Second

Israelis are using various different camonets on clothing. But yes, i could see this to be good&logical solution for S.Sahrani without camonet too. Ofcourse military gear usually is comprimizse of cheap cost, high cost, good looking in parade and in photos, camoflage, easy to get, support to own clothingindustry etc-etc...

Pathy: Camo is praised by those who doesn't know how to use terrain (press your arse down! Behind cover that is!. We played with camo and dark civilian clothes... There was just slight difference. Don't waste your money on too-expensive camo-suit. It does bit more good, but it isn't really that great difference. And besides true men play at dark...

Dunno should this have been posted to addon discussion section, but i'll try this from here. In ArmA as in OFP men in camosuits stand out from ground texture like sore thumb (which means quite strongly ). Is there way to tweak configs (or something else) in anyway so that i would end up not seeing prone SLA-guy in green grass from 150-200 meters? At now, i can clearly see guy in prone from 450 meters (that black dot), no matter what i do in video options. Because ArmA can't fill the field with microdetail (and hide enemy there), this is my next desperate measure to get more immersion and feel-of-realism for the game. In many games this has been handled with fog (i quess fog made it harder to see in early OFP with limited viewdistance too), but in ArmA this won't work as viewdistance can easily be 2000 meters. Can shading at low distances be an answer? I don't mind turning game ugly, but i want more situations where sniping enemies one-by-one (because i can see them perfectly) ain't the correct answer as i simply can't see them. In same way degreasing AI's accuracy isn't standing out like sore thumb (which means quite strongly ). We all would be shooting blind. Can this be made?

Too bright? More like too dark, but as far as I know there are different shades of it, like the M/62 camo. It both dark (colors) if comparing to older real M/91s and yet tpp bright... Like it would have been luminated. I can't say it better.

In ArmA manuver is always not as good option as fire. We would need lots of microdetail serving as cover&concealment. Here something. I'm in hurry so please excuse me about uncoherent (more or less off-topic) thoughts): In Arma-verse you mostly have just clear targets, no just shady idea of enemy's location but sharp profile of enemy. Without suppression, best bet you can do is to fire as few and accurate bullets as possible, both human and AI. Every shot one makes is a report to enemy that: "Hey! I'm here!", lower volume of fire (and kills) means that one survives longer. As long as this applies in ArmA or possibly in ArmA2, suppressive fires are kinda no-no (if one is in range of enemy's fire). With will to fight (suppression) modelled, this isn't so black-and-white. Like with one i wrote: skill-level of suppressed one is downgraded, it halts it's manuver and it's forced to look for cover... Which doesn't mean that suppressed ones would not shoot, they just shoot worse. by this we can have some plussides to use of suppressive fire. But yet, it's not close to being perfect or even good: firefight now becomes more about being suppression-race -> he who gets fireoverpower will destory opponent. But he won't win it's by manuvering. He wins it by being more able to send more lead towards enemy and chewing him dead. This isn't 100% right argument, there are cases in which manuver is necessary to destory enemy. But usually one doesn't have to bother to use suppressive fire (he can manuver freely). This is because ArmA AI works like it works when it uses cover. If AI uses cover it either can't shoot you (you can't shoot it) or then shoot you (you can shoot it) from there. This comes again to AI's skill to use cover. ArmA AI knows how to use it in, let say, "single-mode" (hide behind it. Lying behind sandbags and bushes is 100% same thing in ArmA AI's mind), AI should know how to use it in "dual-mode": 1. hide behind it in maximum cover 2. hide behind it and yet be able to fire at enemy. This means that he can use forexample in two ways, go prone and be safe (maximum cover) or kneel while being able to shoot. Then Adding effect of suppression to determe how much one would spent in maximum cover (unable to fire) + increased level of cover in terrain detail and objects (make it harder for player to spot enemy). Maybe with this recept we could have better and immersive firefights, in which manuver and fire both have meaning, another is to force enemy to keep in cover and make him passive (=fire) while other is to destory enemy (=manuver). Ofcourse there will be instances where fire has destoying value, like letting enemy troops to come in middle of open and then opening fire.

