chrisb
-
Content Count
2385 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by chrisb
-
-
On 6/2/2019 at 5:49 PM, Groove_C said:@jakerod Nogova ❤️
Not official terrains, but contain what I would consider rivers. Some were of official quality (imo).
_______________
Chernobyl zone
grozny
fsf jungle
favslev
prypiat
sbrodj/sbrodjistan + winter
opbarra
Helmand Valley
Faysh Khabur
Oruzgan Province
Terra Atormentada
Rugen
IIha Marrom (unfinished)Podagorsk
Panthera
Zernovo
Celle
Merderet River + winter
Fapova
Isla Duala
Lingor + Dingor
Tropica
Clafghan
Esbekistan
Vietnam mbg
Tigeria + special
Hunters Valley
Sangin + winter_______________
After that there are many VTE terrains that have rivers, or could be considered rivers. Plus many other terrains have rivers too.
These above were just some me and a couple of friends could think of. It's interesting topic terrains, not talked about often enough.
I have over 300 terrains (iirc) or so, without A3 terrains. So I would imagine there are a lot more rivers knocking around.
Note: One or two could be considered Straits, but all are navigable (to a degree).
-
4 minutes ago, snkman said:Okay did some tests...
Tank vs APC
APC vs APC
ZSU and AWC 302 ( AA ) vs A-164 Wipeout
Tank vs Tank
multiple times...
All worked as it should?
Crew ( Driver + Gunner ) disembarked their vehicle(s) just right befor the deadly hit.
I was able to shoot their vehicle(s) till 1 hit left to destroy them and which made them leave their vehicle which seems okay to me not to say in the vehicle and explode with them.
I tested it with vanilla... Nothing else besides T.C.L.
Maybe something wrong with R.H.S.? Idk...
Okay i get your point but this does not reflect the game as is normal.
Just like testing A.I. without enemy.
If you really like to have a full realistic and authentic example you always should use the game as its played normally.
I tell you something from my older modding days...
Back in the days guess it was in GL3 times i had almost the same idea you had...
Writing my scripts by using a game logic as enemy ( which will never be a real enemy to any side ) just to save some time with making A.I. aware of any enemy and doing the same procedure all over and over again because they killed each other...
Well i spend some days writing my scripts testing them and they all workd perfectly!
A.I. did exactly what they sould do!
Guess what happend after i tested those scripts with some real A.I. enemy(s)?
Almost nothing...
The way of how the scripts / A.I. behave with real A.I. enemy(s) were totally different.
After this i never ever wrote any script without having A.I. in a real combat situation.
I see what you are trying to show there but just as i said... If you like to have a full authentic example do it by using the game as it is normally.
Bet if i would remove all rocks and bushes from A3 Malden my A.I. refuse to move problem would be already solved!!!
Please don't get me wrong chrisb!!! I'm just telling you this from my own experience and what i've learnd during all my year's of ARMA A.I. modding.
I can't answer that really. I have done just over 400 videos regards ai, most all ingame with everything as normal, plus all with enemy (fancy that), those videos also had enemies. 😉
Didn't have grass though.. Damn!! that must have made the difference.. 🤣
Sorry couldn't help it..
But it doesn't matter, as said, you answered what I thought.
-
3 minutes ago, snkman said:Well guess you really can't compare A2 A.I. with A3 A.I.
Just look at the map... It's totally empty... + A.I. "COMBAT" behaviour movement in A3 is much more different to what seen in your video.
In A3 they always go prone > middle > up which really slow A.I. movement down a lot + in A3 there are WAY more objects which A.I. use for cover so they will be in cover almost every 10 sec. and most of the time stay there for another 10 sec. which of course isn't too bad but in some scenarios it makes them kind of stick to their position even if they should advance.
Its totally empty for a reason 🙄, but I guess it passed you by.
___
Description (for those that need it):
The whole idea of the test for the video shown on page, isn't for anything other than showing the need for finding good cover (way off, over 30-50mtrs) put to side of each force. And have the ai use it, rather than the vanilla attempt.
Then the test was to run two groups (opfor/blufor) straight at each other down the middle of a 'testmap' (its a testmap ;)), to see what the ai script/mod, does for the ai.
