Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Donnervogel

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1036

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Donnervogel

  1. Posted

    Well I think the addon system just causes too much hassle so the only way to promote addons in MP is to make them part of a larger "mod" or some addon pack or something similar that provides good missions (this is crucial). Many OFP servers provided addon packs that were needed to play on their servers so that was ok. But you need someone to make missions for those addons wink_o.gif

  2. Posted

    Well I think the addon system just causes too much hassle so the only way to promote addons in MP is to make them part of a larger "mod" or some addon pack or something similar that provides good missions (this is crucial). Many OFP servers provided addon packs that were needed to play on their servers so that was ok. But you need someone to make missions for those addons wink_o.gif

  4. Posted

    1. the base SS550 (with only ironsights) i find the aiming hole seems too small (i always want to zoom in just a bit more).

    Well the "problem" is that the aiming hole is pretty close to the real one. But the thing is that the real rifle has 4 (actually 5) settings. You can adjust the visor thingy based on what distance you shoot at and also switch to a night visor. There is also a setting that requires you to use a screwdriver to take out a screw to change one of the high precission settings into an close combat setting. Then also for CQB soldiers are trained to not look trough he hole at all but look over it. we call it "reflex shooting". Anyway I find the hole is very good in the size for 150+ m which is quite a ususal distance I tend to engage enemy AI at. Obviously for CQB it is too small but the question is where do you want to put the compromise. Also keep in mind that the SIG 550 is a rather long range relatively high precission assault rifle and normal swiss conscripts are trained to use it with iron sights on 300m while many soldiers are not so well trained in urban combat where CQB would most likely happen wink_o.gif

  5. Posted

    It's the OFP derived AI. Objects are obstacles for it. If the AI is close to an Object it "feels" obstructed. it has been like that since OFP. I don't know the exact problem but I suspect it's some general flaw in the engine that AI is unable to "interact" with objects. You can see ti with shooting but also with movement (good example is the FDF AP mines which the AI avoided since it "saw" an object in it's way so it went around it wink_o.gif

    And about the cover. The AI goes to cover (or better it will stand around close to something it thinks is cover so the thing is between him and the unit it wants cover from - you can tell it to do so by scripting for testing) but it usually won't fire from there because of this reason discussed here. So it will step out of cover again in order to engage.

    Arma (OFP derived) AI is not able to interact with objects is what I think and I think it won't be really changed anytime soon. But hopefully they will at least enable it to fire over objects.

    We need a major engine expansion or Game2 to see proper interaction with objects I think

  7. Posted

    from my experience this is quite realistic. There's always some idiot having forgot to switch safety on - sadly.

    besides it was just funny in OFP when for example the mission was finished and everyone was running back to extraction zone and someone fired unintentionally and everyone goes panic looking for cover, lots of chatter in voice coms "where did it come from?" - "sorry guys it was me..." wink_o.gif

  8. Posted

    I had a look and I think it is a prime example of what the purpose of an FSM in ArmA was expected to be (by the developers). This particular FSM is something run on the Engineers to perform the mine clearing. Whether or not it is used or who was the exact author (I am assuming granq), I am not sure. It is a good example though.

    I think kungtotte wrote that FSM, I remember giving him some FSM advice on it when he was doing it.

  9. Posted

    What I am getting is a position well outside the bounding box is still returning [0,0] as the horizontal coord. If you have a working example please post it.

    I suspect your vertical position working is due to something else. Also it doesn't depend on the bounding box but on the position and the corresponding model.

    Syntax: object worldToModel worldPos

    Example:

    object is a tank

    worldpos is the position of the round the tank fired.

    now when you getPos the round you will get it's worldPos coordinates. But if you want the round position as an offset to the tank model center you use

    myTank worldToModel positionOfRound

    this works flawlessly for me.

    however if I do tankRound worldToModel positionOfRound it will return [0,0,0] (as the offset is zero as I compared the tankRound model center world pos converted to model space with itself and there is no difference).

  10. Posted

    Has anyone used worldToModel successfully? It keeps giving me [0,0,0] for everything.

