trips

I can't get this working. The mod loads into CfgPatches but the CfgAISkill values are the same default values, no matter how I set the userconfig\zeu\zeu_ai.hpp file.

Ah okay. I was using setVelocity straight away. I have noticed an effect on the ballistics, but I think it's not too bad. I'm not trying to do anything precise, just make the AI miss once in a while...

Great workaround, thanks! I can catch the RPG projectile from a 'fired' event handler, right?

Even AI with aimingAccuracy set to 0 seem to hit targets 99% of the time. Is there a way to artificially introduce aiming error? I've tried getting them to doFire at an invisible target but no dice. Can I set their aimpoint directly?

Same problem here :( Seems to happen to a random box every time I open a new mission.

None of us could find anything other than change view distance.

Just had a quick try with a few of us at MAG and we couldn't figure out how to place the defending zone. Is there a minimum player limit?

Currently: Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem Combat Mission: Shock Force Lock On FC2 Red Orchestra A little bit of IL2

It's the kind of thing people train on IRL to get faster and more reliable under stress, I thought it'd be cool to reflect that in game somehow.

Just had a new idea, how about incorporating timing minigames into player actions that would require dexterity in real life? For example instead of just hitting R to reload and waiting for the animation to finish, you can speed up the process if you tap R in time with your character doing certain things like hitting the mag release, pushing the new mag in and racking the bolt. I really want to see them up the fidelity of infantry combat in 3.

Without a doubt a DEFEND waypoint with emphasis on finding cover in the terrain & buildings. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1954382#post1954382

You can't have it all, there aren't enough cycles on your CPU or bytes in your RAM. Compare BF3 to ArmA in terms of map sizes or AI versatility, for example. I'd expect more destructible subsections and stages per building but there are probably better (by that I mean have a bigger effect on gameplay) things to spend CPU time on than dynamic destruction.

Definitely, Dre. I think there's big room for improvement in the infantry combat. Giving the AI the ability to effectively use buildings & bunkers, both on map and user placed, would really up the tactics needed. At the moment the only option I know of is to weld the AI to the floor (disableAI "MOVE") and force them into the right stance to get them to fire back from inside a building. It ends up meaning that instead of using four Fs most missions played against AI really just use two, find the enemy and finish the fight by shooting them. Sometimes I feel like i'm playing a shooting gallery. They don't duck when they get shot at or otherwise use the great cover they have effectively. Maybe we need a 'defend' or 'occupy' waypoint so the AI know they're supposed to stay put and survive, not run out in the open or try to flank and attack. Not just buildings but I think the AI should be taught to use terrain cover more effectively as well, but first the cover has to be there. Has anyone fought on the cliff in southern Chernarus between Chernagorsk and Elektrozovadosk? It's in the first campaign mission but you're not so much fighting in it as picking off targets from the summit. Take a look at the terrain there, maybe give yourself a fireteam and put an enemy patrol there. When you get to the top look back west at the opposite hill face. Compare the number of pockets of cover you have up here to what it looks like basically everywhere else on the map. It's smooth hills basically everywhere else. I don't know of any place on any other map, official or user made, where the terrain is as good as on those ten hectares in Chernarus. A map shouldn't all be like that, open plains has a value, but going in a forest and having to hide behind thin trees like in a cartoon got old real fast. I imagine that it's a lot less graphically, memory and CPU intensive to use the terrain map to generate cover instead of objects. I think terrain is a lot of the time easier to use as cover too 'cause it's not fixed at waist height, you can inch forwards and pop up, take a shot and move back. On that point I think a 'cover system' wouldn't go amiss. It doesn't have to be like Gears of War or Red Orchestra (although that kind of system wouldn't be too bad), it could just be something simple like the mouse lean in the Tom Clancy games but also applied to how far your character is kneeling/squatting/raising their head above the ground. Just something that lets us use a wider range of objects as cover. Let's leave crouching behind thigh-high stone walls with your head and shoulders sticking out behind. Finally, can the suppression 'system' be made a little more accurate? I only really have two complaints with how it is at the moment but I think changing one or both of these things could have a significant impact on infantry combat: At the moment rounds passing overhead don't suppress, only rounds that hit around you/your target. AI don't stick behind cover when being suppressed, i.e. they can't be pinned. Hopefully someone reads that. At least i've finally put it in writing.

Points 1 and 3 are features you see often but they're not necessary features of a cover system, see Red Orchestra 2. If a cover system is implemented, which I hope it is, i'd also hope it wouldn't have those features.Point 2 is kind of the whole idea of cover. I think there's room for improvement with movement. Analogue stances is something that gets resuggested for the Arma series every so often; being able to hold alt and precisely adjust your stance up and down. That could be an example of a cover system, it lets you use the in-game objects as cover a lot more effectively than the current stances and their slow transition animations do. I don't think R6V makes for a good example. Compare the average engagement distances. In R6V it's practically all CQB, where being mobile is more important. Good for them, those are two titles I hope Arma never tries to emulate. They're a different genre as far as i'm concerned. (Battlefield I think could actually benefit from a cover system) We have (some) cover and stances but putting trying to use the two together isn't always happy times.

This kind of feature would be a deal breaker for me. If infantry combat isn't given a real upgrade i'm not interested.