pd3

No mods for me either, I know for a fact one of them was a 100% stock Armed Assault resource. (enterable house with three windows per side upstairs + terrace and patio umbrella) I was actually upstairs in that building and I was shot at from an exposure where: - None of the windows were opened - I had never even exposed myself to the heading from where I was shot, the AI that started firing simply couldn't have even seen me - The AI fire was unusually accurate However I just actually had another wallhack kill with with an enterable building which might be a BI resource or it could have been an OPX addon building. It's a multi-floored building, rather long, maybe like 30-40 meters wide, by half or 1/3 that in length. Only the stairwell/roof is accessible, I was hiding in the stairwell and the AI just went crazy with the Zafir and shot the crap out of me. There was just no way for the AI (or a human for that matter, which should be the metric) could make a solid determination as to exactly where behind the obstruction the target could be. It's unfortunate because I actually really enjoy playing A3 with those classic terrains, especially Avgani, the only one that comes close to it for CQB is Fallujah. Additionally "combat"/"red" mode needs to be nerfed, and nerfed hard. Pretty much all the worse aspects of the AI come from the perceived buffs to the AI's abilities that come when they're in that mode. The ESP - like abilities, the snap split second movement with zero over steer and accuracy. I just had the AI shoot at me laterally "through" a doorway even though they had never seen me and even though I was adjacent (yet not visible) to the doorway. Even if they could potentially "hear me" they: - Don't know whether I'm friend or foe, or at least shouldn't. - Haven't actually seen me and shouldn't as a matter of doctrine be so overzealous to shoot at what they hear or "sense" that they don't even visually confirm it first, especially when it's through walls.

I don't think it has anything to do with the actual buildings themselves, but how the AI behaves/interprets things and possibly how the bullets now interact with certain surfaces. It definitely didn't happen in 1.50, and in previous versions in which it seemed more or less that legacy objects simply didn't adhere to the rules of penetration the way the A3 objects did.

This is also extremely annoying in CQB situations, the one-single-pixel rule applies where the ai can literally start firing at cover the second an impossibly discernible fragment of the player appears from around the side of it. This issue is also innately tethered to the speed at which ai perceives and reacts to things (which needs to be toned down a bit IMO).

I spoke too soon about this update not having anything complaint-worthy. 1.52 It seems as if something's been done to the AI that has made using any map using legacy architecture/buildings apparently see-through. Three times now I've been basically "wallhacked" by on terrains that use legacy Armed Assault/A2 style buildings. In each specific case there was no way the AI could have seen me openly exposed, and simply started firing as if they had a clear, unobstructed view. Not only that, but it seems now that where previously bullets would not penetrate those legacy buildings at all, they now seem to. Not sure why this was necessary but it's doing more harm than good IMO. Also with regard to the video showcasing the vanilla AI, not to be an ass, but what are the devs thinking? This is reminiscent of the guy who wrote Quake 2's eraserbot AI and the devs of some game he was hired on to work with were like "You gotta tone it down, real human beings are playing this". It's the antithesis of fun to play against AI when each and every one of them are like the synths from Blade Runner in their ability.

