Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

x3kj

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2581

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by x3kj

  1. Posted

    On 6.1.2018 at 1:53 AM, spanishsurfer said:

    As for your comments on obfuscating, I do see your point. However the purpose of that is not to fracture the game mode but pull it in tighter. As you're aware there are dozens of very different versions of TRUE ct, all drastically different and difficult to learn for a new player [...] cti is all over the place, how can new players learn?

    [...]

    Now, im not proposing we have a monopoly on becti, just a central hub for development and core mission edits. If you guys wanted your own cti server but different settings, then edit the param file and adjust the mission to your flavor, we can discuss and put 100s of params if we wanted it.

    I dont really understand how this would help learnability. Do you think it would be easier to learn, if there are 30 parameters that drastically affect core gameplay? What if instead of the old tiered research and building system i want to do economy and building differently? When there are 5 different economy systems,  4 different progression systems, 3 different versions how town garrison works as switchable parameters in one mission, then how would anybody not get totally confused when the mission is supposed to be the same but has wildly different rules for the same mission?

     

    Quote

    Look at KOTH, the mission is almost identical across an army of servers and players, it has allowed them to be #1.

    KOTH is much more basic in the concept, and involves no AI controll or interaction. It's much more focused for immediate action, comparable to other online shooters. Which is why there is not much need to change it, apart from maybe interface and mod integration. With growing complexity, there are more things that can be done differently for another but interesting experience.

  3. Posted

    2 hours ago, reyhard said:

    Notice also how thrust left & right sources are changed. Before, when pressing W +  A or D, one side was going to -1 and another one to 1. Right now, movement with W is keeping one side at 0 & another one at 1. For full turn you can release W key and you will have same turning behaviour as before

    OH! fantastic! My 3.5year old ticket can finally be marked as done then :D https://feedback.bistudio.com/T78436

    • Like 3

  4. Posted

    One thing that definitely is a big issue in Arma 3 with vehicles in general is the speed on _in theory_ rough terrain.

    The Map grid is very coarse (because performance and memory footprint), so micro heigth variations (bumps) are not present.

    Terrain clutter is also sparsely distributed for the same reason.

    So if you manage to avoid the terrain clutter, it doesnt matter on what surface you drive. It's always as if you're on the highway. With wheeled vehicles, driving 80-130km/h over any terrain is a given, provided you evade the obstacles. Same for tanks, except they have lower max speed - with the difference that evading obstacles is an option. If you crash, you usually only lose speed if anything. 

     

    This is really bad. Arma 2 and earlier did this somewhat better. They limited maximum speed, so off road or on non-tarmac roads you would be slowed down. In Arma 3 the resistance forces on the wheels could be increased by a factor, depending on how rough or difficult the terrain is to bring this function back. It's of course not that immersive, but for authenticity and also gameplay i feel it's very important.

    Mobility is a key trade for vehicles, but real terrain can significantly inhibit their mobility - in some cases even removing any mobility in certain areas for certain vehicles.

     

    In future (New Engine, new arma, as this is unlikely to be in scope for this dlc anymore) i'd like to see offroad driving issues expanded significantly, because it is a very important aspect of vehicles in non-urban warfare. I'd love to see a Spintires-esque simulation, but it might not be practical for large scale multiplayer game. But even then there is room for improvement. If wheels would be allowed to sink into the ground slightly (visually and in simulation), semi-random bumps could be generated on the fly and act on the wheels, to simulate the micro-terrain that is not modelled into the map. Depending on the surface material the sinking and bumps could have different severety.  If particle effects to the wheels are added the simple sinking below ground would be masked and it would look much better.

     

    I tested the friction changes but i couldnt really notice any change. It seems to depend much more on vehicle if you slide around much or not, rather than the surface you drive on. Offroad jeep can slide at high speed on gravel roads a bit in corners, SUV and that car thing barely slide - altough that may just be less noticeable because of how terrible their understeer is.

     

    14 minutes ago, a_killer_wombat said:

    I really don't think weakening the stamina system is the right answer.

