Jump to content

Rydygier

Member
  • Content Count

    4419
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Everything posted by Rydygier

  1. Yes. In folder "Source". Place contents of this folder in mission folder. To init: nul = [] execVM "RydHQInit.sqf"; ---------- Post added at 21:35 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ---------- It is true. CBA is used only for addon init. Script version not require CBA.
  2. Rydygier

    J.S.R.S. 1.5

    Definitely have to try this. But not in winter. @Higgins Interesting info, didn't know about this. Thanks. EDIT: Tested anyway. Wow.
  3. Rydygier

    J.S.R.S. 1.5

    Yeah, but I noticed a strange behavior: In stores they do not want to give me the game, until I pay to them. Odd. :) (no cash...)
  4. With newest CBA & BW mod on Arma 2 1.10 without any other mods game exits to desktop with error message like: Bad version 50 in p3d file 'dingo\amt_dingo2a2.p3d'. Similarly for other vehicles. Maybe OA is needed? EDIT: nevermind. OA IS needed. Well... :)
  5. Rydygier

    J.S.R.S. 1.5

    Oh, what a pity that Arma 2 without OA (which I haven't) not allow to set proper audio sample rate. I admire tenacity and dedication of people who spend years on something great to give it for free. Looked (or rather listened) at effects on youtube. This is amazing.
  6. I tried to reproduce similar conditions on Fallujah map. In total, approximately 360 units, helicopters, AA weapons, fighting on the streets of a big city ... First contact occurred only after 20 minutes, but this is understandable and expected on such battlefield. Here everything takes longer, because much longer it will take execution "SAD" order in an urban area. Yet I found no lags or freezings, fps was low, but its normal - my video card is an old scrap, I play in low resolution on minimum settings and I don't have more than 20 fps on maps such Duala and only 10-12 on maps like Chernarus. So unfortunately, I'm not wiser than I was about this city lags issue... Who wants and has a Fallujah map can try on his own: player is a spectator here, has at its disposal a car, but also teleport - click LPM on the map to change position. Mission is for addon and script versions of HAC. There is small unit counter on ALPHA channel. To avoid RPT error use this tool after both sides HQ init. To play with script version start game without HAC addon and use BRAVO channel to init HAC (of course do not use BRAVO with addon version). You can also switch to other units, but only civilian has teleport ability. Fallujah mission I wonder if for someone more these lags will also appear.
  7. Yep. There is nothing strange. Pbo version simply does not require init code, which was lacking in the first version of demo mission. Only script version require this code (nul = [] execVM "RydHQInit.sqf"; ) to start, for pbo test this line should be removed. Currently included demo works with script version just fine.
  8. About Zagrabad - I do not know, what could cause this type of lag on city map. Haven't this map, so can't test it. About water - indeed. I managed to make HAC not to appoint waypoints on the water, but have not found an effective way to stop him from sending units somewhere behind water (should be to figure not exhaustive for CPU code, that somehow verify if unit can reach its destiny by land. I haven't idea how to achieve something like that). EDIT: In fact, I was hoping that unit sent to place, that is cut off by water, will simply stand without moving, so I put code to remove a waypoint, if unit stands without any move too long. It is obviously not enough... About objective triggers - its radius or size are irrelevant. Objective even does not need to be a trigger, it can be any object. Only its central point position matters. Hard to tell, what caused described effects, I would have to test a given mission to say something more.
  9. Yes, too complicated. Sorry. It is not just about the amount of work (eg, perhaps possible, but will be very troublesome to make the script recognize an areas, where enemies "heavily passing through"), but also here is that the more complex behavior, the more factors you need to consider , the easier it is to miss something, which destroy the whole idea. For example, the issue of deploying mines. Sounds good, but too easy to disrupt course of these activities. Sappers can be very easily spotted by the enemy, especially that they spring into action only when they see the enemy on road, enemy will likely to turn aside from the route and pass mines when fighting with sappers, these mines will be there and may run on them some allied unit...
  10. I haven't OA, only Arma 2 1.10 (disableAI FSM is command from OA). But adding under HAC control units from other addons, like ACE, or from OA, BAF etc. is easy. See this example: RHQ(B) category arrays and some rules. See also manual for more details about RHQ arrays. This way you can add any new units under HAC control. Need only their classnames. This thread will help with OA, BAF and other units classnames: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73241&page=2 If in any doubt just ask. Gladly help.
