LeadCommando65

Almost. To have every crewman invincible you need this: {_x allowdamage false} foreach crew myvehicle Don't know if it works by putting it in the init line. Maybe you need to use a trigger or script etc.

Nice addon, but this would only partly solve the issue. The point is that AIs need to change their stance individually and intelligently. Since there is the bounding overwatch feature, where the AIs are moving one after another to make an approach, every unit needs to change their stance independently, appropriate to the "local" situation given. I wont repeat what the thread starter already has laid out. These changes would resolve the issues everyone should be experiencing. But it seems most people don't notice or found backdoors to undergo that issue (like the addon you mentioned), since I don't feel that there is enough feedback on this problem. Yeah, the description sounds good, but in reality it's not like that. You see some of those points in approach, but for example the stances taken by the AIs aren't adequate.

Is there already a ticket for this (or similar issues) on devheaven? I've searched, but no appropriate results were given. The game really needs improvements on this. Played a stealth mission today and the AI got me killed so much that I canceled the mission, cause it was no fun anymore. It is so much annoying to see the AI make no use of the stance possibilities they have. Sure, you could force them to crouch or prone, but that decreases the mobility of the team and in case of a emergency situation (like getting detected or the need to extract fast) you have to change the behaviour and the stance position (and this costs valuable time). I don't understand and wonder why the devs don't see these problems. This thread exists now more than a half year and there have only been slight changes to the behaviour modes (nearly none, or just related to bounding overwatch). Even that the community isn't more demanding to get this issues solved is confusing me :confused: . Are they all playing solely combat situations/scenarios? I don't believe that. I have to say leading an AI squad has gotten more complex than in good ol' OFP days, where the behaviour modes had a real impact on the real behaviour of the AIs. It's a shame to see such a backstep still persisting in such a great game. :mad: I know AI programming is difficult but since there already are different modes in the behaviour, it can't be that hard to swap the priorities/stance preferences between those modes.

Yeah, still after 1 year of patching, the AI behaviour in "danger" and "stealth" mode lacks some obvious, logical and essential things like described in the first thread. When I'm playing I still don't get the difference between stealth and danger mode, cause the AI is acting more or less the same (besides the whispering voices ...). Especially in stealth mode I have great trouble to sneak up to an enemy position cause every time an AI gets detected because it ran along the field without care. If I don't order them to crouch it's impossible (but that's another order and when it comes to fight you need to be fast to revert that setting ...). AI's are rarely using the new introduced crouch position (at least for moving). That's a real problem.

Have you ever tried to press the mouse button a little bit longer? The longer you hold the button the farther away the grenade will be thrown. Yeah I'm having this problem, too, since v1.00 (OA). Never has been fixed nor I have seen it reported.

Ok, I understand your point, but why playing a difficulty that takes all the fun of your games? Aren't the difficulties customizable? Or use a mod like ace 2 that increases combat atmosphere (no crosshair, better ai etc.)? This way u could still have your saves and play a harder game. These aren't any solutions but suggestions. I don't know if it would work. And about cheating: Why bother to cheat if the game forces you to do it because it's bugged? As I said before, from my point of view, autosave delay doesn't make any sense cause I haven't experienced such problems yet. At least in SP I can say that while in MP games saving doesn't work at all for me (and my friends). But that's another story. Yeah, that was one of the major points why I have bought this game and the campaign coop mode still doesn't work very well (as before: saving in MP is a problem for me).

Where is the problem by just saving manually after you have done these things? Arma is not the game where you can rely on autosaves. Since you can have mutiple saves it's easier to decide when to save: just press the "save" button when you are ready for it :rolleyes: Another point is indeed that allowing a proper autosave is the mission maker responsibility (as said before). And if BIs mission makers didn't do their job correctly (as I assume from your starting post) then consider it a bug. Maybe they can fix this by adding a delay, but I think how they'll fix the problems you mentioned doesn't matter. I know it would be a synergy effect to add a new feature and solve a bug, but I don't really care how a bug is fixed if the fix doesn't influence any other part of the game. Considering this your point only consists of having a new feature implemented and the synergy effect that mission makers faults to set proper autosaves would be prevented. Autosave backup could be nice, but I wouldn't rely on such a thing either. Because they gave you the possibilty to set your own save points whenever you want. So you are in charge to control the game. Think and play.

