know of any other (recent) tutorials but I used vectorbosson's (sp?) to learn it (for ArmA) and it's really pretty much the same. There are some new things in ArmA but they are easy to figure out. Just do the tutorial and then look at what other people have done with the new things and it should be easy to do it yourself then.

Well that tutorial was never "complete" not even for OFP. But it gives you the basics. And once you figure how they work it should be rather easy to figure out how the other things work with help of the command reference. I don't know of any other (recent) tutorials but I used vectorbosson's (sp?) to learn it (for ArmA) and it's really pretty much the same. There are some new things in ArmA but they are easy to figure out. Just do the tutorial and then look at what other people have done with the new things and it should be easy to do it yourself then.

Well yes, I am not encouraging anybody to break the law and I understand how it works. It was just an expression of my opinion. I understand the problem and I comment it. That's all. Don't interpret too much into it But now we should get back on topic.

@walker I don't doubt that it is illegal I just find it silly The argumentation that you want to prevent the knowledge to spread to your enemy/people that should not have it is undermined by the actions and practices of those that ponder on those laws most.

uhm this training argument is a bit silly. It is very easy to get information about how to fire real mortars or manpads etc (some informations are ven available from official US military manuals available on the internet without restriction). Lots of people around the world have been trained to do so too (even the evil taleban have been by the CIA) and there is a number of conscription armies that teach those things to people that don't even want to know it. To get hold of a trained person and teach you how to use this stuff is rather easy. Also considering the US is exporting mortars and manpads all over the world. And as you said a computer game doies not sufficently simulate what it takes to make a 100% realistic representation. This goes for Stingers as well as for normal rifles.

The Arma AI will engange an enemy by itself even without waypoints. With some waypoints it will even travel across half of the Map to do it without the mission designer having to specify where to go. The Arma AI "uses" cover too. It just sucks at it. But then again it is a lot more complicated for it to do it. The enemy can be everywhere at different heights or different vehicles (aircraft) at the same time and the environment can have totally different features depending on the location. The task to use cover properly is significantly more complex for the Arma AI than for the GRAW AI. Additionally it appears to me that the use of cover is kind of a last minute addition to Arma and there is certainly a huge limitation with the current model system that the AI sometimes doesn't understand what objects provide appropriate cover in what situation and it is unable to interact with the object properly to shoot from cover. You will often see the Arma AI going to bushes or object and stand near them. This is their "taking cover" but then again it will see the object as an obstacle and step aside of it to be able to engage the enemy. Which obviously nullifies the use of it as cover. The thing is. Better AI for Arma would be possible but IMHO it would require a major overhaul of significant parts of the game. Since Arma is an intermediate product between Game 2 and OFP I think this will not happen in an extend to allow the full potential. But even if they did you would still be able to write AI that react better to a situation in a game like GRAW, simply because the possibilities are less. The OFP/Arma type AI has to be able to cope with every kind of environment and multiple types of enemy weapon systems/vehicles at once in an totally open and free environment as well as in limited urban environment... so you can imagine how much more complex this gets and that is is not possible to script a reaction fro every possible situation in advance.

Well, part of the 'core AI' now seems to be in the .FSMs. when to reload, the bounding overwatch system, when/who to attack are all things we can change/remove. (and more iirc, it has been a while since i last looked at it) With some messing around we could also influence the paths the AI takes or where to walk to. We cannot change the exact pathway planning or the whole 'knowsabout system', and complete military doctorines are near to impossible to implement because its just too hard/too big. From the things you listed: take up defensive positions - Well, you can lat them take cover but they wont use it that effectively, and when do you want them to take cover? You are in a completely dynamic environment and the AI may be attacking, defending, retreating, who knows? Their enemies may as well be in front of them, behind them, surrounding them and may be infantry, tanks, choppers, or just everything combined. Furthermore, the enemies may aswell be attacking, defending, retreating, walking around in safe mode or whatever. (This is usually the biggest problem when doing anything trough .FSMs IMO, i messed around with it a while back and while i could usually make them do something i wanted them to, i found it very hard to make proper conditions for them to do something as you cannot know what is going on in the missions, so you have to make sure you wont let the AI do something at the time he isnt supposed to do it. But with so many variables it becomes very confusing*.) react to an ambush - If you know a way to detect the difference from a normal attack and an ambush clear rooms - AI pathfinding indoors cannot be changed by .FSMs (afaik) pilot an aircraft properly - ? even fight according to different military styles - Very hard, but at least part of it is theoretically possible. Most (if not all) thing can be done by just overriding it with standard .sqs's/.sqf's, but .FSM's are usually a bit more tidy way to do it as you can just hook it into the default AI behaviour. *I wanted them to call an airstrike, i already had an airstrike script from someone else and with some small modifications the AI could call it aswell, taking into account if there were friendlies near, where the enemies were etc. The biggest problem was that i didnt know when they should call for an airstrike. If its some sneaky mission then suddenly calling aistrikes would be quite inappropriate. There might aswell be alot of AA defence. Or maybe it was in the middle of a city, or in a friendly base which was taken by the enemies, or ..., ..., ... In the end i just left it out, only humans can decide when the proper time is to call an airstrike. well what you tell is basically true but the thing is that this is not enabled by FSMs. It's "simply" scripting. You can throw it into some sqf file and execVM it or you can put it into FSM files and organise it differently and execute it that way. And sure lots of things can be done and most of it could already be done in OFP Resistance. The problem is just that it gets really processor intensive to do some things for many units at the same time. Because it often consists of permanently "overwriting" the decissions of the core AI and correct it and force the unit to do something else. The point is. FSM alone is nothing spectacular. I have messed around long enough to figure that you hit the wall of limits fast and hard and working around it is what OFP scripters have been doing since OFP 1.0. Only thing that is different is that we got more commands to work with and some parts of the Core AI have been excluded and put into FSM files so they are easier to modify for us. So yes they add some possibilities but we should not get too excited about it. Unless there is some hidden feature allowing us to access some of the information that the core AI can work with we are simply scripting and you can do everything without FSMs that you do with FSMs. In fact I do write my FSM scripts as sqf functions/scripts first and I only call/execute them from the within the FSM structure, simply because my default text editor is more convenient to work with than the FSM editor inbuilt ones. Once it is done I put it into the FSM files to optimise performance.

