kyfohatl
-
Content Count
247 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by kyfohatl
-
-
Ok so since this is not a case of "will this spec run ArmA..." I decided to just post it here and not the specs thread. I apologize if this isn't the right place for it.
Anyway, I want to buy a decent gaming headset that support either 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound. I have done a fair bit of research and my choices have come down to:
-Logitech G35: seems to be the best choice atm. Has 7.1 surround sound, looks decent and has some nice extra features. Also it's cheap.
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=116_4&products_id=11162
-Sennheiser PC350: Significantly more expensive, but it looks really, really comfortable. The problem is that unlike the Logitech g35 it does not use a USB port which means that is requires a sound card. The headset seems to support 7.1 surround sound if your sound card supports it. I don't know if I have a sound card good enough for that. I didn't specifically buy a sound card, but my motherboard has a built in sound card I believe. I did some research to see if my ASUS P8Z68-V Gen3 Motherboard had a built in sound card good enough but I didn't find any thing. When I open device manager, it shows that I have a "realtec HD audio" and 4 "NVIDIA HD audio" installed (why 4???). So does that mean that I can buy the PC350 and just plug it in and say load up ArmA2 and enjoy 7.1 surround sound? I believe a realtec HD audio sound card supports 7.1 but I'm not sure; some clarification would be nice.
http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=116_1219&products_id=17454
I was also looking at a Razer Megalodon. It looks very nice and comfortable, and it has sound card built into it's controller. Unfortunately it seems to have some issues with windows 7 64-bit and you need to download & install a firmware to fix it so I don't think I'll get that.
I'm interested in people's opinions. I'd probably get the PC350 if I knew I could just plug it in and have 7.1 (or 5.1) surround sound just because of how comfy it looks, but as I said I'm not sure if it will work or if I need to buy a sound card.
-
Damn is there a way to work around this? All factions in the mission run this one script and it needs to tell them which locations they own and which locations are owned by other factions. Maybe I just have to use the vars_Array method:
vars_Array = [["Kamenyy", "CDF"], ["Strelka", "USMC"], etc.]; ---> first element will specify the location, second element tells which faction owns it.
Except the problem with this is that I don't know how to retrieve the name of a default in-game location. The "name" command doesn't seem to work with locations. Any better ideas?
-
Ok so I created this simple experimental script that I will use later on to tell which faction owns a certain location:
//create some custom locations on UTES island _location1 = createLocation ["NameVillage", (getMarkerPos "cp1"), 20, 20]; _location2 = createLocation ["NameVillage", (getMarkerPos "cp2"), 20, 20]; _location3 = createLocation ["NameVillage", (getMarkerPos "cp3"), 20, 20]; _location4 = createLocation ["NameVillage", (getMarkerPos "cp4"), 20, 20]; _location5 = createLocation ["NameVillage", (getMarkerPos "cp5"), 20, 20]; _location6 = createLocation ["AirPort", (getMarkerPos "Airport"), 20, 20]; //put all capturable locations in the array _locationList _locationList = nearestLocations [[5,5,5], ["NameVillage", "AirPort"], 25000]; //set controlling faction as USMC for now, will play around with that later _n = 0; while {_n < (count _locationList)} do { (_locationList select _n) setVariable ["controlingFac", "USMC"]; _n = _n + 1; sleep 0.2; }; //just a simple test to tell me if it worked _myStr = ""; _n = 0; while {_n < (count _locationList)} do { _myStr = _myStr + ((_locationList select _n) getVariable "controlingFac") + ","; _n = _n + 1; sleep 0.2; }; hint format ["%1", _myStr];Except it didn't work... so after some testing I tried the following script:
//create some custom locations on UTES island _location1 = createLocation ["NameVillage", (getMarkerPos "cp1"), 20, 20]; _location2 = createLocation ["NameVillage", (getMarkerPos "cp2"), 20, 20]; _location3 = createLocation ["NameVillage", (getMarkerPos "cp3"), 20, 20]; _location4 = createLocation ["NameVillage", (getMarkerPos "cp4"), 20, 20]; _location5 = createLocation ["NameVillage", (getMarkerPos "cp5"), 20, 20]; _location6 = createLocation ["AirPort", (getMarkerPos "Airport"), 20, 20]; //NOTICE THAT IN THIS CASE DEFAULT GAME LOCATIONS (i.e. Kamenyy and Strelka) HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED _locationList = []; _locationList = _locationList + [_location1] + [_location2] + [_location3] + [_location4] + [_location5] + [_location6]; //set controlling faction as USMC for now, will play around with that later _n = 0; while {_n < (count _locationList)} do { (_locationList select _n) setVariable ["controlingFac", "USMC"]; _n = _n + 1; sleep 0.2; }; //just a simple test to tell me if it worked _myStr = ""; _n = 0; while {_n < (count _locationList)} do { _myStr = _myStr + ((_locationList select _n) getVariable "controlingFac") + ","; _n = _n + 1; sleep 0.2; }; hint format ["%1", _myStr];It worked this time. Based on this I assume that I cannot use setVariable/getVariable on default locations (in this case villages of Kamenyy and Strelka)? I can only use it on custom locations that I created (using createLocation) in the script?
