.kju

Gunter you are creating unnecessary confusion here. There was never a "full version of Iron Front Arma 3". There was a conversion process. Its also completely unrelated to Liberation. As said Liberation is assets extracted from WOG mod pack mostly built by Shvez, Justfigter and a few others (and various models taken from 3rd party games without permission). Again no relation or relevance to "full version of Iron Front Arma 3". Copying info from 3rd party doesnt make it true or relevant.

Preview v38 hotfix 4 is out Changelog: http://ww2ina3.com/wiki/index.php?title=WW2_Changelog:_Preview_v38_-_2019-09-12#Preview_v38_hotfix_2_-_2019-10-27 Download: N/A Server admin patch (40 MB) https://drive.google.com/open?id=1P0AOukMhEfbn8Q7J9BjutxuCkMg81MLd https://mega.nz/file/p1VRnaaJ#ak6jt5QXQwXAyxb6VArigZsco87e5vgAJVojVp4TCro Make sure to delete all bikey and bisign from IFA3 first (use agent ransack tool)!

Sorry Gunther but your details on Liberation are wrong. PIONEER was not part of our team. Shvetz was. Liberation was also not a "full version of IFA3" or sth. Liberation is simply a mod pack of various WW2 assets. Largely from Shvetz and partially from WOG (which Shvetz was also involved in). We asked PIONEER to drop the IFA3 tag to avoid confusion but he refused.

no we are not dead yet .. just working hard day-in and day-out 🙄 What could this be about? 😬

also useful https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/LOD

Dont waste your time with "Dr." Claus Köhnlein - he is a fraud: https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mimikama.at%2Fallgemein%2Ffaktencheck-zum-video-dr-med-claus-koehnlein-erklaert-den-corona-wahnsinn%2F

he is still on github

just because someone is a "Dr" or "Scientist" doesnt make him/he a meaningful source of information or opinion - even worse much are bought of working for big industry or stuck in confirmation bias, or unable to critic their own conviction one needs to learn about how the human brain works, how social processes work, how our economic system works. so just taking someone's saying as relevant because of "status" is misguided 5G has very very likely no relevant impact on SARA-CoV 2 whatsoever. The reason why the virus impacts us the way it is, is due to its own "design" and the characteristics it has. Now the implications of the "lockdowns" are not to be treated lightly (social, legal, economical, health, etc) and certain things are overdone or misguided or misused, and will need correction. However this does not mean the measures are unnecessary or wrong in their general nature. check this for example to get some sense why this virus is very dangerous, and spend some time to think about the other implications and effects on society at large would have if "we" would let this very aggressive and deadly virus infect the world population quickly and unchecked

i was responding to Gunter. yes there is good reason to be very critical of NYT and other mass media, and good insights you get from alternative media and experts - yet not all, and by now most, alternative media is trash sponsored by various interest groups to sow chaos and confusion

please dont watch such trash and listen to some real science yes more research on 5G is needed, yes the role of industry and politicans is to be seen critical, yet largely for other reasons did you know that your mobile while sending, or wireless router or even the old wireless phones at home transmit actually a lot of radiation energy? https://www.howtogeek.com/423720/how-worried-should-you-be-about-the-health-risks-of-5g/ https://www.howtogeek.com/662454/no-5g-does-not-cause-coronavirus/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes-personal-shopper/2020/04/01/6-of-the-best-vpns-for-reddit/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-cancer.html https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-mobile-radiation-tests-top-out-at-1-5-of-safe-levels/ also spend some time to learn who is funding those people and popularizing this stuff https://www.science20.com/hank_campbell/truthers_are_the_norm_which_is_why_you_should_stop_reading_scientific_american_right_now-242966 and how YT and other social media are radicalizing people https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/08/26/youtube-radicalization-pipeline-alt-right-content-cornell-university/ https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/08/12/youtube-far-right-radicalization-brazil-new-york-times-study/

I am looking for your ideas how to improve the existing system by extending in modest ways. Scope Both infantry and vehicle group (mixed/only) Adjusting and extending the quick/simple command menu, as well as the classic/complex command menu somewhat A few custom "behavior modes" to combine multiple aspects into one Exposing a few scripting commands/scripted features Better default group setup Better default controls/key action assignments Additional key combos/key shortcuts Maybe a few custom GUI elements for guidance Out of scope Probably wont touch map view commanding (maybe basic multi move waypoint) No complex extra features or new formations No custom GUI/radial menu No multi group management (High Command like) No micro management of AI units Helicopters or planes, Artillery/mortar or other kind of supports Replicating/Trying to replace advanced AI commanding mods like: Drongo's Command Enhancement https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1515249845 Now I've done quite some research, testing and play-testing already. As such a fairly good idea what should be done. > However before laying those out, I am reaching out to you guys to get your ideas, grievance or advice. < Important: Please consider/mention tank/vehicle commanding/combat separately. Related:

