pd3

This reminds me of the old zombie/undead pack by the guy who did Operation Farmland, with the spell casting vampires or warlocks or whatever they were. I also recall way back in the day OPX tried to do something called "Project Fantasy" or something similar to that effect. The two most interesting spells I've come across thus far are "dragon wing", and "Freeze". The latter has trap potential written all over it.

I created an experiment in which I established a pathway extending from within to outside my audible range, moving through gaps between houses and around cover. When the AI runs this part of the gauntlet it was simply to determine the distance at which I lost the ability to hear them. When I ran it, it was in order to determine at which the point I lost my ability to hear the opponent and how well the AI was still able to track my movements. Granted since I've modified the game, which has been a fair amount of time now, it does seem as if the AI is far less consistent in pinpointing where I will re-enter their field of vision. However that was not originally the case. I've just attempted to hear the AI at 50m and could not, the only possibility of accounting for this is whether your sound card has EAX or something similar. Hardware acceleration may be responsible for that. Furthermore, the "useful" range at which you can hear footfalls is even lower, bearing in mind that most of the time you don't have the luxury of a completely quiet environment to hear your opponent. The AI suffers no such impairment to my knowledge. Yes, but at a distance which makes it useful? Typically the distance at which I can successfully hear them, you're not going to need to speculate as to which direction they've gone because they're so close that they'll hear you anyhow. Perhaps a total diameter of 25m, but that leaves a 12m radius that pretty much covers exactly where you're going to appear, meaning they can be facing completely away from you, at a distance which I personally cannot directly ascertain their direct location, and be ready to shoot you as soon as you appear. If you have two planes parallel to one another, at different distances, what angle do you think its going to be?! :confused: All the circumstances I've encountered it are seemingly random, in fact the same circumstances under which I've experienced being spotted at a 90 degree angle, I've also experienced the AI inexplicably not spotting me. Although this was extremely rare around the time I started modifying things. This is of course after being identified by the enemy...

Again, you're demonstrating a clear resistance to put any effort into testing this yourself, if you're placing those sorts of stipulations on research, you're already admitted you refuse to believe. Furthermore, my convincing you of a very real issue is not of the utmost importance. Oh but it absolutely was, and if you're admitting you cannot replicate or at least create a better test than I did for myself, you've no place to make any claims about the quality of my experiments. At the time I conducted those experiments, and around the same time that original thread was created a general consensus regarding the AI's ability to not only spot, but track obscured movement was generally accepted. You've already prefaced your skepticism with an overt bias, and to be quite honest you're not important enough for me to do something you're too lazy to do yourself, in spite of your vehement denial of this issue. That in of itself is evidence enough, as unless the hearing range is altered for players. At 25m footfalls for the player are barely distinguishable, and require relative ambient silence to be heard, this with expensive sennheiser headphones no less. Now consider that every single time an AI player updates its potential knowledge of where you are, even at 25m, they can make a speculation based on where you're headed that the player simply cannot. In other words, unlike the player in which our hearing of ai footfalls is heavily obscured by that distance, they simply either hear you, or they don't. So essentially, that distance should be halved so that any speculation regarding the player's next location is less prediction, and more conjecture. ---------- Post added at 23:24 ---------- Previous post was at 23:19 ---------- I can be anywhere upwards of 60m moving parallel to their line of sight and they can still spot me. I would chalk up that tunnel vision to a random inconsistency. When I've been previously spotted by an AI opponent, if I plan to dart from alleyway to alleyway, parallel to their field of vision at a considerable distance, they still manage to update their location of where I am. No player would have that luxury of seeing somebody moving at 90 degrees of their facing.

I've been looking through it again comparing my modifications to that of stock BIS units. In some circumstances they seem to be less pinpoint accurate, however the last time I played with stock BIS units there might've been an update or two. All I can say is that I can sneak around the AI now with my mod and before that, they were so neurotic that no matter what you did, they were usually in a position to shoot you before you shot them. I will also say that this most recent time I tested the stock AI a new anomaly popped up, in which an AI went on a wild tangent, presuming I was somewhere I wasn't, in fact more than 90 degrees of difference, and then started throwing grenades in that direction. This did not happen back when I aimed to make those modifications. ---------- Post added at 23:01 ---------- Previous post was at 23:00 ---------- Yes, its all post-detection. Also, are you aware of a variable that modifies the FOV of AI? Their apparent "peripheral" vision is just as acute as that of looking at something dead-on.