It'd be nice if someone pointed out what I'm doing wrong/ or a way to work around that.
(Btw I did do some research under "setVariable" but I did not find anything relevant)
-
ATOC on Trees and Grass actually makes it easier for YOU to see thru the leaves and grass. It has no bearing on AI. Not sure what is going on with your described action?As for "super acurate AI" with latest Beta etall, I dont see it. Must be a carry over from some Faction settings or you where playing on a High Skill setting for the mission?
As always Rob great work.
Have to disagree. ATOC only allows you to see through the grass to some extent; or at least that's the case for me. But trees and other bush become almost twice as thick. I don't see how that makes it easier for you to see. This is especially the case at longer distances, where grass is not much of an issue. With ATOC off I can easily see the forest floor from far away, where as with ATOC for trees all I see are a bunch of trees (which feels more realistic to me).
@Robalo: Yeah I suspected it was not going to be easy, but I thought there would be no harm in asking. It's just that sometimes the AI seems to see amazingly well in woods compared to the player (ATOC on for trees just adds to that). Just yesterday I was patrolling the woods with my AI squad mates and I could see barely more than 50 meters in front (thick bush), yet all of a sudden my squad-mate yells, "ENEMY APC 500 METERS FRONT" and I just couldn't understand how he saw that. I moved to his position, looked/listened as hard as I could, but I still couldn't see more than 50 meters away, let alone an enemy APC 500 meters away! Or is that because of the AI radio feature?
Anyway I think I'm making too much of a fuss out of this. Honestly I am really happy with what your mod does and will continue to enjoy using it. I just thought I point this issue out on the low chance that there may actually be an easy fix for it.
Thank you for the awesome work!
-
Hello,
I'm not sure if you have ever played around with this setting but turning on ATOC in the video options to all trees + grass makes arma forest look more lush, and the vegetation a bit thicker. I like turning it on because it makes forest look much nicer, and also they feel much more like a proper forest. The problem is that I think this thickening of vegetation only affects the player. So AI's ability to see in forests becomes god-like compared to the player with this setting turned on. Now this is not so much of a problem with the visually impaired (and somewhat retarded) vanilla AI, but with ASR turned on, you really notice it. I tested this several times in a scenario where me and my squad tried to seize a hut in the forest. It didn't matter which angle I came from or how hard I tried to spot targets, I was almost useless in the firefight. All I could see was bush, while the AI had no trouble seeing each other and me. I turned ATOC off and the firefight felt more balanced, but then the forest looked ugly. So is there anything that can be done to address this? Could you somehow make ATOC affect AI vision in bush?
Thank you for your awesome mod. Since I've installed your mod I can't play ArmA without it.
Also forgot to mention: This is mainly an issue in Chernarus where there is thick vegetation. On maps like Takistan or Utes it's not that much of a problem.
-
I want you to whip yourself with sticks of limp celery whilst repeating "I must post in the correct thread"!I want to spank YOU in the bum for spamming BI forums!
-
I really enjoy playing warfare missions (e.g. War Welcome), especially in coop mode with my friend. But since we're only 2 people, we have to rely on AI to fill up the game. My problem is that after some time into the game (30 min to 1 hour), the AI begins to spam APCs and Tanks, completely ignoring other light vehicles and most importantly INFANTRY. It makes the game kinda repetitive and pretty easy, since all we do at that stage is to equip our squads with javelins and then blow vehicles up from across the map. I no longer move in fear, constantly scanning the surrounding in fear of an infantry ambush (vehicles are much easier to spot and hear) and I no longer have to think about getting the right balance of troops: I just spam AT units.