    At least half the public servers have it disabled because people apparently complain if they cant carry MG with christmas tree addons, missilelauncher, vest with maximum protection and the largest backpack available and sprint all day long without their aiming or speed beeing affected. Dumbing it down further seems pointless. Those people will disable it regardless.

     

     

    • Like 10

  5. Posted

    13 hours ago, R3vo said:

    What exactly was "improved" here? The Kuma feels less responsive now.

    The input is smoothed when steering. Use Epevehicle dialog in arma3diag.exe and you see that when you press the key the value ramps from 0 to 1, instead of beeing instant. There are new parameters shown in the dialog for this. This helps smooth the vehicle actions and reduce jerkiness. Imo it feels better, but its subtle. If you are used to simply tap the keys for fine adjustement then this will not work as well anymore.

     

    Its like wheels steering in cars -> if you press A or D for turning the wheel just doesnt snap into the "maximum turn angle" position. It transitions in a short time frame.

     

    11 hours ago, Beagle said:

    Some loud voices said that the earlier direct control mode was too responsive and overly direct and would make a driver oblolete. The term "arcade" was also mentioned.

    has nothing to do with what this change is about.

    • Thanks 1

  8. Posted

    7 hours ago, oukej said:

    At this point we couldn't afford really any drastic changes. But there should now be a bigger difference between tarmac, dirt roads, grassy fields or beach sand. And the frictions should be slightly more consistent across similar surfaces on vanilla terrains.
    Also when two objects collide it should be slightly easier to slide along each other (e.g. sliding along guiderails) at a low angle or bounce off instead of stopping on a spot.

    Where is the friction of the materials defined? I saw friction values in some config class, iirc, but also in rvmats.

     

    1 hour ago, Flax said:

    Is there any chance of the autobrake being an optional config value, or have the ability to turn it off? Might even allow for the ability to tow things with ropes if that was turned off? 

    These are different autobrakes to my knowledge. No passenger-> brakes apply. Speed below threshold when driven -> brakes apply. Threshold can be tweaked in vehicle config.  Problem is, that as very low speed the tire friction simulation appears to be inaccurate and inconcistent.

    (Btw - even for towing in RL you'd want to have a driver in the towed vehicle...)

  12. Posted

    Merry christmas to all readers :)

    As this is also traditionally the time for charity, i'd like to announce that i'm taking time donations via PayTime - you can choose 5h, 10h, 1 day or a custom amount :wiggle:

     

    Work on heavy weapons and fortifications continues, slowly -> Early WIP of Heavy Mortar and Quadlauncher on field gun carriage (modelled after DKoK models, but carriage is a custom pattern);  WIP Reinforced pillbox wallsections - building blocks for the creation of the real pillboxes; WIP Earthshaker cannon in armored turret, for a potential artillery fort system.
    fieldartilleryawjky.jpgbunker_v2yxkuk.jpgarmored_cupolarrj7s.jpg
    The Quadlauncher sits in the middle between Heavy Mortar and Infantry mortar, at least in the TT rules. It is essentially a four barreled medium mortar, if background and TT rules are fused together. A single tube Medium mortar is not known in the background or TT, but would make a lot of sense from a logical standpoint. Same munition as quad launcher, easier to relocate and transport. Once the Centaur is complete (currently on hold because of Physx issues...), a variant with medium mortar installed would propably be very usefull.

    The current roadmap for structures is, to start with defenses (pillboxes, walls, vehicle obstacles) to provide first real gameplay opportunities, even on a relatively flat and barren map (which also needs to be created, still). The fortifications are designed to be more realistic, so they are harder to take out. There will be no huge 1m x 5m gaps for "firing slits". This is why defense buildings with different fortification levels (wall thickness) are planned, to allow for flexible scenario creation. After all, not every scenario should require a Medusa Siege Gun or human wave tactics to disable it/get close to it. Here you can see prototypes of the fortification system: Reinforced pillbox wallsections - building blocks for the creation of the real pillboxes - and an Earthshaker cannon in armored turret, for a potential artillery fort system.
    The concepting is far from over (as you can clearly see), and more work needs to be completed before the first structures can be finished and put ingame. Among the blocking tasks are the crew served weapons, that need to be integrated properly into the defense building block system.