FSM is just another way to execute scripts basically. You can only do what the current scripting commands allow. It just is just a better way to organise them. There's no magic tricks about it that I have found Core AI remains inaccessible for us.

I didn't comment that addon. However I have written that the only major problem is that we cannot disable the default tracers in arma without editing the main arma config OR making extra addons for all weapons (or at least ammo) that are in arma. That problem is visible with this addons which would work nicely if the default tracers could be disabled (in the difficulty menu). The rest is rather trivial. It just doesn't look good with the default tracers there all the time.

it's basicly 20 minutes of scripting work and and maybe half a day to make it look decent. And maybe a whole das to put in some extras The problem is we cannot disasable the default tracers so the only way to make it properly is to modify the main config to make all tracers invisisble or to make extra addons of every weapon there is so far... both is silly. Tbh I have sevral "tracer scripts" on my computer they just look nothing good because their purpose is to show me the flightpath of varios projectiles for some other projects. Basicly the game does it all already. everything that we must do is to make the default tracers invisible and to setPos some visual "aid" along the flightpath. even the deflection is already modelled in the game... it's really trivial. Besides offering money for some addon that does nearly nothing to change gameplay is just silly. Also I suspect there are legal problems as somebody already mentioned but I'm not sure on this.

hey, I'm serious. This is the silliest thing I have read on these forums for a long time.

you forgot the option "you're just silly"

Hey. Proper parading is a lot harder than any combat drill I can imagine... oh the nights we spent in the cold parading until the Platoon Commander was satisfied... bad bad memories... ... try to get 30 people walk in perfect formation and totally "in sync".... that's nearly impossible And they want it to be perfect at the inspection. Quite off topic anyway Just don't underestimate this. We do do it each time we have repetition courses and we did it all the time during initial training. It's simply a disciplinary "tool" to remind the soldiers that they're the bitches of the officers. It's maybe basic but it is pretty hard and it's something they never stop "teaching" you.

Can you try updating DirectX utility libraries using DX Web Installer to see if this helps? (Please, do not respond "I know I have the latest DirectX", but try installing from that website even if you think it is not needed). The Problem is that he uses Windows 2000 (as I do). I get the same error and I get similar errors with other games, that are not compatible with Windows 2000. I would have a question considering this. Can we expect that w2k compatibility will be restored in the final version or not? I know w2k users are probably a small minority these days so I understand if developers don't bother about it. But I just wonder what we can expect if anything. that prob has been fixed check out [WWS]WarWolf post on page 15 ah ok thanks. Totally missed that. But the second link with the fix doesn't work. I'll try to find it on the net.

Can you try updating DirectX utility libraries using DX Web Installer to see if this helps? (Please, do not respond "I know I have the latest DirectX", but try installing from that website even if you think it is not needed). The Problem is that he uses Windows 2000 (as I do). I get the same error and I get similar errors with other games, that are not compatible with Windows 2000. I would have a question considering this. Can we expect that w2k compatibility will be restored in the final version or not? I know w2k users are probably a small minority these days so I understand if developers don't bother about it. But I just wonder what we can expect if anything.

wow I really like the weapons. Thank you

Well I would generally call it irresponsible when people (that do not work for security services) take weapons with them into public - and especially to a place of education. I just would feel really bad when I would think that there are people around with loaded weapons and even worse if they are concealed. First off. If I allow weapons on campus for "self defense" I cannot possibly exclude potential killers from bringing their weapons. I know they can try anyway but there's at least a chance some security personel can turn him away should they find out he is armed and not let him pass into a classroom full of people. Then again there's always the danger of "shortcut" reactions and I really don't want to be near an armed person that is in full rage because someone is making out with his girlfriend.

I just parrot what you write. And now stop the sillyness. You make some people even believe what you say. (btw the only one who ever conquered us was Napoleon.)

we took on the Habsburg empire single handedly, kicked them out and handed them over the asses of their armies they and their allies kept sending against us. "Take it up with the Holy Roman Emperor (OH WAIT YOU CAN'T LMAO!")

outstanding logic! It would also bring the super cool feature of making US and "the rest of the world" versions incompatible in MP! yay! Nah seriously. Of course we will get those things and even if it wasn't in an official patch it's not hard to imagine that people would "aquire" them. But then again I guess BIS will not want to commit community suicide and thus they will bring all game version to the same version including the same features, obviously. But there's a good chance that we'll have to wait a few more weeks than the US people to get the patch.

try using appropriate semicolons (;) inside the curled braces. The Biki is notorious for never adding those in examples try <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> buttonSetAction [100, {player exec "reply.sqs";}] I didn't test it though, just an idea.

Yeah this looks pretty cool now. Looking forward to try it ingame

yeah it understand the problem. It looks much better now. Looking forward to try those weapons. EDIT: just for you information, there are 3 (or 4) settings for the diopter. One setting is thought for close range combat and it has a rather big diopter hole. giving you more field of view but making it harder to aim precisely on large distances. But we can't really simulate that in arma. but if you want you could make the hole bigger too as it would be realistic

try to make it so that there is some space between the diopter hole (the thingy close to the eye) and the ring around the "Korn" (the thing on the front part of the barrel). SO you can see both.