Also https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_2:_FSM_Danger_Causes

very impressive work as usual by you NF folks 👏

and before that: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-ventilator/germany-discussing-its-medical-export-restrictions-with-eu-partners-idUSKBN2101IU Plus today is an EU summit to coordinate that.

its key to understand the relevant characteristics of the virus: + average time to symptoms: 5 days + 20% asymptomatic + most infectious in the first 7 days the huge issue with this is the testing is basically 5-10 days behind the actual situation + fairly high transmissible (20% attack rate - means how likely to get if you are in contact with someone infected. plus R0 is 4-7 without measure. 2-3 with strict measures. means how one guy spreads it on average to others. its less than cold/flu but still very high) + mainly droplet infection (coughs and sneezes, or being close to someone (~2m) for 15+min to breath in the other persons air) + there is some level of aerosolization (similar to dust particle) - means can be up to 5-10 meters based on airflow. however concentration is way lower + virus can survive on surfaces based on humidity (more = longer, thus also material matters. wood/paper less - plastic and steel most) and UV (kills the virus). however direct contact still matters way more than surface + every age gets infected the same amount basically - only the symptoms and degradation differ + strength of your immune system matters most (worse for old people, or people with other illnesses) overall its about scale, probabilities and chances the 60-80% figure is based modeling - aka when does the virus run out of hosts as all infected have either immunity or are dead (aka chances get too low to jump to the next person) the figure itself is just based on the high transmissibly and lack of drugs and vaccine. as the latter one will need 1-2 years its the likely outcome. so the main goal is to stretch out that process as much as possible. best over 1-2 years to have the vaccine available and in the meantime keep health services and economy working somewhat as for testing: there is simply not machines, the material and the manpower available. so they focus on those who are most important: medical staff, suspected cases (in bad state) based on symptoms and everyone else needed to keep things going. however there have been some improvements in recent days with better machines to upscale testing a great deal, plus (reliable) antigen tests to become available fairly soon too (cheap and quick). finally there seem to be a couple of good candidates for drugs that help in severe cases. should get confirmed and become available in the coming few weeks on mass scale (but time is short) a lockdown has the issue the announcement will be leaked ahead of time and thus people will just escape last moment and spread even more. one has to "lock down" human interaction (termed social distancing). aka closing all non essential activities and force people staying home (potentially with threatening hefty penalty) (aside from going to work, supermarket, health related travel and other emergencies) the issue is public transport obviously (aka not everyone can get there by foot, bike or car), hence China closed everything down apart from bare essentials and many countries have poor regulation with sick leave or not even public health insurance

@froggyluv best read again the thread introduction, whats within scope and whats out of scope to better understand what I am trying to achieve and what I consider feasible

Buildings/objects have too many issues you cant solve with scripting or at all. Geometry, collisions, movement, cover point behavior and types, weapon use, destruction, ladders, lack of jumping, falling behavior, usually buildings are standalone - aka not connected to something else. You have one/few entries, go in to some window and thats it. More like a bunker. Combat inside is largely frustrating. As said there are already previous script systems to make AI take building positions or clear a buildings. But these are quite rudimentary and dont/cant address anything of the above issues. The recent work of using very heavily scripting movement inside helps somewhat I would assume. Still many other issues to address. As mentioned my scope is limited here as I have only little time and thus cant nor dont want to aim for solutions working in every Arma context. The commanding aspect with buildings will help very little as far as i can tell. To me customized move commands or use of waypoints for your own group seem way more meaningful to interact better with the Arma style environment.

