Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

NeMeSiS

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    6797

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by NeMeSiS

  2. Posted

    I'm using my PC for everything; games, movies, music..so: PC ---> Toslink ---> Nuforce DAC ---> Nad356bee ---> Focal 826v ---> BK gemini II Sub. Would anyone in the know recommend adding a dedicated sound card in the mix as I've read rather mixed responses on whether it's worth having one or not? Some say it's waste of money and others swear that eliminating the internal PC noise can/will see improvements?

    I have a rather old X-Fi XtremeGamer and heavily recommend something better than onboard audio if you care about audio quality and if you have at least midrange speakers.

  4. Posted

    sometimes stuff change thru game development time ... deal with it ...

    To be honest, it looks pretty shit. The gameplay itself is pretty much the same as in part 2. Ok, but nothing to write home about. What's left is the story, i haven't played enough to judge about that but the immersion is held back by the fact that the game looks like a Skyrim mod.

  10. Posted

    To make things even more complicated, the primary weapon should probably be carried in a sling hanging on the front of the character (when switching to sidearm) instead of having the character put it on his back. It makes sense to stop to put rifle on your back, so to make a new system that makes sense is probably more complicated than you might think.

    As I said, a good fix for this problem is going to be complicated, but might be well worth the effort. I hope they will look into it.

    That would require so many animation changes that it is not going to happen unfortunately. Still, i would be happy with a faster change at max tactical speed.

  12. Posted · Edited by NeMeSiS

    I actually have to agree with oukej, "move" is enough, the problem is not that the unit does not move, it's rather that the unit tries to do much more stuff we got not much control over... In order to "cover every possible use case proberly" we just need more (and much easier) control about those "rules of engagement" (bounding overwatch and what not...).

    That is... considering those FSM run on group-level, and not for individual units, maybe a doRun/commandRun could still come in rather handy. Hm...

    Another AI layer? We already have the hardcoded engine stuff, the FSM layer and whatever scripts/mission editing stuff/addons you run on top of that. Another layer isn't going to solve anything except giving the already overloaded AI more stuff to take into account. Telling the AI whether he should stand up or sit down in 3 or 4 different places that all run trough eachother isnt good for anything.

    Btw, FSMs run on individual units.

    Should a sniper team really run the same formation/danger FSM as any other regular infantery group?

    What about civilians? Why are they moving in formation?!

    Considering the current behaviour is at best 'OK' i think it is a bit too premature to write different ones for different unit types. Lets get at least 1 good. :p

    Civilians do actually have different combat AI compared to soldiers.

    -> Right, we really need that "all clear" command (ingame UI: Radio something, something, ...).

    No, a 'force-move' would command would allow for retreating or some 'attack at all costs' rush, while an all clear command only speeds up the end of a battle a bit. And i think that trying to properly detect when the commander is trying to retreat or rush the enemy and having the AI behave accordingly is a bit overly ambitious when you might as well give the player a command to do just that. Retreating and rushing the enemy are both edge cases anyway that are quite different from normal behaviour, but it comes up often enough that not being able to do it properly is annoying.

  13. Posted · Edited by NeMeSiS

    @NeMeSiS:

    I tested it, and it seems that disableAI "FSM" has no effect on the automatic switch to "COMBAT" behavior as I had feared :(. I'm still not really sure what it's supposed to do.

    It doesn't stop the switch to the "COMBAT", but it does stop the actual combat behaviour (bounding overwatch, looking for cover, etc) which is done by the formation FSM. They will probably still use the combat pathfinding and stuff, but they are much faster (and dumber) than with the FSM enabled. All they do is follow their squad leader and shoot targets that they can see without leaving formation, but not all behaviour is disabled so it is not a 'run in a straight line' thing.

    It's actually quite funny that you've brought this up recently - it has been quite intensively in our focus. And will be for some time. We hope to solve several issues and possibly also make the whole thing more modding friendly, but I can't say much as for now. Maybe just - expect a few less updates in the upcoming weeks. Thanks a lot for your patience!

    Also - I don't think the sometimes mentioned "force-move" action would be a good-enough solution, solid and universal. The default state should be a cautious AI that values its life, but not an AI that's lagging behind or even getting stuck.

    I am afraid you wont be able to cover every possible use case properly, and a 'force-move' option would help a lot, especially if its player controlled since the player will know why the AI is acting like a suicidal maniac.

  14. Posted

    [*]Modify the effect of disableAI "FSM" so that it essentially produces the same "knowledge suppression" effect. (Side note: disableAI "FSM" currently seems totally pointless).