    Edit: actually it keeps giving me back the horizontal coords as [0,0] the vertical seems okay.

    uhm yes. it works good. Remember. If you request the model space coodinates of the object position (given in world pos) that the model space belongs to, then it will be [0,0,0] because it describes the (world) position of the model center. But if you use the coodinates of a different object/place/whatever then it will be successfully converted to the model space of the object specified in the command.

  11. Posted

    let's put it this way. If the terrain wasn't totally flat and if there would be crosswinds and if I didn't aim about 2-3 meters above the m1 (yes that did bit is pretty much above the turret on 630m) the round has just splashed into the ground wink_o.gif But the point was not to show my 1337 RPG skills but rather to show how the courve in Kronzkys plot looks "in real" so I had do stretch it out to a similar distance that he used.

    Also I am in no way an expert on RPGs but with enough initial thrust a fin stabilised projectile can easily travel a flat courve over 630m.

  12. Posted

    Donnervogel,

    nice work on the plotting. However i think the time frame on that test and the distance the results are viewable to doesn't prove it. The flight of the round to the distance apparent in the image would be maybe 0.5 seconds. You're not going to notice the difference between 7.35 and 9.8m/s over that time frame. What would be interesting is if you could do the same test from the top of one of the tall mountains (firing with 0 elevation to the shot) and look at the difference between the 2 traces at the end of the flight rather than the begining.

    Well the thing you see is after some time of flight (a distance of about 800m) of the round. I did more testing with 7.5 and the differences are. With 9.81 as Gravity I am +/-0.05m on target after 1 km. With 7.5 I am 0.2-0.3m too high after one kilometer. It increases with the same trend over larger distances. 7.5 ends up too high. There is obviously some derivation that I assume is from rounding errors and some OFP script engine delays or something. But it's really minimal.

    I mean I didn't set up this test to prove the point that gravity is 9.8. I just happen to have worked on it for some time already and I just wanted to tell you that for what I am doing 9.8 seems to be closer to the value ArmA uses than 7.5. I can't tell much about falling speed. but maybe it would help if you caluclated the falling acceleration from the velocity vector (if you didn't do it already) of the object that is falling.

  13. Posted

    SOBR[1st-I-R] @ June 05 2007,01:20)]gravity depends on the location you are at.

    If I remember right 9.8 was for Europe right ?

    So again... where is Sahrani? biggrin_o.gif

    well the differences are not that big for other places (on earth at least - it would be somewhere inside +/-0.2 I think) 9.8 is a "generic" mean value for gravity on sea level.

    Quote[/b] ]Not sure if that picture says anything, as you don't see the projectile fall at all (not significantly at least). Maybe it got there the first 0.1 seconds for instance? You won't see much of a difference between 7.5m/s^2 and 9.8m/s^2 in 0.1 secs.

    what the picture shows, as I write, is that the calculation (using formulas from my physics book) match very well with what OFP produces when I use the value 9.8, That you don't see the projectile drop is something else. It does drop. that's for sure. But that path goes on for kilometers wink_o.gif And it's not spawned. it's pure math plus visualising the actual flight path of the projectile fired from the tank.

  14. Posted

    it would be good if you told us how you did your testing wink_o.gif Because my scripts work fine when using 9.8m/s^2 for gravity (calculating ballistic trajectory curves for tank rounds for example) So I don't see any "weirdness" with trajectory. Infact I see that the trajectories behave realistic (not meaning that the weapons behave realistic but the physics behind the projectile work pretty realistic)

    EDIT: here's a picture, green is the calculated path and yellow is the actual flightpath of the round. Looks pretty damn close to my calculations wink_o.gif And it uses 9.8 for the gravity

  15. Posted

    Here is a vid I made to show how flat it actually is.

    Hehe... Cool!

    Who needs Excel, if you can just draw a 3D-graph, real-time, right in the game! wink_o.gif

    yes the good thing about that is too that you sometimes see things you would never have thought. Like that RPGs can deflect too like bullets wink_o.gif It's pretty cool when you shoot t the turret of the M1 in a steep angle and it just bounces off wink_o.gif I love arma btw wink_o.gif

    Quote[/b] ]At what range were you in the video?

    it's about the length of the runway on Rahmadi. About 630m

  18. Posted

    I don't think it has to do with drag being calculated as a constant but with the rounds not having the real parameters (drag parameter mainly). From my testing it appears that drag is correctly calculated but I have no idea if the drag parameters are realistic.