I posted the link a page back. I'm not going to spoonfeed you. And regardless, they can hear you at a distance further than you can hear them, and regardless of the modulus of that disparity, its still cheating, and it still gives the AI an unfair advantage. From what I can tell with my experiment in shapur, they can detect you to at least twice that distance. 42m was around the average distance at which I started going: "WTF"

Again, use the script, they can literally follow your location by hearing you, outside your own hearing range. I attempted a controlled experiment in which I got an AI to move a specific path in which they went both in and out of my hearing range, moving around buildings in shapur to end at a specific point. At about halfway through the distance I could no longer hear the AI, and I myself switched places in the experiment and ran the same set path, and using the knowsabout script, the AI was -well- aware of my location the whole time. BIS stock units + MOUT = You're fucked. Without fail the stock BIS unit after initially being made aware of my presence was able to predict 100% of the time where I would pop out to look at him, and was trigger-ready to shoot me in a split second. Kind of kills the excitement of trying to evade and ambush your opponent when they have that sort of advantage. That seriously bothered me so much that had I not figured out the source of the problem, I probably would not be playing ARMA 2 to this day. It just killed my enjoyment of the game.

No, I mean that being well out of your own auditory range, they can hear -exactly- where you are. Which results in them being able to predict exactly where you are in spite of you not knowing where they are. There was a thread discussing this in which the script I used was brought up, one of the people who was an ARMA 2 ai cheating denier promptly shut his trap after that thread IIRC. If you're looking for an argument to authority, you're not going to get it from me, but you're free to try it out yourself. Try sneaking up on a lone stock BIS AI after they've spotted you without running 100m away (you can weave in and out of buildings, around cover, etc) and tell me how that works out for you. The experiment would go even better if you had a decent performing computer. I'm not kidding, I've spent hours with this. Bats seriously have nothing on stock ARMA 2 soldiers. ---------- Post added at 22:24 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ---------- Test it out for yourself. I dare you.

Its already been pretty much established that stock BIS units can hear to the point of echolocation. Somebody made a script called "knowsabout" and I've extensively tested the extent to which the stock BIS ai can "hear" and detect locations without sight and its pretty much inhuman what they're capable of predicting. I love ASR_AI, ARMA2 wouldn't be complete without it for me, however I had to make my own amendment to it and knock down the sensitivityear value down considerably because I was so sick of not being able to get the drop on the ai. With my modifications they still behave quite normally, only now they cannot predict with pinpoint accuracy where you're going to appear (because they can hear you moving at a distance which you can not hear them), and you can now sneak up behind them in some circumstances. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?130868-SP-AI-Detection-Cheating-Test-Script Test it for yourself, I personally would classify a lot of what I saw with this script as flat out cheating. And it was all corrected by modifying the sensitivityear variable for the soldiers.

I could try, however I use a lot of addons by default and thus finding the culprit would be like finding a needle in a haystack. They're pretty cool though, and I like the firing sound of the RG-6 and the GM94.

For some reason there are muzzle flashes permanently visible on both the RG-6 and the GM-94. Is anyone else getting this error?

I have no problem with equipment rosters per-se, however I have a huge problem with the idea of weapon systems themselves being modified with on the basis that multiplayer will suffer. That's the main concern I have. Simply put, altering the whole game on the basis that it won't make multiplayer enjoyable is the reason why its taken SO long for realistic shooters to gain a foothold. Every retarded deathmatch oriented FPS out there sacrificed diversity for continuity (and thereby balance). I would even go so far as to suggest one of two things: 1: make a separate set of addons for multiplayer variants that are flagged by the host of a server. 2: better yet, let the community do this so that it at least looks like BI isn't pandering to a lot of deatchmatch obsessed weenies migrating from other games.

I've purchased and played -everything- this series has to offer. ---------- Post added at 02:19 ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 ---------- Not really that, I think you're intentionally going off on a strawman tangent because I came down pretty hard on the sensibilities of those who play mainstream military FPS games. "Balance" in that respect has a lot to do with mission design than anything else, and to be quite honest there's an entire world of possibilities for those who are patient and intelligent enough to learn how to modify the game. What I'm saying is, in no uncertain terms should any newer demographics who are used to the conventions employed by mainstream military FPS developers be appeased. That is bar-none my biggest fear, as that's not a step forward, its like the first time somebody plays QWOP and steps backwards, falls and snaps their own neck. I like the fact that in such a game, you're not always going to be working at parity with your opponents, its often an excellent exercise in thinking your way through a situation instead of relying on being configured to play out like a deathmatch sport. Nearly all of my own custom missions involve being massively disadvantaged, I enjoy that sort of challenge.

Yeah, I hate quake style games, and I hate quake style variations of military shooters, the market is flooded with them. What I love about this series is that strategic planning is always going to determine how long you survive, this game is not about making combat as accessible to every Tom, Dick and moron that want to twitch their way through a game. As mentioned, there's plenty of those games out there. This game rewards people who think before they dive into an encounter armed only with a pistol, and I like it like that.

Seriously, I'm not seeing it and I'm getting an awful sinking feeling that we're going to have a lot of shitty random number generated dispersion compensating for its absence.

