Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

highhead

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    764

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by highhead

  2. Posted

    'lo guys.

    (Sorry if this has been already asked recently)

    We are running long time ago in our Dedi a compilation of TPW_CAS_A3 and ASR_AI3

    I was wondering if there are possible conflicts with ALiVE and/or it's catching system

    with the above mentioned mods (*especially ASR_AI3)

    " When player briefly exit enemy area and come back again do enemy units will maintain their ASR previously tweaked abilities? "

    I 've asked the same question on ASR_AI thread (and waiting an estimation)

    but *any speculation can lead me to a conclusion.

    Thanks

    If you dont have to init ASR actively, in the editor (by adding something to the units init field) it will maintain the custom settings that you f.e. put in init.sqf, at least im quite sure its fine :)

  3. Posted · Edited by highhead

    is there a way to have particular units not spawn? Just figured out (after going crazy thinking it was something i did) that you cant have "destroy" tasks with ALIVE running because once you step out of the "spawn zone" in alive, it puts that unit in "storage" and simulates it from there but as far as the game is concerned it was deleted and the task of destroying something (unless it was close) is now competed right at the start of the mission. without you even getting a chance to move. Anyway to stop this? or better yet a more robust mission part of the opcom because at its current state it is completely broken (ex. destroy "destroyed house" WHY its already destroyed!....no offence just poking some fun) or if someone knows of a side mission script that would be tops! thanks for any advice or helpful info.

    Mate, i feel your pain, but let me clear some things up.

    "you cant have "destroy" tasks with ALIVE running because once you step out of the "spawn zone" in alive, it puts that unit in "storage" and simulates it from there"

    --> Sure you can (if you mean "kill all enemies within certain range"), just check not only for "alive units" but for "near players && alive units && timeout of some seconds" in the conditionfield of your trigger. See the Scavengers mission and our ALiVE WIKI page for an example, its really simple and cool!

    "the task of destroying something (unless it was close) is now competed right at the start of the mission."

    --> Even if you got the triggers to fire correcty there is a BIS bug with tasks beeing completed at mission start on dedicated servers! Its fixed in their dev branch but i got the feeeling there is still something wrong with their task system.

    You also need to know that the current OPCOM tasking system is only a workaround for players to not feel completely lost and sent to the action, so no its not broken completely but not as good as we would like to have it, and as it will be when its replaced with our new tasking system, so be patient or turn player taskings off on the module!

    I hope I could help!

    ---------

    PS: ad. destroy "destroyed house" -> OPCOM picks up the building nodes of the chosen objectives in MIL/CIV placement! So if you chose settlement or didnt filter for certain infrastructure types like (comms, construction, etc.) it will - out of sheer endless amount of regular civilian builidngs - pick a house to destroy randomly. But if you choose, f.e. comms it would give you a radio tower to destroy, on power it would give you f.e. a transformer, on fuel it would give you a fuel station or fuel tank, etc.). Again, this time see the Foursome demo as an example! And sorry, its nearly impossible to implement blacklists for all 89324723894 maps with 908234234 custom buildings.

  4. Posted

    Is there any chance that at some point (probably way down the line) you could add a mode where the OPCOM is replaced by a player, because I imagine it would be quite fun to have a player in overall command of the friendly forces with other players acting as SF teams or something.

    Hi,

    I also need to reply on this request, as friznit did!

    I really suggest you take a deep dive into the possiblities of ArmA. ALiVE adds to it, so you could use High Command engine to control visualized troops or add tasks with the help of our script snippets n our wiki. Really there are so many out-of-the-box features in ArmA that help you create an impressive mission! We wont lose time on already existing (and well proved systems), like high command. Really, Also use the ArmA support modules, tasks, high command, Its all about the game overall, mate - and believe me, you will be happy!

    laters ;)

  5. Posted

    Thanks for your reply highhead.

    The message I was referring to is an ALiVE specific error message (similar to the "CBA version mismatch" messages). All required addons have been removed from the mission.sqm so that can't be the issue.

    J

    This actually is the CBA versioning, we use that for ALiVE - its just a warning that the server/client version isnt matching, and thats good as it is, as we are sorry that we can't support any issues that are related to out of sync versions. I even wanted to put in a kick function if versions dont match, but i decided to just use a warning.