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but there are some thoughts I have to offer on this subject, I know I may get some salty remarks, but I would ask anyone disagreeing with me to remain civilized. Something I've noticed in the more recent update is the propensity for the AI to immediately fire the second even a sliver of the player is visible, even at considerable distances. Even very narrow gaps between buildings if the player is moving quickly between them and the AI hasn't previously detected them, they will fire, and often connect. I honestly don't think I could identify, and respond to a target that quickly in those circumstances myself. It forces the player to either assume a level of white knuckle robotic accuracy, which honestly I have no desire to do, I play because I enjoy the game, my Quake-era deathmatch days are long behind me. That sort of MLG tier effort you'd have to put into it is not what I'd consider enjoyable, it feels like work. No actual human being is going to move that quickly at any rate, it breaks the atmosphere of the game to an extent. People seem to overestimate human kinesthetic ability when they're playing games anyhow, call it a form of gaming dunning-kruger. The AI reacts within minute fractions of a second, in situations that would spell death for most players attempting the same maneuver, the AI can simply wander around blind corners, face to face with the enemy and stand a very good chance of prevailing. All this forcing to player to employ tactics that assume the AI will kill you in a straight out fight, or in situations that would be deemed risky at best for the player. Having to think and respond asymmetrically is fine and well, but it's made CQB not terribly fun. Unless you're willing to crank down their weapon dispersion or increase how shaky their aim is, which precludes them from making any aimed long range shots. You're pretty much having to assume the AI will be able to out shoot you in stand up fight quite a lot of the time. Similarly lowering the spot time so that it has an impact on CQB type situations makes the AI incompetent when spotting the player at any considerable distance. I don't really think any of those adjustments are reasonable as it breaks one part of the game in favor of improving another. I suppose my main problem with the AI in this respect could be broken down into a few criteria. - Their threat identification speed is so fast that I've now often seen the AI reactively fire at a wall upon first perception of a "target" (implying they aren't even aiming at the player) and then rapidly turning with CIWS-like precision and speed toward the target. This as opposed to most players who would have to at least see enough of the enemy to positively ID them as such or at least have a decent profile to shoot at. As mentioned, it seems as if they "see" a mere sliver of their target, they go mad and fire at the wall reflexively and quickly and accurately swing their aim toward the player. Expanding the AI criteria of what is necessary to constitute a "good shot" seems like a good idea to me. - As mentioned, they will start shooting before they're even aiming at you, I've experienced this quite a few times now, it is a thing they do. I don't know how many players actually do this (I sure don't), and it seems ridiculous that the AI would do it. The AI should be subject to some conditions requiring it to actually have a decent "sight picture" on a reasonably sized portion of the target before firing (not the tip of the player's boot). Too many times they behave like psychic maniacs whose powers of perception work far faster than their bodies do, and that's saying something considering their "physical" reaction times are nothing to sneeze at. - The AI seem to be able to "see" things they shouldn't. There have been a few times where the AI's "head" (presumably their origin of perception) was blocked by an obstacle, that is to say they were behind the corner of a wall, with only a bit of their leg barely sticking out. Regardless of this, they would fire the second I moved to glance at them, yes they would fire into the WALL, they could perceive my moving though technically having their vision obscured. From such an angle I might add, that it would be impossible for the AI to actually "see" me had they been a human player, although I could see a bit of their leg poking around the corner. This sort of "extrasensory perception" in the AI is becoming something of a drag and is taking a lot of the fun out of MOUT and CQB type engagements. I suppose this might actually put a strain on the performance of the game, but making the amount of a target that the AI sees act as a coefficient of how quickly the AI identifies or reacts to a threat would probably help a lot. Possibly even making how much of the AI's target they see being a limiting factor to actually firing on the target might also be a good idea as well. Perhaps these phenomena I'm describing aren't all that new, but something about the AI's perception and how they respond to that perception seems to have changed.

Pretty much, the speed at which they aim is honestly the worst part about it though, it's in the low fractions of a second.

Lately I've noticed how closely occluded the radius is for footfalls, I find a lot of the time that 50m just isn't enough, especially for people who are running, I can in real life hear people running on all varieties of surfaces from considerably further than that. I find this is a leading cause of being snuck up on by AI, and it's become somewhat irksome as of late, especially concerning how quickly the AI can move and turn to shoot. Since this is something I've been doing ever since the OFP days, I thought I'd make a base class modification as I did for Arma 2, to improve the distance at which you hear the AI's footfalls. The only thing is, when I tested the addon, it seemed as if there was no discernible change. My first suspicion is that maybe as an anti-cheat measure you can't simply reference base classes now and input/change the values you like anymore as one could in previous games. Is there any legitimacy to that or am I doing something wrong? I would appreciate a candid answer so that I can figure out whether or not I should stop bothering to try and tweak the values.

