Gearson

Does any one know if this is supported? I've tried to set it up according to the documentation, but it only works properly in single player or when I am the commander in a hosted server. If I host a server but let someone else take the commander slot, the commander does not have access to the command functions. I have not yet had the chance to try it with a dedicated server. Any help getting this working would be appreciated.

I've been using the ACE edition, and I get RPGs lobbed at me all the time. Not so much with the GP25 grenades though. Playing on the blufor side, I do see a lot of outgoing m203 rounds, but not so many outgoing smaw rounds.

Just updated to the latest ACE mod version, and when I launch ArmA 2 now, I get an error that says "Addon 'zeu_c_ai_other' requires addon 'ace_c_ai_other'". The game continues to run, though I am not sure how gameplay is affected.

I've been using ACE and Zeus together almost since ACE came out, and I haven't had any crashes yet. I've only tested this on the client, not a dedicated server.

I've found the ACE ai to be really inaccurate, even with scoped M16s and Zeus AI loaded (@ACE;@ACEX;@zcommon). They *can* see quite well, even without Zeus loaded. I'd suggest for your consideration Protegimus, that perhaps you release a special ACE edition of Zeus AI that has the accuracy greatly increased. I've done some testing with this myself, and I have yet to observe the dreaded "ak sniper" phenomenon. I have to assume the ballistics in use play a role in that. Just my two cents.

Thanks for the update, Protegimus. I noticed a significant change in accuracy overall, however the sniper was as ineffective as ever. Not sure what to make of that. Still, I enjoy it overall. Cheers.

I respectfully disagree. Look at it this way - who would enjoy having a sniper on their team who cannot seem to hit the broad side of a barn at 800m with an m107? I, for one, do not. Keep in mind that my server and mission were setup to use the highest skilled and most accurate AI possible for the game. Given that most people will probably not be doing this, I would think there would be a bit of wiggle room before many people start getting blown away at 800m on the first shot. I've looked at the config files and I understand it's a bit of a tall order, but I would really appreciate it if something could be done. I hope there are others who feel the same way. Mission designers should be able to adjust the skill of their enemy snipers if they feel it is a problem.

Protegimus: I generally enjoy how this mod affects the AI. However, when using a blufor AI sniper equipped with an m107, I found him to be fairly ineffective at ranges of about 800m, plus or minus 200m or so. This was in spite of the fact that I had used every trick I know to increase the AI skill. I use setSkill [number] as well as setSkill [array] to max out all skill parameters, rank is set to colonel, and AI skill and precision are both set to 1 in the server profile. For ten magazines of ammo, I'd estimate this AI was able to get perhaps 4 kills. By comparison, I was able to get more than 20 kills as the sniper on the same mission with 10 magazines. I should point out that when I played as the sniper, I played largely by myself. When using the AI sniper, I played as a high commander directing a platoon sized supporting element. When playing the sniper by myself, the platoon sized element was still in the mission, but they spawn in a location that minimizes their effect on the scenario. In both scenarios, the sniper was able to remain largely stationary. For many situations, I find the current AI accuracy could stand for slight improvement, but in cases like these I think a greater improvement is warranted. Isn't there some way to greatly improve accuracy for units that are mostly stationary, but only slightly improve accuracy for units which are regularly mobile? Another thing: I do find that at night the AI are just a little bit better than I am, while I can generally outclass the AI playing the same mission during the day. Thanks again for your time.

I've been scripting for a while now, so I am aware of the ability to compile .sqf code into pre-compiled functions which will run quite a bit faster than just calling execvm each time. However, I have run into situations when running math heavy loops where it would seem a bit more optimization might be in order. Examples would be running AI threat evaluations for company-on-company sized engagements, or computing impact points for unguided bombs dropped from aircraft. This may be asking a lot, but I think it would be a big improvement to have the ability to compile and run custom-written code that takes advantage of things that a stricter language can offer. Just a thought...

It looks like your demo shows an enemy vehicle suppressing an infantry soldier. It's very interesting, but I wonder if the same behavior can be shown in an infantry-on-infantry engagement.

Would it be possible for someone to post more information on this command? My somewhat limited testing failed to show a significant change in behavior while using it.