  6. Posted

    Yeah I can see where in certain situation ALiVE does require a client-side addon (which, as opposed to remote exec, is the best option). However, for situations (like ours) where we aren't using features like player persistence or the ALiVE menu or the CAS tablet - why do all clients still require the addon?

    Let's say I use one module - the Garbage Collector. Anyone that tries to join that mission without ALiVE will get an error message (missing/mismatching version).

    I'm interested in the CQB units part - why do AI units spawn on the client and not the server? What was the technical reason for this?

    Thanks

    Hoi,

    As Savage mentioned client server architecture is tightly integrated together, whereas some modules might could be split off to a serverside only architecture this would mean many tradeoffs and potential bugs, and even then you would have CBA as a dependency. We already discussed that in the very early stages and decided to not go that way. And the message that a user cant join with missing vehicles in a mission.sqm is a default behaviour. CQB can spawn on every locality, the core runs on server and determines which host to spawn the units on, clientside now for performance reasons.

    latersh

  9. Posted

    Without pulling apart the entire script the easiest way I can think of to do that would be to edit the Weather Templates array and remove the rain templates from the Possible Weather Forecasts arrays. So, where Overcast could go to [0,1,2,8], remove the 2, so it can never get to Light Rain, same with Light Fog and Light Snow. You'll also have to tweak the parameter settings to not allow the players to pick Rain as an initial forecast if you do that as well.

    No offense taken :) I guess it's your definition of what 'synch' means. I've tested this script in missions that last a couple of hours with 4-6 people playing and everyone's weather stays the same. It's may not be exact (someone may see rain ten seconds before someone else), but it's worked great for us. JIP clients will start with the most current weather pattern and will be 'caught up' the next weather cycle that goes out to everyone.

    As for setWaves, setGusts, setWindForce, setLightning, I just think that's a lot of additional overhead in the script for something the engine does by default when the conditions are right.

    I agree though, and I think any weather script is just a kludge until BI truly synchs weather effects real time. In the meantime we just have use scripts to force every client to certain weather parameters at set intervals.

    Have you tested it and found it get really out of synch?

    Hi,

    Jman is right, comrade! The nextWeatherChange value has too much of an impact during syncing of weather and will give the clients inconsist weather behaviours no matter hat you try as a workaround, esp. JIP clients! I really just want to save your time, on trying to find workarounds, i lost too much time myself already!

    And if all are happy (or dont feel the differences as disturbing) its also good for me!

    Just be aware, that we invested weeks to find a solution on that, and its simply down to the current implementation in RV engine. If you read the feedback tracker ticket, there are many really good coders (like Xeno) in it, that confirmed that stuff.

    So in case you get a sync issues reported, quick weatherchanges, etc. it may be related to that thing.

    Anyways! Im happy that you took the sour pill of getting a MP synced weather done! Really appreciate your work on that, mate!

  10. Posted

    Another thing, this may be very specific, but I'm not sure if it's within the scope of ALiVE

    I want to set up a dynamic, persistent warzone type thing, where enemy forces will grow in size over time, move from site to site, things like that. as I've seen, the military placement modules let you choose a set size, but I don't see a way to create military movement to new areas (though I haven't looked at how OPCOM deals with objectives yet, seems related), "recruiting" or growing in size so that we have to hit them hard after a while, etc.

    I also recall MSO having things like civilian relations, where they would throw rocks at your team if you were in bad standing with them, for example. I think it would add a lot of atmosphere and life to all this if civilians could move and respond to enemy occupation, ambient civilian traffic, and enemies coming in and slowly occupying locations covertly

    any tips about all this would be appreciated. i know some of it is very specific and just really ideas, but if any of it is related to something we might get in ALiVE, it would be cool to know about

    thanks for the response, by the way. I'm having a blast messing with these modules

    See an example how to create new objectives for OPCOM on the fly a few posts back! There is a snippet on our wiki. All the other points is exactly what we are doing in ALiVE. If its not yet there yet, it just hasnt been finished.