@nkenny Stance is certainly very important. However combat modes are not really about stances either. Player commander stance management is doable. Automated based on situation or environment probably not really. Arma is way too complex and the influence on AI too limited, as well as ability to get input on the environment. To get units to retreat from combat try: units player apply { _x disableAI "AUTOCOMBAT"; }; units player apply { _x disableAI "TARGET"; _x disableAI "AUTOTARGET"; _x disableAI "COVER"; _x disableAI "CHECKVISIBLE"; _x doMove (position player); _x setUnitPos "UP"; _x setBehaviourStrong "CARELESS"; _x forceSpeed 100; }; What commands explicitly do you need the menu for? What means 1? To get a medic in your team to heal you? Can you do that via "INJURED" in the context sensitive command menu. Also you can use it with a medic selected to treat others. Or use the medic support call (5-1-1). So please elaborate Inventory access and rearm are very important indeed. These are on my list and should be doable via context sensitive command menu. You can already order units to building positions. What is a hassle is to order multiple units/the whole team as you need to do it for each position individually. Pretty sure there are already scripted solutions from A2 days for that though. So only needs to be tied into the context sensitive command menu (or some custom one). That said AI is pretty stupid with buildings (movement, animations, turning, awareness, no flexibility). So to make AI really meaningful with buildings you really need to script a lot in addition. Personally I never understood why so many are fixated on buildings - Arma is an open world simulation. Buildings/objects is one of its biggest weak points in many ways - not just for AI. You can also order suppression via the context sensitive command menu (by holding ALT). Or are you saying its not working well enough? To be able to adjust the duration/an endless mode one can toggle off would be convenient. However not simple to implement such logic nicely interface wise and have it really meaningful gameplay wise. Personally I am not convinced either suppression is really working well in Arma (that said don't have too much hands-on experience with it nor did I notice it to matter really). Arma seems also not really well suited for it given its aiming mechanics for both player and AI. However I am always open to be convinced otherwise with good arguments or examples.

Did a lot of testing in both OFP and A3 and reading first (forums, reddit, wikis, steam pages, etc). My current understanding: # Engage - allows AI to break off for the one assigned target (aka need to repeat the engage-target orders process for each target) 1. Reveal an enemy 2. Assign an enemy to one or more of your units (ie "2-target" menu in complex/classic command menu or via "target man/enemy" in simple/context sensitive command menu or via reveal key while simple/context sensitive command menu is open and pointing at the target with the command cursor) 3. Use the command Engage on one or more of your units (via "3-4-engage" in complex/classic command menu or "engage" in simple/context sensitive command menu) 4. Selected AI will break formation to eliminate that one target (and get back after - an engage other enemies during their return) # Engage at will - allows to break off every time you assign a target (aka you set once the mode and only need to assign targets) 1. Use the command Engage at will on one or more of your units (via "3-5-engage at will" in complex/classic command menu) 2. Reveal an enemy 3. Assign an enemy to one or more of your units (ie "2-target" menu in complex/classic command menu or via "target man/enemy" in simple/context sensitive command menu or via reveal key while simple/context sensitive command menu is open and pointing at the target with the command cursor) 4. Previously selected/commanded AI will lead them to break formation to eliminate that one target (and get back after - an engage other enemies during their return) So the core difference is Engage is to assign each enemy and then confirm, while Engage at will you change their modus operanti and only need to assign (without individual confirmation). # Disengage - cancels either Engage modes to have AI stay in formation 1. Use command on one or more of your units (via "3-6-disengage" in complex/classic command menu) 2. AI will no longer break formation from now on (toggle off "Engage at will" basically) If you want them to stop their current attack, you need to command that explicitly (via "regroup" in simple/context sensitive command menu or via "1-1-return to formation" in complex/classic command menu) PS: Most people don't seem to know the importance of the awareness level you have about targets. In OFP it was more obvious as the command cursor showed you as text the current identified type and side. To increase it, you need to look at a target. Zoom-in, optics, binocular help. Yet most important is the reveal action - pointing at a target with the cursor and spamming helps a big deal to recognize a target (better). --- Most correct overall guides I found on AI commanding: https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/206260-comprehensive-guide-to-commanding-and-reporting-to-ai/ https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=184803370 https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint:_Commander_Guide https://guides.gamepressure.com/armaiii/guide.asp?ID=21605 (little more basic but not bad either) --- Some people state that assigning a target for "Engage at will" or "Engage" is not necessary. Couldnt get this to work/confirm though. Sample: https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/91164-fireengage-hold-firedisengage/ And my experience: https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/76850-engage-v-engage-at-will/?tab=comments#comment-1344279

@nkenny as describe above - as far as I can tell right now - "Disengage" only disables "Engage at will". It does NOT mean your AI is to retreat/get back/get out of combat. To achieve that you need "return to formation", "hold fire/never fire", disable autocombat, other disableAI modes, forgetTarget, etc.

what the class name(s)?