Ok, that's sth I can't know. It was just meant as a suggestion what could be better (if it's possible to realize). In the end it's best to have sth that works, instead of not having it at all ;)

Hm, haven't seen such missions yet, so from my point of view I would say that it's not very likely to have so many options. Wouldn't a "listBox" (don't know how to call it better; a box like you have in word to choose your font from) fit better for each parameter? Even if you have 50 parameters with 50 options each, it would be still a pain to adjust them. But if you have to change the screen every time it would complicate the process. Having the options and the paramters on screen you could instantly compare the parameter you are changing to the ones you have already set, because they are on one screen.

What would you consider "outstanding issues"? As far as I know, members of the community reported two major bugs which occured with the last few betas: -AI choppers nose up/down rocking, which causes them to crash down very often -> scenarios relying on AI choppers are broken -heavy LOD flickering I didn't test the last betas myself but now that I've installed the new patch I was really disappointed because now I've got the problems, too. I couldn't believe how you could release a version with such obvious issues while you are having the feedback from the betas that these issues exist. Since I can no longer enjoy most of the missions I normally play (even the whole game as for LOD flickering), I really would consider those as "outstanding issues".

The new design is really an improvement. Just one thing which caught my eye: The game parameter screen seems to have a lot of wasted room left, and every option (like duration) seems to have its own screen. Since you have so much space left in the parameters screen, I think it would be better to have lists to pick out your options. That way you don't have to go to a new screen every time to make your adjustments.

Yeah, wouldn't be so good. At least the choppers should be fixed for the final patch.

There you go, that's really more possibilities ;) But comparing to other radial command menus I've seen, 16 per radial is very much. Hm, that's the difference. Personally, I don't really memorize moves that I've done with the mouse. Had this problem since Black&White (if you know this game). I'm more with numbers. Yeah, I won't stand in the way if you wish to leave the old system implemented, because I prefer the actual system (where you could also change some of the commands to update it). I didn't like any of the radial systems implemented in todays games I've played (BF2, OFP:DR, R6:RavenShield, etc).

1) Sorry, I don't understand how it will be expanding the possibilites. I've viewed your examples but I can't see more possibilities: Ok, you have context sensitivity, but what more? The way I could imagine this would be that you have levels to click or more buttons. But this would overload the whole radial system and slow it down. 2) I'll also be staring at the radial GUI and will be searching for the right command, if I'm not used to it. Maybe it's a good a addition for newcomers (cause you can click and use it like a windows menu). But how come they will use the actual radio system if they don't have to? (even if you show them the codes) Additionally, it's not that hard to memorize the codes (will be a little brain practice, too ;) ). The commands are reasonable grouped together by topics (first number you press). 3) I would say, that even increasing transparency won't help much: There's still something on the whole screen, which requires your focus. But if you just have a small side menu, the whole screen is free to look at. Even if you are staring at the left side, you still have peripheral vision of the center of your screen. Moreover, numbers are a more distinct way to command. Having a radial menu, means to be using the mouse. The chance to misclick the buttons is much higher (even if you are talking about newcomers). It takes more time to move the mouse at the right button (and hit it, too). When you are under pressure, you are nervous and maybe make more mistakes. I think it's safer to use numbers and keys because one can hit the same key on the keyboard more often than clicking with the mouse the exact same location (and that's amplified in combat situation and for new users).

Yeah, "mentioned" is the right word. Nobody can help you with such few informations. Two lines of posting aren't enough to describe a problem properly. That's a real shame... hmm, where could this come from. Ah, I know: Your first post only contains two lines of text. Have you ever expected to get a good answer to this? Sorry, I don't believe... You give more information, maybe help will be the answer. It could be so easy.

Certainly voted no. 1) A radial command menu would mean to reduce the number of possibilities in order to have still a clear screen instead of a screen overloaded with buttons because you need to have all functions available. 2) Numbers are tapped in faster than navigating with your mouse. Once you have the numbers in mind and can tap in them blind, the system is much faster than a radial command menu. 3) The current system doesn't block your view. I have always had a bad feeling when using the radial command menu in BF2: you couldn't shoot or exactly see what's going on. 4) It's OFP style

sorry, I can't withstand ... :eek: Things you did wrong: - posted in the wrong section, this goes to editing/scripting - no proper description of your problem (either if it's meant to be a bug or if you just wanted to know how to make your AI guys firing) - reporting a "bug" which seems to be no bug, the devs certainly have to fix more urgent "bugs" than this - I don't think you've used the search button, but that's only a guess Things you did right: - good post title Next time, please, click your brain on before posting, it's so much annoying.