Nope, it's just a collection of scripts in an addon directory used in single player, is this is an anti-cheat measure that is buggering up my game then? The scripts are initialized with one file that refuses to execute no matter how I attempt to do it. I'm currently using the legacy version and it works just fine. Looks as if -filepatching actually did work, and the scripts loaded lightning fast.

I was using a script mod that was activated from the esc menu as a clickable button which now does not work. Can anyone offer insight as to why this is? It worked fine prior to this new update, it's kind of irrelevant to post this in the thread of the mod itself because I care more about what caused it to stop functioning to begin with. I tried exec'ing the script from both a trigger and in the init field of the player and it still doesn't activate, something definitely has changed.

I just had it happen, I was advancing on an AI walking up some stairs, they were half turned, while I was shooting at them, and I was shot, he wasn't even facing me. I've experienced that before I was on top of a building, and the AI on the ground spun around with a zafir no less like a CIWS popped a single shot and hit me. No oversteer, no delay, went from looking at ground approx 60 degrees facing away, it's one thing to turn and shoot, it's another to turn, acquire your target above you and fire a single shot and hit them when more than 50 percent of their body is obstructed. It completely mitigates using terrain to one's advantage if the AI isn't challenged by the same constraints that human beings are. I don't care if the AI comes off seeming more derpy, make the LOD even for semi-transparent sprites (such as bushy branches, or grass) fully opaque to the AI. If you are very likely to not make out that an AI is behind a mass of semi transparent bush sprites, if the simple solution is to make them completely blind when seeing into them, so be it. Additionally, the AI being able to pivot 45 degrees in half a second from the laying position, shooting, no less in that time period is also not cool either.

That can be fixed, an AI not actually having previously seen you, sprinting around a corner and bringing their weapon to bear, aiming and firing in the span of a second or less is in fact not fixable, I wish it was, I wouldn't be complaining right now, I'd do it myself, I'm very much behind the customizability of this game. It's one thing if the AI has been made aware of you, that would explain a lot, but if they haven't they shouldn't have that sort of reaction time and accuracy, it's not very human. Human beings, even the best trained ones respond a little more slowly when surprised than when they aren't.

Yes I'm actually starting to think this must be the case, because I've actually been getting the classnames of structures of all types where "TailInterior" initializes and where it doesn't and I cannot find any disparity in their cfgvehicles info. It's unfortunate as there are many legacy buildings that could benefit from a re-vamp so that they trigger the appropriate soundtail when inside, but it's not a huge deal. I was just wondering if there was something on the config-side of things that I could discover to either spur discussion about fixing it, or simply fix it myself for my own private use. Is it possible that the Sahrani upgrade team took this into consideration? As I've noticed that there are in fact A2 buildings which do trigger the initialization of interior sounds, although it seems none of the original ARMA buildings do. It's not the end of the world or anything, and thanks for the reply, I agree with your suspicions about it being something intrinsic to the data located in the model itself, be it a LOD or something else.

This might seem like a question with a VERY obvious answer, however in actual fact I've found that some non-A3 buildings both do and don't activate the TailInterior sound effect. Even further confounding this issue is that some legacy Arma buildings (made by BI) do activate the effect, however some do not. I am a little curious as to what criteria needs to be met, whether it's inherent to some data in the p3d file of the building, or whether it is some other data that is editable (and therefore correctable). I know this question does technically involve things that aren't explicitly Arma 3, however it still pertains to how this new effect works and under what conditions, it would be useful to know at any rate for both myself and others who are also interested in learning more about advancements implemented to the game.

This also interests me as well. That might be my next endeavor now that I've figured out how to delve into things after a bit of a hiccup on my end. I'd like to make a "just for fun" soundpack for a few custom units. I'll look into it and perhaps either add what I've found to this thread, or start another, might be a bit before I start into it, but I've been thinking about it for a while. I didn't know other people were also interested.

