LeadCommando65

Wow! It's now ten months since my ticket has been on the bugtracker. Now it got solved in one week. Are you serious? I didn't believe this bug would ever be solved cause there was no reaction or focus on this issue although I tried to get attention on the ticket here and by the time I posted, many AI related fixes were made in the betas. However, nothing happened. Not to mention this is a gamebreaking bug, if you play mainly infantry in mission which include vehicles. I gave up bughunting and reporting due to the experience so little attention was drawn on such major bugs. Sorry, I just had to get rid of this thoughts... I'm really happy it got fixed (and that things are still getting fixed in such an old game), but I don't see why this bug was not estimated higher priority having the consequences of this bug for gameplay in mind.

I think this would be funny one or two times, but it will get annoying very soon. This sounds like it would complicate controlling the player character even worse more fumbling. No, thanks.

Thanks a lot :bounce3: Reviewing my post now, my words were too harsh, cause it seemed such a big error was ignored. I didn't think of the great effort you put into supporting a long ago released game. This support of a game is one major fact, why I have and will always return to it.

Is there a way we'll see some "real" bugs fixed in the near future? I'm just asking cause I have the feeling since a few months there are only small engine improvements, tiny AI optimizations which cause other bugs that are fixed with the next beta patch. I'm missing some fixes for the real gamebreaking bugs/AI misbehaviours still existing in this game. Just look the signature of some people (or for example my own). I stopped playing A2 because of this bug http://dev-heaven.net/issues/18846. It's no fun to play infantry vs. vehicles, if you know that the AI is overpowered because of a bug. I don't want to complain about the bug fixing priority BI chose (if you could call memory allocation improvement as bug fixing). But if I know that these major bugs won't get fixed soon, I can save me the time and disappointment coming here and check for new fixes which would make the game better.

I'm also with the others: DMM seems to be too heavy performancewise for games like the arma series. But I agree, that the vehicle destruction system should be reworked (if it's not already the case).

The devil hides in the details - at least for me. Placing objects, balancing the mission, setting up objectives & finish triggers, and so on ... But also finding a good place on the map can be time consuming, although I haven't experienced it as much negative as the design of the details (voted on the detail stuff). Also testing the missions costs very much time, especially if it's a larger mission (playtime/area/unit count). My missions are mostly small coop missions (2-8 players). I'm using as much scripting as the mission requires which heavily varies for each mission, but this has never been a problem for me. I managed to release only one mission so far, cause I don't have so much time. Sadly, all the other good ideas remain in my brain or as unfinished scratches of mission in the A2 folder.

These two have grasped the core of OFP, which made the game so great and which where unfortunately not achieved by the following titles. My own view only adds to that: Where OFP had many simple missions with clear objectives put together, Arma2 missions had much more freedom. This is not bad as this has also worked for OFP (think of user missions). But the gameplay of Arma2 really suffers from the complicated AI and therefore this freedom and its atmosphere is broken. I would also support another point, which has been said here already: The factions of Arma2 are very unbalanced. This wouldn't be a problem, but it is, indeed, cause you feel this in every mission. In OFP, men with guns stumbled in war, who were in fear and sorrow, knowing this could mean the end of their life. Arma2 is full fearless guys, who are lusting for gunfights, throwing their lives away, knowing nothing can kill them. This does not create any atmosphere. I don't remember a single mission in Arma2 (or lets take OA, cause it had stricter missions), where you had to retreat. For OA, every objectives given, also had to be and was achieved sometime. PMC had potential, but was very short (every mission was a show of one feature) and also suffered from the sluggish AI (vehicle- and infantry-wise), which destroyed the feel of the missions. OFP had an AI which was distinct, fast and followed its orders. You were in control of the situation regarding your troops, but not necessarily regarding the mission. And this did the trick of the gameplay.

20 FPS :eek: ? I couldnt play like that... If you reduce some settings A2 will still look great (or even the same as on maxed settings if you dont compare every pixel) and you will have a better performance. Just my opinion.... I experienced Arma as a game thats very dependent on the individual system setup you use when it comes to FPS improvements. But I think (and noticed at least for myself) that performance increased with every patch and is currently much better than earlier versions. Additionally every patch contains a huge amount of fixes you should definitely not miss.

