Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

600 Excellent

About nkenny

  • Rank
    Master Gunnery Sergeant


  • Interests
    I live here, Really.

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Oslo, Norway

Recent Profile Visitors

1647 profile views
  1. @Asmodeuz For reasons for network traffic, debug information is not transmitted globally. In other words, you can only see debug information for local units. I.e., units spawned or controlled on your own machine. An easy check to see if the mod is running is to see if you have the CBA settings available. 🙂
  2. Hmm. Keep in mind that when you are 'reseting' insignia, you are doing so only locally. The correct reset would happen just before you assign it: Also via a remoteExec: // reset insignia [_unit, ""] remoteExec ["bis_fnc_setUnitInsignia", 0]; // add insignia [_unit, _insignia] remoteExec ["bis_fnc_setUnitInsignia", 0, true]; NB third argument for add insignia. The true should make the update persistent for JIP. Not sure how well it plays with players whom have died multiple times however. The most sensible place to the assign insignia function would be only at the end of whatever gear scripts you are using. Surely newly joined or newly dead players also go through a gearscript of some sort? Or is it written directly into InitLocalPlayer.sqf and onPlayerRespawn.sqf. For performance reasons you would do well to create a functions library of some sort, then compile all of these commonly used functions into memory. 🙂 -k
  3. Everyone has to start somewhere. 😉 By optimised, I mean just that. However, I'm not sure the logic/significance by which insignia is assigned to units. Hence I could offer no improvement to it -k
  4. Hi @fawlty Didn't see your post before now. Haha that is pretty evil! Which is it? Do you want the drones to drive closer or stop before they reach the victim? 🙂 -k
  5. Despite the warnings from the Biki, the only way I've found to get insignias to show consistently is by remoteExec. You can call the function directly, no need to bis_fnc_call it. Example: [player, "SPAR_LIO3"] remoteExec ["BIS_fnc_setUnitInsignia", 0]; Instead of modifying onPlayerRespawn and initLocalPlayer, have you considered writing a single function which loads after the loadout scripts are done? It seems to be the more effective solution. i.e., assignInsignia.sqf /* assignInsignia.sqf configures unit insignia Argument 1, unit <OBJECT> Return unit */ // init private _unit = param [0, player]; // switch-case private _insignia = _unit call { if (str(_this) in ['Wolf1']) exitWith {"SPAR_WOL1"}; if (str(_this) in ['Bear1']) exitWith {"SPAR_BEA2"}; if (str(_this) in ['Lion1']) exitWith {"SPAR_LIO3"}; // etc // also -- this string check could definitely be optimised }; // add insignia [_unit, _insignia] remoteExec ["bis_fnc_setUnitInsignia", 0]; // end _unit
  6. @kju Stance and combat modes I mention stance because in combination with the cover system present in Arma3 you will get a reasonable combatant. Stance -- not necessarily fully dynamic -- is something which could fit within the 'combat mode' packages you've described above. With that said, toggling group stances is something one can do with reasonable ease through the command menu. Specifically the old one, i.e., the Operation Flashpoint era one which is hidden behind the quick-menu. Just press the correct button. Persistent menu options That is the context in which I mention the '6 action menu'. Press 6 and a list of available actions will be shown. The problem is that this list is populated with a mess of options. There is no system and absolutely no persistence. In the stress of combat, it would be convenient to be able to quickly press, F2 (Soldier) - 6 (menu) - 1 (treat self), to make the AI treat itself. Key being that option 1 is _always_ the same. It is consistent. This also removes the need to walk over to the AI and use the 'quick' menu with its sometimes annoyingly fluid options. Retreat I have experimented quite a bit with ways of getting the AI to break off combat. Most of the time it is possible to disable various AI features, but if the currentCommand is 'ATTACK', the only reliable way I've found is to remove that unit from the group then re-add it. Cumbersome to say the least. For context: https://github.com/nk3nny/LambsDanger/blob/master/addons/wp/functions/fnc_taskAssault.sqf Building interaction I've spent a fair amount of time getting AI into and out of buildings with LAMBS AI. What I mean when I brainstorm a better user interface is a system which marries easily to the existing one. Select one unit and it will render the exact building position the AI will seek. Select many, and it will still only show one. The other units will mill uselessly about. Idea: Have the accompanying units instead move to the next nearest defined buildingPos. Simple. Easy. Intuitive and useful. Suppression The interface is to select a unit, point at something, press alt, scrolling down, all while avoiding looking at the wrong thing, selecting the wrong action, and so on. Hardly ideal. I do agree that conceiving of a better