Yup. Constructed ATGMs during OFP days from M2 HMGs (didn't have any mods with infantry ATGMs yet)... definedly not a bug, but a feature.

Other thing with mcrodetail is that AI is poor in using it as advantage. Let's take example from OFP: -Very high terrain detail and player can pop-up, fire few shots and hit the deck (and get into cover), then he can crawl by using dells in terrain (in cover from enemy fire) to new spot and repeat earlier thing. This way each time player pops up he's location is not known to AI and so AI's are somewhat under dogs. High skill AI is another beast in this. Player has to play very carefully and act fast when there is time to act as AI will fire spot&fire in high speed. -In very low terrain detail (quite much like ArmA's terrain is) he can just find trees, bushes, rocks etc as cover, surviving the experience gets much harder. Expacely when AI's skill is high. There is no absolute cover like in very high terrain detail, player can't break contact to AI as because of lack of absolute cover. Game gets harder for player to survive. Which one is better for AI? I would say that very low terrain detail, as AI can fight back player in best way = shooting. AI is poor in using terrain detail as advantge as it can't use pop-up method and it usually can't analyze terrain and movement when under enemy fire very well (forexample using tiny ravines to crawl in absolute cover or fast rushes from hole to hole). I'm sure AI can do that in some degree but not in optimal way, like careful player can. With very low terrain detail it's quite much volume&accuracy of fire which matters... Pretty much like in ArmA. Here's one basic difference between AI and player: Conserning mostly about very low terrain detail. AI: Ofcourse it's not complitely about using just firing as effectively as possible, there are features in terrain which enables survival in very low terrain detail too... Which might not be very logical: advantage of terrain bases more into getting as much men into there and having them Line-of-sight to enemy than with coverness of terrain. Defending squad hiding among bushes might easily become underdog to attacking squad who comes across open space, as attacker can deliver high amount of accurate fire at any defender who opens fire. If only few defenders can fire at attacker at time (rest of defenders can't establish line-of-sight to attacker), so basically there are forexample 9 attackers vs 2 defences (rest of defending squad cann't have line-of-sight to attacker) = Attacker wins. This way they chew defender one-by-one and eventually win. If AI could form unified killzone where all of them are capable to see and fire, then defender could win. Player: will choose proper firing positions very fast, but yet is bit of underdog against opponent with better firepower. Very high terrain detail: AI:With very high terrain detail this isn't so clearly about this. Attackers line-of-sight has been broken as well because terrain features are much more broken, half of attackers can be lying down and not see a thing, defenders might be lying in dells from where they can shoot to one direction and can be shot just from one direction (basically). Player: will choose proper firing positions very fast, firepower's effect reduces while use of terrain gets more important. AI is under dog.

No it shouldn't be. It just makes leader and soldier unwilling to issue and perform engage-orders. Great command for passive behaviour. Same effect can be reached by using disableAI "target". This atleast with all pre 1.09 ArmA versions. What you mean is disableaAI "autotarget".

Okay i misread then your post. Ever-never has happenend to me... To me this is very open space (if not including cropsfields): I don't have much experience with wild grass plains or such, just what i've seen in pictures. It's either marsh, forest, cropsfield or lake in here. Ofcourse movement is plain open (like sand-field) is easily visible. But how big precent of non-arid terrain is like this?

Did you try the new good order: 'soldier enableattack false'? Don't use 'soldier disableai "target"'... i don't remeber what was problem with it, but there was something. Yet in 1.09 i'm pretty sure that my troops actually do engage even if they shouldn't (enableattack has been set to false). I'm not even close to be 100% sure, just had nasty feeling when playing missions which i made.