  11. If other people do not have described problems, I do not need to take them into account. That's good. Maybe this has been corrected in CO (OA), and maybe again this is related with problem, about which I said you via PM.
  12. 2. Thanks, I think I shall make use of this advices. As for the important points - I was thinking of a similar system, could combined with optional additional objectives. Maybe I would add objectives of different types. One would have just to get, other to hold or something like that. 3. Thanks for info about formations. About my road problems - convoys, if that consist more than one vehicle, often stucks, drivers suddenly stop, twist to the side, turn back etc... Infantry groups, that has just slowly going down the road trying to set a long column along the roadside, but units often turn back, go to the end of the formation, then turn back again ... hard to describe. I have Arma 2 1.10 only. 4. Probably good idea, will see; 6. Yes, it probably will be something like that. I hope, this will be enough.
  13. @ZeroG Generally yes. I'm afraid that adding new units to the script is not very user friendly. Need to review the code and in places, where classnames is used ,analogously to add new. However, even if you succeed, it may not be the effect. Script is based on cooperation with the BIS Artillery Module. The question is, whether these new units are designed to work with this module.
  14. @stupidwhitekid75 1. Hmm. There is no such rule implemented. And personally can't confirm that. During the game, quite often I was sent to attack or to scout right away. 2. I hope I can get the new version of the defense more dynamic and generally make reserve does not stuck on makeshift defensive positions, as it is currently. I doubt if I can make defensive positions were occupied even better thought out. Units are currently deployed on the ground within which to handle best (infantry in an urban area and among the trees, vehicles, on the contrary), and reconnaissance units and snipers on elevated positions with good wide field of view towards enemy. There is even reverse slope set ambushes. Something else - the most logical positions are also the easiest to predict. I wish the script could also from time to time to surprise. The issue of selection of position is a matter of solution to the problem creation of such a code, which sifted unfavorable positions or choose the best. Available commands and my ability to give me a limited room for maneuver in this regard. Moreover, to designate positions most appropriate from a human point of view I would have to use a complex topography scanner. I saw something similar, but such programs are extremely "heavy" and will cause great lag. And will still remain a matter of interpretation of these topographical data... The effect is not worth that price. Unfortunately, algorithm does not think like a man. Maybe I can do something in terms of guarding the nearby roads. 3. I will think about diversity of formations. The question is, as far game AI will use in the fight advantage that those formations provide. Himself have little idea about under what circumstances which formation is best, except that for the transport column in the fight rather line, so I will rely on your suggestions, unless someone can tell me anything else about when formations which should be used. I will be grateful for any information in this topic. Efficiently moving a column of vehicles on the road is a hard thing. So far I have not seen any script that would solved this issue. Each of the tried is sometimes unreliable. In addition, the best move vehicles very slowly. BTW I noticed that also infantry is moving on the road in a bizarre manner. Hence, I am rather willing make to moving unit avoided roads ... 4. Currently, a similar system is used when the player is a leaderHQ unit. In this case, cyclically known enemies are to reveal to him and it gives a similar effect, because shown information is incomplete and does not necessarily valid. I can share this information to all. I will think also about markers. 5. Such convoys of supplies would be great. Maybe I can add something like this, but I can not promise anything. It looks complicated to implement. In any case, some form to provide logistical support should appear. 6. I'll see what I can do ... 7. Here I am afraid that we enter a very complex level of behavior mapping. Separately, it is all probably to do, but gathered together... I look at already long "to do" list and wonder how heavy to bear for the game proves a script that takes account all these interesting ideas, and to what extent I can, with my little skill, do not disappoint your expectations, folks. Your creativity is far beyond my expectations. :) Thanks a lot! ---------- Post added at 13:07 ---------- Previous post was at 13:00 ---------- So huge, that begins to frighten, what awaits me. :)