system is not so easy. The benefit of having a system by which a timer (however crude) could be defined is that often a single burst of suppressive fire is insufficient to let the AI move forward. Often a continuous volley of two or three is required. If the player is part of the maneuvering element, he or she will often choose a path of concealment-- which precisely makes it impossible to use the 'quick' interface. I do not agree that suppression is ineffective. Quite the contrary. While less so against players, AIs under suppression suffer dramatic drops in accuracy: https://www.nopryl.no/smfprod/index.php?topic=6908.msg88120#msg88120 also: Misunderstandings Perhaps I am misunderstanding the type of feedback or scope of project you are working on. I was conceiving this as a expansion or modification of the existing 'quick command' menu and the background 'Operation Flashpoint' styled one. Cheers, Ken
  7. @JD Wang It affects every unit, but should do so without causing any issues. Of the two, only vehicle crew have any special interaction with their vehicles-- that is, turreted vehicles will engage in very aggressive suppressive fire against buildings and suspected enemy positions. Turning off the LAMBS unit AI is the equivalent of disabling AI "FSM". When I make missions I do so on units which require extra fine control, or that I want to be dumber-- for whatever reason. 🙂 @gerhart You can read our license here: LICENSE. All code is available from our gitHub. The shortest interpretation of the license is that we do not allow reuploads on Steam which may appear to be the 'official' version-- and that we do not allow for monetization. We also ask that in the spirit of openness, you release your source code. The earlier versions of the mod are more standalone and do not require CBA. Simpler structure is probably easier to maintain and modify as well. I'll check your mission later. Looks cool. @Knight81 That depends on the use. In theory mod only needs to be run on entities, servers or clients, that are expected to host or control AI forces. In practice, this is usually limited to the Server and Headless clients, and any Zeusing player. I Also, as is noted-- if mission makers start to use certain specialised Waypoints and sub settings (these are marked in the UI), this may cause mission mod dependencies. In which case: any connecting clients will be asked for the mod. All in all, the mod is fairly lightweight and can easily be run on all clients with little to no performance penalty. If run simply as an enhancement of existing content: only servers, headless clients, and potential Zeusers. If run as a integral part of mission making: all servers and clients. -k
  8. @Unleashthepain It may be the Reaction state triggering on your own group. It only happens once combat is initiated however-- and only one time. You can toggle this option in CBA configuration. @oldy41 There are no such features present in the mod. Perhaps something else is interfering? 🙂 @domokun Glad you enjoy it. We're working hard to maintain compatibility across any scenario. I actually haven't tested singleplayer all that much, admittedly most of the more extensive testing happens in an MP environment. With that said, because the mod doesn't interfere with existing waypoints or other settings-- it should work fine. -k
  9. @JD Wang At the moment, no. It is what I would like to cover with the profiles concept. Basic idea being that instead of solely tuning skill settings-- which are opaque at best of times-- you simply trigger a profile selection. I guess in hindsight defensive could be one of them. -k
  10. I have not been able to get the Disengage command to do anything useful in Arma3. Once a unit is locked into currentCommand "ATTACK", the only way of reliably disengaging I have found is a combination of forgetTarget and creating a new group (before readding) is necessary. If someone knows a better way, I would be very happy. -k
  11. Another interesting thread, kju! I have spent an inordionate amount of time controlling AI groups. I'll list off some of the falws that have always annoyed me or made the command menu unecessarily cumbersome. 90% of combat modes are useless. The single best and most important way of ensuring survivability is stance. Being shot at or need to sneak. Force PRONE stance. Assaulting. Force CROUCHED stance. Escaping, disengaging or otherwise is hard. In Arma2 it was possible to force "UP" stance and set formation to "COLUMN" which seemed to offer more direct control of the group. I seem to remember reading this somewhere, but I've failed to find documentation for this. (certainly there is an extra config parameter that remains in ARMA3-- though I find little real difference). The bounding behaviour exhibited by Combat and Stealth combatModes are invariably of dubious value. In stealth the short standing rushes work contrary to the purpose of the order. In Combat, this will often leave the unit standing exposed. The '6' Action menu is a mess. There are two problems here. 1. The list is populated by actions which are far to distant to the unit in question to be useful 2. Useful commands within the list are dynamic and therefore not dependable in stressful situations. Three comands I would like to see persistent and unyielding. 