madrussian

November 24, 2020

Just finally checking this out. Looks awesome & like it was an absolutely huge undertaking. 🙂

I quick read through the features list & watched a couple of the intro videos. Can't quite tell though, is this well suited to transporting AI-only squads? Also if so, would assume fast-rope is optional?

November 14, 2020

Hi Elgin675, just noticed your latest post. Not sure I completely follow, but please note the formulas do work both ways. Specifically:

If you know your desired Final Skill value, and wish to know the setSkill value which you'll need to use (by calling setSkill) to obtain that Final Skill value, you'll want to use MRU_FSC_GetSetSkill.
Conversely if you are starting with a setSkill value, and wish to know the Final Skill value which will result (by calling setSkill), you'll want to use MRU_FSC_GetFinalSkill.

Hope that clarifies it? 🙂

October 12, 2020

51 minutes ago, pierremgi said:

You can try to replace "house.p3d" by "Land_Hut01" ... to 06.

Thanks, I just checked and "Land_Hut01" (... to 06) use different models than our "house.p3d" hut. Which is fine, but the "house.p3d" huts in Melana Resort are special, because they offer 360 degree defense (via the windows & door on all sides).

56 minutes ago, pierremgi said:

I don't know why you want to replace these huts.

My AI system uses buildings, and every building needs a type in order to be used. And I was trying to make sure all 360 degree defense buildings can be used. I suppose I could re-write a good bit of my code so it can handle "terrain object" (aka type-less) buildings too. But probably not worth it for a silly wooden hut. On the other hand, if I start finding a whole bunch of these "terrain object" buildings then will have to rethink it. And btw - There are a ton of panelaks on Dingor, so this "terrain object building" phenomenon might be more prevalent than we might otherwise suspect.

In the mean time, will do a quick query sooner or later and see if any cfgVehicles buildings use that "house.p3d" hut model (again for it's nice 360 degree defense), and if possible auto-replace like with those panelaks. Thanks for info & ideas guys!

October 12, 2020

27 minutes ago, phronk said:

You can do a switch structure which looks through an array of strings (Strings of classnames and .p3d model names) sorta like this maybe:

...

Wow thanks, that's quite a detailed response! Looks like it will probably work. Btw- Not necessarily going for speed for this building replacement routine. It's more for the demo mission, just to get the right buildings in place (and only happening in a smaller area). But yes, definitely nice to know which is quicker. 🙂

October 12, 2020

13 minutes ago, pierremgi said:

If you want to replace panelak and panelak2.p3d objects (no classes) by a script, you can place your trigger (server only), condition TRUE,

and in on activation field:

{

_dir= getDir _x;

_pos = getPosASL _x;

_x hideObjectGlobal TRUE;

_new = createVehicle ["Land_Panelak1_Grey", ASLToAGL _pos,[],0,"can_collide"];

_new setDir _dir;

} foreach (nearestTerrainObjects [getPos thisTrigger,[],200] select {getModelInfo _x #0 in ["ibrpanelak.p3d","ibrpanelak2.p3d"]})

Thanks, yes that's pretty much exactly what I'm doing for those panelaks (small, medium and large). With those, I happened to get lucky because even though panelak.p3d objs have no type name, I knew of the equivalent building(s) type to replace them with. (I was using str command instead of getModelInfo in my method though. Thanks to you guys, I know how to use getModelInfo effectively now too.)

It's those wooden huts I'm having trouble with. If we assume for a moment that they have no type (which I'll confirm soon), the problem is I know of no equivalent cfgVehicles type to replace them with. (If your curious about which huts I'm talking about, they are on Dingor Island at the Melana Resort, which is along the NE corner of the big airport to the south, which itself is just east of Calamar.)

October 12, 2020

3 hours ago, pierremgi said:

May I suggest to use the MGI advanced module "touch of class" which enable you to find all type (if any) or model (p3d) of any object on map?

You can load this addon and unload it (or not) . The module itself doesn't matter. It's just a tool for what you want (until you change some house by another object, but it's another aim).

Some objects have no type, but you can find the model.

You will see also if there are some positions in buildings/houses (blue: yes, red: none)

Wow, that is mighty useful indeed! (If anyone hasn't seen his video, please do click on that link.) Sounds like your tool is just the thing, to be able to tell immediately whether these huts have a type or not.