Fully agreed. When I began playing around with the Arma2 editor, and tested a few scripts I was first confused. The game showed no error messages about my scripting mistakes like I was used to. Now I have the error messages turned all the time. Moreover, I think this is also a benefit for new players or players, who don't use the editor. They get aware that something did not work correctly. Additionally for user missions tested by editor laymen it could improve the reports of errors.

This: - Remove object avoidance of driver while player is commander of vehicle and gives direct orders ("Forward","Left","Fast", ...) - AIs should copy the crouch stance of the player, too (like it is already applied for prone stance) - View LODs of some bushes are not accurate (-> causes the AI appear to have Xray vision) http://dev-heaven.net/issues/18845 - Camouflage doesn't work properly in forest (surfaceType = CRForest1) http://dev-heaven.net/issues/12144 - AI vehicles have 360 degree sight after target acquisition http://dev-heaven.net/issues/18846

Operation Colossus Outline: Your squad is ordered to infiltrate a state controlled by renegade troops. The tasks are simple: The leader of the enemy troops, Aleksey Markova, his right hand Mikhail Prontaljew and their elite guards must be eliminated at all costs. Additionally, a small group of soldiers is missing in the operation area, which shall be rescued. You will face a huge area full of enemy patrols, where you have to find a way through to fulfill the objectives. Background: Some of you may remember a great mission made by JoergF from mapfact: Operation Nebelreiter It was one of the missions that impressed me the most. I wanted to bring back that feeling to ArmA2. So don't be surprised if you notice any similarities between those missions :) Features: more than 900 square kilometers of playground dynamic enemy routes & objective locations - every playthrough will be different! unique locations around the gameworld supports up to 8 players respawn system + revive possibility SP & MP support appr. 3 hours of gameplay (or more, if you want) There are two versions of the mission: - with respawn: co08_OpColossus_resp_v10.pbo - without respawn: co08_OpColossus_v10.pbo - singleplayer: sp_OpColossus_v10.Chernarus.pbo You can play the mission with up to 7 AIs, so there are no additional players required to join your server, if you want (-> SP). There is also a SP stand-alone version now, if you prefer. Copy the sp_*.pbo to your ...\ArmA2\missions\ folder, so it appears in the scenarios dialog. Requirements: - ArmA2 Download: v1.0 - co08_OpColossus_v10.zip (multiple mirrors) Operation Colossus Co-08 (@) (armaholic mirror) Version history: # v1.0 - 04/13/2011 - initial release Known bugs: If you find any, please report.

After hours of copy&paste and replacing, it's done. The SP stand-alone version is now downloadable together with the other versions. I enabled teamswitch in the SP version so it's easier to equip your teammates.

AIs always equip at the nearest gear option they can find. Just send them to the ammocrate first and then order them to equip. I see that it's not very comfortable this way. The mission was originally designed for MP and I adapted it later that it works also with AIs activated (->"SP"). Hm, I tested the respawn system again and could not find any issues. Are you using any mods? Which version of A2 do you have? Any special actions (objectives fulfilled etc.) before the problem occured? I will look into the possibility of converting the mission, so there can be a SP stand-alone version.

I used a free hoster so right click won't work, that's right. But I tested download again and it works. Anyway, I changed the link to a mirror site.

Thanks for testing (answered you on the bug tracker). Regarding your vehicle test: Interesting results. I'll try your setup to examine this, thanks.

You might want to try that: AI tank test I experienced the same as Tonci87, but also observed another strange behaviour. See the test mission. It's self-explanatory.

Can you please test other bushes as well? Because my own tests show signs that not all bushes have a correct viewblock LOD. See here: bush view LOD tests

Have you played the test mission(s)? I believe no, cause what you are saying about my missions, is not correct. Just play the missions, before you are judging about my tests... :mad: You can even modify the missions (what a wonder :rolleyes:) to suit your test conditions. The enemy is always facing away from the player, but in case of the player I have tested both: player facing away at mission start and player facing the enemy at mission start. It makes no difference. Sadly, I saved the missions after the second test conditions so you need to turn the player around manually. But I think you can do this by yourself.... I have also included a negative control, which excludes the possibility of detection in case the bushes are created after the characters. If you have read my post carefully, you would have seen that the first test gave a negative result about the detection at mission start. Your arguments were long disproved by my earlier post....