    Artillery without an observer is useless, and an observer needs magnification. This is why MartinezFG11 kicked his work on this mod off with two binocular variants (small and large) - from start to finish. A big thanks to him. This is the very first usable contribution by somebody else other than myself in this projects's development , a little milestone so to speak :) I think i should say "we" from now on :D
    ffvbinosvvjoe.jpg
    As you can see, the Hydra now has it's crew placed properly. It also a heavy stubber as front weapon option now  (as well as heavy bolter, obviously). This idea came from the FW units, which can often exchange their heavy bolters for heavy stubbers. In tabletop the option is mostly just for flavor, in this mod however both will be very usefull. One has more ammo, flatter trajectory and higher rate of fire and velocity, the other has more hitting power, armor penetration and an explosive effect. This heavy stubber option extends to all Leman Russ and Chimera family vehicles now. In the case of the Chimera troop carrier, we reached a majestic 32 unique different configuration variants, with all 3 current camo patterns that's 96 variants requiring config classes

    cfgpatches9sjsr.png

    It was decided not making smoke launcher an option on vehicles, it's installed by default instead - otherwise it would be double the amount of classes...

     

    Edit: Forgot to upload pics from a while ago - ingame mortar (short and long version), and textured Infantry webbing (base rifle man kit)

    107410_20171101233646sfsv9.png20171204221709_1h3rbr.jpg

     

     

     

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1

  14. Posted

    Does the turret animation work in buldozer? When you say the turret does not rotate, do you mean the turret model does not follow the camera rotation? All LOD or just specific ones? Arma3diag.exe has a couple of animation and animationsource debug modes. If you can rotate the turret technically but the model is not following, your named selection for turrets and selection defined in model.cfg do not match.

  16. Posted

    6 hours ago, lexx said:

    Tried to get random objects into the interior with the AttachTo command, but sadly objects within the interior aren't shown. What a shame. Really wanted a microwave under my seat.

    This also rules out my idea of using the User Texture objects to achieve some form of customization.

     

    tl;dr - if it's not possible to do it this way, it really would be great to get new hidden selections here.

     

    they are most likely shown, but the problem is that the specific 1st person view lods are always rendered on top of anything. You can see that in planes. Put plane so that it would collide with pole on the wing if moving forward. Then look over the shoulder towards the pole. -> note how the wing is displayed over the light pole. This is universal rule.

  17. Posted

    rpt spam

    Quote

    Strange convex component65 in a3\rocks_f\sharp\sharprock_wallh.p3d:geometryFire
    Strange convex component06 in a3\rocks_f\sharp\sharprock_monolith.p3d:geometryFire
    Strange convex component05 in a3\rocks_f\sharp\sharprock_spike.p3d:geometryFire
    Strange convex component119 in a3\rocks_f\sharp\sharprock_apart.p3d:geometryFire
    Strange convex component103 in a3\rocks_f\sharp\sharprock_wallv.p3d:geometryFire
    Strange convex component149 in a3\plants_f\tree\t_pinuss2s_b_f.p3d:geometryView

     

  18. Posted

    4 hours ago, phantom3013 said:

    I think the best thing in the future is to keep things simple, the enemy and AI see each other equally day or night, nvg's or no nvg's and if the player wants to change things up, simply slide the skill level down or up to adjust detection. Simple like... how it was in the past. This doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

    In their wisdom they eliminated the possibility for players to tweak AI settings (per side). Now its "all in mission makers hands" - they think that is the best way to achieve consistency and stability. Problem is: That's a huge responsibility. A big part of AI difficulty is already defined in config settings in individual weapons and vehicles (detection ranges, "stealth modifiers", what is shot at first) and its extremely often overlooked and i don't think there is much consistency there. Especially if mods come into play, as those AI specific values are super nebulous and not explained at all how they exactly work - so most people do not bother with them at all and either just set some values, or just copy from some vanilla object that may not even have the same or comparable function.