    Some patience, patience :)

  11. Posted

    is it possible to create ambient traffic all around with this? or, can a script be used to create civilian traffic all over the map and will they be profiled by ALiVE?

    Hi,

    ALiVE at the moment creates traffic for all military groups with vehicles. We are at the moment implementing and testing persistence (aka. Mission - saving) and afterwards or maybe even in parallel we are going to integrate our plans for civlians, which also include civilian traffic of course. In the meanwhile you could take a look at ARJays Agent system or TPWs ambient civlians, should be quite easy to put in yout mission!

    Laters

  12. Posted

    guys if i place editor units,and put there name in the opcom drop box for opcom to controll,do they still get reinforced through logistics even though they didnt spawn in a placement?

    And if they do get reinforced do they get reinforced with the same unit type?

    thanks

    Think ARJay knows best, but without looking at the code id say mil logistics needs mil placement units to reeinforce!

    Laters

  14. Posted

    I went ahead and put a ticket in, and for some reason my message over the Skype group isn't being delivered (I hate skype so much...)

    Anyways, @AliveDev's are you guys aware of the CQB Module not recognizing the blacklist area when unsync'd, and when sync'd to milplacement and milcivplacements not only will it not recognize the blacklist, but also wont place any units.

    Ticket created regardless: http://dev.withsix.com/issues/73955

    Hi Spectre

    This was reported by a user in this thread some pages ago and has been fixed!

    It will deployed with the upcoming update!

    Thanks for reporting on the tracker, somehow i forgot to put it on myself!

  15. Posted

    First off, great work on this mod and all the prolific content that has followed.

    Secondly, I'm trying to amend the Insurgency game to incorporate revive/respawn, but I can't figure out how to keep the mission from ending if all players are deceased. I can't find a trigger anywhere on the map. Any help would be appreciated.

    Sully,

    ensure you have setup your respawn correctly according to http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Respawn

    place at least a "respawn_west" (or respawn_%side%) marker and this in description.ext of your mish (as an example):

    respawn = 3;

    respawnDelay = 15;

    RespawnDialog = 0;

    works for us :)

  16. Posted

    Thank you Jackson and highhead. I guess i didnt make myself clear. Sorry about that. I do not want to use the CS at this moment. I am just trying to place the empty unit (plane) on the Nimitz deck. But some how when a start mission the plane is under the water, even though i have this on its initiation box It only works when i link the unit (plane) to the Profile system. Any work around?

    On Profile System Module set: "only profile synced units".

    DO NOT sync the plane to it. Make sure the height is correct with ASL 17.

    thatz it ;)

  17. Posted

    Awww ok thank you very much. I only ask because i am trying to place units on the Nimitz and it seems that empty units are sawing under water event i set on their init line the proper height. is there a solution?

    Hi,

    Gunny tested the heck out of it and implemented that actually just for the Nimitz mod! Im sure it works correctly! Please ensure that your CS assets are not profiled by the profile module! Which height are you putting in?

    Latersh

  21. Posted

    Thanks for your fast answers.

    Sorry but just to be sure :

    is Alive: @alive_0-5-6-1401291 matching with perf server : 1.10.114486 ?

    If it's the case I had some trouble to get profiled units spawning... When I came back on stable everything was fine.

    If version are matching I think I'll try again with a new mission from crash.

    Thank you for your confirmation,

    Hi,

    - 1.10.114486 on my perf binary.

    - landis, thanks for your post, it was really a bug in SP an HOST (but was working fine on dedi). Fixed it, and workaround above!

    Btw. I really suggest you run ALiVE on a (local) dedicated server instead of Host. It just performs a million times better.

    enjoy

  22. Posted · Edited by highhead

    Just wanted to share some of my experiences.

    I had an Altis mission with a single large TOAR representing an occupying force and a single smaller TOAR for invaders. I had CQB unsynced but whitelisted/blacklisted, occupying mil/civ synced correctly, and invader civ synced correctly. All worked fine until after a few tweaks (exactly which I cannot recall), CQB stopped respecting the whitelist/blacklist and would populate the entire map. I fiddled with it for some time, got CQB tamed and then invader civ would stop respecting whitelist and would populate the entire map; behavior overall was really inconsistent. It's worth noting the invading TOAR was inside the occupying TOAR initially but no TOAR placement seemed to work correctly (removing the overlap, changing the shape, etc).