3 hours ago, phronk said:

What I use for a mission I'm working on to filter specific terrain objects is the (getModelInfo _object # 0) command. Something like this:

_objects=nearestTerrainObjects [_pos, ["TREE","SMALL TREE"], 200 ] select {(getModelInfo _x#0) in ["p_papaver_ep1.p3d","p_fiberplant_ep1.p3d"]};

The above code will make _objects return a list of terrain objects that are only weed / poppy plants (Takistan). The in command is case-sensitive, but getModelInfo seems to always lower-case the strings it returns, which is good. Make sure the array of strings you're comparing is also lower-case and it'll work fine. Not sure if your method or mine is faster, but can't hurt to know.

Super handy advise, thanks!

Ok so, if I ever want to determine via script whether a terrain obj has a type or not, sounds like I'd want to:

Use getModelInfo on the terrain obj to get the model string, and then perhaps query cfgVehicles for types using that model (via some property, probably model or similar)? And if query comes up empty, that should tell me that no cfgVehicles types use that model?

^ Does this sound reasonable, or is there a simpler way to do this (again via script)?

October 11, 2020

I'm developing an AI system, and need to get the types of various buildings. This is usually trivial, as one can use the nearestObjects or cursorTarget commands.

But on Dingor Island, turns out certain buildings are actually (apparently) technically terrain objects. There are at least two of these I know about: the large apartment style buildings (which come in 3 different heights) and these small wooden huts. For my AI system to work properly, these terrain object buildings are no good, and I need regular buildings instead. The main problem is, that typeOf on these terrain obj buildings doesn't work (returns empty strings).

Thankfully I've succeeded in detecting and swapping out the large apartment buildings, like this:

Detect all terrain objects via nearestTerrainObjects (within the desired area).
Get the string of each of those objects. (Because, again typeOf won't work on these terrain objects)
Get all the terrain objs within that set where substring "ibrpanenak" is present (which I guess "panenak" is Czech for apartment).
Hide the offending buildings via hideObjectGlobal, and place in usable (i.e. normal, non terrain obj) building that's essentially the same thing with a different texture, in this case building type "Land_Panelak1_Grey".

So far so good. But then unfortunately, I tried this same method for the little wooden huts, and turns out the string of these particular terrain obj buildings don't return anything useful (only substring "house", which of course is the base class for most buildings).

Couple questions:

Anyone know where terrain objs are defined in the config? (I suspect cfgVehicles, but have not been able to prove this, seeing as I can't actually get the types for these particular "building terrain objects".)
If these "building terrain objects" are actually defined within cfgVehicles, that means they must have a type. How can I get their type?

OK, that's it. I welcome any and all help, even with simple things I may have missed. 🙂

September 10, 2020

1 hour ago, johnnyboy said:

Hey madrussian, long time no chat, I hope you are doing well. 😉

Back at-cha. 😉

1 hour ago, johnnyboy said:
Empty quotes will set the texture to transparent. This is how I completely hide a zodiac in JBOY_LongBoat:
 zodiac1 setObjectTextureGlobal [0,""]; 

OK, I just tried this for both selections on my VR box (with and without that setObjectMaterialGlobal from my snippet above), and unfortunately both main part & trim stayed original colors (grey and white). Good trick to know though, will try that first next time I need to hide something. Also, makes me wonder what the difference is in objs that will hide with "" vs ones that won't.

Also, I agree since putting this obj under the stairs, don't necessarily need to hide it. Only, I think one end may have to come up above stairs level slightly to work... not sure on that bit yet. Will try those pallets too!

3 hours ago, JohnKalo said:

Isn't it possible to place the hotel stairs vanilla object and hide that one?

That sounds intriguing, will have a look. (Happen to know the obj type?)

12 hours ago, .kju said:

try the rvmat and texture used in arsenal for the transparent vehicles

Good idea, will try it thanks!

September 9, 2020

Quick update, I think I can use setObjectTextureGlobal to hide my object, doing something like this:

_texture = "#(rgb,8,8,3)color(0,0,0,0)";
_obj setObjectTextureGlobal [0, _texture];

Only I just tried it and that texture is apparently black. Anyone know where this texture format is defined?

Edit: OK I found these "procedural textures" defined here.

Edit 2:

So my object (for starters) is "Land_VR_Block_05_F", a giant VR block. By default it's light grey with white trim.