  19. Posted

    Perhaps somebody with better access to real-life ballistics charts can check whether the data generated makes any sense...

    well I'm in no way a weapons specialist but I was doing a script that would calculate how the tank main gun has to aim to hit a specific target and my findings are, that at least tank ammo behaves closely to a standard trajectory parabola. They also add drag to it during flight. With this I have been able to get really good results. So I think the projectiles behave pretty "plausible" but that does not mean realistic wink_o.gif Obviously real projectiles have different flight and drag characteristics that would be hard to find out for a game developer. I just think they have a good approximation to a realistic flight path depending on the parameters they can work with (drag coefficent, initial speed, ...) But if they chose the right parameters is another question wink_o.gif

    And well. I never tested it with small arms so this is just valid for the m1a1 main gun atm wink_o.gif

  21. Posted

    Well ARMA/OFP is a crappy flight simulator... that's no surprise. I think aircraft like in OFP are only useful for looks, handled by AI (when supported with some scripts to make them useful) and for some nerds that actually learn to fly those things really well as I have seen amazing CAS support with the worst planes when the right player was flying it (not implying it was realistic but who cares). It was hard to fly planes well in OFP but some people could do it really well. I think that was pretty cool because not everyone was good so good pilots were actually something rare wink_o.gif And having a player in MP flying in really slow an dropping that uniguided LGB with pinpoint precission on the AI really made me go "wow". wink_o.gif

    Thats Easy and for Us "Nerds" its not hard to learn at all so tech few hours practice and your there unless your completely useless in the first place.

    I dont see anything wrong with the flight moddel.

    hey I've been trying since OFP 1.0 and I never learned to stay alive longer than 5 minutes in an OFP plane (and hitting something without guided missles is totally out of the question) wink_o.gif

  22. Posted

    Well ARMA/OFP is a crappy flight simulator... that's no surprise. I think aircraft like in OFP are only useful for looks, handled by AI (when supported with some scripts to make them useful) and for some nerds that actually learn to fly those things really well as I have seen amazing CAS support with the worst planes when the right player was flying it (not implying it was realistic but who cares). It was hard to fly planes well in OFP but some people could do it really well. I think that was pretty cool because not everyone was good so good pilots were actually something rare wink_o.gif And having a player in MP flying in really slow an dropping that uniguided LGB with pinpoint precission on the AI really made me go "wow". wink_o.gif

  23. Posted

    Well I like the addons actually but they seem very unbalanced versus default BIS units (maybe because of AI engagement rages from the weapon configs? dunno... they just mow down all opfor with ease and minimal to none casualties on some distance.

    Also I don't like the recoil. Weapons like the M60 and the G3 should "kick" more... but well. I can't have everything.

    Nice addons anyway.

  24. Posted

    How many of you guys and girls actually have an organ donation pass ?

    I guess most of us will only think about the issue when they are suddenly in need of a donor organ.

    The interesting thing about that is, that I would give my organs with no problem. I really don't care what happens with my body after I died. But I have no donor pass because I simply don't know how to get one (without any major effort by my side) and frankly - I'm too lazy to research what I need to do. I think this is also a problem of bad information policy of the responsible organisation (at least here in Switzerland)

  25. Posted

    But you can always argue what the point is of a big beautiful island when something as basic as 'taking cover' isn't 'solved' ... I'm well aware (as in i can imagine) how complex this thing is but THE road to go is:

    1. Make proper non-predefined 'take cover' AI (if even possible)

    2. Put THAT on a big island with cities, objects, hills, crests, etc.

    Just don't (try to) do it the other way around:)

    well I agree with you and it certainly will happen as we get increased CPU power with multi core systems now. It is only logical to expect more from the AI in future. But I would not expect it from Arma. At least not without a major expansion.

×