bad benson

yes. the one that exports as *.txt. no weighting in o2 needed whatsoever. always hurts to see people use o2 just because they think they have to ;) you can even use a skinwrap modifier to somewhat copy the weights from the original male model. so just use the example files that have bones and mesh in them. depending on how closely your model matches the original the results of that automated method can be very useful and at least can provide you with a great base that only needs fixing and not starting from scratch. if you need any further help feel free to PM me.

@DasA:: this might be related to the damage model. not sure though. well i was merely advocating smaller towns. it sometimes feels like BI aren't "benchmarking" every area like devs of smaller games would do to their maps. i bet there are quite some small objects that could be removed. it sure would take a toll on visuals but that's the prize if the environment doesn't come with an engine that can handle it. but i'm 100% with you on rather having the problem attacked on a more core level. if what PuFu said is true, and we are all no devs here, let's be honest, then maybe the sacrifice in terms of visuals wouldn't even be that big. i just think that too high object density will make any engine fail at some point. so well balanced density should go hand in hand with modernising the engine.

ah ok. so your mockery of DR was relevant to the discussion? it's not my fault that you have mockery and having to admit DR's strengths in one post. it only shows that you can't help it and try to fuel game vs game sentiments whenever you can. oh wait! that was my whole point. you should maybe try to understand your own bullshit before accusing me of being on your low level of contribution. thank god! i hope it means that i don't have to deal with your hollow posts again... ok so fail vs fail. who wins? and so you do it again. comparing whole games when people just use specific features as examples for desired behavior. so how is that "much, much fail" relevant again? is the title of the thread "arma vs DR"? i honestly think you are either too stupid or too far up your own ass to realise how useless your posts are.

it would already help if the artists and terrain makers would take the capabilities of their own engine into account. places like Kavala, as awesome as they might seem just as something to look at, are just unnecessary for gameplay because they are never even used. simply because for urban combat you need fast aim and arma just can't provide that in highly populated areas. so why bother? open landscape on the other hand is not really a problem and also what makes arma unique. even Altis runs ok in those areas. i wouldn't be for getting rid of big terrains entirely. if i want exactly what battlefield does, i go play that because it's miles better at its specific thing than arma could ever be. the question is why, eventhough to this day even places like chernogorsk run like ass, BI insist on stuffing lots of stuff in small areas. it can only be called poor judgement. when optimising big terrains every single detail adds up. i don't think arma would need to abandon its strengths entirely. the devs just need to either stop ignoring the issues the engine has with displaying the assets created for it or they need to fix those problems if they want to keep using assets in that kind of way. i never felt like "boy i wish there was more stuff here" when playing in smaller towns/villages and places that the engine can actually handle properly. some larger buildings with detailed interior are more than enough to fulfill my CQC needs. not to mention AI being hardly more than pop up targets (in the best case) when placed inside buildings. so again. why bother with huge towns (compared to before) when there is no use for them and they run bad. it's like the terrain makers didn't get the memo about how the engine didn't progress enough to suddenly go nuts with objects.

^amen!

dear god! why are you using oxygen?! https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Modding_Characters get the max weighting export from there. you can actually test your weighting by moving the bones there. i know, mind blowing, if you thought all you had was o2 ;)

shoot them in the head since they aren't armored vehicles? works just fine in arma, what's your point? again. AI engages infantry just fine.. you are jsut making general statements without any value. are you saying it's impossible to evaluate a vehicle as superior? tell me. which set of variables causes AI to circle around the vehicle? are you telling me that the situation where you face a superior enemy is an unusual one in the scope of arma? you can't just say "but it's so complicated hence it has to fail". it's kind of ridiculous. AI don't have to cope with actual reality, you know? they have to cope with exactly what the devs create for them to cope with. it's one thing to say that BI's resources may be limited and thus the AI is pretty flawed but it's entirely another to say that simple bugs like that are just caused by outstanding complexity... i agree that jsut doing it might be weird. but i don't see why normal AI routines would not apply here. target is armored against small arms? a "negative"/"can't do that" over the radio should do. and why not shoot a plane with small arms? no one said they'd have to chase it down. are we really saying now that a simple evaluation like that is too much to ask?