True true. It's easy to say that everything can be done in ArmA... But hardly ever they actually are done. I am quilty too in this. Usefulness forexample 'towable weapon'-script is almost zero, it's neat ofcourse but takes quite a effort to get right (half year as a unreliable beta version with minor or major bugs before finished, isn't funny). I've simulated it with truck driving next to howitzer, then howizter moved with 'setpos' to distant island. When truck reaches it's next waypoint, artillery is placed on ground next to truck. Few scripting commands used (didn't need to write .sqs). Did do the thing.

Ai or player do not see, i'm 99% sure. This conserning 1.08

No-no. I tweaked island's textures, not textures of soldiers. It was able to hide varios different kind troops and different kind camo suits (didn't favor default SLA, US or RACS but hid them all well). Idea was that ground tetures had so many broken forms (basically each pixels side-by-side had bit different color in them) and variety of colors was so great that player can't pick up small details, like prone men, easily but needs to consentrate for long moments as ground-texture itself is so 'noisy'. I also thought that it would be able to hide movement, but sadly it wasn't. Idea was to try if this way it would be possible to "simulate" lacking shadows, microdetail and clutter to long distances (this would be easy to do to Sahrani) and then to see if that gives new vibes when playing Arma... Ugly looking? Yes. Basically it's idea was to force player to consentrated on spotting more. But because movement is clearly visible on camoflaged ground texture, it won't work. Edit: @NoRailgunner: I can clearly see man crawling in southern grassland at default grawling speed at 400-300 meters distance in ArmA, that guy is going directly away from me (this kind movement is harder to spot than movement going sideways). I think i can see his heels and shoulders moving. It is't that hard even in northern taller grass, head and heels are drawn to screen so they are visible aswell. This is in ArmA with 1280x1024 resolution. In real life... Not with my slightly below average eyesight I know two guys who could be able to see that but there are about 0.1% chages that human has that good eyesight.

with ease Oh-oh. I found another flaw, very bad flaw: Why doesn't troops shout combat-signal like "AXE!" or "VODKA!" when there are other friendlies in vicinity and fierze close-range combats blazing with enemy? Right now i shoot and frag my own blokes far too easily. This should be hotfixed immediatly.

Island can be build for that small height differences... Atleast theoratically. I made island which was almost full of "bumbs" which could be used as a complete cover, kneeling position was required to be able shoot over them... AI just sucked with them (they mostly were prone behind bumbs and didn't participate in combat by rising on their knee). I don't know how well wipman's idea would work out, but there wouldn't be this problem (atleast so freguently). I created kind of digicamo-textures for Rahmadi and it did hide stationary troops somewhat well (it took time or luck to spot them at longer distances with ironsights), but even small movement was way too easy to notice. North Sahrani with it's longer grass might work better, but i think that it's not worth of try.

Yeah, result was bit too extreme, window's paint isn't best tool for this Have to start re-learning the use of gimp again and tweak few existing surface-textures with different methods and color patterns.

You have solid points. We have reached harmony One thing would be to make textures different by adding lots of detail (colors and shapes) in them, expacely dark ones. Still player after short 'getting used to'-phase most likely can filter the details from textures and spot men... Hard to say anything about this without trying... Is there easy way to tweak Rahmadi's textures to have spots with different colors? Does anyone know? I've made only few islands and my wisdom is limited to just basics. Infact i tried Rahmadi with 3-4 times bigger clutter which was visible to 500 meters Did hide the men somewhat well + did cause "minor" laq... Well, that was stupid idea in the first place. I still haven't found way to rise height of hovering textures, they might be hard coded and by so not acessible to modder. It doesn't hurt to try, altough i'm starting to think the thing from your point of view... And i do agree with it. But yet, i really-really-really would like that this thing with me and ArmA could be sorted and fixed, or atleast tried. I'm not the from-flower-to-flower person after all, but like more decent commited relationships. Yeah, thanks for explanation: So i understood your explanation in first place (good for me) and have to agree with that. But yet i could try this, altough i haven't found a way. EDIT: Wasn't hard to add new textures for few locations of Rahmadi... Basically texture was full of black and dark green spots. Will have to try some more. But small results i did spot: -from air men in ground was hard to spot, player might have nasty side-effects like... i dunno, a headache maybe? -On flat ground it's very much dependant about luck, and dependant of angle as well. Sometimes hill (and black spot in texture) behind man was enough to make him very-very hard to spot. Sometimes result was not so encouraging. Has to dig-in deeper tomorrow. -Map looks UGLY at air (not nice for those who likes to fly) but gives nice (yet false) impression of rough terrain at distance.