  15. Well. So maybe you can "incude" units in this mode in various ways. Will think. :)
  16. OK. It is both reasonable and, probably, possible. :)
  17. I agree, task of HAC is and should be assigning a waypoints rather than control of AI behavior on unit/group level (there are other great addons for that purpose). Thus my doubts about the new "Marmor" category. Differences between waypoints allocable for "Larmor" and "Harmor" and those for "Marmor" will be probably very little, and such category units behavior could vary significantly on unit/group AI level, which is not intend to modify by HAC.
  18. Thanks for another good ideas, folks. I have already long list, and still remain a few days until end of the year. :) I wonder how many of them I manage to add in the new version. ---------- Post added at 12:13 ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 ---------- Or maybe use the above mentioned idea with HAC control for synchronized units only. Yes, this may work fine. Thanks a lot. ---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 ---------- That is good nerws. Thanks for reset idea. Currently there is some reset script, but it works every 10 minuts and not all calculations are reseted. EDIT: About "medium armor" category - making it is not a problem. Most importantly is to determine exactly which units would qualify (eg from Arma 2 will be, let's say, BMP-3, T-34 may be too... anything else?) , and what exactly will be difference in their behavior and uses on the battlefield compared to tanks, and also compared to behavior and uses of lightly armored vehicles.
  19. Addon updated to 1.2 Note: In this version, salvos drift finally is calculated exactly as I wanted. In comparison with earlier version it may be larger. If you prefer a smaller drift - remember about possibility of adjustment this parameter with RydART_Acc variable (is equal 2 by default). 1.1a version is included in "old" folder. Parameters in demo mission are set up so that artillery fire was the most frequent and intense. In a standard missions I recommend a default value of RydART_Safe, which is 200 meters. In this mission player is a civilian spectator - so for addon version test just wait a minute and watch fireworks. For script version testing launch game without FAW&CBA addons. Then use radio ALPHA channel to initialize script. Map markers are active.
  20. Yes, HAC may control all factions except civilians. @Taro8 As for units sent to scout - Mechanized infantry with LAV or AAV is in the same categories - "ATInf", "Inf" and "Larmor". To give a priority to LAV I would have create a separate category for it. I can do it, but I do not know if it's so significant difference ... HAC sends to reconnaissance units of this types only if it can not send any scouts, snipers or FOs. Alternatively, you can add a "LAV25" classname to RHQ_Recon so will have priority over the AAV, but in this way, an unit may be excluded from an attack missions because considered as reconnaissance unit. About SECOPS - I'm not convinced, but if I can figure out how to distinguish units spawned by the module and it will not be too complicated, I can think about optional disable HAC control over them.
  21. @Taro8 Hmm. I just checked - I received orders to reconnaissance as a scout, and "hold" and "capture" as a team leader. I'm not sure what could cause not issuing orders for player in your case... In fact, HAC treats, in any case should treat, a player just like any AI unit except when a player is leaderHQ. In fact, the waypoints are not visible on the map with the exception of first, but are marked in 3D. This may have related to the procedure to remove all waypoints before issuing the order and immediate removal a waypoint at the time of its completion. SECOPS and HAC in the same mission, is probably not a good idea. Even if I found a way to somehow distinguish between units that are spawned by SECOPS from the rest (at the moment I have no idea). Missions ordered by the module would be often disrupted by the ongoing fight around. Also often would create bizarre, unrealistic situations.
  22. Thanks, Old Bear! @Mikey74 To include A, C and G again: RydHQ_Excluded = []; or to re-include eg only A: RydHQ_Excluded = [LeaderC, LeaderG]; etc. @Taro8 Thanks for more good ideas. New version of FAW is on the way (elminated some bugs, thanks Taro8 for bughunting :), will be added demo and, I think, new pdf manual), but maybe there is no need to combine both addons into one; now everyone can decide whether to use them together or not, and use them together is trivial.
  23. Merry Christmas. Synchronize... Interesting. With this command: synchronizedObjects it can be a very promising solution. Thanks, will see.
×