Spinor
-
Content Count
208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by Spinor
-
-
Quote[/b] ]I remember from CE2 that it worked best to have vehicles in seperate groups and assign other groups as transport to these vehicle groups. In my experience with the CEX beta this is true too or maybe its just my personal taste and opinion of how vehicles should be handled from a mission design point of view, who knows...Totally agree with Nepumuk here, even in general ArmA I do not think it is a good idea to mix infantry and vehicles in one group. Especially tanks and armoured inf carriers can not perform to their full potential. In CEX, keeping them separate gives you much more freedom. E.g. you can keep the carriers in the back to provide cover for the infantry.
-
Quote[/b] ]Does anybody have links to missions other than in the beta pack that I can download..(what's happened to snakeman?)There are none that I am aware of yet. Unfortunately, speaking from past experience, people tend to keep their CE missions private
. Everybody who has created a CEX missions is invited to post it here...I know you are out there 
. BTW, Snake Man created the Demo missions in the CEX addon.Quote[/b] ]is there anyway I can quickly view a selected unit? like in the OPF version where you can hit view?I see the locked view and helmet view under the camera heading, however these are always grayed out. I like the new interface but it's annoying not being able to lock ur view on a selected unit.
Helmet cam and fixed cam are not implemented yet, but will be added in the next version. There is an undocumented feature which might help a bit: SHIFT-LMB on the minimap teleports the camera.
Quote[/b] ]But I have a problem, maybe I'm just doing something wrong. I can't get infantry to embark vehicles (in their group). To embark vehicles from other teams, no prob, but internal vehicles. Even when turning the "Inf embark vehicles" to "Yes" in properties-window. Nada.Turning on "Inf embark vehicles" does not make infantry immediately embark their group vehicles, it just means that infantry is 'allowed' to enter vehicles. As per ArmA-behaviour, infantry will only enter after you give a movement command (to a sufficiently distant position) to the group. If its still not working for you, please report back, in case there is a bug.
-
Quote[/b] ]I set-up a Versus mission and it works good but both sides see the waypoint line.which means opfor can see Blufors waypoint lines.
Is there a way to set the lines to side specific?
Thats a confirmed bug in MP and is already fixed for the next version.
Quote[/b] ]Is there a manual available online or for dled yet?Yes, a manual for players and mission editors is included in the addon download.
-
Quote[/b] ]EDIT: yes, confirmed the CEX has problems with leaders of groups that are inside vehicles.Ahh, yes, thats because in case of vehicles, the name you put in the "Name" field applies to the vehicle and not the commander (if the vehicle is named "SectionA", the commander name would be "SectionAc"). I will get rid of this problem. As a safe workaround you can use the init line to define the leader name, e.g.
"SectionA=leader group this".
-
Quote[/b] ]I don't think I have forgotten a closing bracket because Arma would crash if I had, wouldn't it?Depends...I have also forgotten brackets a few times without crash, but resulting in strange in-game effects.
But try the description.ext I had above...its working, just make sure that PltHQ, SectionA and SectionB are the names of the three group leaders.
Quote[/b] ]I noticed that the driver in the same Stryker (in the same group) has access to the CEX as well, or is this intended behaviour (to let every - possibly - human controlled unit check waypoints in MP and so on).Yes, thats the intention (as an option for mission designers). All CEX group member potentially have access to the CEX interface for viewing purposes, but only group leaders can give orders.
-
Quote[/b] ]Here is the errorSelect a unit and CTRL-RightClick to Recreate
Thanks, confirmed and fixed
.Just a general comment to all contributors here: I will not be able to confirm every bug and comment on every wish. Please keep both coming, though ... I am keeping track and do my best to fix bugs and implement new (+ reasonable
) features. -
Not sure if its due to copy-and-pasting an excerpt here, but I think you are missing a closing bracket for the class MountedElement.
Here is the full description.ext that works for me:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class CEX
{
class Platoon
{
IconMap = "COC_NATO_INF_WHEELEDFV_PLATOON";
Callsign = "1st Plt";
Name = "1st Plt";
class PlatoonHQ
{
Leader = "PltHQ";
Name = "PltHQ";
CallSign = "PltHQ";
NameMap = "PltHQ";
IconMap = "COC_NATO_INF_STANDARD_SQUAD";
};
class MountedElement:PlatoonHQ
{
IconMap = "COC_NATO_INF_WHEELEDFV_SECTION";
Callsign = "Mounted Element";
Name = "MountedElement";
class SectionA
{
Leader = "SectionA";
Name = "SectionA";
CallSign = "Sect A";
NameMap = "Sect A";
IconMap = "COC_NATO_INF_WHEELEDFV_SECTION";
};
class SectionB:SectionA
{
Leader = "SectionB";
Name = "SectionB";
CallSign = "Sect B";
NameMap = "Sect B";
IconMap = "COC_NATO_INF_WHEELEDFV_SECTION";
};
};
};
};
Playing as SectionA you should see MountedElement with the subordinate units SectionA and SectionB.