i think KK's point was more about what actually happens in arma, which is the AI circling around the vehicle doing fuck all apparently. i mean, fair point about the tires and stuff but i'd have them rather try something meaningful or say "can't do that" than do something totally retarded. the thing is, you say there are so many variables and on the other hand you immediately present a solution to the problem. going stealth or depending on distance or if they are being detected flat out running for their lives. it's something the series hasn't been doing well for ages eventhough it's supposed to be a simulation of military combat. reacting to a very obvious threat they can't handle. there are not too many variables. the type of enemy/vehicle an Ai can encounter and the way to react to that is pretty limited and predictable by the devs. is the target armored? do i have AT? done. the AI currently acts like there is no variable for evaluating their target at all. and even if this was a case of too much thinking with the result of disaster, is that what we want? something that doesn't work but the intend behind it was good? what are these things? i mean people keep saying that but what outstanding things does arma's Ai do that keeps it from performing simple life preserving measures when confronted with a superior enemy?

shots fired! ;) kinda true sadly.

no it's not http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Cry_3 it's a different engine entirely. and it's also very much besides the point. arma uses "nodes" inside houses too. it just uses them in a very limited way to mask the huge problems that AI units have when interacting with objects. well please go do that to prove my point that you are not getting it at all...please keep wasting your time with finding videos, if it keeps you from posting. then why do you have to post lines after lines of nonsense? that made me laugh. did it ever cross your mind that AI in other games in general don't survive as long because they don't aim like super humans and the engagement range is far shorter? arma's AI keep their distance and shoot very well and in addition the player has the exact amount of health as an AI unit. time of survival says nothing about how smart they are. i don't know why you think comparing games like that makes any sense at all and i fail to see how that has any relevance in a discussion about technical methods. what does any of that have to do with baked data? are you really that narrow minded that you can't get off the game vs game trail? this whole post of yours just proves my point. i mean the video you showed is from a game that has no focus whatsoever of AI engaging eachother. showing the lack of such AI says nothing about that game's pathfinding technology. see? YOU brought up "cryengine" in that context. I brought up ACTUAL cryengine as there was a discussion in here some time about nodes (you were probably involved by the looks of it) where someone (probably you) said that "but they just use nodes". good to see that you seem to accept the usefulness of baked data now burried inside all the useless butthurt. it's literally what you are. taking other people's statements out of context to serve your personal faction battle they have no part in. some people just embody that term. it's not even meant as an insult. it's a mere observation. see? sad...people were actually describing things from that game that are well inside the scope of arma, which arma doesn't do and could use very well. but it's invalid info because it's OFP:DR, right? (i'm talking about the static gun example again). it's also invalid because Maruk said something somewhere. blablablabla. ugh... it's a huge misconception many people have. when a dev says "but they have to be able to use vehicles in arma" then they don't mean that AI are smarter than in other games that don't have vehicles because of that, because news flash, arma's AI does NEVER use vehicles on its own, it only "can drive" them after you the player made them mount them via command or mission editing. it's solely a matter of AI devs having to spare resources for separate driving AI and does say nothing about actual intelligence of the AI in combat. the reason why arma's AI is more entertaining is because they can flank and there is actual room for doing so. that's about it. i'd like someone to show me another example of arma's AI being smarter than just "go there shoot that". they don't even rearm for themselves whne they run out like in several arma 2 AI mods. this is what it comes down to. you assume that about me and probably about everyone who dares to merely mention other engines, the context is irrelevant to you. the rubbing in part is hella funny. this thread is about AI feedback you know? but i guess i will make sure to always add praise about things that aren't broken, ok? that won't be feedback or meaningful discussion but it might keep some people from going off.:rolleyes: you are literally repeating the same old shit just because my post contained some of your personal trigger words. all you are achieving is poisoning the discussion. you would have a point, if people would say "just switch to cryengine to solve all your problems". it's not happening though so it's kind of all in your head mate...