How are the "CombatZone" and "CombatZoneMarker" markers created? Are they intended to be the same marker? If they are intended to be the same, and you created it in the editor, you should not need to use the public variable event handler on the client side. The new marker position should be broadcast to all clients. I would check the error log on the server. I don't see any reason why this code would run any differently on a dedicated server vs a client. You might also post more of your code for us to look at. The problem may lie somewhere else. Also, I do not think your sidechat call will be broadcast to any clients. For that, I think you will need to make use of a public variable event handler.

I would also suggest doing the following: {_x setSkill ["spotTime", 1]} forEach units group this I might also suggest: temp = this spawn { while {alive pat1} do { { _x doWatch pat1 } forEach units group _this; sleep 0.5; }; }; I've been dealing with this problem in some of my own missions, and in my opinion, the real solution to the problem is to write a mod that overwrites CfgAISkill. That's just me.

Is there a way to overwrite CfgAISkill from within Description.ext? I have tried simply including a CfgAISkill declaration, but it does not seem to have any effect. Thanks in advance.

Seems to me like this might be something worth adding, at least for certain parts of the config space, like CfgAISkill.

I think your problem is likely the noblur mod. I was unable to run the latest patched game until I stopped using it. I have also used SOW and VoP with the latest patch without problems.

I have been getting reports of the same problem on my server. The server is copied from a 505 games release installation. My client, which is also a 505 games release, does not see the error but other people who I know are using the steam release are seeing the error.

That depends on what release of arma2 you are using. I'm using a downloaded version from 505games, so I do not use a dvd at all. After I posted, I copied my install to a separate machine that I only use for dedicated server and found out that my particular release does require a license to be activated on the machine it is run on. So, I agree this a pretty poor situation.

I have been able to launch a dedicated server by passing the "-server" flag at the command line.

No, it does not.

Does anyone know if there is a way to prevent these markers from appearing on the map, even when in high command mode? An authoritative answer would be much appreciated.

I think it would be wonderful if someone made a mod to allow you to adjust the in-game ai audio chat level. I find that most people in multiplayer voice chat are too quiet and get overpowered by the in-game voices.

Looking at specopmanager.fsm, it looks to me as though those parameters are at least pulled out of the "settings" array setVariabled into the SOM. I'm just wondering, what exactly is the RandomActivation parameter supposed to do?

In the editor, place a blufor team and make yourself the leader of that team. Place a SOM Editor Module object and synchronize (F5) it to the leader of your team. Save the mission. In the folder of that mission create an init.sqf text file and paste the code I posted into it. At the bottom of that file, add the following code: if (isServer) then { nil = [] spawn GEARSON_som_loop; sleep 1; player globalchat "Done"; }; That should do it for single player. Getting it to work in multiplayer should be easy enough, but it might be beyond the scope of this thread. :) The if statement above should ensure that code only runs on the server.

I started having this same problem in a mission I am working on. I wrote most of the following code to fix the problem: GEARSON_som_loop = { GEARSON_mission_pool = ["ambush", "attack_location", "defend_location", "destroy", "escort", "patrol", "rescue", "search", "trap"]; sleep (30 + (random 20)); _mission = ""; while {true} do { if((vehicle (leader GEARSON_leaderGroup)) == (leader GEARSON_leaderGroup)) then { _mission = GEARSON_mission_pool call BIS_fnc_selectRandom; [_mission, false, gearsonSOM] call BIS_SOM_requestSecOpFunc; sleep 5; }; _continue = true; while {_continue} do { sleep 2; _pastBriefing = false; _scopes = gearsonSOM getVariable "secOpScopes"; _continue = false; for "_i" from 0 to ((count _scopes) - 1) do { _scope = _scopes select _i; _name = _scope getVariable "name"; if (_name == _mission) then { _continue = true; }; if (_continue) exitWith {}; sleep .1; }; }; sleep (30 + (random 20)); }; }; Notes: gearsonSOM - the SOM object GEARSON_leaderGroup - the group the SOM object is synchronized to. You can use this code by putting the required editor objects on this map and then doing "nil = [] spawn GEARSON_som_loop;" on the server after the above code has been executed. Full disclosure - the inner while loop is lifted almost verbatim from the BIS isActiveSecOp.sqf file, so credit them for that.