Jump to content

nkenny

Member
  • Content Count

    1020
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

169 Excellent

7 Followers

About nkenny

  • Rank
    Master Gunnery Sergeant

core_pfieldgroups_3

  • Interests
    I live here, Really.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Oslo, Norway

Recent Profile Visitors

786 profile views
  1. nkenny

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    *Laughs in Socrates*
  2. nkenny

    Extended Function Viewer

    Crazy useful!
  3. nkenny

    3CB Factions

    As a small point of feedback: Adding a unique icon for the 3CB factions pack would make navigating the arsenal a more pleasant experience. 😉 edit: also some uniforms have a hidden scope and do not appear in the vanilla Arsenal. Minor QoL thing. -k
  4. nkenny

    3CB Factions

    As a mission maker, I appreciate this mode of working. Add those things which will see use and is wanted by your content creators. Don't become hostage to wild internet requests. The current content of the 3CB faction pack is very well appreciated. Particularly the civilian assets add a wealth of potential for scenarios. All this at a reasonable small size which merges and enhances RHS assets very well. Good job 3CB, and thank you for sharing with the community. -k
  5. @Jester504 Really cool idea and implementation! Will it come with any addons dependencies? -k
  6. nkenny

    3CB Factions

    Now THIS. THIS is fantastic. -k
  7. @.kju The looks like a very useful feature indeed. Three comments: 1. Key-binds are, of course, trivial to change: I will note that by default CTRL+T is the LOCK CAMERA feature for targeting pods. This new interface seems like a similar feature. 2. Perhaps a special AI area-fire config can be used for MG fire? Often when designating 'quick' targets for MGs I simply want an area saturated with fire. (Vanilla 40mm GMGs demonstrate this behaviour perfectly) 3. The command interface looks very useful also from an infantry commanders perspective. When commanding AI troops I often find myself in need of a quick way to designate an area for fire. - It could be limited to binoculars only. - It could be enabled by the doSuppressiveFire command, but with a simple stance and line of sight check-- if failing that, simply target a building (or other terrain object) within reasonable distance. Especially [3] will add a universally applicable, and consistent element to unit command sorely missing in A3. -k
  8. Thanks for the input! Indeed, the second option is the intended behaviour. I will experiment with adding sleep on the waitUntil. While not particularly heavy, this isn't a script I would recommend running too many instances of in the first place. You have indeed deciphered the reason for the simulationEnabled parameter. I use it extensively in my own work. I considered adding it to the sample mission, but figured there is such a thing as too much information. 🙂 -k edit: I have more of these AI behaviour tweaks/scripts which I intend to release in the near future. I am actually surprised that CBA does not have this type of functionality already.
  9. Ever needed the AI to dumbly hunt down and rush the players? This is the script for you. The premise is simple. The AI will move with perfect knowledge towards any player unit within range. While not fearless, the AI is very aggressive and will enter buildings. The AI will know player location but not targeting information-- the AI must still locate the enemy to start shooting. Perfect for Black Hawk Down style scenarios or mad dashes through Tanoan jungles. Or both! Use Run the script on unit or group with an optional argument for range (Default is 500 meters). [someUnit, 550] execVM "fn_taskRush.sqf"; Features - Simple aggressive AI script - Multiplayer friendly. - Helicopters will generally be ignored, but low flying ones will be suppressed. - Tanks and tracked vehicles will be approached cautiously and with suppressive fire Code Example Sample mission Cheers, nkenny
  10. Screenshot Here is a screenshot of the operation flash point commanders UI. Noticeable elements: 1. The 'dot' at central targeting reticule is the barrel position. This makes it immediately obvious where the barrel is pointed and whether or not the shot is aligned. 2. Big thing is the 'radar' at the top of the screen it displays known enemies in red, neutral targets in white (such as enterable buildings) and friendly targets in green. It massively increases situational awareness. 3. Notice that the squad bar GROUPS vehicles together. In Arma 3 this would just be a mess of soldiers with no indication as to which vehicle they belong 4. Top left shows the vehicle, turret and command turret alignment, with current damage states. I believe this is also present in Arma3 since Tank DLC. Overall I felt much more informed and in charge of a more responsive crew in OFP. The on screen HUD elements also make it easier to determine where the gun is pointed and to target buildings or other incidental targets. -- I created a small scenario: three mechanised infantry units guarding a large area with a four block tank platoon set to support. Three NATO MBTs assaulting. Player was in command of the assault force. I then played the same scenario, in OFP and Arma3. a. Formations. Even though I picked a flat stretch of terrain on Altis the AI was unable to keep in a simple wedge formation. The vehicles became stuck and useless. In comparison, I didn't even consider formation in OFP. b. The lack of turret indicator made it much harder to determine if a successful shot was even possible (ctrl + left click to fire) c. While my gunner called out targets it was basically impossible to spot these as commander. Not only are target callouts sometimes reversed-- but lack of visual element made things impossible. d. Arma3 gunners are hesitant to engage with cannon, but laser accurate with MG. (switching targets with uncanny precision) e. Formation troubles also affected enemy forces. And I found flipped AI tanks quite consistently. In short. My internal controls were more cumbersome in Arma3 and my AI wingmen were useless in Arma 3. In OFP I would comfortably play as commander. In ARMA3 I had best luck playing as a gunner. This allowed me to engage quicker and at no loss of situational awareness-- the gunner has all the same camera and UI options the commander does. -- In regards to damage. Tank damage seem to be very much affected by range to target. I did not perform a full test, but at closer ranges all guns seem to be one hit wonders. The simpler modelling in OFP made guns consistent, but at loss of realism. -k
  11. Good thread. 1. I just loaded Operation Flashpoint Gold edition to test some things out. In regards to damage I did a simple tests. T55 and T72 variants generally take two SABOT rounds from a M1A1. The T80 took three with the M1A1 having comparable resistance by rounds fired from a T72. In general this seems to match the rounds needed to kill by LAW and RPG rounds. This test is done with vanilla assets, and not with modded assets. (When did we ever play vanilla). 2. I think this is very important. While your comment is directed at A2, Operation Flashpoint had a massively simpler and less cluttered interface. Assigning target was simply right clicking and could be done from any position (driver, gunner, commander). OFP also featured the intrinsically intuitive distinction between point of aim and point of focus. You could turn as quickly as you pleased-- shift your focus-- , but your point of aim would lag behind in accordance to weapon weight. So a HK (mp5sd) or an assault rifle would be right on point. A M60 or Tank barrel would lag behind. Edit: Another interesting aspect in regards to tank and vehicle combat is that wheeled vehicles were generally much less off road capable than tracked ones. Wheeled vehicles are simply bumpier and slower off road. - k
  12. I'm sorry if it came across as snarky, however: I am not seeing any inaccuracies with vanilla, or RHS for that matter, optics. Quite the opposite. Which weapons, at what distance, under which conditions. Those are rather relevant in this case.
  13. Because you fail to provide any context or example I will assume you are trying to throw hand grenades while looking through binoculars. I'm sorry. CUP M67 hand grenades are not calibrated to RHS Vector rangerfinder's point of aim. In fact they are not alike at all. Was that helpful? -k
  14. nkenny