that's too bad. so that is probably what oukej meant. i guess then this effort will be useless for arma. although i don't see why there can't be a combination. i mean are you basically predicting that dayZ zombies will run through barricades, cars, tents and anything player placed? i'm also wondering if saying it's for running in straight lines is a bit simplistic. isn't it more a matter of what commands are issued to the unit? i mean let me put it like this. the zombie gets one position (player position) and then goes there using the nav mesh. the soldier gets several positions to flank around the player and uses the nav mesh to get to each of them one by one. isn't it just a new method to find paths quickly in general? yea. but it seems that BI rather have backwards compatibility than some AI breakthrough. sounds like an excuse to me. i mean peopel are literally making houses from arma 1/2 enterable due to mlods being available. saying it would break old or usemade content is highly underestimating the community's capabilities and enthusiam. ok first of all. that is not cryengine. second of all you are completely missing the point of what i said. how is showing AI fail in an engine that isn't made for that kind of engagements proving that using predefined data is not useful? pretty pathetic fanboy post, if you ask me. it's sad that you can't even bring up things just to make a point without someone getting into faction war mode. you totally ignore the part where an actual dev just said that they are outnumbered by those teams. but yea you are right. we should just laugh at other engines and never even bring them up in a discussion because no matter what the point was, it's heretic and arma has the best AI ever. that's why we're talking about it in the first place, right? it's also funny how you are willing to accept stuff that is used in dayZ (which turns out to be useless?) but not any outside engine. let the discussion happen. don't be afraid :p

that's why i said "smarter at pathfinding" because i knew someone would say what you said :p . i think in general saying that pathfinding is bad because they also have to shoot and do other things is not accurate. i think the problems of pathfinding are elsewhere and i think that all the improvements a nav mesh brings can easily be applied to any type of AI. pathfinding itself is a basic AI feature and it makes no sense to sacrifice proper pathfinding for complex stuff that isn't even working since it's blocked by stupid anims or delayed by who knows what. i hate to be the car analogy guy, but what good is an expensive high powered car if it's missing something basic like tires to even drive? yea the problem here is the difference between actual code and what the player experiences as actually something he can see them do effectively. i think people are mostly talking about the leaning feature when they mention cover since you barely (if at all) see AI "conciously" take cover quickly behind stuff when it's needed. so it comes down to the animation being an indicator of them trying. i mean i realise that there might be something going on under the hood concerning cover but you have to forgive people, if it's not visible to them because the timing is so off that you will never notice an AI thinking "oh i'll do my cover routine now" because all you see is them leaving cover under fire all teh time, which leads to thinking that there is no system in place at all because the outcome is the same. in arma AI feels retarded mostly because of stuff not functioning not because it's overly simple. so the question is what of its complexity on the code level actually reaches the player. again. i realise that you guys didn't write this from the ground up for a3 and that you are trying your best to improve it anyways, and you are succeeding in many isolated cases. and please don't let our frustration keep you from doing it. it's just an indicator that there is a lot of passion for AI in this community. so your work is more than welcome. now back to being constructive: would it be possible to fix AI getting stuck when inside houses? i really love what you guys did to CQC reflexes with the AI. it's for me one of the best features of arma 3. problem is that even if you just want stationary dudes in houses in your mission so people can clear the houses, you get a lot of AI that are stuck unable to rotate. that makes them basically sit there accepting any punishment. HUGE immersion killer. i learned to live with next to no dynamic indoor AI but that bug has to go. they have to react fast like outside. that would improve the existing limited indoor combat capability by a huge amount.

yea those are turrets i think.

pretty sure that arma walls already have cover positions and that that is what makes AI use them, sometimes. what makes you think that preparing assets for the AI to work better is a bad/cheap/"out of scope for arma" method? it's exactly what BI needs to do. hell afaik the so called navigation mesh they indroduced to dayZ (can you believe it? soon dayZ's zombies will be smarter at pathfinding than arma's soldiers FPDR) is exactly that. a precalculated method to give AI more meaningful info to get around the world without having to calculate it on the fly. teh info is just there from the start. the whole "indoor AI" is based around fixed positions inside the models since at least arma 1. i remember a discussion in here about cryengine and how "they are just placing nodes to make AI work in houses better" in it, eventhough it's exactly arma's approach with the slight difference that it's severly limited and utterly broken. and before anyone tries to pull out the scale card. these kind of predefined things are exactly what large scale games need since it avoids complex calculations and analysis of the environment for each AI constantly on the fly. it's a pretty sad attitude to belittle other games where stuff actually works better (as intended) just to spare BI the well deserved criticism for their AI that has almost not evolved beyond its biggest flaws. now just to make this clear. this is not against you personally or any of the brave guys at BI working on fixing this mess of AI they haven't created themselves. it's just frustrating to only see bandaids applied to a system that has big problems at its core, year after year.