Killing field usually was not full of corpses and wounded. Mostly there were left just few dead and wounded ones, not whole companies or even paltoons were usually wiped out, after long week(s) lasting battles companies could melt into platoon-sized. With loosing "viewlock" i agree, this however can be received without camo during WW2, by use of small features of terrain. I know few instances where they added naturematerial to helmets and clothing, but this wasn't very common as troops didn't feel that they should do this: nature itself was enough. Camo gives better concelment for man, but it's is possible to find good concelament without camo-suit (if color isn't complitely opposite to surroundings, it truly has to be opposite). OFP resistance gave good resemblance with very high terrain detail (Ai wasn't that good at using it after all), sadly i can't make Sahrani's surface to become samekind. I'm not sure do i understand what you saying. But yes AI can become problem (well it's some amount of it already), i don't know can it be brought to balance with some tweakings. Hmm... Can someone recommend me some good retextured sodliers which aren't visible to long distances. I haven't much used them, only BIS standart troops. EDIT: Tried out with Cameron McDonald's praised ACU men (sure looks good), they had bit less visible camo, but yet it was not problem spot them at 300 meters from Sahrani's longest grass. Problem is the face and weapon, i can pick up man's face from those distances... then again civilian in blue clothing (without weapons) and lying down was much harder to spot, almost impossible... So as clearly can be seen: It's not about camo-specs and other tactical-wanking but about skills in fieldcraft other knows something about being hard target, others have just sat on their arses and shot a lot at traning targets. (yes this is a juke)

No. And like i said that wasn't 100% correct of what i'm looking for, but giving somewhat accurate picture of it what i'm after: Even when you know that there they are, you still can't pick but couple of details (and locations) from whole squad. Like i said, terrain is full of microterrain. I can vanish to there in one second: just hit ground and maybe move sideways to be less predictable. I've seen this happen and i've done it myself: Guy rushes, dives and vanishes (no bushes or anything clear obstacle in between). I can shoot that spot where i saw him last time, but i will not have clear picture of him. Pardon me, but this has happened as close as at ~100 meters and i was in defence (drill's opponents were attacking across open space in flat area, not best area for cover but yet they found them on way to our positions. And this wasn't last or first time) Man is good at hiding even in unprepared way. Didn't my German, Finn, Russian non-camo ww2 era fieldsuit example give any light to this subject (or didn't you read it?) I'm not willing to fill whole 2000x1000 meters space (Company's zone of attack&hold) with additional bushes, rocks and trees... That would means 10 000 objects at minimum EDIT: Is there a way to increase height of that clutter-simulation-thing? I'm meaning that extra layer on top of ground which is drawn to distance to simulate clutter, hiding some amount of prone men. I haven't found a way to increase it's height.

Nothing else?!? I'm supprised as i was sure that it presented somewhat grayer color-pattern... Well i quess you know about this bit better than me Well anyways: It worked like miracle, i enjoyed when i mostly could pick just sideways movement at longer distances.