When dealing with classes I highly recommend an editor that has indentation guidelines and matching bracket highlighting, e.g. Notepad++. Here is an example how this looks like: Bracket Highlighting. This is especially important for CEX editing as it is easy to miss a bracket with all those hierarchical unit nestings.
Quote[/b] ]I think there is something wrong with my classes in description.ext or do we have to do further actions for MP usage ?Nope, all you have to is make the appropriate units playable.
-
@UNN
Quote[/b] ]Hoping there is some way to add user defined functions and events to the menu options to?Yes, but documentation on this is scarce at the moment. Take a look at the test mission and its description.ext. Mission Designers can add entries to the top menu-bar, the map context menu, and use a customizable widget, much like the old "Special" menu in CE2, but much more general.
@Nepumuk
Quote[/b] ]I only selected marker for a whole platoon (so no actual unit like the HQ or squad 1,2,3) and changed its properties (behaviour, formation, ROE). Then I checked the HQ unit itsself to see wether the changes have been accepted there but it was not the case, can you confirm this?Intended functionality in this case is that all subordinate units adopt the selected setting...I will check this.
Quote[/b] ]I also believe there is a delay when telling a unit to procedd to its waypoints, is this a built in command delay or am I doing something wrong?There should be no delay when giving a command, but it takes a few seconds before the unit actually performs the order, which is realistic, I think. I can understand that this confuses abit, though. I will include more message responses so that player knows that an order was properly received.
Quote[/b] ]EDIT: About information sharing between units (top down): when a human controls an infantry platoon as HQ and you reveal targets to your HQ group, will the revealed targets be passed down to the squads? I haven't seen it yet but I assume this will be in the final version?Not sure yet, as discussed earlier it would be more realistic (a platoon leader would inform his squad leaders about enemies). But there needs to be some filtering, otherwise a squad could see enemies from the other side of the island. I guess a simple filtering-by-distance would do. Another option would be peer-sharing, i.e. a squad would share its info with other squads in its platoon.
@trinder1
Quote[/b] ]1. Is it possible to have 2 guys commanding each army Like a chess game -OPFOR commander BLUFOR commander.Yes
Quote[/b] ]2. Multiplayer is it possible to disable the Command engine in options so that Only the commanding officer can command the battlefield noy any guy who connects to the server.Yes, choosing who controls what is all up to the mission designer.
@Mike@Uk
Quote[/b] ]I also imagine this would be very good for mods in the future for example Napoleonic Mod / Civil War mod etc with the larger unit stability and being able to order lines of Infantry and Cavalry around from the comfort of your tent.Absolutely!! My personal favourite would be a Star Wars Mod where I could orchestrate the attack on the rebel base on Hoth with CEX
.@Rhodite
Quote[/b] ]Really hoping / looking forward to a MP varientIts already MP compatible ... its just that is a bit buggy in this area
@subroc
Quote[/b] ]One thing that got me a bit dissapointed was that it felt more like a rts game with all the 3d views and options. I really liked the limitation/feature in CE2 that the camera was locked to the squadleaders of the groups.As colligpip noted, this is adjustable by the mission designer. Both a maximum distance Camera<->Player and the maximal camera height above ground can be defined, and the 3D mode can be disabled completely.
@KJAM
Quote[/b] ]Are the Helmet Cameras enabled in this Beta?No, but you can switch to a units leader ("Switch to Unit" in the context menu).
Quote[/b] ]Also, I'm having trouble assigning my squads a transport vehicle, does the vehicle have to be empty? Have Soldiers in on the same side as you or part of the Squad you want it to use?Assigning and embarking a transport only works if the cargo unit only consists of infantry (no vehicles) and there is enough space in the transport unit. To clarify: Assigning a transport does not immediately result in embarking. It just defines a "default" transport for an infantry unit.
-
-
Edit (09-22-2007): Added 0.86 Mirrors
Edit (09-20-2007): New Version 0.86
Edit (09-01-2007): Added Mirrors
Command Engine X for ArmA (CEX) Public Beta
-------------------------------------------------------
The Chain of Command is proud to present the public beta release
of the Command Engine for ArmA.
WHAT IS IT FOR?