Mikeros tools come loaded with adware, why he insisted on creating installers for every program is strange to me, I don't want anything to do with it. Are there any other tools that are good for decompiling pbos that don't require this?

I would like to make a duplicate custom class of the new heavy Marksman vests which slightly altered stats for some custom units I'm building. It seems as if simply referencing the weapon class of the vests with altered stats is not working as it should, the referenced custom class vest does not appear on the player, yet does when it is dropped on the ground, as it also does in the inventory. I figured that I probably have to enter the information for the model path, hidden selections, and hidden selections textures, which is a problem as EBOs are now a thing. Is anyone able to help?

Well, I have no idea why manually inputting the data worked, but it did, so it beats the hell out of me. They wouldn't appear on player models prior to that, and now they do. So either way it's fixed.

I apologize for not providing a more detailed explanation. Here's basically a quick and dirty explanation of what I've done. I have had ZERO syntax errors, no missing declarations, etc. This is purely a "missing information" problem I believe, but I do appreciate expanded explanations/help, and hopefully some people newer to editing will benefit from this post as well. The only thing I have a question about is what is the config viewer? I guess that one completely escaped me, I was unaware you could actually see the config data from a viewer within the game, if-so that's amazing, I'll have to look into that. cfgweapons { /* a bunch of class inheritance declarations, I'm pretty sure I'm not missing anything */ class V_PlateCarrierSpec_blk; // the class I wish my custom variant to inherit from class Cust_PlateCarrierSpec_blk_1: V_PlateCarrierSpec_blk // my custom variant { /* All presumed to be inherited data, but I think this is where I screwed up, I believe the "model", "hiddenSelections", and "hiddenSelectionsTextures" need to be actively declared as they don't seem to inherit, maybe I'm wrong. */ class ItemInfo: VestItem { containerClass = "supply100" mass = 40; armor = 400; passThrough = 0.3; }; }; This is just a general impression of what I've done, I don't have any config errors, the vest that I was referencing to inherit into my created cfgWeapons class simply does not show up on the unit itself, however it does show up in the unit's inventory and can be dropped and it does appear on the ground. As I said. I think after the declaration for the new class, "mode", and "hiddenselection/textures" need to be entered manually as it seems to not appear on the player when it simply tries to inherit from the class itself. I think I discovered the problem, doesn't the "access" variable determine whether you can create inherited classes from a given class? with V_platecarrierspec_blk, it's access variable is set to '3'. I may have to just pull out the model and texture references and inherit from something else. Okay, scratch all that. I was actually correct about it missing some info that must be manually input, however it appears it wasn't what I thought it was. Under the child class "ItemInfo: VestItem" you must input the UniformModel data location, in this case it was "\A3\Characters_F\BLUFOR\equip_b_carrier_spec_rig.p3d". The vest now appears on the AI/Player as it is supposed to, mystery solved! Thanks for all your replies, especially pointing out the existence of the config viewer. I guess I've been so used to doing things the old fashioned way that I didn't bother to investigate any further, this is going to help tremendously. I hope this also helps anyone else in a similar situation as well.

I'm trying to revert back to legacy 1.48, but I'm finding that scripts run like garbage in 1.50 The metric by which I determine whether there's been a net improvement is how well Arma 3 handles scripts, and this version seems to not work so well, my frames have gone from the 40s-50s into the mid 30s now. EDIT Okay, well, it seems as if that first attempt was something of an aberration. I went back to 1.48, my average frame rate was in fact slightly higher 1-3fps, and my framerates going into the 50s was more common. After testing 1.48 in a number of circumstances typical to my habits with A3, I updated once more to 1.50 and found that it performed much better than earlier, I don't know what was going on, but I've tried to recreate it using the same circumstances, etc, and I cannot. The game seems smooth, in spite of the 1-3 fps loss I have, and generally speaking scripts tend to keep up and run as they're supposed to for the most part. This is where it gets weird, because it seems as if scripts run as they should more often than with 1.48, but I'm getting slightly lower frames. I have to emphasize that I am not complaining about this at all, I would rather lose a frame or two for scripts that run when they're supposed to. The downside to this is when scripts don't run as they should, it is much, much more noticeable now, not really such a downside, as I've had few circumstances of that happening thankfully. So I don't know, honestly, it's an update I could live with. As long as I have more positive experiences with scripts running on time than not, I don't see the problem. So much of Arma depends on scripts to realize it's full potential that I think it needs to be given as much consideration as other aspects of performance.