    This is a big problem and it just flies under the radar, it can make the game worse without anybody even able to particularly notice it, unless he dives really deep and does comparative tests. Like your instance you happen to note one aspect by chance. How many other such issues are there that we don't know of/ can't grasp because of lack of documentation ?

     

    And i still dont understand the removal of the AI slider option for players. Yes mission makers of story missions test with one setting they chose. Why not just use that as preset that loads on mission per default no matter what, and if player modifies it he gets notification that the mission may not work as desired, if the mission maker flagged the modification of AI sliders as not supported (per mission setting). In most completely procedural missions (randomly spawning enemies, friends, objectives) for example it makes no sense not to be able modify sliders. And in Script governed missions (cti warfare, ...) having AI sliders for the different sides is a boon as well.

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1

  20. Posted

    54 minutes ago, SuicideKing said:

    @x3kj I think I see point about the Marshall. The 2D screen has a wider but more shallow FOV, while the  3D one has a deeper but narrower FOV. So for driving in a town or something, 2D will be better.

     

    There also seems to be a weird "parallax" effect with all the view ports. So moving your virtual head up or down raises the viewport's view up or down. Similarly, moving the viewport to a horizontal edge increases the FoV along that side. Maybe this is because it's supposed to be a periscope, and thus this behaviour? But yeah, the Marshall and the Marid's viewports' views are centered too high, need to be lowered to better see the road. Gorgon seems to be perfect.

    The 3D screen has a wider FOV than 2D in horizontal (if you move camera forward), but less in vertical - as demonstrated by the two screen series. Since you can adjust heigth and angle of camera however you can cover the same vertical view range as the 2D port, if not more. The "weird parallax effect" is not weird - its what is caused by optics and the head camera beeing 3d... Focus on the top of your monitor and nod your head up and down -> same effect.

  22. Posted

    On 15.12.2017 at 3:59 PM, Kyancyan said:

    1. I'm completely uncomfortable trying to make the turret, as it has a certain shape that I find very difficult to replicate,

     

        and I don't want to put something on this tank that I don't feel is authentic and respectful to the real vehicle, any advice on how to tackle this piece is appreciated.

     

    On 15.12.2017 at 6:01 PM, mondkalb said:

    1. One vertex at a time. Approximate the shape, compare with images from all angles and blueprints. Refine, repeat. You'll get there.

     

    Don't take "one vertex at a time" too literal however. For the curved parts of the turret i would look into more "high level" modelling tools that allow you to define and modify shapes efficiently without hand-tweaking every single vertex of the curves and bends individually. I'm not much of a blender user, but there definitely is a feature that subdivides your mesh, based on a mesh with relatively few vertices. This way  you only have to tweak a few vertices to tweak the shape to your liking and the smoothness will be generated automatically. For 3ds max there's also something called Patch Modelling, which is extremely usefull for something like this - not sure if there is a blender equivalent to it.

     

    Getting the vehicle set up and working ingame is a bit of a daunting process if you jump into the cold water right away. It's easier if you start with a regular handweapon (you dont need to create a fancy model, just some boxes with general shape of a gun are enough) to learn the process of creating an addon base and load it ingame.

  23. Posted

    2 hours ago, Beagle said:

    Im Saying this based in 12 months delaing with Armoured vehicles...the current 3D vieports of the marshal are way off and don't provide the necessary view. The blocks are way to far from the drivers eye. In such restrictive interiors only Cameraus could help. The 2D port in the marshal is really better overall compared to the narrow single slit.

    So is this a problem of modelled interiors in general, or a problem of the marshals driver position design? The answer is the later. There is no 2D equivalent to the gunner or commander cupolas and the 3D optics in the marid are simply and plainly superior to 2d letterbox as example. I showed you that you can adjust your camera position. I see no reason why i should spend any more energy trying to show you the benefits of a new feature you apparently chose to dislike before actually fully trying it out.

    • Like 2
×