Script is 'zeus_findcover, based on SLX_findcover, very good scripts'. But we would still need them to retain their in-built cover routines, for tactical game play anyway (just imo).
Empty map, means nowhere to hide, other than the two settlements.
With vanilla your correct, they just go prone and run the routine, prone, middle, up and die (no nearby cover). But this isn't the case in either video. They find good cover, whilst using cover fire. The linked video is in town, the shown video is on a created 'testmap'. After they go to cover they flank ect. But first, they firefight over the distance in-between (no mans land) more realistic imo.
___
Reason I put it up was, I was just wondering what taking out or to disable cover for ai, would achieve, (one of those new commands you mention for A3) other than a battlefield'ish type game play (which you just described). Also the 'disable combat' mode, to replace it with what ?
Not that I don't mind how players play, if fast action game play, similar to what I think it would produce and why, I think, BI added them, is the result you want, then that's o.k... I didn't know that.
But not really ai for tactical use. But we're yet to see in a video.
Still.. It doesn't matter, it answers my question and indeed some others I had. 😉
Good luck with the mod anyway. At my age I need a slower more tactical game play.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, froggyluv said:That video does a poor job of showing anything really other than some basic AI maneuvering. You need to show distance, location and general orientation of the enemy to make a determination how well the AI is behaving. Narration notes or at least timestamps to make your points are helpful as well.
And again, there are circumstances where AI need to really just haul ass such as incoming artillery, armor or grenade. Im 48yo in real life and i could run circles around those stooges. Thats why the BI devs provided all of the newer Disable Ai features -they realize that the AI needs more but they simply arent funded to do so. Giving scripters the tools was a very nice gesture
Yep, notes were on there when it was uploaded 4 or 5 yrs back, but YT removed notations on many videos. There could be some of mine on there with fixed notes done prior in an editor, but I'm no longer sure with the amount of ai behavioural videos I've done.
And watching the video, if you understood ai behaviour, which I'm not sure you do, because lets face it, they're not jumping off building onto moving trucks etc, or very hollywood/cod style that you seem to prefer.
Its just a simple self explanatory video really, even without notations, most understand where the enemy is located, how far, etc and the idea of the video.
But it seems a few watchers understood, and I thank those that bothered to message me and indeed like. I'm not used to very many watching these videos other than the subs who have been with me for many years now and appreciate ai behavioural videos and who also use/try for high quality tactical ai, with what is publically available.
The behaviour shown in both linked videos, show exactly what they were meant to show, they didn't need to go further (or indeed need an explanation, certainly for those that sub to my YT), that was for other videos and ai behavioural subjects.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, froggyluv said:"Why AutoCombat Bad Chief?"
Because real soldiers sometimes need to move quickly to get to real cover. Not Pop up/down rotate 180 like the whack-a-mole subroutines that are Arma Auto Combat
But ai have been doing that (with help) for years. Going to cover is something that is well documented in videos, real cover, cover that is well out of the way too i.e. they travel to cover whilst covering other units.
So it isn't really that new, or new at all. Just requires mods, well not even mods, just zeu_findcover pbo plus a little tampering.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, snkman said:Well depends on what you understand by working well.
GL5 is a port of GL4 where as far as i can tell no code has been changed / modified to make it work properly in ARMA 3.
Im not talking about class name changes and stuff like that i'm talking about the pure system code.
Guess the main purpose was to just port it.
To make A.I. work ( move ) half way properly you have to use some disableAI commands which wasn't available right from the beginning of ARMA 3.
If you don't use them A.I. unit(s) kind of refuse to move very often.
Also those commands was one of the reasons why i came back to modding.
Waited for them since A2 where B.I.S. started to make A.I. modding kind of hard by using their hardcoded A.I. "COMBAT" behaviour.
Example:
By default ( vanilla ) A.I. group(s) as soon as they have an enemy they will switch to behaviour "COMBAT" automatically which is fine.
But in some cases you like to make them use "AWARE" instead of "COMBAT" behaviour to make them move faster by not using UP > DOWN stance all over the time or by not using B.I.S. micro A.I. cover usage.
The only way to switch A.I. group(s) with enemy contact back to "AWARE" behaviour is by using the disableAI "AUTOCOMBAT" command.