---------------------
Like its predecessors in OFP, CEX is a script addon that enables players
to control multiple groups. Units are organized in hierarchical command
chains allowing the representation of real life military units such
as platoons, companies or battalions.
CEX functionality can be incorporated into any mission. Mission designers
have full control over the command structures and can freely assign
command capabilities to the players.
CEX is designed to be fully multiplayer compatible. Players can take any
position within the command structure on any side, be it commander-in-chief,
squad leader or private.
CEX commanders control their subordinate units via an intuitive graphical
user interface which borrows elements found in real-time strategy games.
Despite the intention to grant easy access, the underlying system is
intended as a realistic simulation of higher-level combat in ArmA.
The addon contains several fully playable missions as well as templates
for mission designers to base their own missions on.
IMPORTANT NOTES
-----------------------
1) Please remember that this a beta release. CEX has grown into a sizeable
system, so please expect some bugs and glitches.
This is especially true in multiplayer, where CEX has not received full
testing yet. Currently, only the test mission is MP-enabled out of the
box.
2) We will do our best to make future CEX version back-compatible. We can
not guarantee, though, that missions created for the present version will
work without problems with the gold release version. While you are of course
free to create missions now, please be aware of this possible caveat.
CREDITS
-----------
- Missions by Snake Man
- Template Missions by jens198
- This package contains
- CoC Extended Marker Addon 1.2 by Leonardus
- Network Services Addon 3.0 by Pennywise
SPECIAL THANKS
---------------------
Dslyecxi, Idontno, lwlooz, Pennywise, Walker, and all testers
during the private beta phase.
CHANGE LOG
--------------
- BETA 2 (0.86):
Change: CEX addon coc_cex.pbo
Change: CEX_Test_Mission.Sara, old versions of this mission may not be compatible with 0.86
New: Start Menu Option CEX/Admin Tools/Restart Client ... use in MP in case a command transition
was no properly recognized
Fixed: Completed WPs were not deleted at commander machine (MP)
New: Config Setting 'UnitServerUpdateInterval' ... refresh interval in secs of CEX server;
determines unit responsiveness and server load
New: Config Setting 'InterfaceUpdateInterval' ... refresh interval in secs of CEX UI
New: Config Setting 'PlayerChatMessagesEnabled' ... if false, CEX will not ouptut order confirmation
and status report chat messages originating from a player-controlled unit
New: 4th command layer ... it is now possible to represent Battalion/Companies/Platoons/Squads in CEX
New: Config Setting 'UseArmAMap' ... if true, CEX icons will also be displayed on standard ArmA map
(non-interactively)
Improved: Order reaction speed
Fixed: Infantry sometimes disembarked from an external transport unit when changing behaviour
New: Keyboard shortcuts
F1-F8 -> Toggle select immediate subordinate
~ -> Toggle select all immediate subordinates
Backspace -> Open/close command menu
Page Up/Down -> Navigate command tree vertically
Del/End -> Navigate command tree horizontally
Shift+RMB -> Add WP
Ctrl+RMB -> Move
Ctrl+B -> Behaviour
Ctrl+H -> Halt
CTRL+P -> Proceed
New: GUI message when switching to another unit
Fixed: It was possible to switch to an already dead leader
Fixed: Missing Command Engine option after dying and switching to another leader
New: Config Setting 'ViewFriendlies' ... allows tracking of friendly but non-subordinate units
New: Option 'Remove WPs' in unit context menu
Fixed: Error when reaching 'Converge' waypoint
Improved: Update interval now independent of total number of CEX units
Fixed: CEX callsign was not assigned to group at mission start
New: Config Setting 'Transport' ... mission editor can pre-assign a transport unit
New: Config Setting 'Behaviour' ... mission editor can define initial behaviour state of unit
Change: More frequent casualty reports and feedback messages
Fixed: Non-CEX units could access the CEX interface
Change: Many behaviour modes now use speed mode "FAST"
Fixed: Landing helicopters now stay on ground
New: UI Settings can now be applied on a per-unit basis in the description.ext
Improved: Waypoint transition speed
Fixed: Waypoint lines created by other players were visible in MP
Fixed: Names of leaders commanding a vehicle were not properly handled in description.ext
Fixed: Error when using CTRL+Click to move a unit
- BETA 1 (0.85):
First Public Release
DOWNLOAD
--------------
CoC CEX v0.86 @ thechainofcommand .net
CoC CEX v0.86 @ Gotf.net (mirror provided by Rhodite, thanks)
CoC CEX v0.86 @ Combat-Prison.net (mirror provided by Stavanger, danke)
CoC CEX v0.86 @ Armaholic.com (mirror provided by Big, thanks)
Old versions:
CoC CEX v0.85 @ thechainofcommand .net
Have Fun!
