Jump to content

biggerdave

Member
  • Content Count

    640
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

33 Excellent

About biggerdave

  • Rank
    Master Sergeant

Contact Methods

  • Biography
    Little is known of the man they call Dave. Only one thing can be said for certain, and that is that there was already someone with the username "Big Dave", and he was confident he was bigger.

    In terms of height, that is. What you're thinking of _may_ be true, but we've yet to track down "Big Dave" to find out.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Erk, that was a typo, I meant the automatic rifle variant (SPAR-16S?) Sort of what I was getting at with that comment about the EMR, though. Could maybe convert the existing magazines that work with all weapons into hidden legacy versions, then add new classes for the modelled variants that work how they're supposed to? That would minimize the issue with backwards compatibility, it'd probably still be a bit too hacky, though...
  2. Guessing that's an issue with the data for the new magazines? It works perfectly with Toadie's STANAG magazines and all the CUP stuff out of the box! (haven't tried RHS yet) Pretty fantastic! Theoretically, I guess you could even add a 5,45 AK-12 without any new data, too! I'm slightly concerned as to how this is going to affect the Mk-1 EMR and SPAR-17, though. Leetspeak broke my account, can someone add/confirm these issues to the bugtracker for me, please? 1. AKSU magazine proxy doesn't change until too late into animation (doesn't change until after the new magazine is in place - this might be problematic, since there's only 1 5,45 magazine model in vanilla, it's only noticeable with something like CUP - deffo a bug with the vanilla AKSU, though) 2. OPFOR groups seem to be missing 3. As NikkoJT mentioned, a lot of STANAG magazines seem to be missing for rifles that they aren't intended for (C-Mags only work with SPAR-17, sand magazines only work with sand rifles) 4. UGV/UAV groups have the dummy 'crew' for the drone in the same group as their operator (might be an engine limitation?) 5. Taking the cargo position in a Stomper UGV allows direct control without a drone terminal.
  3. I am so happy you guys have finally nuked that butt-ugly steel helmet from OA, I have no idea why BIS thought that model was acceptable! New SLA dudes look pretty swanky too - not a huge fan of the camo vests, though. Have you thought about giving them the Type-56-2s you've got instead of regular AKSs? Would give them a bit more personality, IMHO.
  4. So, the start-up instructions in the Weisel interior got me thinking... Hold Space to Start Vehicle? The current "engine on" command is bit arcadey, it'd be a neat feature, have variable start-up times for various vehicles, have stalling as a potential damage state (so, an interesting form of temporary immobilization) - I guess it'd probably need to be implemented sort of like the advanced flight model for helicopters, since most 3rd party addons wouldn't immediately be compatible, and probably wouldn't be to everyone's tastes, but could definitely add a lot to the simulation, IMHO.
  5. biggerdave

    Arma 3 Aegis (Beta)

    Realistically, the NLAW is intended to complement the Carl Gustav in rifle sections to deal with stuff that the Gustav isn't able to (landing helicopters, fast moving vehicles, winged mythological beasts, etc). Whereas the Metis isn't in the traditional rifle platoon, but attached as needed. (Of course, intended role and actual role (thanks to the entire budget being spent on doomsday devices) are very different things...) IMHO, the Vorana feels like it should have replaced the Titan for CSAT, rather than serve some weird "heavy-light anti-tank" role. Though I can see why BIS didn't do that, considering how much stuff it would break! (No one's going to haul that thing around as a rifleman in case they might run up against armour... well... no one playing with stamina on anyway...) I'd just change the names, rather than having some "light AT" or "heavy AT" dichotomy, so, like- Rifleman (AT, PCML) Rifleman (AT, MAAWS) Missile Specialist (AT, Titan) Missile Specialist (AT, Vorona) etc. (LAW, as in, M72? Would only really fit Guerillas or maybe SOF, IMHO. The NLAW is the replacement for the M72's replacement, it'd be like swapping an Abrams for a Sherman!)
  6. biggerdave

    Arma 3 Aegis (Beta)

    Rather than completely removing your version of the Kamaz Grad(?) maybe rework it into a short(er) ranged unguided system? So, more of a counterpart to the SPGs than MLRS.
  7. biggerdave