yes please!

if you do zeus stuff again i'd suggest to mix it up by also showing a player perspective for a while. watching someone be zeus is not exactly exciting. i understand that you guys wanted to show off the base features and improvements but a whole stream of it is boring. the most exciting part of zeus is experiencing it as a player. just a suggestion for future streams. keep them coming :)

now that is how you test a new feature :D i have yet to test how practical that HUD is but just as a first impulse i'd like to see the PiP tech used here instead, as in a camera pointing down. that would be way more immersive than this. and some people might call it unrealistic how it is now, watch out BI :868:

yea. and eventhough, the almost or entirely zero sway in arma 2 was maybe a little bit too forgiving, the way sway and stamina was coupled was better than in arma 3 in my opinion. i mean jsut from a straight gameplay perspective penalizing sprint with bad aim makes more sense if you see it like a simple balance equation. you wanna run faster? well ok. but you'll have to deal with sway. although i see what BI intend with penalizing jogg since it's also influenced by load. it sure is a complex thing and what they came up with so far isn't bad at all. yea i totally agree on the shortcomings of an object exactly like the compass. just got carried away with the whole realism thing ;) i still think though that a heart rate would be kinda cool just from the way the info is presented (as in numbers instead of a bar or maybe even an animated graph :inlove:). again i realise it would be a fake heart rate unless BI start to simulate single organs ;) i find the arguments presented for a bar and the fact that people opposing it would not have to use it (especially not when toggleable) pretty convincing to be honest. and especially when looking at my main gripe with the system a bar could help. although i'd still prefer BI doing more work on the system itself first.

totally agree. this should not be something you need a mod for. i hate to bring them up again because i really like them, but why do we have door sounds but no proper pain sounds? :p things like that missing are the reason why arma feels dead and sterile very often. it may not seem like a big feature but the impact of it is great.

yea actually i personally would like to see the fatigue changed a bit towards this concept because i think it would make a bar less needed. it would be more predictable then. i'm still always surprised and feel disconnect when my sway is all over the place even after rather short joggs. in arma 3 sprint or sprint crawl could be that "push harder". the rest would only go to 70% (or what ever). you don't have to show me that. i well aware of having said that. as you may have noticed, some people don't give a shit. tpw already has a heart rate he uses in his mod successfully. and someone mentioned another mod too. consider this. it's just a design choice for people who are not neurostic to the point where they need a perfect explaination for everything. let's be honest, all of the explainations people come up with are make believe anyways (do i have to bring up other HUD elements with no base in reality again?) since the system itself is already lacking a lot on terms of realism. i would never suggest simulating a real heart rate for that reason. it's just a matter of showing numbers instead of a bar and the lowest number not being zero ;) yea it might be a bad example. replace marathon with sprint, if you want, since the game doesn't really make a difference there anyways. although i doubt that you are trying to say that you can just end a marathon without feeling fatigue kick in hard, which is what i mean. it might be due to the sprint most people pull out at the end, dunno. it happens, find your own explaination for that :D anaerobic or not (which again the game does not even distinguish..). the discussion revolved around info being provided too late and i think you were one of the people saying that it's realistic. i just remember you talking about "mud runs" or something. of course you will know your exact explaination for that better than me. others, i think coulum, said that athletes train for years to know their limits and several others said similar things. at some point the whole argument was "a bar tells you too much, you SHOULD NOT know exactly". i can't remember anyone sugggesting two bars, one for aerobic and one for anaerobic. yea bad example but you should know what i mean, which bears the question why you nitpick :p that pretty much sums up my problem with the current system exactly. too much "why the fuck am i so exhausted right now" going on in the game atm. it's too general.