I never said the AI cheats nor did I say, that AI can see through bushes. My intent was to give a new impulse on the issue that people sometimes have the feeling that the AI has X-ray vision. I suggested further investigations cause the thread creator had the ambitions to do some "research" on this issue which could be very helpful to reveal the cause of people still complaining about X-ray AIs. I created some simple and fast test missions regarding the bush type and level of exposure: AI_bushtests.zip In every scenario the player stands behind a bush, which should cover him clearly, at least for human eyes. The "kav" box in the upper left corner displays the knowsabout value of the enemy soldier. Settings: skillFriendly=1; skillEnemy=0.55000001; precisionFriendly=1; precisionEnemy=0.55000001; ArmA:CO 1.59/1.09 And here's one picture from my test: Can you see the soldier which is detected by the player character? (The other AI in the group waits on the other side of the map.) My test results: AItest_bush: no detection; enemy does not see player or vice versa; crouch/prone/stand has no effect AItest_bush2: detection of enemy immediately after mission start; enemy can also see player in standing position; if player crouches/is prone, no detection occurs AItest_bush3: detection of enemy immediately after mission start; player gets shot only in prone position, but detected by the enemy in every position (knowsabout 4) In all scenarios the player should not be able to detect the enemy soldier as his view is blocked by the bush (and vice versa). It would be very interesting, if someone gets other results or confirms this. If this gets confirmed, there are definitely one or more major bugs out there, which allow the AI to see through particular bushes in certain situations. (Ok, now I did it ;) ...)

It would be interesting how much of the hiding soldier has to be "unblocked" by the view LOD to make the AI see it. As you could imagine, if the AI detects a soldier hiding behind a bush because his left toe was exposed, you would might say the AI can see through bushes. I'll try to make further investigations on that as soon as I have the time.

+1 At least "NOT UP" is needed. The position of the AI is one of the major things still annoying me when I play. I would even go as far that it should be also applied to the "stealth" mode. In OFP, AIs went immediately prone when ordering "danger" or "stealth" (in stealth mode they even stayed entirely prone while moving etc.). I wish we could have some of that behaviour back (without ordering the forced position separately; that's a matter of time in combat situations and annoying to issue it every time). As for A2, there is now the possibility of crouching. So the crouch position has to be the "keep low limit" in "stealth" or "danger" mode. But the AI still has to be able to go prone. Would be really nice to see the AI make more use of the crouch position. I rarely see them moving while crouched, only while they are taking cover behind objects. Like CarlGustaffa said, something like "NOT UP" is necessary. It's long due.

Using the map can't be the solution since enemies wouldn't show up on the map in real life (like you mentioned). One should be able to determine the position of an enemy soldier solely by the information (and the clock, if information is based on it) provided by the friendlies. My own experiences have me often open the map and check where the enemies are because I can't pin them down using the AI information. Compared with OFP I rely on the map much more than in A2/OA. Playing OFP I could just walk around and rely on the direction and distance given by my AI mates to locate the spotted enemy soldier and engage it properly. Now, in A2/OA I see myself in many cases opening the map, looking where the enemy symbols show up and trying to estimate the enemy's position (rather bad) in the game world.

Steam is good for small games that dont cost much. I dont like having my money bound to some voodoo digital platform I cant touch. Games get bound to one single account if this account is lost every game is lost (just one example: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1402102). I want to be sure and without worries that I can play the game whenever I want that. It's good if you provide your games on steam, too, but dont make them steam only. Some of us still like the old way of buying and storing games.

Yeah, that's it. AI in Arma2 behaves way too much independent. I know many people requested that, but I think the AI programming and the technology doesn't have the power at the time to allow an AI to act freely in the way it is applied here. The AI even decides when to shoot if you have told them to hold fire. I often have the feeling of loosing control over the team when I'm leading. In good old OFP days you could be sure that the AI you are controlling is that much dumb that it (a) is easily killed if you don't care, BUT (b) also follows every single command of yours very strictly :eek: Now it is much more complicated to control your squad cause you don't know how they'll act in certain situations (e.g. shooting even if hold fire is called out; thats reality, but inapropriate for effective gaming) and cause every action of AIs takes very long to be completed (especially under fire). Additionally you can't accelerate the process by setting their behaviour to another state because they do it on their own! This takes away much reliability of the AI mates and a great portion of the leadership feeling is lost. :(

Not so fast. First I rather want to see the chopper and LOD bugs (which were introduced in 1.55) resolved. This is so much annoying.