I confirm it has two textures via getObjectTextures. Now I can turn the object completely black via:

_obj setObjectMaterialGlobal [0, "\a3\data_f\default.rvmat"];
_obj setObjectMaterialGlobal [1, "\a3\data_f\default.rvmat"];

_clearTexture = "#(rgb,8,8,3)color(0,0,0,0)";
_obj setObjectTextureGlobal [0, _clearTexture];
_obj setObjectTextureGlobal [1, _clearTexture];

Of course though, I need it to be transparent! Reading up on "procedural texture", I find the (0,0,0,0) part is (Red, Green, Blue, Alpha). My Alpha is 0, so seems the object should be invisible. But unfortunately it's still visible (again completely colored black).

Any ideas?

September 9, 2020

Looking for ways to remedy bad staircases in a few particular (older) building types.

Using forced movement (via _unit disableAI "PATH"; _unit disableAI "ANIM"; _unit playAction "WalkF";), and the unit sometimes passes through the stairs and ends up trapped in the area below the stairs. (Poor soul.)

I have a looping floor detection remedy in place for cases in old buildings where the unit falls half-way through the floor, in which case it pop... pops him back out. The floor detection remedy runs at a low frequency, so isn't really designed to catch cases where the unit falls (or otherwise passes) completely through the floor (like with these stairs).

I'd like to try to place an invisible object with a walkable surface under the stairs to see if that catches the AIs that would otherwise fall though.

The questions are:

Anyone know of an object type in the game, which is invisible and has a walkable surface?
Anyone know way to make an (otherwise visible) object invisible but still walkable?

August 18, 2020

For the record, I never really overcame this issue. Also iirc, I did try all the vehicle locking commands too (but memory's a bit fuzzy on that now, so you may want to try it). The workaround I settled on for my Regroup script was to simply never doFollow mounted cargo guys (except FFV guys)... ever!

(I mentioned a workaround where I was "teleporting the cargo guys out and back in directly after the doFollow", but that looked pretty ridiculous visually plus came with other unwanted side-effects.)

I like kju's idea of simplified commands to accomplish these ends... especially dissolveSubGroup(s). (Or of course a fix for doFollow.)

August 15, 2020

9 hours ago, .kju said:

still getting improved: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T152567

Thanks, that's exactly what the doc ordered.

Quick summary from the report (for those interested): Looks like two others had my exact issue with getAttackTarget for AI led groups, and like it currently works correctly for player squad AI.

Quote

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T152567

BIS_fnc_KK added a comment. (Mon Aug 3, 2:28AM)

"xShould work better from 1.99.146567"

Very nice, there is hope still. 🙂

August 14, 2020

13 hours ago, .kju said:

see: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/fleeing

1. courage only matters for the group leader

2. setting allowFleeing makes courage irrelevant

3. courage is influence by overall unit skill and cfgSkill settings (aka determine actually value with skillFinal)

^ Btw - I'm not disputing any of this (and thanks for weighing in!), just letting you all know my observations. Seems there is perhaps a bit more to the underlying fleeing formula(s), considering my test results.

Also, I should have mentioned I ran those tests with one single mod loaded (CBA), which made it easier to observe everything unfold.

August 14, 2020

Quick follow-up, finally checked out the getAttackTarget command (running Development Build 1.99.146550). Result is quite disappointing.

In short, getAttackTarget appears to be operating like an simple alias for assignedTarget.

Specifically, same test as before:

Quote

It's just me the player facing off against a bunch of enemy, with player damage turned off so I can observe properly (aka without getting killed). So basically I have red rays being shown from all AI units to their assignedTargets. And when they don't have an assignedTarget, their red ray disappears. All enemies are aiming/shooting at me (again I'm the only one to shoot at), but only some of the enemy (perhaps 60%) have the red rays.

^ Only now I also added green rays from unit to their getAttackTarget (slightly offset upward from the red rays so the two rays don't overlap).

In my experience, the only time I see the green rays (for getAttackTarget) is when red rays (for assignedTarget) are already showing. In this case, both red rays and green rays appear at the same time (and always to the same target). [Also, I checked my code several times to ensure red ray points to assignedTarget and green ray points to getAttackTarget.]

Next, I also independently monitored these units and verified that getAttackTarget returns objNull until assignedTarget actually returns a target, and then at that moment getAttackTarget also returns that same target. Even in cases where the unit was focused and shooting on me for some time well prior to me becoming his assignedTarget.

I reread the getAttackTarget command description, which says:

Quote

Returns a unit's assigned/engaging target.

