RKDmitriyev

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

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.

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?

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:

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.

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:

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???

THANKS, that worked.

(bumping to show update)

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.

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.

This forum seems to be sorely lacking in nuclear war-related threads, so I'm going to start one. How much of humanity could survive a nuclear conflict? I've been doing some research, and scientists and military strategists don't seem to have come to an agreement. Depending on the size of the conflict, blast effects, gamma rays, radioactive isotopes, and radioactive dust could kill billions of people and cause first-world society to collapse. However, "nuclear winter" may be the most dangerous effect of nuclear war. Recent research from scientists Alan Robock and Owen Toon suggests that even a regional nuclear war, such as one between India and Pakistan, could wreak havoc worldwide. According to this research, the explosions would stoke massive firestorms, pumping 5 million tons of smoke into the atmosphere. The soot would absorb much sunlight over the entire world. Average global temperatures would drop by about 1.25*C, crops would fail, and famine and starvation would ensue. The climate might not recover for a decade or more. All in all, according to Toon and Robock's January 2010 Scientific American article, "1 billion people worldwide with marginal food supplies today could die of starvation because of ensuing agricultural collapse." (emphasis in original) To support their theory, they cite analogies from volcanic eruptions such as 1815's Tambora eruption, which resulted in the "Year without a Summer." Freak frosts caused crop failures all over the world. Imagine what would happen if summer did not occur for 10 years. This research, published in Science magazine (link) and other reputable scientific journals, does not seem to have been challenged. On the other hand, interest in nuclear war is not what it was during the Cold War, when the most research was done on this topic. Cynics will sense a political motive behind Robock & Toon's research, since they are using it to promote total nuclear disarmament. Thoughts? EDIT: I originally wrote that the nuclear exchange would purportedly cause "....a shroud of 5 million tons of dust and smoke." However, the research by Robock et al focuses almost exclusively on smoke effects. Nuclear war would purportedly create massive firestorms in megacities such as the population centers of India and Pakistan. It is the smoke from these fires that would cause nuclear winter effects.

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.

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.

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.

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

That could explain it, since I was watching the blast with camera.sqs while my character was kilometers away. I will have to investigate this further.

When I use the scud nukes against large cities such as Chernogorsk or Zargabad, the nuke effects seem to become disjointed. Trees on the peripheries of the city fall over before buildings at ground zero are destroyed, and the "stem" of the mushroom cloud appears only after the "cap" has completely dissipated. I tested using a groundburst scud nuke called via mando_ai_scud.sqf . Does anyone else experience this? Maybe my card is too slow to process the particle effects or something.

May I start a thread in OFFTOPIC about hypothetical nuclear war scenarios? I searched and didn't find any recent threads. I wanted to kick off discussion by talking about this.

I think this will work: _eastunits = []; { if (side _x == east) then { _eastunits = _eastunits + [_x]; }; } forEach allUnits; {_x setSkill 0.2347157} forEach _eastunits; The key is the reserved variable allUnits.

I think you want ActsPercSnonWnonDnon_carFixing2 or maybe RepairingKneel. See http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA2:_Moves No, you're not! Are you using a translator?

That can make things difficult. Try to learn scripting, it's fun and not as hard as hard as you may think! Anyway, this should work without any external scripting if you add it to each units initialization: this addEventHandler ["killed",{hint format ["%1 killed by %2",_this select 0, _this select 1]}] EDIT: oh wait you said you needed it in MP. Getting the message to transmit over multiplayer is a different matter, but I'm sure it's possible. It'll run on the same basic principle of using "killed" eventhandlers.

That's because I didn't make the variable names consistent, because I didn't mean for you to cut-and-paste directly into your script file. Try changing _talker to _person throughout the script, or vice-versa. Probably. Unit names (like "George Pound") are strings, and I think there's some way to disassemble strings in ArmA2. I don't know it off hand, though. Maybe I'll get back to you with it. That depends on how much work you're going to put into this project! :D Honestly, when you get to that level of complexity, it might be wiser to make an addon that would modify the way the AI speaks, rather than script everything into the mission. EDIT: I missed this part earlier: I learned from Johan Gustaffson's scripting tutorial, but that's for OFP. That game mostly used a scripting syntax called SQS. SQS code can still be used for ArmA2, but SQF code (which is what we've been using) is preferred. Cheetah made a good SQF Tutorial for ArmA1.

Hi helios. I'm not in a convenient position to give a complete response, but I thought it would be a shame to let this thread get buried without any replies. The OpenMap command should get what you're looking for. The following should work: onDoubleClick {boatdriver move _pos} When debugging, the first step is to isolate the problem. Which part does not work? Can you get any onMapSingleClick or onDoubleClick commands to work? Can you get any units to move using these commands? Start with simple commands and then add each layer of complexity one by one. An essential step in debugging is to use the -showScriptErrors startup parameter. One possible error I noticed just from looking: boatdriver enableai "move"; _boatdriver domove _pos Here you seem to be treating "boatdriver" inconsistently as a local variable and a global variable. That will mess things up. I've done that mistake 2 million times.

You're welcome. Actually, I discovered a way to make the script work even better. Replace my "_peeps = units player;" with _peeps = []; {if (alive _x) then {_peeps = _peeps + [_x]}} forEach units _killed; The "units" command still sometimes returns dead people. However, the above code fills the array _peeps with only the units that are alive. Yes. Possibly. You can always do it this way: _saythis = format ["(%1) Oh no! %2 is down! MEDIC!", name _talker, name _killed]; _talker sideChat _saythis Yes. Read up on the format command. It is very useful and entertaining. Of course! :D Try to work some magic with format and switch...do: //generate random integer between 0 and 2, inclusive _sel = floor random 3; //text that they say depends on result of number _saythis = switch (_sel) do { case 0: {"(%1) Oh no! %2 is down! MEDIC!"}; case 1: {"(%1) Oh no %2 is down!"}; case 2: {"(%1) FUCK! %2 is hit!!"}; }; //now they say something _talker sideChat format [_saythis,name _talker, name _killed];