    I set up a more simplified mission on Stratis with similar placements to ensure something of an apples to apples comparison. Occupying forces have an unsynced CQB, properly synced mil/civ (no TOAR so using entire map), with a single TOAR for invaders (mil, properly synced). All enemy placements have the invading TOAR in their blacklist. First load, not all occupying placements respected the blacklist and populated in the invaders' area, and I'm pretty sure a couple times the invaders populated the entire map.

    Finally I figured out what seems to be the best procedure for ensuring consistent behavior regarding TOAR placement, this fixed both my Stratis and Altis missions. It seems you have to create a TOAR for every placement. In other words, on Stratis when I created 3 exact and overlapping TOARS and put each different TOAR in each placement the blacklists/whitelist finally worked for all placements. The invaders are using the same TOAR as one of the blacklists so it seems separation by whitelist/blacklist or by OPCOM is ok. Same thing on Altis, when I setup a separate but identical TOAR for each placement everything behaved as expected.

    On a different note, if you want a more densely populated base you can use an unsynced CQB module (blacklist/whitelist TOARs if necessary). Using the same percentage/denseness settings, a whitelisted/full map CQB covering the same TOAR as a military placement will populate more heavily unsynced (verified multiple times via debug, more Xs). Obviously you can adjust your mil placement population size but this is no guarantee, even without OPCOM you still get patrols that may use those units and CQB seems to use more of the available buildings in any case. I have not tested with civ placements but I'm guessing the effect is similar.

    tl;dr:

    • For consistent TOAR behavior (whitelist/blacklist) use separate TOAR markers for each placement.
    • For more densely populated bases (and likely civ objectives as well), you can use an unsynced CQB module (whitelist/blacklist as needed). Nice because it isn't limited by placement population size.

    Question: Has anyone managed to get UPSMON working with Alive? I primarily use Alive for coop missions with my buddies so bCombat won't work (unless there's an MP version I'm not aware of). I have installed the UPSMON script and based on my admittedly limited playtesting so far I'm not sure it works. I do understand it wouldn't do anything with profiled units, only those spawned in player space, that's fine. I'll mess with it some more later, I would just like verification it's doable on the off-chance someone else already got it going. On a related note VTS Duck Hunt works great.

    Hi Landis!

    Welcome! I saw this is your first post, so thanks for taking time to register and that share your expierences!

    I would like to see the mission with the inconsistent taor behaviours - glad you managed to sort it - but I have not seen such a behaviour yet and would like to check if its replicable somehow. Actually on the CIV/MIL MP modules there is no whitelist (thats only on CQB), but several TAOR markers and blacklist markers in a row are working fine and actually how it should be done (like for TAORs: YourTAOR_1,YourTAOR_2,YourTAOR_3 and for blacklists: YourBL_1,YourBL_2,YourBL3 etc). If you use several MP modules with one TAOR each it will work but will slow down the INIT time as there is another instance of MIL/CIV MP running. The CQB blacklists/whitelists are completely independent of the MIL/CIV MP ones and should in no way affect CQB module!

    I really agree that unsyncing CQB will give you a more dense battlefield, just keep an eye on performance, so not 300 AI are transferred to view at the same time.

    If you could post that mission to our tracker (http://dev.withSix.com/projects/alive/issues) i would be really really happy, and if its only to get your placements sorted and optimize init time!

    --------

    Update: Savage just mentioned today that he got something similar if one blacklist marker is used by both, CQB and MIL MP. I will look into, you might be on something there :)

    Cheers

    Highhead

  23. Posted

    Shadow, we will update FAQs on ALiVEmod.com - obv. that info got lost, thanks. Tupolov stated it in the thread already (thread search option), HC support simply wasnt ready. We have planned to do it on first release, but it was more work than expected (it wasnt as easy as to switch everything serverside to the HC as we wanted to for initial release). But we will implement when we get time.

    sebj, theres a new perf binary already that also matches the latest stable build version number!

×