maddogx

Yeah the bursting into flames seems to be a problem with the engine. Looks like it happens if you force vehicles into awkward positions. Strange. I also noticed, if you make a car hover in the air in a strange position, the wheels will start turning very fast. I can't do anything about the wheels turning, but I'll try and fix the damage thing.

From what I understand, you need a script to pile vehicles on top of each other, is that correct? The problem in ArmA will be that the physics engine isn't robust enough to effectively pile vehicles. It will work with large, heavy square shaped objects but once it comes to complex objects such as vehicles, they will just start bouncing around until they come to a stop on something solid - usually the ground. What you need is a script that allows you to fix the height and direction (including tilt) of a vehicle. I could make you a script if you like, but it would have two minor limitations: 1: The object's position would be totally FIXED. That means you would not be able to make it move unless you somehow abort the script. If you want piles of cars that can be tipped over, then that will be very nearly impossible. 2: The script would have to use a loop to continually set the object's position and direction so that it does not fall or bounce around. Loops like this will slow down the game if you use them on too many objects, so you can't make a huge field with hundreds of cars piled around. <s>Let me know if you want me to make it.</s> EDIT: I've made a quick beta version. Download it here. Images: To use the script you must place it into your mission directory and write the following in the init line of each vehicle that you want to set the position of: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">x = [this,Fix,Height,Direction,Roll,Bow] execVM "setObjectPosition.sqf" Explanation: this - Refers to the object. Must not be changed Fix - True or False. Set to true if you want to force the object into the position and keep it there. Otherwise set to false (vehicle will drop). Height - The object's height above the ground in meters. Direction - Must be set because the ingame direction setting will no longer work. Roll - Set the roll direction (sideways tilt) in degrees. 90 will place the vehicle on it's side, 180 will place it on it's back etc. Bow - Bow direction. Does not yet fully work, because I'm not really an expert at vectors, but it can be used to some extent. The bow direction makes the object tilt forward. Here are a few examples: Make the object lie on it's back: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">x = [this,false,1,0,180,0] execVM "setObjectPosition.sqf" Make the object float, tilted on it's side and slightly forward, 1 meter above the ground: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">x = [this,true,1,0,90,20] execVM "setObjectPosition.sqf" There are still a few bugs, as it is still in beta. Try it out.

Actually, since most anti-cheat measures should be server-side, most of the code would be implemented in the dedicated server software and not in the actual game. Since the current dedicated server software is still considered beta, I'm guessing it's still being worked on, so implementing some anti-cheat routines should be possible.

No use. Most cheats for other games nowadays know when PB or any other Anti-Cheat software is requesting a screenshot and just deliver a clean one. Apart from that, screenshots are only good for reviewing clan wars and such, because they only allow you to catch the cheater AFTER the game. To effectively combat cheating, the server must be made to check certain things, especially such things that should be impossible. For example: the heaviest weapon in the game is the laser guided bomb of the Harrier, with a damage of 5000 Â and an explosion radius of 15 meters. Still, I saw in one video that some guy was firing "nuke bullets" with damage 9000 and explosion radius of a few hundred meters? So the server recieves the message from the client of an explosion of that size (that is not in any config file) and just accepts it? This shouldn't be possible. Instead of allowing the client to transmit the actual blast strength and range of an impact, the server should only accept config entries. For example: Some hacker modifies his weapons config so that all rifle bullets have strength 1000 and a 10m blast radius. At the moment, whenever he fires a shot it seems that his computer calculates the impact strength from it's local config file and then sends the result to the server, effectively giving him a super weapon because the server doesn't care how big the explosion is. To combat this, and some other cheats, the following things need to be changed: - Client computers no longer send detailed impact information to the server. Instead, only the config name of the ammo type is sent. So, when a hacker changes his bullet configs, the effect is not usable in multiplayer, because the server will only use the values from its own config file. - The server must make sure that any ammo a player fires was actually available. If a player starts a mission with an M4 and an M9 and did not get any other weapons via script, ammo crate or dead body, the server should autoban him, if the player starts firing ammo from any other weapon, or if the client sends impact info of weapons he did not have. - If a player name changes during the mission, he should be autobanned. - All vehicle roadkills must be assigned the the vehicle's driver, or the most recent driver, if he bailed within the last few seconds. - Players that acquire 3 or more teamkills within a small time should be autobanned. Any and all counter-hack measures should really be done server side and not client side, because they can't change what doesn't happen on their computer. As you can see I have given this a lot of thought. Â

I love the idea! You have my vote.

I didn't read the whole post but as far as I understood it, there would be no actual change to the current controls, only a kind of additional "slowdown" key for slower movement levels. Therefore the current system would still be present, but with a bit more movement variety for those of us who want to use it. If you didn't want to use it, you could just decide not to and nothing would change. This is the best kind of proposal because it would make everyone happy, so it is by no means unnecessary.

You're right. Why would anyone want to put that in their mission? Any multiplayer server would become increasingly unplayable.

Hi all sirex satire is not the same as sarcasm. To make satire you need to be creative. If you had made a harrier manual and added in some comments that made a disguised argument regarding BIS's in not creating one that would be creative and a satire. That is why satirical programs have sketches that are funny. Making a snide comment is at the most sarcasm. And Sarcasm is the lowest form of whit and the highest form of sh*t Now do you get the Sarcasm in my next line. Highest Regards walker Someone forgot to eat their corn flakes this morning... Anyway, nice manual Frederf. You should make it into a video with voice commentary like Brok3n suggested.

I think the advantage of setting the floatzone to 0 is negligable. It would probably be an advantage if this was counterstrike, due to the fast paced close combat, but in ArmA it's no issue, because most firefights are over much longer distances.