Interesting, I'm partial to using ALIVE myself, so I'm not sure how I could work that into use with it's dynamic spawning, but it's a work-around for mission designers. I wonder if ASR_AI or any other AI mods alter that in some way so as to be useful to that end.

Unless the aimingSpeed values go into the hundredths, then even at a tenth it's still on the fast side.

I've been looking for something like this. I actually just discovered some of your other retexes on Armaholic, loving them all. However I was wondering, is there any chance of getting a black generic retex of the GL variant (w/crotch flap) heavy armor, possibly with the color of the magazines changed?

All things considered, I want to point out that I really enjoy how the AI behaves in other ways. I've had some very interesting experiences with enemy AI squads. I had one circumstance in which I was fired upon in an urban environment at a distance, I took cover behind a wall, moved to the opposing side of the wall to get a look at who/how many were shooting at me from a different vantage point. When it became obvious that I wasn't going to engage the AI at range, they actually left the building they were occupying and advanced on my last known location, the manner in which they did this was what impressed me. Two advanced the most obvious route, however a third one went around the other side, whilst a fourth hung back. The three advancing attempted what was basically a pincer maneuver on me, which I thought was really clever. I LIKE that aspect of the AI. What I don't like is their superhuman recognition/reaction time/ability, it just puts a damper on the experience. Yes, absolutely. Their peripheral vision is as good as a fully-exposed view of their potential target. Yes, I've noticed this as well, I actually have no problem with this, it's added a bit of a dynamic twist to close/medium range engagements.

@en3x I am really interested in that part in the first video at 1:50. How much of the player do you think was visible, it doesn't seem as if it was much, and that lightning fast identification time is what I'm well accustomed to. If he had a line of sight to shoot you'd be in a spot of trouble for sure. I personally find the speed at which the AI identifies obscured threats and the speed at which they can draw on them to be a little annoying, I don't care if other people find it to be fine, but I'd definitely like to have the option to scale it back. The video highlights some of the concerns I was describing in my initial post. You have to be super-asymmetrical or extremely fast on the draw to make an opportunity of such a situation. It wasn't as bad as the AI seeing you on their periphery and wheeling about to put a bean in your helmet, but still potentially annoying. I personally find this video the most telling about what I find irksome about the AI personally, however it's nice to know that smoke actually works. Same with this video, in fact the AI does that thing where it shoots at the player and hasn't even properly aimed at him yet it seems, as you can see the shots correct. All way too fast for my liking, the AI are like super fast inhuman replicants. The time between the point of identification to the first shot going off is a bit on the low side for my liking, there is no implication of human error or delay. It reminds me of the old days of the original Rainbow 6, if anyone recalls that game as well. I don't necessarily agree with that, especially since I've seen the AI do insane shit even though I've moved out of it's visual range, It's one thing if the AI's position doesn't change and neither does the players, however once the AI loses sight of the player, that should leave the AI more open to being surprised again if they're not expecting the player to be in a given position while moving around. They're just too sensitive once they've been activated into something outside of safe mode. If an AI advances on my position and doesn't or shouldn't explicitly know where I am, I should by all rights have the advantage if they blunder around a corner unaware that I was there to begin with. That just doesn't seem to be the case in MOUT/CQB type scenarios from what I've experienced.

Any chance of an update with some generic reskins of the new heavy vests?