Spinor
CoC CEX Developer
-
Quote[/b] ]will this be followed up by the Arma version of CoC Arty 1.1:-)
I will forward this to the responsible officer
-
Quote[/b] ]For one, am I to assume that all intel is shared? i.e. what an SL sees is what the "Armchair general" sees?Intel is not shared, but gathered at the basic ArmA group level, and then passed on and aggregated to the upper levels, i.e. a platoon leader sees what his squad leaders see, a company leader sees what his platoon leaders see, etc. Each unit at every level thus keeps its own intel picture. Intel is currently not passed from top down, which would be realistic. The info in this direction needs to be filtered, though, to avoid info overload of lower level units (a squad leader does not need to know about units from the other side of the island).
Quote[/b] ]Secondly, how does this affect the players in the lower level? I see alot of eye-candy for the high-level leaders, but does this mean that the players are directed in such a fashion that mimics real life orders? or is it the built-in waypoint system (which in veteran mode is pretty useless)?MP functionality (i.e. player<->player communication) is still somewhat basic, and is being worked upon, but in general every leader within a CEX hierarchy has access to the CEX interface. A squad leader can only see his own squad, and commands from superiors will be displayed within the interface via waypoints as well as through radio chat messages. CEX does not use the built-in ArmA waypoint system, primarily because I wanted more flexibility and CEX also deals with 'virtual' units like platoons, companies etc. Besides, I always found the waypoint system a bit hard to understand
. -
Quote[/b] ]Now the important question... is the public beta release close?By Friday the latest...as mentioned above
-
Quote[/b] ]Not that it matters much with a system like I have, but what kind of performance hit are we looking at here?As always this depends on the number of units and groups you have on the map, but this is true in any mission. CEX should not put a huge demand on performance. Also CEX tries to balance the workload.
Quote[/b] ]I'm also interested in knowing if we're dealing with vanilla ARMA AI or if any changes have been made?No attempt has been made so far to enhance the individual-level and squad AI, other than tweaking parameters like behavior and combat mode. We are running a scripted version of FSM for squad control (waypoint movement etc.), so AI enhancements are possible within CEX. My own interest lies more in platoon-level AI (and above), i.e. how squads can be made to cooperate better together.
Quote[/b] ]where is link for the beta ?We are currently preparing to release the beta. It will certainly be ready by Friday the latest.
Quote[/b] ]Will this be SP compatible? Please say yes. I'm utterly stunned. Incredible.SP is no problem
. Making it MP compatible is a _bit_ harder...but we are getting there.Quote[/b] ] Was wondering if it would be possible to script an "Enemy General AI" that would determine it's moves similar to the old tabletop hexagon strategy games such as terrain, strength of position, send re-enforcements etc...Certainly, that is what I want to do eventually
... making a strategy game out of ArmA ... can not promise when this will be ready, though Quote[/b] ]I wish myself that it is possible, to bind certain commands to certain (hot)keys (F1 - F12 for example).All this freely definably.
Hi Silola, apart from freely definable, this is already implemented, at least for some interface-specific commands like "Show/Hide marker text", "Change marker size". After first release I should have a bit more time to think of a proper default control-scheme.
Cheers, Spinor
-
Quote[/b] ]In fact, I think a majority of people in this community trying to provide a more cohesive and modular structure are doing things completely wrong (CEX included).You seem to know a lot about internals of other project, some of which are not even released yet
.While your suggestions are all sensible and would be an ideal situation, in practice there is always some interplay between the core and the interface. From experience I would say that the interface is the more limiting factor, and I would not want to spend my time on some framework feature and later find out it is diffult or impossible to acces from the interface. Also, as a scripter I find it more fun do work on both simultaneously, as I can immediately see the results and test them.
Dr_Eyeball, keep up the great work. I wish more people would work in this field, as I think it has the biggest potential for providing new game experiences in ArmA.
-
There is a command 'group selectLeader unit' which could be useful for part of the problem.
-
Using the new command ctrlSetPosition, you can easily emulate a progress bar with a plain old colored background control. Lets say you want the progress bar at screen position _x,_y with fixed height _h and a full width _w, you can display a progress bar with:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">_ctrl ctrlSetPosition[_x,_y,_progress*_w,_h];
_ctrl ctrlCommit 0.0
where _progress is a number between 0.0 and 1.0. Using a different commit time other than 0, you can also animate the bar.