1. Treat yourself 2. Access subordinate inventory 3. Access inventory (essentially run to nearest object with inventory access-- typically crate or vehicle) It would also be useful if the actions relating to picking up weapons and so on would have a distance measure in meters. Interacting with buildings is hard. It would be supremely useful to be able to point at a building. Select relevant units (F1-F12 menu) and then with a single button press have them move into the building. This has both offensive and defensive potential. It does not really need to be much more complicated than that. (Adding more options seems to add overhead to something which ought to be a simple system). Suppression. While setting up suppression isn't difficult, per se, it is somewhat cumbersome to set up persistent suppressive fire. It is a shame that suppressFor seems to have little effect. Being able to order 10-60 seconds of deliberate fire on a position would have been a godsend. -k
  12. @cpt.ghost Those are some interesting thoughts. 1. Currently the hiding script performs the dual tasks of actually hiding units inside buildings, but also placing them there. The fn_assault function will also keep units within buildings static most of the time (therefore not abandoning positions willy-nilly). I had at one point thought to include some more intelligence movement internal to the building. Perhaps if I can scrounge or make some light-weigth solution which makes it easier to find positions from which the AI can engage in the direction of the enemy from inside the building. 2. The problem you describe is difficult. It is of course present in the vanilla AI as well. The problem is one of context. As a mission maker and human, you understand rules, briefings, and positions of power. Sometimes ROE allows chasing down enemies, sometimes it does not. Sometimes ROE should be broken, sometimes not. Any soldier will have received a briefing about the expected direction of attack by the enemy, abstract or not. This in turns informs which positions should be abandoned, and which cannot. If this analysis sounds philosophical, it is because it is precisely a question of epistemology. It is a question of what the AI knows. It is admittedly a weakness of LAMBS Danger.fsm that it does not leverage the vanilla Combat Modes to any sensible degree. Which means that one easy avenue of controlling what the AI expects is closed. Perhaps certain combat modes should have different executions within the FSM, though the vanilla AI does a poor job of demonstrating any such sensibility itself. Another option may be to read 'HOLD' waypoints and possibly 'Guarded by' positions in a more strict manner. These locations are expected to be held. Essentially, those which are marked as 'Guarded by', hence assigned by the Mission Maker as areas of interest. Adding an intelligence with these elements may give the AI intelligence the type of information it requries to make sensible decisions in tune with the Mission Makers overall goals. I'll have to think about it. If anyone else wants to chime in, I would be very happy. -k
  13. @Machiya Glad you enjoy the mod :) I agree that squad cohesion is something of an issue. The best way to approach it would be to rewrite parts of the squad cohesion FSM (which is distinct from the combat fsm!). However, much of the functions run in it are inaccessible to easily edit. So If I were to rewrite it, like I have done in the Orkz mod, it would come at the cost of much of the dynamic seeking cover routines (leaning around corners, and dropping behind fences). Routines which are handled in engine (for speed) and I am unsure if I have scripted access. Other features, like the unspoken buddy-pair bounding (in fact, it is litterally spoken. Seems to be keyed into vocalisation and callouts) are tied to this as well. Unless mine or other experiments show it to be possible to effect core movement in gainful manner. Its going to be tough. My plan is to make the leader rally phase be just that. Perhaps adding more shared assault routines will also help-- sharing not only target information, but actually assigning more shared targets-- which presumably will generate more cohesive results as the squad attempts to get at the same target. Hmm.. your comment definitely spark potential! -k
  14. Unfortunately this section of the forum is neither for requests nor Arma2. Expect it to be locked or moved. As an alternative, check out Red Hammer Studios series of mods for Arma2. These are available from armaholic.com . As another alternative, the LAV-25 does have as I recall a 3 man crew and is a close equivalent. -k
  15. @Devastator_cm In seconds. Good catch. I will update the description for the next version. The AI will drop prone when explosions trigger near it. It will only repeat after X seconds has passed (to prevent it from happening too often). The new switch also allows for it to be turned off. -k