Defunkt

Fair enough. Just in case that should change in the future I'd actually expand on my previous thought by suggesting that even when the player is the group leader TCL features might still be enabled whenever, and for as long as, Combat Mode is set to WHITE/RED (i.e. Engage at Will). "Pursue targets by seeking a position that allows for a possible firing solution on the target. The AI does not keep formation and each member moves individually. The leader command Disengage will set the units back to (GREEN/YELLOW)."

As he doesn't have a command bar showing I assume he's a team member rather than the leader, in which case I'd have thought the TCL features should be enabled (for all AI group members)? Were he the leader I'd agree that AI should keep rough formation until commanded otherwise.

Can anybody on the team comment on the feasibility of some enterprising modder creating a patch to make the GM vehicles inter-operate with RHS (i.e. have compatible damage/penetration/protection characteristics)? Are differences likely to be purely in configuration or are some aspects baked into the models/materials?

We all use mods and we're all capable of selecting and combining mods to our own taste. We don't all find it necessary to go into threads for analogous mods and make video comparisons with the work of others. It's bonkers, and frankly bloody rude, even before considering that you're comparing two whole freakin' different generations of the game. It's great you've found a mix of A2 mods you like, just enjoy them and stop trying to beat everybody else over the head with your representation of them as some sort of gold standard. Hardly anyone here plays A2, and it has its own forums, we're in *this* thread to discuss what's possible and developing within A3, now, by snkman.

Yeah, popping up in every ArmA 3 discussion on AI and pimping your ArmA 2 mods does make y'all a bit weird. There's a whole entire forum for it over here; ARMA2 & OPERATION ARROWHEAD

God, no, please don't ask that. Basically there are a couple of weirdos eccentrics who keep popping up in ArmA 3 discussions on AI and banging on about their secret-sauce AI 'mix'. You'll eventually find out that these (collections of existing mods by other people) are actually for ArmA 2 and thus not really at all relevant to the current discussion.

You are seriously naive when it comes to how the world works. Why do you imagine all those Internet giants that lose money year after year are valued so highly? Because they've captured a market, established a recognised brand and accumulated a userbase, same as BIS, and that was a very risky proposition when they started out. That's now capital and this is how it yields a return.

It's great work you're doing. I'm a big fan of offline indexing for optimal in-game results both in terms of quality but especially performance. This might just end up being the biggest upgrade to Arma since its release.

Have you tried them around the other way (set VD first)? Otherwise the first command would be capped by whatever the current VD is.

Given we've not yet had an announcement that's likely still years away, and still more years until we have the level of content available now in A3.

Something else I'd encourage you to keep in the back of your mind is AI that only has a melee attack and possibly cannot open doors. Dogs or zombies are an obvious example but an even better one I think is Raptors chasing you around a hospital or other large facility. I guess there'd need to be logic that allows a route to be interrupted by the need to close directly with a discovered enemy. Understand this might not be a priority but just wanted to make mention in case it informs some choices you might have to make.

I'm a +1 for new trees.

Weird indeed, I guess perhaps it's a subjective/taste thing, if I waypoint two squads toward the same location I find the whole engagement is over in much shorter order (under 5 minutes) than I think a real encounter would be with persons properly concerned for their own safety. Mainly it just sounds wrong.

Agree with what's been said on the apparent speed with which accurate knowledge is disseminated among AI. Wonder if I might also posit that one of the things I find unnatural about combat involving AI is the shear volume of fire, like once engagement begins it's just constant firing where most combat footage I've watched small arms fire is vastly more sporadic. Most players I think also shoot significantly more sporadically than the AI. Support weapons (i.e. suppressive fire) aside I think authenticity would be increased by making AI less inclined to fire (i.e. only with higher certainty of target location and when the shooter is not under fire themselves). Might come about naturally if AI are less adept at sharing target knowledge. But I'm looking forward to trying TCL. Doesn't require CBA, works with (rather than against) the native AI - where have you been all my Arma-life TCL?

Nice. Watched it several times (with Froggy's soundtrack 😉). First two turns at the bottom of the stairs he appears to rotate through the less natural of the two possible arcs. Don't know what exists in terms of suitable moves but ideally they'd go up and down stairways sideways (facing toward the opposite stairs or the next landing) so as to appear to be covering emerging threats - think it would also make each rotation on the landings look a little more natural. Possibly best implemented as properties of the 'waypoint' (rather than the script trying to add smarts which might prove not to be appropriate) - this may already be the case and the route just needs some tweaking Can't help but want to drag those markers around a little to improve the path (for instance when he clips through the wooden ramp because the preceding marker wasn't as aligned with the base of the ramp as it might've been). Are you anticipating a facility to tweak marker positions visually in the editor?