So I was wondering if anyone was willing to tweak the warfare mode - maybe in the form of a mod - to prevent the AI from spamming APCs and tanks later in the game, and change the balance of units to having mostly infantry, fewer APCs and light vehicles and even fewer tanks (I would do it myself but I don't know how to).
Cheers
-
I really enjoy playing warfare missions (e.g. War Welcome), especially in coop mode with my friend. But since we're only 2 people, we have to rely on AI to fill up the game. My problem is that after some time into the game (30 min to 1 hour), the AI begins to spam APCs and Tanks, completely ignoring other light vehicles and most importantly INFANTRY. It makes the game kinda repetitive and pretty easy, since all we do at that stage is to equip our squads with javelins and then blow vehicles up from across the map. I no longer move in fear, constantly scanning the surrounding in fear of an infantry ambush (vehicles are much easier to spot and hear) and I no longer have to think about getting the right balance of troops: I just spam AT units.
So I was wondering if anyone was willing to tweak the warfare mode - maybe in the form of a mod - to prevent the AI from spamming APCs and tanks later in the game, and change the balance of units to having mostly infantry, fewer APCs and light vehicles and even fewer tanks (I would do it myself but I don't know how to).
Cheers
EDIT: oops, seems like I should have posted this in the addon request thread. I'll repost this there. Sorry for not reading the stickey's before posting. Moderators please close/delete this thread
-
Yeah I would also like to thank the repliers again.
@twirly: Yeah, I got FPS hit, but it was becuase of having 35 AI gorups on the map. Adding a looping script to every group doesn't seem to increase the FPS hit.
-
@twirly:
Thank you very much. I think that is very close to what I need. Just one question: Would this method use up too much processing power if I'm running 30+ AI groups on the map? (since it has to be run seperately for every group). By the way all of the comments made the script really easy to understand :) (I'm pretty much a begginer at scripting). I should start writing comments in my scripts too.
@quincy:
Interesting method. So basically with your way, I need to have a seperate script for every group, and every time the group "dies" it re-executes itself to recreate the same group via a trigger? If I'm correct, then wouldn't you need some sort of a "deleteVehicle" command at the end of the script to delete the trigger that was made in the script's previous run? Anyway thanks alot for the help :)
-
Yeah saving information about the group isn't too difficult as I'm creating all of the groups using a scripts. Anyway I'm thinking of taking up your suggestion. That way I won't be able to have a standard spawning time; that is respawn a group exactly say 2 minutes after it has lost all members, but that shouldn't matter too much.
I'm trying to make a BattleField (or COD) style mission and in BattleField/COD games having a standard respawn time is pretty necessary. But in ArmA it takes ages to get to the enemy and it is generally a much slowr paste game, so I think I can get away with taking up your suggestion.
Thanks for the help
-
Ok I have about 30 AI groups on the map (SINGLEPLAYER MISSION) and when one group dies (i.e. it has no mambers left) I want to respawn the exact same group (consisting of the same units) after a specific amount of time back at the base.
I was thinking of using the "killed" event handler and attaching it to every unit on the map. Once they die, I could run a script using the handler to find their group and check how many members it has left. So if there's no members left, the group is respawned. But that didn't work because once a unit dies, he joins grpNull, so I couldn't figure out which group he belonged to. Furthermore I need to know the configs/type of every unit in the group as well as the number of members, so that I can respawn the same group.
Any ideas/suggestions?
oh, and I also managed to find this thread that may help, though it uses "addAction":
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=113962&highlight=group+members
Thanks
-
i have a coder that would be able to help if you need it. but it looks like it should be out now.. where the DL?? i want a multiplayer mod thought. is this muti play???i got a link for DL here by a guy in an other forum.
http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=10117
gona test it for mutiplayer
no mutiplay but it could be added easy i think.
Wait... that's the DL link for another mod by Sled88 called conspiracies. Know anything about the progress of this mod? There hasn't been any updates for a long while as far as I'm aware of.
-
)rStrangelove;1842067']I hope they did something to get better close combat. Oblivion had several things in CC i didnt like:1. If an attacker strike got parried' date=' the attacker was stunned for 2 seconds.
2. Weapons didnt do enough damage. Somebody could be hit by a heavy sword 10 times wearing only fur 'armor' and still stand.