This is what I have for custom menu for now: Custom menu Target Menu (command menu) Return to formation (and Dissolve subgroup) (and reset watching?) (and reset stance): https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/doFollow Reorientate formation (when in formation) (and reset watching): https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/resetSubgroupDirectionhttps://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setFormDir Find Cover (command menu item) (Toggle?) Scan Horizon (command menu item) Next waypoint (command menu item) // Stop? (and kneel?) // (Longer) Suppression fire? (+ lay down first?) --- Toggle EnableAttack? // relevant only for non player groups? Toggle AutoCombat Open Complex command menu And custom commands to simplify things somewhat - probably tied in above custom menu or in a separate one: Custom behavior modes Attack Combat Mode: RED (Fire At Will, Engage At Will) Behavior: COMBAT Formation: LINE/WEDGE // UnitPosition: MIDDLE DisableAI: AUTOCOMBAT-OFF //EnableAttack: ON? ForceSpeed: 100%? Defend Combat Mode: YELLOW (Fire At Will, Disengage) Behavior: COMBAT Formation: DIAMOND // UnitPosition: MIDDLE DisableAI: AUTOCOMBAT-ON //EnableAttack: OFF ForceSpeed: 0.66%? Aware Combat Mode: GREEN (Hold Fire, Disengage) Behavior: AWARE Formation: FILE // UnitPosition: AUTO DisableAI: AUTOCOMBAT-OFF COVER-OFF? //EnableAttack: OFF ForceSpeed: -1 Stealth Behavior: STEALTH Combat Mode: BLUE (Never Fire, Disengage) Formation: LINE/WEDGE UnitPosition: DOWN DisableAI: AUTOCOMBAT-ON LIGHTS-OFF //EnableAttack: OFF ForceSpeed: 0.22%? All Clear/Retreat Combat Mode: WHITE (Hold Fire, Engage At Will) (or BLUE?) Behavior: CARELESS (or SAFE?) // Formation: COLUMN - gets ignored, but set default? UnitPosition: MIDDLE? DisableAI: AUTOCOMBAT-OFF TARGET-OFF AUTOTARGET-OFF CHECKVISIBLE-OFF COVER-OFF //EnableAttack: OFF ForceSpeed: 100% References https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Combat_Modeshttps://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setCombatMode https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/AI_Behaviourhttps://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setBehaviourhttps://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setBehaviourStrong https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setFormation https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setUnitPos https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/stance https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/unitPos https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/disableAI https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/enableAttack - relevant for player group? https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/forceSpeed

@guttersnipe we had a few reports of this already but werent able to reproduce it on our end. note this is BI technology we use, so we can only forward this to BI to be solved now what we would need is exact setup and reproduction steps possibly its a locality problem - if you are not effectiveCommander, you cannot control it

@domokun > Command stacking As said a basic level is feasible, yet not more for my scope. > Intelligence = greater detail on direction of fire Again do you mean group chat call outs? Or visualization? Automated or manual? > Suppression I can' tell how well/poor the native system works, and one can script this to some extent (effects of suppression). However I am not sure how much this can really be improved beyond whats available natively (and in relation to complexity and effort involved). Best to check dedicated suppression mods/scripts first to get a better sense whats out there already. I am doubtful it will be worth it. Also to have different levels or types of suppression fire is quite hard to script. Can't see this working well and worth the effort. > Get troops into cover & hold fire Unfortunately its impossible to combine the "take cover" movement command with anything else. So you need to stack those commands yourself. The best one can do is: STEALTH+HOLD FIRE/NEVER FIRE(+FACE DIRECTION). For direction you would either need a submenu again to choose, or some sort of cursor direction determination process. It may be possible to script this, yet would first need to figure out how this is to work exactly in a smooth way. Other games may provide good references tho. > Hull-down There is no practical way to determine a suitable location. > Pop smoke in direction of incoming fire To determine the direction in meaningful ways is not simple to impossible. Probably better would be an command to order an AI to throw a smoke (in your current view/cursor direction). For tanks/vehicles an auto eject on getting hit is probably meaningful. > Rearm One can script this to some extent but its not that simple. Have to check if there is any decent existing solutions.

@scimitar > Stacking commands There is mods that do this fairly well. In my context its probably only relevant for 3d - not 2d map. That said its also the question what is meaningful beyond multiple MOVE commands. Otherwise you need temporary scripted waypoints (see post above for its complexity). Another problem is mixing of different commands (say MOVE + another), and changing/deleting setups. Then its gets easily very complicated again. And its done fairly well in other AI mods already. > Sync command execution There is mods that do this fairly well. Not my scope to have a "RTS" command layer. > Custom recon or probe commands Out of scope again sorry. Would need scripted waypoints again, plus hard to impossible to do this convincingly/well enough with SQF/Arma limits.