The same distance lets say 500 meters with behaviour "COMBAT" takes A.I. group(s) around 1 - 2 minutes while "AWARE" A.I. group(s) need half the time. They kind of rush to their enemy which sometimes could be pretty good especially during a hunt situation.
This is just 1 example out of many!
Guess from a players point of view it may looks good but if you debug / spectate A.I. movement in almost every kind areas, locations, environments and distances with enemy without enemy by using diffrent behaviour and combat modes you will pretty fast see whats going on and where the problems at.
I'm still fighting with A.I. movement ( right now
) but i can tell without those commands it would be much much worse!!!
To figure out what exactly to disable ( what caused the problems ) took me months i guess...
Yes I agree, I think GL5 was just a straight port, but they removed error popups, which helped. Also it worked pretty good, overall. From a players point of view, well mine anyway, although I didn't play it much.
The things you point to as possible improvements for modders/devs like yourself, i.e. (disable) cover, autocombat, path etc, etc that were introduced in A3. These for me, seem to be there for modders/devs, to make the game faster, which is what A3 seems to be, when compared to earlier titles. I wouldn't think these were helpful in a realistic way. Forcing ai through using some of these commands is great if you want the game to feel fast, maybe a perceived excitement (battlefield'ish).
I can't see, -this disableAI "COVER"-, or suppression, to be useful at all, for a tactical ai (just imo), unless your after a faster game. Plus switching to auto combat 'as is default', that seems right for the way we play the game (non story driven sessions), infact its more or less a must.
That said, for heavily scripted missions (maybe story based/driven), whereas you have to get the ai to point 'a' or point 'b' at a set time, or to move the game onwards quicker, then I can see why you would use these commands. But looking at what they do seems to just be aimed at pushing the game forward/faster, or isn't it ?
How do you see these helping make the game more tactical, it would be good if they do, but we're yet to see other mods use them that way. I see A3 played much faster than previous titles on the whole. I can't see that as a good thing, well, for me at least.
Have you an example of a scenario, where you'd find these really helpful in a tactical way, not story driven mission, but with a terrain set out as occupied by ai forces ? i.e. once set out they act in a more independent way ?
-
GL4 worked more or less as it did in A2 when I used it in A3 at release of Alpha. Just a few error popups would be annoying, which they sorted in GL5. Taking ammo, swapping weapons etc all worked as it did in A2, surrender also worked too in A3 as did flanking. Syncing units also worked in 3. Most of the ai mods I mixed from A2 worked reasonably o.k. in A3 early on. But zeus was always a problem, but I got a A3 version of 'findcover' so that sorted that out really.
Overall the ai mix I used in A2 works fine in A3, it will be interesting to see a side by side comparison of this mod v GL4/5 plus some others. The only problem was zeus really, and you really need zeus for tactics and a more engaging combat. But lets hope that will change with TCL, GL4 ai were always wanting to get stuck in too much, but were easily pulled back a little.
I have a number of videos on my YT channel showing GL4/5 working well in A3, plus other ai mods too. (I think there are still some public ones there)
Was a shame about zeus though.
Oh, and when I say zeus.. I mean the ai mod, just incase some are confused.. 😉
-
When it comes to smoke and thermal's. If things have changed from A2, and I'm not sure as I'm not in A3, well then o.k. But I wouldn't think they would change something that worked reasonably well i.e. 1x smoke grenade won't block a view through a thermal, however 3 or more smoke grenades overlapping can/will block view depending on wind and so on.
Just a thought, I'm not in A3 so it would be for someone else to test, but that was the way it was/is in A2 Vanilla, I just tested it in vanilla again in A2, and sure enough overlapping smoke from 3 grenades blocked my view with a thermal and that of an ai in reverse. It took the smoke to clear for him to hit me. He did shoot in the general direction, but with thick smoke, and me just standing there, he didn't get a shot on me, until it started to clear, then first sight of him through the smoke (I had a thermal too), he hit me straight away..
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, GEORGE FLOROS GR said:Further than possible !
Just got to love that. 😉
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Gunter Severloh said:Was it mocap melee? ---> http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=27262
No, that one you link there is much better than the one I had. The grab is good, probably the most used in melee stealth, coupled with a knife. Hitting and kicking is not really useful, for me at least.