I would definitely welcome the option to spawn with weapon lowered and walking by default. I'm sure a lot of RPG'rs would also.

Beyond choices by the mission maker it'd be good to see this as an action menu entry for any player with subordinate AI, most likely calling up a dialog listing nearby buildings and available assault plans for each then executed for all units in groupSelectedUnits. But you're right of course, carefully defining an extensible path data format and creating a handy tool for generating it is the most important thing at this stage.

Cool bananas 🍌. Could be quite a big deal and a must-have mission include. In addition to whatever turns up from the script challenge I hope you might accept submission of predefined pathing information by building class name for a data file distributed with the script. There are only so many unique buildings in the ArmAVerse and we might eventually get them all indexed (more reliable and efficient than real-time calculation). With the script acting as a fallback where the class is not present in the data file. EDIT: Something else, hopefully weapon use, and particularly grenades might be moderated by some overall ROE (specified at the time of execution) in terms of likely threat level, presence of non-combatants and the like. Ranging from "Enter with Minimum Necessary Force" (no lethal grenades) up to "Breach with Maximum Prejudice" (shoot first, open doors later).

I've never played A3 online, so may not understand the whole issue, but I've always been interested in this script because I recall from running an A2 server how addon-free functionality is pure gold. Correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand this; The only thing this prevents you from adding is a maximum range (beyond which players cannot communicate at all)? If so, is that really such a problem? Consider that without this script a public server (with random players not in TS) is only going to have vanilla VON for which there's no maximum range either. But separation by such distances is likely to be a relatively small subset of actual use cases and it seems to me that this script suite is still an unalloyed good just by virtue of adding squelch and range-based static. If there's no way to effectively cap range then I think just settle for maximum static at and beyond that range and allow players to transmit at any range given they're going to be able to listen to those conversations - ideally with lots of noise. In short I'd encourage you to continue development because (as far as I can see) there's a lot of utility here even without being able to implement a maximum range.

These look very nice and I completely understand the desire, I can't bring myself to place any of the bug-eyed CSAT units even for testing (RHS is A3). Assume by scripts you mean configs (all that should be required for this sort of replacement). They're actually incredibly simple once you know 3-4 patterns that need to be used (and the right time to use them). The main thing is to preserve the inherited hierarchy, at some point in your patch this will involve what I would call a 'backward declaration' introducing a class defined elsewhere to be used as the parent of a class you're amending. class Parent; // This tells the processor that this class has been/will be defined by another config. class Derived: Parent { // This is the class you're changing (including its original inheritance from Parent). ... // Your changes. }; Where it gets a bit trickier is when you have to backward declare sub-classes within the parent declaration. class Uniform_Base; class UniformItem; class SomeUniform: Uniform_Base { class ItemInfo: UniformItem { ... // Your changes. }; }; Or (more involved); class Parent { class ItemInfo; }; class Derived: Parent { class ItemInfo: ItemInfo { ... // Your changes. }; }; Choosing the correct pattern is just a matter of preserving the original hierarchy for which you'll definitely want an All-In-One config dump (and something like Notepad++);

https://dev.cup-arma3.org/T3178

Sure, it's just a CfgPatches class which is guaranteed to load last so any addon that wants to derive from the given CUP module's config only has to name this as a RequiredAddon to ensure it loads after all of the addons whose config it might want to subclass. Vanilla has the same thing in the form of load order patches for each of the DLCs. So RequiredAddons[] = {"A3_Data_F_SAMs_LoadOrder"}; ensures my addon loads after all of the A3 content. So something like "CUP_Maps_LoadLast", "CUP_Vehicles_LoadLast" etc.

It's possible such a thing already exists and has escaped my notice but if not I wonder if you'd consider adding 'Load Order' patches to each CUP component (so it's easy to derive from the CUP config tree).

Really appreciate that, beyond just looking great, your models have a respectable number of LODs, you wouldn't believe the number of mods out there that don't.

Excellent, was part of a solution I was day-dreaming about just a couple of weeks ago (there I further posit the possibility that one might hand off calculations that require map data to a separate instance of the dedicated server running a partner extension). Look me up on the Arma Discord if you decide to proceed and want some direction on Arma's ways - lots of super helpful experts there; https://discord.gg/9KEgz3