    Admin stuff

    This is an excellent idea. May also suggest adding the option to force respawns (when available?) Essentially setting setPlayerRespawnTime low, then resetting it to mission default.
  15. nkenny

    The effect of weapon on AI accuracy

    AK12 in various stances So I have rerun the original experiment with the vanilla AK12 across a wide variety of parameters, stances and distances. The number one thing demonstrated was the unsuitability of the experimental framework. While adequate for demonstrating categorical differences between ostensibly identical weapons between mods, it has proven unhelpful in showing the nuisance of stance and weapon attachment. The sample size being small, also the main reason I do not provide data in pretty columns and graphs, simply does not present an adequate foundation for consistent comparison. That said, the test still showed some things. Hence this post. Method and measurements The experimental suite is unchanged from what was presented in the first post. To make sense of the data I decided to make a measurement of aggregate potential. The formula I settled on was this: effective kills per second multiplied by time left (180 seconds) This measurement, while not perfect, gives some indication of how the weapon could perform in perfect conditions. The conclusion will cover my findings in more detail. Data @ 100 Meters (TL;DR in conclusion) Data @ 200 Meters Data @ 300 Meters Data @ 300 Meters w Optics & Attachments Findings The effect on stance on accuracy is slight, but present. In particular around the 300 meters mark the effect is more pronounced. The nature of the experiment introduces an unintended penalty to stance modifications. because of the way weapons are added and that the soldier begins back turned to the enemy, the initial shot (sometimes two shots) fired from the crouched or prone stance will miss due to animation changes. There are two categories of optics, type 1 and 2, and these have an effect on weapon performance. The effect may not however always be beneficial, as in the case of the AK12 adding a HAMR (type 1) optic will at 300 meters negatively affect performance. A bipod has no relevant effect on AI accuracy, and when fired from a prone position. The bipod is not engaged. At 300 meters the AK12 rate of fire is distinctly slower than at other ranges. At all tested ranges the rifle fires in a semi-auto manner. Conclusion There is a small effect on AI weapon accuracy based on stance, but generally only between standing and prone. At closer ranges, with small margins, changing stance or other animation interactions play a far greater effect on accuracy loss. An AI that frequently shifts between crouched, prone or standing will be considerably less deadly. I was surprised to find that the HAMR optic did not increase accuracy at 300 meters. When equipped on a 5.56 or MX rifle there was a clear improvement in accuracy at 200 meters. It is worth noting that the LRPS, a type-2 optic config wise, did see some accuracy improvements. To answer @mmm, I suspect the reason is that optics alter the ranges where the weapon is consdiered to be short, mid or far ranges. Perhaps there is some intrinsic accuracy loss when the weapon is fired at further ranges. The AK12 fares poorly, mostly for the accident of precise ranges, accuracy values and bullet damage. The biggest takeaway is of course the inadequacy of the testing suite. It was designed to compare weapons across mods, not the precise nuances between weapons and stances. A new, more easily scalable suite would need to be constructed. Preferably one which can develop numbers in a quicker and more statistically significant manner. Abstract potential As mentioned in the introduction, to make sense of the numbers I created a sort of abstract potential. This created a nice string of numbers, but I must stress that the small sample size and considerable variety in test results (a single good set can skew the numbers quite considerably!), means that these should be viewed as guidelines and not final. (Higher is better) Ak12 standing 100M: 95 Ak12 crouched 100M: 101 Ak12 prone 100M: 79 Ak12 standing 200M: 68 Ak12 crouched 200M: 64 Ak12 prone 200M: 51 Ak12 standing 300M: 12 Ak12 crouched 300M: 10 Ak12 prone 300M: 20 Ak12 prone 300M with #bipod : 24 Ak12 prone 300M with HAMR : 14 Ak12 prone 300M with LRPS : 29 From this it can be read that there is no real difference between standing and crouched stances. Prone initially fares poorly, because of the aforementioned time spent changing stance, but comes out slightly ahead as distances being to increase. The numbers are however so close that no real firm result can be read. Overall, this test is best viewed as a failure with some interesting implications and lessons learned. Future improvements - Run the test with set AI skill 1 - Run the test in a manner which produces more numbers (and faster) - Create a better aggregate number which can be used to compare weapons
×