-
Quote[/b] ]I'm more a fan of "gosub" (from days way past
) I know that can be done by calling another script, I just like looking at 1 page of code vs having several different scripts open tofollow.
Same here. As a solution, you can simply define private functions within a script, much like you would in C:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">// code
private"_myfunc";
_myfunc=
{
private["_a","_b"];
_a=_this select 0;
_b=_this select 1;
_a+_b
};
// more code
_sum = [1,2]call _myFunc;
As for the topic of exiting and switching scopes, also check out the functions 'scopeName', 'breakTo' and 'breakOut' to assign a name to a scope, and selectively breaking from/to a given scope.
-
Quote[/b] ]The hint in the code above is usually around 113I.e. you click on the building, and the reported distance is 113? Are you positive the correct building is recognized?
-
Short in height or short in x,y? I have not tried my suggestion yet, so please verify that it provides the correct position(s), e.g. by placing an object or dropping a particle effect.
-
To determine the building height you might wanna try the new ArmA 'boundingBox' and 'modelToWorld' commands.
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">boundingBox _building --> [_min,_max]
returns two 3D vectors _min, _max defining the dimension of an object, relative to that object.
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">_min = _building modelToWorld _min;
_max = _building modelToWorld _max
will transform these vectors to proper world coordinates. In general, this procedure should exactly determine the position and dimensions of an object. I am not abolutely sure about the mathematics, but the height of the building above ground level should be given by
Quote[/b] ]_height=_max select 2 -
There is a command 'nearestBuilding object', but this would require the generation of a dummy object at the map click position. As an alternative you could try
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">_obj=nearestObject[_xclick,_yclick,0,"Building"]
If a building is found (check for !isNull _obj), a naive test whether the click is close, try for example
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">[_x_click,_y_click] distance _obj<5
If you really want to get serious to exactly test whether the click is on the building, play around with the intersect command, something like
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">[_obj,"VIEW"] intersect [[_xclick,_yclick,200], [_xclick,_yclick,0]]
but I have no idea whether "VIEW" is a proper LOD name to use.
-
I think in OFP, the group was still counted even if it had zero units in it, but maybe this has changed. To be on the safe side you could use 'deleteGroup _group' to explicitly remove a group.
-
Just to clear this up: A MD5 hash is a number constructed from the content of a file uniquely identifying it, right?
One advantage of using MD5 would be that the system can be less centralized. Using serial numbers, the system work only if there is really just one server that has the authority to give out the number. In addition, with a MD5, there would be no need for including the identifier within a file itself.
Quote[/b] ]1) What if an author (or someone) makes a change to an add-on?If it is enough to break a mission how will you know? In the case of MD5, what if the change is a simply a small bug fix like text change or something that doesn't affect anything? won't the hash change?
Sounds like we would need a team in place to control either when a serial number should change or if it's truly a new version of an add-on.
I think this is better decided by the addon author itself: When uploading a new version of an addon that is backward-compatible, the new hash is treated as an alias to existing ones (with the additional feature that updates can be automatically identified and downloaded).
If the new addon is not backward-compatible or differs much in functionality, it should get a completely new entry.
Quote[/b] ]2) What if a mission uses only a single unit or weapon? Is it still required to download the whole add-on pack?The system would indeed work best if each separate addon has itw own file. There would be no need to organize addons in packs if everybody would adopt the system. I think Addon Packs can still be managed, by using aliases as above, i.e. a single unit/weapon can be uploaded separately or within a pack. The hash of the pack is an alias for the hash of the separate addon (but not vice versa, if I do not get confused here).
One way to realize the system on the user-side is to combine the addon-manager with an OFP (or AA) launch utility. The addon-manager can test the dependencies of all missions and addons prior to starting OFP (mod folders can also be taken into account properly).
For every addon and mission (missions can also be assigned hashes):
1) Calculate hash and send to database server(s)
2) If a new version (hash alias) is available, inform user
3) Retrieve dependency hashes from server or from a local dependency file
[Missing dependencies]=[All dependencies found]-[Local addon hashes]
For every missing dependency:
1) Retrieve download location(s) from database server and download addon from there
2) Optional: Automatically unpack addon to appropriate folder if necessary
This procedure will probably take some time for dozens of addons and mission, so result of a previous scan should be cached.
This system should even work quite well decentralized. There could be several database servers from which to retrieve the data.
CoC Command Engine X
in ARMA - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
Posted
This happens when you open the CEX interface? And when selecting "Properties..."? What mission are you using? Does this happen with a CEX demo mission?
If you look up the word "anti-climactic" in a dictionary you should see that statement as an example
.