But the grab, that looked good. 😉
-
Someone did a melee script or mod, can't remember for A3. I tested it in stealth and it worked fine. Creeping up behind enemy units wasn't an issue. Problem was the animation, didn't look good.
-
There are a couple of things players can do that really help ai in this series. From 2016 A3 tests.
One obviously, is to use modded ai. However if your not really into modded ai, you can use just a couple of parts from ai mods that work well.. Zeu_Findcover is great, if used just on its own along with vanilla ai, can make ai much better.
Two, behavioural triggers are something I have used for yrs in sp. They are fairly easy to setup and make the ai much more effective.
Some don't like crouch (in the second video) much, I prefer crouch above every other stance, mainly because it keeps them aware of the surrounding, without being too visible. Not only that, but the ai I use, always uses height ie, building, rooftops, balconies etc to their advantage. So keeping your head down and that of your side, is something that has to be done. But the nice thing about stance/behavioural triggers is that you choose, you become the trainer of your units that way.
So a simple trigger or two can make a difference. First trigger I use when engaging enemy is for ai of every side to go prone initially. Second trigger, after whatever break you think you want (10-15secs), is to come upto crouch, this really has to be used with the findcover pbo, because by the time they come up, they will be in cover.
Now these triggers act like a recommended stance for ai, they 'will and do' use, run, prone, stand etc if required. But overall they will use your preferred choice via the trigger. That is what testing and in-game has shown me over, well, probably hundreds of times. Plus with triggers, I see no hit at all performance wise. Now that depends on what your running etc, so may be different for each player, so testing is the way to go.
Two videos, the first vanilla ai. They don't act terribly bad, but they just don't get to cover quick enough. This means the first firefight was over in just a few minutes. Second video, you'll see is different, with very little used by mods, just zeu_findcover & triggers (which you setup yourself).
Now this is a few years ago, so not sure if A3 ai have changed much regards cover. But still worth looking at.
First; Vanilla ai from 2016..
Second; zeu_findcover & two behavioural/stance triggers. Then just vanilla on the whole.
Behavioural/ stance triggers = how you want them in combat mode (use colours), what stance to use (preferred), then speed (limited, always for me), then timers. Set the trigger up as you would usually.
But these are your choices, use whatever you think best that suits your play style.
Note: triggers will need to be attached to groups/units etc. Its really like a mod, without a mod.
Really what your seeing is, vanilla ai with your training (triggers).. But a must 'zeu_findcover pbo'.
Once the ai (even vanilla), are able to flesh out a firefight, they will amaze most players. It's giving them the time to do that and getting them into cover.
-
1
-
-
Early A3 vanilla test: Very deaf vanilla ai, never a myth.. 😉
2019 test, infact just now (for this thread), seeing the last test I did about A3 vanilla ai & hearing was two years ago.. They were still deaf then. But it seems that, and perhaps down to us players testing, they have corrected it. Although they still don't do much about it, but it helps that they hear.
I'm delighted that they now react to gunfire. 🙂
I like the thread, we all know, those of us that test ai a 'lot', that they are capable of huge amounts of things (without doubt the best game ai there is). However, unfortunately if they can't get the very basics down to a 'T', they are still lacking. But modded ai can change that.
Going to cover, good cover, is one of those things they lack and that is a basic thing, for me at least.
They do eventually go to cover, vanilla ai, but its not great. But we all live in hope that vanilla will complete the basics, hearing was one of those basics.
I haven't read through the other things, the first two made me think... Are you sure.. 😉
But yes, they do hear now. I would like to see a better response, but hey early days... 😕
I have around 400 ai videos on my ChrisB YT (most taken down a year or so ago, but I put some back up having been asked too), all but a very few are ai tests. So it will be interesting to see if some of the others are true.. Unfortunately most of mine are A2 (modded A2).
-
4
-
1
-
-
He/she did make some great content.
-
The series changed with A3, that is why I'm still with A2. It just progressed for BI. They got the sales and A3 is still supported. Players have to get over changes. Look at DayZ, no lets not.. But how popular was that. 😕
I was really disappointed with A3, but soon got over it, just didn't move on. Luckily there was a better game, called A2..