And the example given is:

Quote

_theEnemyWhoHesAimingAt = getAttackTarget unit;

In summary, (at least at present) appears getAttackTarget command does NOT work as advertised (in the example anyhow).

^ Curious if someone else can confirm what I'm seeing in-game?

(Important - Perhaps the description of getAttackTarget is actually correct, and this command will indeed return the target he is engaging, but he will aim and fire at other targets along along the way during his engagement of his main target.)

Meanwhile, back to the original question: How to find out via script command who a AI unit is targeting, when he is obviously aiming at (& shooting at) an enemy unit, but he has no assignedTarget?

Surely there is a way? Otherwise, if everyone is simply using assignedTarget, seems to me that can't be very efficient or proper for current AI mods. We need to know who these AIs are aiming at!

August 13, 2020

OK, I did some independent investigation. Two very different tests, with somewhat different results.

Goals:

Test kju's hypothosis (see post immediately prior to this one)
Attempt to determine the default value for allowFleeing

Btw - We've managed to reverse engineer the mystical skillFinal formula, so why not this too?

Test #1 - Fleeing resulting from systematic unit deletion only

(This test was actually performed 2nd and yielded more specific results.)

First, two input values are set:

_setCourage (sets every unit's "courage" skill to this value, when nil does nothing)

_setAllowFleeing (sets every unit's allowFleeing to this value, when nil does nothing)

On the VR Map, automated test repeatedly does the following:

1. Creates 16 west groups, each with 10 units, equally spaced around the map in a grid pattern (4 rows of 4 groups per row), each group so far away from each other that they should have absolutely no impact on each other. (160 units are created each round.)

2. Applies the _setCourage value to every unit via:

if (! (isNil "_setCourage")) then {
    _unit setSkill ["courage", _setCourage];
};

3. Applies the _setAllowFleeing value to every unit via:

if (! (isNil "_setAllowFleeing")) then {
    _unit allowFleeing _setAllowFleeing;
};

4. Once all groups are created, the groups each have 1 man deleted, then for 0.2 seconds fleeing units are counted, then 1 more man deleted, then for 0.2 seconds fleeing units are counted, and this process repeats until only 1 man per group remains.

5. The total number of fleeing units is counted and reported. (Note that upon a unit being counted as fleeing, he is flagged and not counted again.) Result is between 0-160 fleeing units.

6. All units and groups are deleted, followed by meticulous (automated) checking to ensure all the test units & groups actually got deleted. (i.e original clean state is achieved).

Observations & Results:

1. When courage is set, the units' courage has no bearing on the number of units recorded fleeing. This is true when allowFleeing is also set, and also true when allowFleeing remains completely untouched. Specifically:

Quote

When _setCourage = 0 and _setAllowFleeing is UNTOUCHED, result is 80 men fleeing.

When _setCourage = 0.1 and _setAllowFleeing is UNTOUCHED, result is 80 men fleeing.

When _setCourage = 0.2 and _setAllowFleeing is UNTOUCHED, result is 80 men fleeing.

When _setCourage = 0.3 and _setAllowFleeing is UNTOUCHED, result is 80 men fleeing.

When _setCourage = 0.4 and _setAllowFleeing is UNTOUCHED, result is 80 men fleeing.

When _setCourage = 0.5 and _setAllowFleeing is UNTOUCHED, result is 80 men fleeing.

When _setCourage = 0.6 and _setAllowFleeing is UNTOUCHED, result is 80 men fleeing.

When _setCourage = 0.7 and _setAllowFleeing is UNTOUCHED, result is 80 men fleeing.

When _setCourage = 0.8 and _setAllowFleeing is UNTOUCHED, result is 80 men fleeing.

When _setCourage = 0.9 and _setAllowFleeing is UNTOUCHED, result is 80 men fleeing.

When _setCourage = 1 and _setAllowFleeing is UNTOUCHED, result is 80 men fleeing.

2. When allowFleeing is set, it has a direct impact on the test. Specifically:

Quote

When _setAllowFleeing is 0, result is 0 men fleeing.

When _setAllowFleeing is 0.1, result is 0 or 16 men fleeing.

When _setAllowFleeing is 0.2, result is 0 or 16 men fleeing.

When _setAllowFleeing is 0.3, result is 0 or 32 men fleeing.

When _setAllowFleeing is 0.4, result is 0 or 48 men fleeing.