    Vehicle Interiors - Feedback

    Random question, but isn't the Marid a Turkish vehicle? (I know it is IRL, but is it in the ingame lore?) What's the logic for the control panels being in Russian?
  8. Oh, that makes sense. (But, why, though? I mean, is it better than the default mouse controls? 'cause I've always felt like the mouse steering has been a bit off since ArmA.1 compared to OFP)
  9. So, I was dicking around with control settings, based on Belbo's comments about mouse turning (still not idea what he's going on about, btw? There isn't mouse turning for commanders, at least on my instance?), and, it appears I owe you a minor apology, but, still; You need to have the command move (under the command settings) bound differently to the driver commands - so, if you have both driving and commanding bound to the same keys, you get sort of a "hybrid" command structure, that's a bit weird (so, you get the audio cues as if you're using the old method, but it controls like the rework, albeit slightly less precise). I've currently got it set up with WASD as direct control, and arrow keys for command controls (maybe numpad would work better?) - what's important is that you delete the common bindings, so, what you've got set for "command forward" and what you've got set for "accelerate" aren't the same! (ie, if you've bound W to move forward, you need to delete the binding for W to command forward) Ideally, yeah, there definitely needs to be, at the very least, an option to disable the direct controls for commanders, so you can bind them the same. (and maybe, while we're on the subject, a button for the commander to say "point the gun exactly here" (so we don't need to deal with the AI not being ""aware"" of the target you've just directly pointed them at) and "point the front armour exactly this direction", in lieu of trying to micromanage direction) (Turning behaviour is still the same between the two, though!)
  10. Didn't you just say you didn't want to talk to me anymore? =p (Like, the time stamps of those two posts are only 4 minutes apart! I literally spent more time than that making this post!)Then again, I guess when you don't proofread you have more time for changing your mind, right? Your point seems to be that turning under the old system involved just tapping the turn button and then hoping that your tank faces the right direction. I mean, you could have done that, I guess, but that's definitely not how it was intended to be used. Go boot up OFP, put yourself in as a tank commander, and hold down the A key, see what happens. (Spoiler alert, your tank is going to spin around on the spot until you let go of the key)
  11. Oh god, we've got to referencing paragraphs by number... this is going to be one of those threads, isn't it? Microdelay: How many commands begin with "Fo-" "Ri-" "Le-" "Ba-" that are likely to be used by tank commanders to their drivers? A full delay isn't realistic and again, realistically, tank crews can pre-plan their movements to prevent any delay in terms of commands being executed. Map commands: I'd say that's entirely relevant. You've just said you want a system where you don't have to constantly have hands-on-keyboard, and there it is. One click on the map, and off you go, then, as a commander can freely plan your next move or just wander off and make some tea (or, if you're a hardcore sim-er, you'll use the kettle in the decommissioned scorpion tank you've turned into the ultimate simulation PC!) Holding down a forward button vs. Pressing a forward button and then a stop button: Are both abstract systems. Neither one is more realistic than the other, because, realistically, you don't command a tank with a keyboard. It's completely meaningless to equate the two. Perhaps you "feel" one is more realistic, but, that's just like, your opinion, man. (you've said Coddlefield uses "hold down" commands, but pretty much all the dedicated tank simulators use "hold-down" commands, as well) Stopping the tank turning manually: Was never a feature in the old system. The tank would turn while you held the "turn right" key, and stop when you let go. It's exactly the same. Stopping the tank completely: Can be done in the new system with the "handbrake" command (I think it's "X" by default? I've remapped it to "Shift-S"). Also, you realise you're now complaining that the new system works too much like the old one, right?