😉
-
1
-
-
OP. It's the player that makes it realistic, the way you play it. Some players will indeed make 'Contact' realistic for them, just by the way they play and use their imagination. Realistic isn't confined to military.
The game and engine can be used for many things, zombies (god forbid, but it happened), sci-fi (A3) perhaps. But pure sci-fi is good, a proper first person view of sci-fi, done in a intelligent way, would be nice. We're yet to see if it's good or indeed intelligent, could struggle with A3 ai, but fingers crossed.
For realism, you have the editor and your imagination, it's what we use. But its always good to have a change and if it can be done in the same game, then onwards and sideways.. Give me something to use A3 for, its got plenty of dust on it.
We have yet to see what A4 will be about.. 😉 who knows.. Sci-fi-sim.
I'll be alright, I'll still be playing A2OA.. For my milsim. 🙂
-
10
-
-
10 hours ago, almanzo said:
And even though I understand your interest lies elsewhere, treat yourself to http://cwr2.arma2.fr/ If you are unfamiliar, it's basicly Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis ported to ARMA II, with the entire campaigns present. Even though some of it is a bit dated now, the story is really well told and it really shows how well suited ARMA can be for telling meaningful stories about war and warfare. Keep in mind that it's 18 years old by now. I could not recommend it more.My treat and that of the small'ish group of friends I have/had, is a wargaming world, not campaigns. Arma offers so much more than campaigns. An ongoing story that last's for years, just build it yourself. Although the assets from your link were, and still are, used.
We built it from Arma, although I built myself a smaller version in sp (ofp) and indeed with the Elite version, my mates laughed, said it couldn't replace our usual game, it didn't, until Arma came along.
But from Arma we have a wargaming world that is still in full flight. It just grew with the game, mods, terrains etc....
Although as we get older, it slows down. I was a little over 40 when ofp came out, I just wish they had done it all 10yrs earlier.
Regards opening it up to sci-fi, if players get over it's using the same engine and assets (some) and forget about 'Arma', then they should be able to see the possibilities in that, but some can't see past a campaign or two. It's really all about the editor for me.
I hope this 'Contact' is good, I like sci-fi, maybe not as much as milsim wargaming, but it makes for a nice change. So provided its good, I'll tinker. It will be the first proper outing A3 would have had with me. I'm still too much into the better (imo) A2OA + all the dlc's, content etc, didn't need to move on.
So it makes A3 useful for me, it was already a little sci-fi anyway, they walked like aliens in A3, when it first released.. 😕
-
OP, I haven't played any of the campaigns, during the whole of this series, so its going to be different for me/you.
But I do think you miss one thing.. This series is more about making your own content (the Editor), a wargaming world, military heaven. Not campaigns, campaigns are all over in a matter of hours, whereas Arma via the editor (build your own military world), last for decades...
I think the boys at the very start, got it right, they included an Editor.. And that is why this series is still here.. 😉
Nothing to do with campaigns.
-
4
-
-
I have to say, I watched the trailer and this could actually get me playing... well this.. via A3. I don't play A3 as I don't tend to see it as a milsim in the same mode as A2, but that is just personal preference.
This however, looks like a great way to do sci-fi, very few games have the ability to throw intelligent game play at sci-fi. This could be that game.
It completely takes 'Arma' out of this, so leave the milsim part of Arma behind, or indeed leave 'Arma' behind and delve into sci-sim, possibly the closest we'll get to a really believable sci-fi encounter, from a first person perspective.
Lets hope the enemy ('them') live upto it. 😉
Certainly going to keep an eye on it.
-
3
-
-
5 minutes ago, snkman said:Agree!
GL4 if i remember correctly did not have any A.I. take cover feature but as you can see in the video i posted A.I. take cover is one of the main system features in T.C.L. A.I. with correct direction and distance calculations.
The blue arrors shows A.I. unit(s) possible cover and after given A.I. unit(s) reached their cover position they will switch to green.
True.
GL series did not use any A.I. movement direction calculations.
A.I. simply was send to a random position 100 meters within their enemy which very often results in A.I. moving directly in front of their enemy.
This has been drastically changed and improved as well!
Guess T.C.L. A.I. movement calculations and conditions are one of the most complex part.