I'm not forcing anyone else to use it, i'm just looking for miracle cure for myself. AI should most likely to be tweaked as well. Hard to say what is right thing to do, as this far i can't find way to make seeing prone man harder to 100-200 meters distances. They were not prepared positions in that video, guys were using just microdetail of terrain (small holes, clutter etc.), and video itself was tweaked to make it darker. Man is skillful and fast at looking for cover, it takes less than second do select good spot from vicinity (microdetail) and there is plenty of it even in wild grass fields (not to talk more rough or wooded terrain). Problem with prepared positions in ArmA is that they too stand out like sore thumb (which means quite strongly) from ground texture. Then you jus start to fire at them like madman. SLA camo on grass field is well visible at 400-500 meters if one knows to look for it (i do spot them with ease by using ironsights), that camo pattern should be quite close to grassfiled. I'm just wondering how did troops in ww2 be able to hide themselves with German dark grey or Finnish light grey fieldsuits, or russians in their brown. They could be lying down if assault was failure and yet enemies watching the killingfield didn't see or shoot them. Also killingfield wasn't that killing place to be if one did go prone and did stay low and did not move (Snow and other suit than snowsuit was deadly combination for it's user, however). Mostly men were shot at other positions than prone, or at close distances. Standing or kneeling and of course movement is another case, you expose yourself much more. Also wondering how does rabbits make themselves so invisible with their brownish fur in middle of lush green summer ... And fox with it's redish fur Howcome animals doesn't wear camosuits? Mothernature must be stupid Dwarden: Seems that these things are hard coded. I've used this day to study this (few hours is usually enough to find miracle-cure for these kind things ) and no success this far. EDIT-like-tenth-time-already: Ofcourse nothing would beat actual microdetail which hopefully will be introduces in ArmAII. What we would need is lots of different shapes (ravines, holes, ditches, bumbs), colors, objects on ground. Which would simply "overdrive" our ability to pick small differences in terrain. I just started to think other ways to, poorly, simulate this.

This is douplepost, sorry, but i just bit of a attention. Here's best example i've found from internet conserning subject what i'm after (guys are lying in view but yet eye can't pick them up): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSVsYcyeS4k Not 100% like that (screen is small and dark + shadows) but that can be seen in reality aswell. Right now i can see those pesky enemies at 300-400 meters atleast from point when i'm aware of them (those little black dots in green/brown ground texture). Here few possible solutions, don't know can these be made. A. Either cameleont-effect or blur to men. I think most problem is that gun and possibly combatvest is drawn to distance. camosuit itself is harder to see, but yet visible when looking carefully. I don't know this kind config-parameter. B. Fill area with random shaped (yet small) dots of various colors (to give illusion of microdetail). Risk is that player can still learn to "filter" men from dots. This is atleast somehow doable by scripting... I would quess

It came to my mind when thinking differences between vanilla OFP and WGL. I'm pretty sure they did something somehow to it, men are harder to see at longer distances and in prone... But i could be wrong.

Hi Malick I don't see anykind problem, so keep on working and publishing what you can make. You and anybody else really shouldn't even be asking my permission As someone might have quessed i'm not scripting for ArmA anymore, so it's good to see that there are others who keeps on working with ArmA. Ah! So that is the source of error, never did that come to my mind and it's soooo logical and easy explanation Ps. About these "copyrights": i'm not demanding anyone to ask permission form me with tweaking and publishing scripts and i'm not demanding to keep the name as second's suppression pack. If, forexample, Malick wishess to make 'Malick's suppression pack' he has every right to do so. I don't actually know community's rules on this one, but they can't forbit this, can they? This just in case that person can't get contact with me.

There is great difference with cover seeking and moving routines. -Cover seeking provides very accurate spot to where AI will move (less than 0.5 meters) -Moving has much more bigger area in where AI can think that it's movement is completed. By this moment I would like suggest to BIS that it will put it's (quite fine) cover seeking method to even better use in comming products they should seek cover from close area every time they are not moving in aware, combat, stealth behaviours -> we have +1 in ArmA II 'battle drill'-section. This way AI will seek cover before tending wounded etc.