when did i suggest animations or more advanced stuff like you describe? it's only a "huge departure", if you act like i talked about a dayZ like compass, which i didn't...at all...i talked about a technique that is already being used. now you're just nitpicking without any constructive outcome. call it what you want. i like the 3d HUD objects that you can actually drop as an item (better?). they are more immersive to me than plain HUD. i really don't see why you're being difficult about this part. so random. i didn't write it to make anything irrefutable, i wrote it because i assumed otherwise you wóuld repeat your old points again (which you did) eventhough they are useless to the debate and "wrong" (not fact). seems like it wasn't enough. why do you think you have to explain the way discussions work to me? i think you are the one needing some help there. you might wanna start stepping away from the concept of realism as a base for your argument. i think it should be clear to you now how open to interpretation that term is. you should maybe refrain from saying things like this: it's not? hm. what about the arguments that have been presented by "the other side" that in real life you feel fatigue kick in suddenly right after a marathon and not build up over time as notably? if you consider that as a way of looking at it (i know it's hard), you will see that in that context (just another example of saying something is good because it's "based in reality") the current fatigue cues are "realistic" and added info like, let's say a gadget :p, would help you manage fatigue better before you really feel it a lot (breathing, vignette). call me a relativist but if you want (yea, it's that easy), that sounds more realistic than having a bar that shows you exactly the amount of energy you have left/used up. what i'm saying is what i said before. it's a useless debate. and it's sadly common practice on these forums to use "realism" as a magic bullet for solving everything, when this case shows exactly how fruitless that approach is since both sides use realism as an argument. "weaponized realism" is actually the number one method used to try to make something "irrefutable". :p

well i guess the NVGs could get darker or something instead of a HUD. maybe use an overlay or ppeffect.

how is that relevant? are you saying that no precedent is a reason to not do it more? makes no sense. arma's variations of ways to approach GUI may have some reasoning behind them but it sure is inconsistent. the compass could be on the HUD too but it's not since OFP just because...because it's way cooler this way ;). the map being like in these tablet mods would be great too. i mean there is/was (not sure for arma 3) even a rather useless radio on the map. you can have triggers on it but it doesn't look needed to me. it's just a cool thing especially if they'd build on such things. side note: did you ever double tap O (watch button)? no idea why you keep bringing up having to pop it up. it's optional. two indicators that are needed, one of which is part of this topic, are entirely missing, as you have just said. this whole thing is about you wanting one of those missing HUD element added to the game.:rolleyes: your reasoning is to ask "why aren't these things in the HUD, isn't it inconsitent to have less important info more visible?". so if you have a hard time "believing" me then just go by your own observations, if that's more acceptable. you want more inconsistencies? "There isn't even a border on the GPS in Arma 3". there was in arma 2 wasn't there? what's up with that? so we disagree on the degree of it? gosh. i don't even.. that would be great. EDIT: (snip..sorry misread this part) nvm... i was proposing it to the other side too, since, as you may have noticed, there is not only your side of the argument. hell my whole initial point was asking why people would be so up in arms against such a useful thing (zhe bar). i mean i feel like i have to repeat it. there are cues already in the game. depending on how sufficient each individual subjectively deems these cues a heart rate monitor IS NOT "unrealistic" since it's not the only source of information. no, i don't argue for having such a thing like my life depends on it (it was just a frikkin idea), it's just that you are incorrect here but insist on repeating it. by taking your own personal perception of the current state as a fact. no wonder you can't grasp the context of what i said (please don't ignore the words i highlighted..) we have already established that it's not suitable for your side...several times. you can let it rest now. i think you missed the most important parts of my last post. "for the record", "just saying". you are beating a dead horse. if anything i'm still just making a case for embracing a general concept more. if you can't see that by now then let it be said once and for all. i hope this is to your satisfaction and we can stop with this useless debate now. sorry for OT everyone

just for the record. that is not entirely true. compass, watch and GPS are 3 examples where, except for the watch, quite important info is tied to actual items. arma is actually super mixed up/all over the place and inconsistent as others have said. so that's an overstatment. BUT...just saying. i get that you want urgent info on a fixed HUD... :p

oh please yes! i could swear i heard that sound in the first bohemia zeus stream when they turned on the NVG mode when in zeus mode. are you planning on adding a little HUD for the battery life?