When _setAllowFleeing is 0.5, result is 64 men fleeing.

When _setAllowFleeing is 0.6, result is 80 men fleeing.

When _setAllowFleeing is 0.7, result is 112 men fleeing.

When _setAllowFleeing is 0.8, result is 128 men fleeing.

When _setAllowFleeing is 0.9, result is 144 men fleeing.

When _setAllowFleeing is 1, result is 144 men fleeing.

^ Note that for these particular _setAllowFleeing tests, these results are consistent no matter what courage is set to.

^ Note that for _setAllowFleeing 0 through 0.4, I indicate that "0 or X" men were counted as fleeing. Turns out tweaking one small detail of this test produces one result or the other. For _setAllowFleeing 0 through 0.4, when a specific (non-leader) is selected for deletion (see step #4 above in the test steps) like last in the group's units array or first non-leader unit in the group's units array, this (apparently) always results in 0 units fleeing. However, when a random group unit is selected for deletion, this (apparently) always results in the higher number of listed units fleeing. I know, this looks (& sounds) like some straight up quantum-entanglement-double-slit-observer-quirkiness or the like. Importantly though, I assure you these results are very consistent. Also note that for _setAllowFleeing 0.5 through 1, the results (apparently) always exactly match what you see above (thus I didn't mention "or" for these).

3. Based on this test alone, we can conclude that the default value for allowFleeing is 0.6! (because running the test with allowFleeing left untouched results in exactly 80 men fleeing, and also running the test with allowFleeing 0.6 also results in exactly 80 men fleeing ... along with all of this being completely independent of "courage" skill)

... Not so fast though! We have another test.

Test #2 - Fleeing resulting from Actual Battle

(This test was actually performed first, and the results are unfortunately a bit muddier.)

On the Stratis Map, automated test repeatedly does the following:

1. Creates 8 west groups and 8 east group (8 units per group, using "Rifle Squad" composition). So 64 vs 64 men, for a total of 128.

2. Applies the _setCourage value to every unit via:

if (! (isNil "_setCourage")) then {
    _unit setSkill ["courage", _setCourage];
};

3. Applies the _setAllowFleeing value to every unit via:

if (! (isNil "_setAllowFleeing")) then {
    _unit allowFleeing _setAllowFleeing;
};

4. Gives all groups a move orders towards opposing enemy group. (Note at this point every time I increased game speed to 4x manually via the provided key.)

5. The total number of fleeing units is automatically counted. (Note that upon a unit being counted as fleeing, he is flagged and not counted again.) Result is between 0-128 fleeing units.

6. The groups are allowed to battle until 1/4 of the total number (32 men) are killed leaving 96 alive, and at this point the results are automatically recorded. (A 180 sec timeout is provided for cases in which they won't fight, which in these cases all or too many units are fleeing.)

7. All units and groups are deleted, followed by (automated) checking to ensure all the test units & groups actually got deleted. (i.e original clean state is achieved)

I ran this test over 1000 times, trying to establish the correlation between courage and allowFleeing (if any) and to hone in on the elusive default allowFleeing value! Here are the inputs & results:

Spoiler

[Note - You will see gaps in the test numbering. That's where I deliberately reset the numbering]

Observations & Results:

1. Very early in these test runs, I could tell that (in actual battle) both courage and allowFleeing impact a unit's propensity to flee, and that allowFleeing has a far greater impact.

2. I made a spreadsheet with multiple tabs to establish average fleeing values at various levels. It's pretty messy, and I'll spare you the gory details (unless someone really wants to see it). Instead if you simply scroll down through the results spoiler above, you'll see me honing in towards the default allowFleeing value.

3. Early in the testing I was doing 11 battle instances per game run (checking out courage over 0-1 values in 0.1 increments while keeping allowFleeing consistent -or- conversely checking out allowFleeing over 0-1 values in 0.1 increments while keeping courage consistent). However this test is apparently somewhat imperfect, as I could tell equivalent units (assigned the same courage and allowFleeing combos) were fleeing somewhat less over a single game run instance, as the number of battles increased. Once I noticed this, I started testing 50 battles per game run with consistent courage and allowFleeing combos. You'll see this starting with test run #300.