3. Parrying still had you damaged a bit, you were better off running backwards.[/quote']
These are exactly my main issues with the combat. My character was good with shields, and after a while combat turned into dull block enemy attack - wait for them to get stunned - then hit them while their stunned - then block their next attack loops. Pretty much everytime I fought someone it was the same sequence (except for maybe mages). I couldn't stand it, so I applied a massive load of combat mods to fix the problem.
Anyway from what I've heard, combat in skyrim seems pretty well done. There's dual wielding (e.g. cast a spell while attacking with axe), shield bash, running backwards is now much slower than sprinting forwards, arrows do more damage, you can no longer shoot arrows with a bow while being hit by melee weapons and etc. It just seems that they have put much more work into it.
Oh, and I've heard that you can now have very cool magic duals. For example casting a fireball spell with one hand, while casting a protective shield to block the enemy mage's spell, or holding down the cast key to preform a "flame-thrower" type spell rather than a single fireball. Sound pretty cool...:bounce3:
-
The scenario is that I have a total of 10 capturable locations on the map, any of which could belong to the enemy or you. I've already written a script to identify which bases are held by which faction, now I need a script that will help me find out the smallest distance between and allied base and an enemy base, so that that enemy base becomes the next target of assault (i.e. which base should be attacked next, so waypoints are generated for AI squads to go there). It's for a dynamic battle scenario.
The bases are: base1, base2, ... base10; and as I said, I know which bases belong to me and which bases belong to the enemy. So, can anyone help me with making this script?
Oh, by the way, the location of a "base" is signified by markers called "base(1-10)".
Cheers
EDIT: Found this good thread on finding the smallest value in an array:
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=64321&highlight=smallest+number
That should make things much easier
-
Thank you very much Wolfrug.
I'm not sure if your idea will workIt didn't :o I might ask about adding waypoints mid-mission to DAC zones in the DAC thread.
Cheers
-
Does anyone know how to add user-defined waypoints to a DAC zone mid-mission? I tried creating a logic mid-mission with the init "this setdire 1" and some waypoints using a script, but it doesn't seem to work. Because I need to change the position of these waypoints during the mission with respect to certain factors. For example if the enemy captures town "X", then waypoints are added to town "X" to increase the chance of DAC troops going there.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
-
I have a gamelogic with some waypoits attached, and mid-mission, after the death of a certin character, I want to add the following line to its init box:
this setdir 1
Basically that adds some custom waypoitns to a pre-defined DAC zone.
Is there some sort of a command that I could use? I could only find editObject which doesn't seem to be very helpfull in this case. Any ideas?
Thanks in advanced for any help
-
Try using eliteness if you aren't using it already. It worked flawlessly for me:
http://www.ofpec.com/ed_depot/index.php?action=details&id=383
-
I've got dual CPU. It's a 2.33 GHz, so its getting a bit old and slow, however it does run ArmA 2 just fine ON NORMAL SETTINGS. When I set it to high, or there are too many troops on the map (large battles), you can get significant lag. I don't think it has that much to do with my graphics card, as When I check with task manager when the game is lagging, I get 95% or so CPU usage (so it probably means it is a CPU problem). However, newer and stronger Dual CPUs should run the game fine.
-
Personally, I liked Harvest Red a lot. I liked the open maps and finish-as-you-like objectives, and the opportunity objectives scattered about.+1. I loved how you had so much choice to do what you want. Though I must say I did enjoy the warfare missions alot, probably because I'm an RTS freak as well, and the warfare missions had a nice touch on that kind of gameplay.