T.C.L. tryes to calculate if A.I. should move / advance or stay at their position which is pretty hard to do correctly especially in urban areas where distance calculations are kind of useless because A.I. and their enemy(s) can be very close to each other but without LOS separated by just a wall or a building which needs some specific LOS calculations to check if A.I. can see their enemy(s) or not.
Thankfully ARMA 3 provides some new scripting commands which will return much more precise informations about A.I. unit(s) enemy(s) than any other ARMA game before.
GL3 had 'take cover' script, you removed it for GL4. But for me, ai looking as if they are wanting to live, helps, getting to cover gives that impression to the player. 🙂
-
1
-
-
Had a long post took it off, didn't want to seem ungrateful..
Can you get them to go to cover.. i.e. similar to zeu_findcover, I'm sure your familiar with it.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, snkman said:@chrisb
Yes that's correct those none combat features you described of course work without A.I. having enemy contact i did not mean the entire mod isn't working without enemy contact.
What i was talking about are the combat features of the mod.
As already explained to ZackTactical34 A.I. unit(s) / group(s) which move from A to B WITHOUT enemy contact ( without any kind of threat ) will use pure vanilla ARMA movement given to their current behaviour!
Those A.I. movement behaviours are hardcoded and what you see in this case is a comparison of ARMA 2 A.I. vanilla Stealth / Limited vs ARMA 3 vanilla Stealth / Limited movement.
What COMBAT means when it comes to ARMA engine:
There are multiple scripting commands to find out if A.I. is in combat mode or not but all of those scripting commands require at least 1 object ( enemy to given A.I. ) to return something.
So if there is no enemy which A.I. is aware of there will be no combat behaviour mod usage because there is nothing which those scripting commands return.
So there always have to be at least any 1 threaten A.I. to make them switch to combat mode in terms of how the engine handles it!
Thats pretty much how ARMA A.I. engine works from O.F.P. till today ARMA 3.
Yeah pretty hard to explain it on a easy and good understandable way but you can trust me with what i say! ( Even if you may not believe that i'm still the same =\SNKMAN/= as back in the days )
I'm doing all this stuff since the very first day's of ARMA 1.
I think we can agree, when there is no reason for the mod to work, or isn't required, then its stays dormant, or those parts do. I understand the basics, from a players point of view, of course. I look at combat slightly differently to the arma engine, but that is because I want to believe in the ai and what it is doing, so yes, from a tech point of view, your quite right of course.
It's not always nice to look behind the curtain, it destroys belief.
Snkman (you) and the others involved with previous ai mods, left some very nice work for A2. Private mods left even better work in some cases, so I'm always very grateful for that.
But I see things from a players point of view, well not so much a player as a believer's point of view. I try not to peek behind the curtain too much, as it would probably make me stop playing.
Q/ Do you still play, and if you do, are you always analysing things ?
I feel sort of sad for modders in a way, they sacrifice so players can believe in the game, that much I do feel sure about. If you analyse what the game is doing (behind the curtain) as you play, I would have thought that makes for a very different Arma experience. Whereas your not really playing the game as it was intended, but instead visiting from a dev view.
-
1
-
-
On 5/15/2019 at 12:45 PM, snkman said:GL3 / GL4 and T.C.L. they all need enemy(s) to trigger! No enemy(s) = no mod use.
Not really what I see . With GL4 you had to place enemy units on the terrain for the mod to initialise properly. But they didn't need to be in combat with those enemies for the mod to work. The units would garrison (mod use gl4/zeu_glx), patrol (mod use, gl4), use idle anims (mod use, gl4) etc, etc.
Now where I would partially agree, until in combat the mod use lays dormant for the combat side, although again not always, depends on what a player considers 'combat'.. I would say when they use mod tactics, it comes under the combat side (zeus_findcover etc, etc). But to say the mod isn't used, isn't really correct.
Just my experience as a player using the mod (check some of my videos). But you provided GL4, so would know that. Perhaps it was the combat side you meant. 😉
-
1
-
-
Little tactics video with ai.
-
1
-
Contact Expansion Livonia Feedback
in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Posted
Yep, you made some nice terrains.
Just put some of them up there in a list, if anyone fancies a boat trip. The ai can manage a few of them too. Many are still well used.