4. Based on this (battle) test alone, (at least when courage is 0.5) the default value of allowFleeing is ~0.525!

So we have competing default allowFleeing results of 0.6 and 0.525... I really wish BIS could give us an allowFleeing alternate syntax that resets unit's allowFleeing to untouched, default state. Pretty please? 😄

Spoiler

In the mean time, I think I'm just going to use allowFleeing default value of 0.525 (as it seems to be a better match for actual battle) and call it a day.

If anyone has any related insight or otherwise, please let's hear it. Thanks!

August 9, 2020

1 hour ago, .kju said:

the skill is just a multiplier. its basically down to current percentage of health+armor(of transport) of the whole group - pretty sure it remembers also dead units (assigned vehicles?)

as when units die and the group gets small(er), they start to flee.

however more variables may play into it. and pretty sure helicopters may also flee (possibly also planes) when damaged too much

Good info, yes I gathered that many factors affected when units break and flee, and assumed allowFleeing value was just one of the inputs. (Probably specifically having a big impact.)

38 minutes ago, snkman said:

As far as i can tell there is nothing between 0 and 1 its like on /off switch.

If this is true, then when I set to 0.5, should be exactly the same as setting to 1. (If I understand you correctly?) In fact, in my dynamic mission, I do set allowFleeing to different values (like 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1) based on the enemy order and thought I could tell a difference. But it wasn't a scientific test or anything. Anyhow, should be fairly easy to definitively prove or disprove.

August 9, 2020

I did see getAttackTarget when looking through all the target related commands, but something I read about that specific command on different command ref made me think it was for example, when an AT unit is going after a tank, the tank would be his "attack target", but he would target other units on the way to attacking tank.

If getAttackTarget really returns what I'm describing in OP (getting the simple target), then I find it bizarre that anyone/everyone has managed to get by this long (since the beginning of the series) without it!

Regardless, many thanks I will check it out and report back. 🙂

August 9, 2020

Playing around with assignedTarget command, using some visual indicators and rays to see what's going on under the hood.

I had always assumed that assignedTarget was how to tell who a given unit is targeting (and always used it this way), but appears this is actually only partly true and the implications are perplexing.

Here the setup:

It's just me the player facing off against a bunch of enemy, with player damage turned off so I can observe properly (aka without getting killed). So basically I have red rays being shown from all AI units to their assignedTargets. And when they don't have an assignedTarget, their red ray disappears. All enemies are aiming/shooting at me (again I'm the only one to shoot at), but only some of the enemy (perhaps 60%) have the red rays.

So perhaps 40% of enemy dudes are aiming/shooting at me without me being their assignedTargets.

The question is: For these remaining 40%, how do I get their target?

(Btw - One conclusion I've reached based on this test is that assignedTarget is really about the leader assigning targets. Anyhow, how on earth do we simply get the actual target?)

August 9, 2020

Hey thanks for the idea! Let's see, I just found this related thread:

If I'm reading this right, looks like somebody tried this very thing (courage subskill) and didn't see a correlation:

On 2/27/2018 at 2:28 PM, AZCoder said:

The OP said he was messing around with courage and did not see a correlation. Sure it seems logical, but it doesn't appear to be related unfortunately.

Not to say I won't test this (courage correlation to fleeing) out myself, but seems fleeing is a pretty difficult thing to test. Would be nice to get a definitive answer from the devs. Anyhow two things would really come in handy:

Knowing default value for allowFleeing
A getter function for allowFleeing

Bit more rationale for anyone interested:

Spoiler

To me, fleeing is such an absolutely important thing to be able to reset back to original state. In my dynamic mission, I normally leave fleeing on, to increase mission dynamics. But now I'm writing my own AI, and certain things (like quick reliable movement as a prelude to forced movement through buildings) need a handful of Ai components turned off, fleeing chief among them. I humbly wish for the capability to turn my own AI completely off, and let 100% vanilla game mechanics take over again (when desired). Basically with my AI, it's going to need to switch back and forth from regular game engine cover and fleeing to quick reliable movement, and do this often. Anyhow, again knowing default value for allowFleeing will be incredibly valuable to my current (rather extreme) AI endeavor. I don't know how difficult it would be, but if an altruistic dev happens upon this thread and can check this out the game code (without too much trouble), that would be hugely supportive. Thanks again! 🙂

August 9, 2020

Greetings all. I'm creating some AI scripts, which need to disable certain AI features, like the following:

_group enableAttack false;
_unit disableAI "AUTOCOMBAT";
_unit disableAI "COVER";
_unit allowFleeing 0;

So far so good. My AI can do it's many amazing thing(s)! However later, I want users to be able to turn off my AI and completely revert the group / unit(s) back to original states.