5. Maybe try by using a trigger which gets triggerd right after mission start? I'm not sure but I think I remember something like that groupnames aren't proper initialised before the mission really starts.

The blue part has its quotation mark at the end of every action = "blabla"; line at the wrong place. example (red must be deleted, green has to be applied): action = "closeDialog 0, temp = execVM ""brief1.sqf""[color="Red"]"[/color], temp=createDialog ""time""[color="Green"]"[/color];

Could be. I've got a 8800GT and the performance of Arma2 is great unless it gets to those red broadleaf trees and red bushes. But what about the point, that there's no performance loss at all (or just a small), when you have the pine trees in the scenery instead of the red ones? The pine trees are also looking great and do no harm to performance (at least on my machine), but the red broadleaf trees are a catastrophe. I just don't understand the big gap between these two. Even not to think about that red shrub, which is truly another killer for performance.

You could try "reammobox" instead to see if it works. But the command seems to be ok, the problem must be caused anywhere else.

You need to define the starting location already in the init.sqf. This way you have to setPos the players for each situation specifically. It could look like this: //place in init.sqf _areach = floor random 3; switch (_areach) do { case 0: { player setpos getpos start1; }; //and define tasks for area1 etc case 1: { player setpos getpos start2; }; //and define tasks for area2 etc case 2: { player setpos getpos start3; }; //and define tasks for area3 etc }; It's untested, so I'm not sure if this will work like I said. Let me know, if it does what you want :) Hope this helps.

Hi, my mission uses an eventhandler "killed". It's attached to all playable units and executes a script when triggered. It's like this: //init line of leading player { _x addEventHandler ["killed", "_this execVM ""myFavScript.sqf"""]; } foreach playableUnits; //myFavScript.sqf counter = counter + 1; publicvariable "counter"; //variable "counter" was set to 0 by the init.sqf file Now I've one problem which I couldn't think of a proper solution: When I am hosting the server and an AI unit takes control of the playable unit and the eventhandler gets triggered, the script is executed twice (counter is set to 2, if someone gets killed; every kill on a playable unit adds 2 instead of 1 as it should do). I don't know where that comes from. Is that even possible or do I have overlooked something in my mission that causes the script to be executed twice? Do you have any solution to this? I thought it's one of those freaking client/server things, so that I have to use a command like isServer or local, but I haven't figured out how I can apply it and still have the script properly executed in both situations of dedicated and player hosted servers. Can anyone please help? Thanks in advance. Regards, LeadCommando65 //EDIT: Now I've found out what the problem is caused by, but still no solution: My mission is using the FirstAid modules. When a playable AI, which is not in my group, gets killed, the eventhandler is fired twice (still if hosting the server by myself). I don't know how to workaround this or why it is actually caused by the FirstAid modules. Can you help me, please? //EDIT2: Nevermind, problem solved. The modules broke the eventhandler, so I removed them. But I found a workaround: I used a similar revive script like this instead: doorevive Very bad job of BI. The community has to rescript functions already implemented in the game to make them work properly. :( :( :mad:

Hi, I'm currently working on a mission and I need to determine the group number/position of one or more units of a group. This is necessary to add them later by the joinAs command (now you may know what I mean ;) ). Second, I need to disable the AI's speaking. Since you can hear what other group leaders are calling out, this is, in my case, destroying the atmosphere I want to have in a particular scene. I've search the BIKI up and down to find such commands, but I have to admit, I didn't find any. Could you help me out? Thanks in advance. Regards, LeadCommando65

Great thanks :). That's what I was searching for. I just wanted one unit to be silent at the beginning so it doesn't destroy the atmosphere. Now I'm working on the unit number script and try it the way you said. I'll post it later, so others can use it (only if it works ;) ) //EDIT: here's what I've done so far: //unitNum.sqf private["_grp","_unitx","_unitId"]; _grp = units (_this select 0); _unitx = _this select 1; _unitId = 1 + (_grp find _unitx); _unitId and it can be called by using this: [group,unit] call compile preprocessfile "unitNum.sqf"; Please correct me, if there's anything wrong, cause I'm not a hardcore coder/programmer whatsoever :) Just one last point: This script doesn't return the exact unit position/number: e.g. if there's a group with units 1,2,3,8,9 and you want the unit number of 8 and 9 it will return 4 or 5 for those units, because the array doesn't have gaps for the missing units (4,5,6,7).