    DisableAI "FSM" works fine if you do it before the AI enters combat mode*, but doesn't seem to do anything after the FSMs already started doing their thing. I tried combining it with seba1976's trick mentioned above, but i just got the AI stuck instead. Though i didnt try very thoroughly so feel free to do your own attempt.

    *Making the AI rush enemy positions is quite possible as a mission editor with tricks like this, but as a commander we seem to be out of luck.

  15. Posted · Edited by NeMeSiS

    That's right. It is easy to make them forget about the enemy by script

    Is it? Because if so i would like to try something with it, but i have no idea how (except for deleting and recreating units).

    I just tried modding a 'hurry up' command by making a way to exit the fsm (and applying some normal 'go faster' scripting) and starting it back up whenever needed. Unfortunately the fsmFormation isn't really moddable, it seems to hook directly into the engine and you cant really add your own code to that, and i dont feel like writing all combat behaviour from scratch in a normal format. :p

    (Btw, the information about formationEntity.fsm at the wiki (https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_2:_Operation_Arrowhead:_AI_FSM#formationEntity.fsm_4) isnt completely correct as i was able to assign an external FSM, just not the normal formationEntity.fsm as that uses the weird 'hook into engine' format, and not the normal scripting one. Loading an edited formationEntity through cfgFSM is also possible, but as said those cant seem to contain own code so that is pretty useless. Or maybe it is possible, but i cant figure out how)

    EDIT: For anyone interested, formationEntity seems to be compiled with 'entityFSM.cfg' by the FSM editor, other FSMs with 'scriptedFSM.cfg'. Just changing the cfg doesnt produce any working results (Unsuprisingly). Files can be found in your 'x:\..\Bohemia Interactive\Tools\FSM Editor Personal Edition' folder.

  21. Posted · Edited by NeMeSiS

    Hmm, you guys must be playing a different Arma 3 than me then!

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/481663/pix/rifleraise.mp4 (1.6Mb)

    This is me with small AI squad, with totally vanilla A3. They walk weapons down in in "careless" mode ~-7-4, immediately start running around rifles raised in "aware" mode ~-7-3.

    7-4 is safe, careless is only available in the editor.

    In any case, i am pretty sure that this is hardcoded behaviour, and not regulated by FSMs.

  22. Posted

    I think the default stance positions are fine and it is currently based on the behaviour that is set (stealth, combat mode (which happens automatically under fire), the stance of the group leader(if they are in formation) and the need to move somewhere else. The option to override it is just there in case you want to do something special. I pretty much never feel the need to override the default behaviour. If you want to ambush something and have them keep low you just put them in stealth mode, which will keep them mostly low, as long as they dont need to move far.

  23. Posted

    So after you've assigned a target with it, the 'Engage' command appears.

    Oh dear you are right and i had no idea it worked liked that, thats just a horrible implementation. How you ever managed to figure that out is beyond me. I just checked the VR courses but even they dont seem to cover any of this.

    I usually put my units on 'engage at will' anyway, at least when i am on offense. Managing the AI on defense is just horrible.

  24. Posted · Edited by NeMeSiS

    If it has to be looked up in the BIKI then it's not clear enough.

    I never said it was clear, and i have no idea why BI doesn't explain this. I bet that most people who have been playing since OFP still dont know the difference between 'target' and 'engage' because of a combination of bad/lacking tutorials and shitty menu's with even shittier descriptions. It really is a failure on BI's part.

    That being said, it was easy to google. :p

    EDIT: I am pretty sure that even most people within BI dont know any of this. Correct me if i am wrong, but i am pretty sure that in older games (before that useless 'quick command menu' was a thing) you could tell a unit to engage another unit by selecting him and left clicking on an enemy, and target an enemy by right clicking. Because of that new menu that is no longer possible, and both options arent even represented in the new menu.

    EDIT2: Just checked in OFP, left click was called 'attack', which seems to be the same as 'engage' + 'fire', right click was just 'target'. The new quick command menu only gives us 'target'. Which explains a lot of 'AI not properly attacking targets' complaints. Ever wondered why your AT gunner didn't shoot that tank? Because he was told to target, instead of engage it.

    Just to clarify:

    Target = Aim at that enemy over there but stay here.

    Engage = Kill that enemy, take a hike if you need to (Because of LOS issues)

    Why BI decided to make target the only option in the quick menu is beyond me, as it is pretty useless unless you are defining targets for a surprise ambush or something.

×