So I am storing the original states like this:

_group setVariable ["MRU_DAI_RestoreEnableAttack", attackEnabled _group];
_unit setVariable ["MRU_DAI_RestoreAutocombat", _unit checkAIFeature "AUTOCOMBAT"];
_unit setVariable ["MRU_DAI_RestoreCover", _unit checkAIFeature "COVER"];
_unit setVariable ["MRU_DAI_RestoreFleeing", 0.5];

^ The problem is, the 0.5 for allowfleeing is a total guess on my part. So the question is:

Anyone know what the game's default value for fleeing actually is (set-able via allowFleeing) or how to obtain it? I've been wondering about since... oh about the days of OFP.

Description for allowFleeing specifies:

Quote

Sets the cowardice level (the lack of courage or bravery) of a group or unit. The more cowardice a Group or Object has, the sooner it will start fleeing. 0 means maximum courage, while 1 means always fleeing.

But not what the dang default value is! (Hmmm... If no one knows maybe a kind dev could check it out real quick and report back? Then we could update the wiki for all to know.) 😄

ARMA 3 - USER MISSIONS · June 13, 2020

On 6/12/2020 at 2:56 AM, neostrider2003 said:

This game mode has been amazing. We've only won twice and both times were amazing.

Hey thanks, and good to hear! Glad you are having fun. 😄

On 6/12/2020 at 2:56 AM, neostrider2003 said:

You recommended using some custom factions. I have not found a combination besides the default that seems challenging without being too easy. Could you share some combinations you find fair and interesting?

Let's see... I don't know about fair, but if you are looking for a serious challenge maybe try one of these:

Play as FFI (French Forces of the Interior) vs enemy Wehrmacht. You will start outgunned big time. [Load with IFA3]
Play as Takistani Locals vs enemy Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (perhaps on a fitting Old But Gold desert map... PR FATA comes to mind). [Load with CUP]
Play as Syndikat (Bandits) vs enemy UNSCEF or Insurrectionists (perhaps on Tanoa), so you are fighting futuristic heavily armed & armored troops. [Load with Apex and OPTRE]
Also, playing as IFA3 Red Army can be challenging because all the other major IFA3 factions start out with quick transportation (Jeeps or Kubelwagens). With Red Amy you'll get slower Studebaker & sluggish ZIS trucks, so it can be difficult to keep pace. (I could have given the Red Army US made Jeeps, but wanted them to feel different.) Also the Red Army's weapons seem to be outclassed by the Wehrmacht's, for most out the available maps, as Red Army has lots of PPSH submachine guns... great for CQC but not so much at longer range.
To increase difficulty, consider playing on a terrain where the AI can more easily move it's vehicles around. For instance Tanoa is wonderful, but the AI vehicles get stuck back in the jungle on those dirt trails sometimes. So maybe pick a more fluid A2 terrain.

Also, don't forget to fine tune the AI's SKILL and PRECISION under Settings -> Game Options -> Difficulty. This mission piggy-backs on these settings.

For all those playing, curious what Player Faction / Enemy Faction / Terrain combos have you found particularly fun & interesting? 💡

On 6/12/2020 at 2:56 AM, neostrider2003 said:

Related to that is there a way to tweak the vehicle types used by the enemy? I tried an urban FIA vs syndicate which was fun until a battle tank rolled over us and our rpgs. I would replace the apcs and bigger with many more trucks with mounted weapons.

If you're handy with scripts, in the mission folder open up "init.sqf" and add one or more of these variables at the top:

// Use these to supplement the enemies' normal config-scanned man & vehicle types:
//BUB_Mod_Occ_ExtraTroopTypes = [];
//BUB_Mod_Res_ExtraTroopTypes = [];
//BUB_Mod_Res_ExtraTroopTypes2 = [];
//BUB_Mod_Sup_ExtraTroopTypes = [];
//BUB_Mod_Civ_ExtraManTypes = [];
//BUB_Mod_Occ_ExtraAA_Types = [];
//BUB_Mod_Occ_ExtraTankTypes = [];
//BUB_Mod_Occ_ExtraAPC_Types = [];
//BUB_Mod_Occ_ExtraIFV_Types = [];
//BUB_Mod_Occ_ExtraMRAP_Types = [];
//BUB_Mod_Occ_ExtraArmedCarTypes = [];
//BUB_Mod_Occ_ExtraTransportTypes = []; <- Troop Transports
//BUB_Mod_Occ_ExtraFuelTruckTypes = [];

