Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About RKDmitriyev

  • Rank
  1. AI --Menu command to terminate AI bounding overwatch/"danger" mode. Modding & Content -- More easily-customizable native AI FSMs -- Better-documented functions for native AI FSMs
  2. You know ArmAGuy, there's also a modelling forum for questions more strictly related to modelling. But if you need help with writing the config to put a new model on a unit, you can also try dePBOing and reverse-engineering a well-working model replacement pack like this one (note that the actual model is contained in this addon). Again, since documentation is kinda thin, reverse-engineering stuff seems to be the main way that ppl lrn 2 addons.
  3. Has any addon maker anywhere ever succeeded in making a native FSM for ArmA2? HeliJunkie apparently made a small native FSM for ArmA1 that makes soldiers go prone, but in ArmA2 the code seems to simply make the AI never move. That's at least what happens when I try to copy-paste it into a cfgFSMs class and also make a unit with fsmFormation = "HJ_Debug". So does anyone know of an addon which uses native FSMs for AI behaviour modification?
  4. RKDmitriyev

    The all new: Ask a moderator about the forum & rules

    Where would be the most appropriate place to post this? I'm torn between the Arma2 -- Addon Config Editing forum or a post to the Addons & Mods -- Complete -- Addon Request thread. Would kinda prefer the second one just cause it'd probably get more attention, but you know what they say about how looking for attention killed the hamster. :eek:
  5. I'm also a newbie at addon editing (though not at mission editing), but I have succeeded in making configs now. Unfortunately it looks as though there are no really in-depth tutorials for addon editing. There's this and this if you haven't found them already. My suggestion: start with configging really simple stuff, like adding a unit with a new weapons loadout or extra hit points, and work your way up one step at a time. Here's an example of a really simple addon that I made that creates a Chedaki insurgent with an M16A2. The stuff after // is comments and are not (supposed to be) read by the engine. A list of all (or at least most) possible cfgVehicles characteristics, such as weapons[] or displayname, is available here. Note that it is only necessary to specify the characteristics unique to the new unit class. That's the beauty of the "class Ins_Soldier_M16 : Ins_Soldier_1" part. When you've written your config code, stick it in a standard text file, rename it config.cpp, put it in a folder, and use binPBO to binarize the folder. Add the new PBO to a modfolder like any other addon and there you go.
  6. Thanks. So is there a convenient way to determine what's needed under requiredAddons other than trial and error? I can't quite see the pattern for what cfgPatches names are needed. For example, the following config works even though there's no reference to TK_Soldier_base_EP1 in the config.bin found inside characters2.pbo. Class TK_Soldier_base_EP1 is defined in the config.bin inside characters_e.pbo. But this code does not work: requiredAddons[] = {"CACharacters_E"}; WHY???
  7. Thanks. Yeah, since writing the above, I noticed--from reading the correct thread--that it seems as though Cole's replacement pack no longer works for OA. At least I know I'm not going insane and the universe still operates according to rational principles, and that's a very good feeling to have.
  8. Hi guys, I'm about to claw my own eyes out trying to get this addon to work. The RH weapons pack works; I can give soldiers the new guns and use the new ammo crates. But when I try to load this addon, nothing appears to have been replaced. USMC riflemen and auto-riflemen still carry vanilla weapons. I've verified this by executing "hint str (primaryWeapon player)". There's no error message. I've tried sticking the Cole_MFamily_Replace_M.pbo in with the same folder as the RH M4 weapons pack itself. I've tried using a shortcut rather than an ArmA2 launcher. Other addons work, including other replacement addons such as Bush BadSanta replacement pack. I've even tried placing all of the PBOs in the main ArmA2/AddOns folder. The same results are observed every time. If someone could at least check the below-linked zipped modfolder to see if it works for them, then even if I do claw my own eyes out, I will be certain that that person receives one eye as a reward. :crazy: SO HALP PLZ. http://www.mediafire.com/?4eb91fd0xnbewhf I'm on Windows XP and I'm using ArmA2: Combined Operations, version 1.60. I don't have PMC or BAF.
  9. EDIT: I partially solved my earlier problem. I've been able to replace the display name and crew of the Su39, but not the weapons. Weird. My addon config: Does anyone know why I can't change the Su39 weapons by editing "weapons[]"? I noticed from a different thread that weapons on turrets need to be changed from inside the turret class. But the Su39 doesn't appear to have a turret. :confused: *****Original Post:
  10. RKDmitriyev

    Ai thread

    Is there still no convenient way to force to AI to regroup with you once they've begun the "bounding overwatch" process? I searched around and it sounds as though the only solution is to force them to use icky formations like column or delta.
  11. RKDmitriyev

    Nuclear Wars and Aftermath

    I didn't realize this at first, but Robock et al seem to have made all their papers freely available in PDF form at that link. Just throwing that out there for anyone who's interested.
  12. RKDmitriyev

    Nuclear Wars and Aftermath

    Okay, but how many of those nukes detonated over large cities? Two, right? The smoke from burning cities is what would cause nuclear winter, according to most versions of the theory. (My original post was inaccurate about this, btw, so I've edited it). Mind you, I'm not taking sides here. I, too, am somewhat suspicious of the new "nuclear winter" research. Political motivation is possible. Furthermore, a group of scientists including Carl Sagan popularized a previous incarnation of the "nuclear winter" theory back in the 80s. In 1991 they predicted that the massive smoke emissions from the Kuwaiti oil fires would cause lasting global climate damage. They didn't. This was quite an embarrassment for the theory, and it seems to have dropped off the radar until Robock et al revived it with new calculations in 2006.
  13. RKDmitriyev

    Nuclear Wars and Aftermath

    Great link, thanks for sharing. Reminds me of Close Encounters of the Third Kind.:D Yeah, that. Or high-atmospheric tests. Furthermore, the big culprit in "nuclear winter" would be the smoke and soot from burning cities. Article by Robock: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Nuclear_winter