I beg to differ. I tried the following experiment earlier: I put an enemy rifleman approx. 100 meters away from me, looking at me. Then I lied down or moved around a bit to see how fast he could hit me. No AI changes: Usually he hit me with the first few shots. setSkill ["aimingShake",0] and setSkill ["aimingAccuracy",0]: The AI missed A LOT, usually firing too high. It sometimes took him more than two magazines to hit me! My conclusion: setSkill works!

Hear hear.

Sorry mate... You are right.I haven't played with those settings yet. But if they simply decide the limits of the skills, then I would only play around with the setSkill function (BIKI), as you can change the mentioned things by using setSkill in the game. And evaluate what all those different settings do etc. Still, it would be good to know what the settings really mean in the cfg. I've actually tried to change AI skill ingame with the setSkill command but I didn't really notice any effect. What interests me is that the setSkill command in-game only uses single numeric values for each skill, but the CfgAiSkill area in the config gives each an array of values. It would be nice to know what these values do exactly.

Well, this thread has derailed pretty fast, party because of me, so I'll try and put it back on track: Has anyone tried modifying the CfgAiSkill values? If yes, did it cause any significant changes? I might make a mod folder and give it a try later. I'll report my findings here.

Have you forced VSync to OFF in your NVidia control panel? It helps a lot.

@ofpforum: You are partially right, but you're also forgetting something. I think the problem most people (myself included) have with the AI, is that they can spot you at great distances even if you are lying in high grass or behind a bush. Of course they can hear where a shot came from, which is good, but they seem to hear "too well". I will describe a typical situation in ArmA based on the example mentioned by vilas. In real life, the situation should play out as follows: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> - Player is lying in tall grass and partially concealed by a bush, 200 meters behind 2 AI soldiers. - Player shoots and kills one of the AI soldiers. - The other AI drops to the ground. He heard the shot and now knows the general direction of where it came from and he can estimate the distance (sound delay). - The shot came from quite far away, so the AI tries to crawl to cover before firing back. - Upon taking cover behind a rock the AI peeks over for a few seconds and looks in the approximate direction the shot came from. He does not immediately see the player because of concealment. - Player opens fire on the AI soldier but hits the rock. - The AI ducks down to conceal himself, but saw the flash and now knows the player's position, because he saw the flash. - After waiting a few seconds, the AI soldier peeks over and fires a few shots toward the player. ... ^^ That's how it should be. But, this is what happens in ArmA: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> - Player is lying in tall grass and partially concealed by a bush, 200 meters behind 2 AI soldiers. - Player shoots and kills one of the AI soldiers. - The AI soldier drops to the ground, he already knows the player's exact position. He turns toward the player and almost immediately begins firing. - Due to the AI's great accuracy, the player normally dies within seconds. I hope this explains why people complain about the AI.

I guess you're free to expect anything you want, but if you truly think BIS is obliged to explain every single minute aspect of the game's code in the Biki, then you're living in a dream world. Anyway, what gives you the idea that you can demand a full documentation of the game's code? Let me explain something to you: You spent 50€ on Armed Assault. Fine. Do you know what that means? It means you bought the right to USE the software. That's all. The money you spent did not give you the right to demand anything else. I believe you have made that perfectly clear many times. So clear in fact, that you recieved a WL+1 on one occasion. I'm not a moderator but I would strongly suggest you change your attitude, because I for one don't like it at all, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I mentioned the setSkill command because I thought you were referring to it when you wrote: You obviously didn't notice the similarities between the setSkill parameters and the CfgAiSkill in the config. If you want to be sarcastic, try and think before you write. It helps.

CfgAISkill is not in the Biki, and I didn't expect it to be, because it's not something that usually gets edited. Perhaps you should have checked that first before you start making snide remarks. I still don't like your negative attitude towards this game and the users of this forum. (by the way, yes there is a command called "setSkill", but that doesn't explain these arrays)

Sure, anyone can put the script in their missions and addons and/or host it somewhere, as long as they give me credit for it . Once it's finished I'm sure the FX could be a nice addition to a full conversion mod.

Strange, I tried this command many times and always got [0,0,0] back... I'll try it out when I get home. EDIT: Oh my god I've just realized what it could mean if you are right about the "estimated location" of the enemy.... this could work wonders for suppressive fire scripts... *rubs hands and laughs menacingly*

It seems you are actually spawning but the spawn screen stays. Sounds like a bug in the mission scripting.

Hey, I didn't know that... saves me a lot of trouble testing my scripts. Thanks for the info .

When you make a mission you must put the scripts in the mission's directory, not your ArmA directory. The mission directories are under My Documents-> ArmA or "ArmA other profiles". Look for your ingame name, then for the Missions folder and find the folder with the name of your mission. That's where the scripts go.

I've tried it tooo - same result here. It doesn't seem to work at all, seeing as it should at least return the current position of the soldier if there is truly NO hiding space. Returning [0,0,0] is a clear indication that there is no working code there.

This kind of thing really belongs in the troubleshooting forum, not in mission editing and scripting. Anyway, it seems you installed the addon correctly, so I'm guessing you've just been looking in the wrong place for the vehicle. Some addon makers make custom categories for their vehicles, so the Mi24 might not be under East->Air. There may be a new category where you can find the vehicle. Just a guess.

Well, I wasn't intending for it to be used on static objects such as buildings - in fact the version I'm currently working on only supports vehicles now (no more infantry or statics). About your question: In theory, yes it could be made to work on bridges, houses etc. BUT (<- and that's a BIG BUT) in order for it to look good, it would require a LOT of addon work, mainly making the "chunk" models. Also, we can't actually "break bits off" an existing model yet, so the effect would be purely cosmetic.