Even though I've said several times that I enjoyed Harvest Red, I must admit one thing: At the moment I'm playing through Operation Cobalt, and I think it's better done. I'd still rate EW higher, but I do think Cobalt was done better than HR. I don't know why excatly, but it just feels more enjoyable/interesting eventhough I enjoyed HR quite alot. I haven't gone very far through it yet, so I can't make I solid judgement here, but from what I've seen, I can say it is an excellent campaign (probably the best user-made one). Congrats to zipper5 for this masterpiece (@Zipper5: Man, I wish I had skills like yours. At the moment all I can come up with are a whole bunch of over-comlicated scripts that don't work)
-
@Myke: Good point. I changed the script to include your advise. However, the original script does not work :o as I just found out by testing. The soldier and the car are created, however the waypoint command does not seem to work, because the soldier just stands there. This variation however does work (I've tested it):
Private ["_posA", "_posB", "_posVehicle", "_grp", "_s1", "_eastCentre", "_vehicle1"]; // In case side centre has not yet been created (do I need to check to see if it exists?) _eastCentre = createCenter east; _grp = createGroup east; _posA = getMarkerPos (_this select 0); _posB = getMarkerPos (_this select 1); _posVehicle = getMarkerPos (_this select 2); _s1 = (_this select 3) createUnit [_posA, _grp, "myUnit = this"]; _Vehicle1 = (_this select 4) createVehicle _posVehicle; sleep 0.5; _grp move _posVehicle; waitUntil {(myUnit distance _vehicle1) < 8}; myUnit moveInDriver _vehicle1; sleep 0.5; _grp move _posB; waitUntil {(myUnit distance _posB) < 2}; sleep 2; moveOut myUnit; sleep 3; hint "Task Complete"; myUnit setDammage 1; _vehicle1 setDammage 1; titleCut ["Because I felt like it", "Plain"]; titleFadeOut 4;It is called by: 0 = ["A", "B", "Vehicle", "Ins_Soldier_1", "car_sedan"] execVM "Challenge1.sqf"
The downside to this new version is that the "moInDriver" and "moveOut" commands do not display animation of the unit getting in/out of the car. So they look a bit awkward, which is why I was trying to use "addWaypoint" instead, but it doesn't work. Any comments?
-
**Request for sticky if enough people support this idea **+1... Would be a useful thread
-
@Myke: Good thread idea!
Anyways, here's my solution to the first one for you scripting masters to critisize:
Private ["_posA", "_posB", "_posVehicle", "_grp", "_s1", "_wpVehicle", "_wpEnd", "_eastCentre"]; // In case side centre has not yet been created (do I need to check to see if it exists?) _eastCentre = createCenter east; _grp = createGroup east; _posA = getMarkerPos "A"; _posB = getMarkerPos "B"; _posVehicle = getMarkerPos "Vehicle"; _s1 = "Ins_Soldier_1" createUnit [_posA, _grp]; _Vehicle1 = "car_sedan" createVehicle _posVehicle; sleep 0.5; _WpVehicle = _grp addWaypoint [_posVehicle, 0, 0]; [_grp, 0] setWaypointType "GETIN"; waitUntil {_s1 in _vehicle1}; _WpEnd = _grp addWaypoint [_posB, 0, 1]; [_grp, 1] setWaypointType "GETOUT"; waitUntil {!(_s1 in _Vehicle1)}; hint "Task Complete"; _s1 setDammage 1; _vehicle1 setDammage 1; titleCut ["Because I felt like it", "Plain"]; titleFadeOut 4;Let's see what mark Prof. Myke gives me :bounce3:
Ok, now I'm going to start working on number two...
Need some advice deciding on headphones
in OFFTOPIC
Posted
But isn't there a problem with having lots of smaller speakers in a headphone rather than two larger ones? I've heard they detract from the overall sound quality. Though I looked up the Roccat Kave and it looks pretty nice.
No mic? A headset (which is what I've been opting for) would be more convenient than headphones + stand-alone mic; unless there is a good reason to pick headphones + mic over a headset? It's pretty expensive too; at that price range it's competing with the razor Tiamat (true 7.1) which seems to be a good headset.
Yep, it's popularity definitely shows... completely sold out on PC Case Gear (the Australian website I use to buy hardware), and the white colour is sold out according to the official website (with no eta). I didn't have much luck on ebay either. Good price, good quality and decent all around, though the ear cups look a little too small. I personally like the types that cover the ear; however I've heard from almost all sources that it's very comfortable. One question though: why not use the sound card that comes with it (the SteelSeries usb portable sound card)? Are Creative sound cards the only ones that have something like the X-FI? Sorry if this sounds very nooby I'm not very familiar with the sound card field.
That's why I was thinking of getting the Sennheiser, since it's a brand well known for it's sterio headphones. But the PC350 seems to have some issues with bass, which is a shame.
-Apparently headsets that use a usb port (like the logitech G35) will use some processing power. I have an i7 so normally it wouldn't be an issue, but since I play a lot of ArmA2 I need every bit of processing power I can get. Do these headsets use up a significant amount of processing power?
-Finally here's a review of the Razer Megalodon:
A shame imo, I was looking forward to buying one. It looks nice and comfy.
Cheers for the help.