  12. Right, but again, like I said, realistically, Tank commanders don't micromanage their crews. There's a lot of things that the AI simply can't understand that you'd expect between a tank commander and their driver (ie, "forward" might mean "follow the road a bit", not "just go straight directly forward until I tell you otherwise"). Is it realistic to have "steering wheel" control over the driver? No. But it's more realistic than a bunch of very abstract "direct" commands. I don't get your point about it being uncontested? Insubordination would not be a fun mechanic for the AI. Delay isn't realistic (and more importantly, it isn't fun!) - this is why WGL/ACE disabled it under the old system. Commanders and Drivers do understand each other. Tank crews train together for this exact purpose. (Moreover, even untrained crews can preplan their movements, to prevent delay) Again, a simple command, such as "bring us up behind that wall" is completely beyond the capabilities of the AI (and that's not even a complaint about the AI, it's a simple fact that machines can't easily process that kind of instruction from a person). It is near impossible to execute under the old system, but probably the easiest thing for an actual tank crew to perform. Or, an even better example "as soon as we fire, get us back behind cover" - a very simple instruction for a human driver, but with an AI crew under the old system, you'd potentially have about a 2-5 second delay trying to get the AI to perform this action - not ideal in a combat situation! And you can still give grid reference commands by using the map or command view. (I haven't tried it yet, but I imagine the "next waypoint" and "take formation" commands still work too) The only thing that's really changed is the micro-management commands. And, in the old system, you gave commands with the keyboard, too, so...? I honestly don't follow that last point? Turning vehicles feels identical in the new system, the only difference is it doesn't spam the message log, and you get the arguably more realistic "stop" when stopping turns than the old "forward". (Did this change between the dev branch and release?) If a system "feels" realistic, but it's impossible to perform actions that are completely trivial for real crews, then it's not a realistic system.
  13. ...I'm sorry, the old system was "realistic"? How exactly? The only thing that's changed is the micro-management controls. Realistically, tank commanders don't micromanage their crews, rather than saying "go forward exactly 5 meters, then turn exactly 30 degrees left, etc. etc.", you'd get something like "Bring us up to that wall", "once we fire, pull us back to cover". Since you can't expect the AI to be able to follow commands like these, we've just been given more direct control, rather than the clunky system that's been in place since OFP to pretty much everyone's chagrin. You still have proper commanding with the map/command view, if you want to sit back and let the AI do the driving.
  14. Flags don't need any configing. Just whack the .paas in a pbo and you're good to go. You can use "setflagtexture" to apply the new flag texture to any of the existing flagpoles. If, for whatever reason, you want to create an actual flagpole you can place in the editor, this is the basic code: class MyNewFlag: FlagCarrier { author="My Name"; class SimpleObject { eden=0; animate[]= { { "flag", 0 } }; hide[]={}; verticalOffset=3.977; verticalOffsetWorld=0; init="''"; }; editorPreview="\A3\EditorPreviews_F\Data\CfgVehicles\Flag_NATO_F.jpg"; scope=2; scopeCurator=2; displayName="My New Flagpole"; hiddenSelectionsTextures[]= { "\A3\Structures_F\Mil\Flags\Data\Mast_mil_CO.paa" }; hiddenSelectionsMaterials[]= { "\A3\Structures_F\Mil\Flags\Data\Mast_mil.rvmat" }; class EventHandlers { init="(_this select 0) setFlagTexture '\MyAddon\Whateverfolder\MyFlagTexture_CO.paa'"; }; }; For a billboard, you just need a new hiddenselection, you can either apply this to the billboard object in the editor using the "setobjecttexture" command (again, simply including a new texture in a pbo doesn't need any configing), or, if you need to make a new class (ie, for an object to be placed on a custom terrain): class MyNewBillboard: Land_Billboard_F { author="My Name"; displayName="My New Billboard"; hiddenSelectionsTextures[]= { "MyAddon\Whateverfolder\MyBillboardTexture_CO.paa" }; }; Just a final caveat, if you're not too familiar with the pbo format, you'll need to include a very basic config if you want to binarize your addon, so, something like this: class CfgPatches { class MyAddon //This should match the name of your PBO, for convience's sake, but it's not that important { units[]= {}; weapons[]={}; requiredVersion=0.1; requiredAddons[]={}; }; };
  15. biggerdave

    AI Discussion (dev branch)

    Gonna be honest, I completely forgot vehicles were even in the game when making that post XD AFAIK, the only difference between Safe and Aware for infantry is they keep their weapons lowered and tend to move slower. (maybe they have lights on if they have them, which, tbh, kinda useless since they're pointing them at the floor. Good job illuminating that tiny area next to your foot!) As far as I can tell, Engage is a direct order, not a mode (like "Fire") - though, I'm only guessing that because you can spam it, while if a soldiers already in a mode, trying to issue the mode change order again won't produce any chat message. Yeah, ideally you'd want to be able to go from "sneaky" to "light'em up" with a single command (navigating through menus is a PITA, definitely not convenient when under fire!). Completely overhauling the system right now would probably break pretty every mission that uses waypoints, though... hopefully the next game has it completely overhauled... but dammit! I want fixed AI for the game I've actually brought! =p
×