I'm wondering about a specific variable: GroupSquad1 = [getMarkerPos "Squad1", east, ["TK_INS_Soldier_TL_EP1","TK_INS_Soldier_3_EP1","TK_INS_Soldier_4_EP1","TK_INS_Soldier_AAT_EP1","TK_INS_Soldier_MG_EP1","TK_INS_Soldier_AR_EP1","TK_Soldier_Medic_EP1","TK_Soldier_EP1","TK_Soldier_AA_EP1","TK_INS_Soldier_TL_EP1","TK_INS_Warlord_EP1","TK_INS_Soldier_MG_EP1"]] call BIS_fnc_spawnGroup; wp = GroupSquad1 addwaypoint [getMarkerPos "s1",[color="#FF0000"][size=3][u]20[/u][/size][/color]]; wp setWaypointType "MOVE"; What does this value do? I'm using it as-is, and the AI seems like its skill is max'ed compared to just plopping down the same entities. Is that what it is? If not, how would I incorporate "setskill" into this to ensure that the script isn't spawning all-seeing sniper gods every time?

The point is, when you press the asterisk button your "head" becomes unlocked, which would naturally imply that it is in fact your head that is moving and not your eyes. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be snarky to Batto, honest, I'm more attacking this hilarious idea that moving the mouse is moving one's "eyes", when its quite obviously not. The reason why we have HD or multi-monitor setups is to simulate one's full visual range +peripheral vision. I'm just trying to get the point across in a rather comical way.

Now you're just being ridiculous, the radius that your eyes move to sight something isn't 180 degrees, its not even 120. Your eyes pick up something in your periphery, for example. Your head turns directly to align your body to the target and your arms follow. People don't just walk around with their body rigid all following a single axis, that's the most inane nonsense I've ever heard. Its like you're completely unaware of your own body's behavior in favor of pursuing this unfounded bias you have. No, I play with dead zone on because the human body simply doesn't move as if upper/mid/ and lower extremities cannot and do not move on different axes as a simple matter of natural ergonomics. That's what it simulates, and apparently you have a selected bias that disagrees with this rather salient fact, and its not enough that you simply have this bias and be done with it, but you must convince others to believe it as well. I'm sorry, I don't buy that inanity. Rofl, what are you on, bathsalts? ---------- Post added at 00:24 ---------- Previous post was at 23:46 ---------- Sorry, I had to do it. bx-0CTecTvI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx-0CTecTvI (Forum is being difficult)

Is there a fairly simple way of doing this? I would like to create a mission in which you fight multiple waves of enemies that are spawned by triggers. I'm thinking that the simplest way of doing this would be to basically "queue" the triggers in a way that only allows the next trigger to activate after the previous one has run. Is there something simple I can add to one trigger and the next one in sequence to arrange this?

I actually would like an option to force it. The whole point of having a dead zone is to simulate a more cumbersome series of movements that precede lining up your shot. Again, plenty of combat helmet cam footage will indicate that arms/hands move independently of perspective and the two are never perfectly in concert with one another -all- the time. That's the basic premise. Non-deadzone feels like quake, it allows snap-aiming which again, defeats the purpose of going to simulate so many variables that human beings have to contend with when negotiating environments and accomplishing various tasks.

I fully agree with this post. However the ARMA series is quite versatile from an end-user perspective, I would consider any broad scale effort to make fundamental changes to the gameplay to attract more players from those demographics a complete betrayal of the game's core supporters.

Okay, well it seems I've run into a snag as the transition time between the execution of the first and second triggers are basically instantaneous. This is detrimental because the second trigger should activate based on what has been created with the first trigger, namely more enemies. Basically, what I thought in theory would happen is that the first trigger would activate, spawn units, at which point the second trigger should only activate when all enemies of that side are no longer in the affected area, either dead or fleeing. Unfortunately it seems that in the time it takes for the first trigger to spawn the enemies, the second trigger has more or less determined that there were no OPFOR there and ran anyhow. Is there a simple way I can add a delay to the execution of the second and subsequent triggers to give the previous trigger time to generate the necessary AI? -EDIT- It seems setting the trigger to "countdown" can provide that appropriate delay.

Thanks a lot for the help guys, I'm going to test that out when I get a spare moment.

Well, from my experience shooting semi automatics if you're engaging in sustained fire your body does "adjust" to the recoil while you're firing. So that makes sense I suppose. In fact I generally found shooting carbines without optics to be more accurate in a general sense when my body was anticipating the rhythm of the recoil. However I genuinely believe that in time you will see actual physics play a more significant role in this sort of thing.

http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-98-11/node17.html That's the only source I could find, but the term was quite prevalent when there were heated debates regarding whether or not the system had any merit. Again, it could not be accurately applied, but in the aforementioned sense, it does seem somewhat relevant.

"Vection refers to the perception of self-motion induced by visual stimuli." That is a definition of "vection". And if you take into account the concept of a weapon moving independently of your perspective, versus a weapon essentially glued to your cheek so to speak, you can see a loose corollary between that term and what was being described. It was once used to differentiate between the typical FPS weapon perspective prevalent back in the day, and this emerging technology at the time. Perhaps its not totally accurate, however that was the term that was coined to describe it.