// Use these to OVERRIDE the enemies' normal config-scanned man & vehicle types (and will also override the Extras above):
//BUB_Mod_Occ_TroopTypes = [];
//BUB_Mod_Res_TroopTypes = [];
//BUB_Mod_Res_TroopTypes2 = [];
//BUB_Mod_Sup_TroopTypes = [];
//BUB_Mod_Civ_ManTypes = [];
//BUB_Mod_Occ_LowThreatTypes = [];
//BUB_Mod_Occ_MedThreatTypes = [];
//BUB_Mod_Occ_HighThreatTypes = [];
//BUB_Mod_Occ_TruckTypes = []; // <- Troop Transports
//BUB_Mod_Occ_FuelTruckTypes = [];

^ Occ stands for Occupation (aka "enemy"), Res stands for Resistance (aka "player"), and Sup stands for Support. Thus...

BUB_Mod_Occ_LowThreatTypes will override enemy's Armed Cars and MRAPs.

BUB_Mod_Occ_MedThreatTypes will override enemy's APCs and IFVs.

BUB_Mod_Occ_HighThreatTypes will override enemy's Tanks and AAs.

So to address example of wanting more trucks with mounted weapons, you could eliminate APCs, IFVS, Tanks, and AAs completely, by setting all three of these variables to include only trucks with mounted weapons.

^ You won't technically get more enemy vehicles this way, but at least you can make the types fit your desired theme. Btw - Lol, you are the first person to mention this mission being too easy sometimes. If you'd like an option to up the pace of enemy vehicle deployment, I'll certainly add this in the next update. (Just say the word!)

Also there are a whole lot more mod variables to tweak, if you're so inclined. Please see "Mods\_Reference\_ExampleMod.sqf" for a complete list. If you need any help figuring out how to make any of these mods work, just ask and we'll get it sorted.

June 10, 2020

Jungle time! I'm off to go track, hunt, and stick some spear hurlin' primitive natives with my new Bang Stick. Thanks j-boy!

ARMA 3 - USER MISSIONS · June 6, 2020

@kremator - Sounds good & will keep you in the loop! OK you should have a PM with those missions. 😉

ARMA 3 - USER MISSIONS · June 6, 2020

@johnnyboy - Thanks man! Glad you like. Yeah I recommend new players just jump in and leave any reading or whatnot for later.

@kremator - Sure thing, I think I can manage that later today. Look for a PM. In my experience, everything works great on DS. 🙂

Quick Lambs update

So I created an internal version a while back that works as well as possible with Lambs, and the verdict is... sorry bros it's just not going to happen. I absolutely love Lambs for most missions (and many thanks to Lambs team for their wonderful work), but here it simply disrupts the flow way too much. So my advise remains the same for now, please enjoy this mission responsibly... with no AI mods just yet.

But there is a silver lining. I am midway through creating my own AI mod which (by design) will work splendidly with this mission. (Btw - No ETA, there is still a ton to do.) Thanks @froggyluv and @johnnyboy for all the ideas and technical expertise so far on that endeavor.

May 28, 2020

Good deal, glad to know. 🙂

madrussian

Content Count

Joined

Last visited

Medals

Content Type

Profiles

Forums

Posts posted by madrussian

Hermes Airlift Services Script

The mystical skillFinal formula (reverse engineering it)

Buildings that are actually Terrain Objects

Buildings that are actually Terrain Objects

Buildings that are actually Terrain Objects

Buildings that are actually Terrain Objects

Buildings that are actually Terrain Objects

Patching bad Stairs

Patching bad Stairs

Patching bad Stairs

Strange & perplexing problem with doFollow

Alternative to assignedTarget

allowFleeing default value?

Alternative to assignedTarget

allowFleeing default value?

allowFleeing default value?

Alternative to assignedTarget

Alternative to assignedTarget

allowFleeing default value?

allowFleeing default value?

[SP, Co-op] Fight Back! – Battle Survival Rougelike

JBOY Bang Stick script

[SP, Co-op] Fight Back! – Battle Survival Rougelike

[SP, Co-op] Fight Back! – Battle Survival Rougelike

Getting mortar projectile speed from config [SOLVED]

Browse

Activity