semiconductor

All In Arma Terrain Pack. Yes, they are but it seems that they are bugged to different extent. We had a severe all-seeing-AI issues only on Sahrani and other terrains from Arma 1, on Chernarus everything was as usual, more or less.

IMO iZver actually has a point. My group have played A2 version of Escape ([CZ75]LuzifR's) many times and there certainly wasn't any AI squads constantly pursuing you through the entire map. Even now beating Chernarus version of this mission is somewhat easier. Maybe it's because Chernarus is smaller and has more uneven terrain, maybe it was because the AI still has a hard time navigating, but it feels more natural.The problem with always pursuing AI is especially noticeable on flat terrains. I've ported Escape to I44's Staszow for our group and the AI was simply unbearable because you can't even hide from it in the field. Once you've managed to wipe out a squad with Kar98k, there's always two new squads coming to take it's place. Since Staszow is quite big, it was very frustrating non-stop fighting all the way to the airfield.

Again, yeah, it sounds simple for us humans, who are able think and act on their own (at least theoretically :rolleyes:) but an AI needs an extremely precise routine telling it what exactly it have to do. For example, let's try to convert our one-tank one-squad situation into some sort of pseudo-algorithm. Here's some checks that I can think of: Note that all those checks are required for an very simplified situation. There is no other enemies, there is no allied squads, no support, no means for resupplying, no changing environment (building won't get hit with GBU-12 before squad reaches it) so the major part of required logic can be omitted. But even in this situation AI will often make a fool of itself by trying too hard to act intelligent. And to make the situation worse, all those check should be executed at real-time for at least several squads, eating precious FPS. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposing the idea of smarter AI but I think it's almost impossible to make an AI smart enough for a very complex and fast-paced sandbox. I'm all in for improving AI in terms of following orders (issued by players or mission/addon makers) but I don't believe in AI's ability to make a meaningful decisions on its own. So I'd rather have a somewhat dumb but obedient AI than sorry-that-we-killed-ourselves-while-trying-to-hide-at-enemy-base-from-that-tank-30km-away-kind of AI. :D

Yeah, that would be cool, I agree, but it's something that easy to say but hard to do. The problem is, a computer can't "garner", it can only blindly follow a routine that someone created for it. As for now, no computer program can interpret the world it experiencing, inspect and compare objects, observe events make a logical connection between them, and then, based on accumulated knowledge and experience, make its own judgement and arrive to a decision. All that is a requirement for being able to tell that "This group of objects is indeed an enemy armor platoon." without external help. Hell, even the majority of the humans (the crown of evolution, mind you) aren't able to tell that without additional learning. If BI would somehow manage to create an AI that will be able to experience the world it exists in with efficiency of a smart monkey, it would not just be a progress for some $50 computer game — it would be a historical breakthrough for a mankind. :DWhat's left? A scripted solution, a bunch of "if...elses". Here's another problem: that solution should somehow be relatively universal. Since AI can't think and decide on its own, that solution should have a hard-coded logic that will cover the major part of possible tank platoon combinations and conditions, squad abilities and armament, town layouts and so on. I'm guessing it would be extremely big and extremely slow. If BI makes that logic a bit simpler then it becomes less universal thus causing dumb AI behaviour that will, in turn, cause mission maker to deal with situations created by somewhat-smart-but-not-smart-enough-AI. The AI would actually feel even more frustrating because it would quite often do something that mission maker does not expect from it. IMO, BI should concentrate on small building blocks of AI behaviour from which mission makers would be able to build a behaviour they want to see on certain mission. Something like more advanced Move waypoints, maybe introduce new "SEIZE BUILDING" waypoint but not something global. For a sandbox tools sometimes are more important than premade complex solutions. :)

I don't think that hardly defined behaviour is acceptable for sandbox. What if I don't need AI to run and take cover? Even current courage system breaks missions in certain cases, too self-dependent and too smart AI would be a bigger problem that current one.How an AI can determine that it being ambushed? That certain armor platoon is indeed an armor platoon (what if tanks aren't in the same group or very far from each other?) that poses a threat to them? How can a AI squadleader decide whether it should continue on his mission or retreat? It's impossible for AI to know about its environment, its capabilities, tasks and priorities and then make a meaningful decision based on that knowledge, it's something that mission designer should think of in advance and script new functionality if needed.

What about some sort of isWorksopData command that would allow modders (through scripts in modification/mission itself) to detect whether their addon was downloaded through Workshop and disable it's functionality/show notification if they don't want it to be distributed in that way? Sure, someone skilled enough can remove it and upload addon without protection but average Workshop user wouldn't be able to do it and that alone would decrease amount of illegal uploads thus making it easier to authors to find a report such uploads.

AWM? Really? AT LAST!:D Thank you for your awesome work, Toadie! I've waited for this weapon for soooo long. :cool:

While there is such spaces, they are relatively small, have rough terrain and encircled with forests. There is no reason to stay in the open field when you have excellent cover in a stone's throw distance.

I think that armored vehicles are not the only ones who got themselves a ride to the gallows in Tanao. First, air warfare is going to be very limited at best: helicopters would not be able to see anything in forest and since there's seems to be at least 2 thick forests in 500m radius from any given position, they will be blind and defenseless against practically everything. CAS plane can't make a precise gun run or drop bombs because, again, there is no clear view of enemy/laser target and we haven't saw GPS-guided bombs yet. On the other hand, the size of the map would not allow to employ full-scale bombers. Light vehicles would have a hard time at Tanoa too - it seems that they will stay in range of RPG shot from nearest forest 70% of the time, let alone guided ATGMs. In that aspect warfare in jungle is not much different from urban warfare and in urban warfare vehicles don't last long. Besides, islands are not connected to each other (in video, at least) with bridges so if your vehicle is not amphibious, you're out of luck. As for PVP, I was talking form gameplay, not scenario perspective. Here's what I'm trying to say: people are tend to be defensive, especially in games that offer some sort of cover mechanics. Because it's simple, it's obvious and it pays disproportionately. Other things being equal, attacker always have a disadvantage and with Tanoa's foliage, when fire can come from any direction and defenders can easily outmaneuver/escape the attacker, he is in a dire situation. So, as in many other games with cover, players will lie under bushes and wait until enemy will pass by them simply because it's the only effective strategy unless player or team have a good plan or greatly excell their enemy in man- and firepower. And if that wasn't enough, heavy, medium and light vehicle support is unavailable or can be destroyed quickly (good luck hiding from that AT-4 in the still water, BMP-3 :D), attack helicopters and fixed wing are useless and artillery generally isn't fast an precise enough. The only things that could ruin this guerilla paradise are MLRS and napalm but former are expensive, fragile, need large amount of supply and have other limitations and the latter does not exists. But, yeah, amphibious and naval vehicles are going to have their long due hour of triumph. Frankly, although I'm not in awe from the new map, I'm not disappointed in it either. It looks pretty, it has new assets and even if it would be as agile gameplay-wise as other maps I think it's ok for BI to experiment a little since Altis and other maps aren't going anywhere soon. :)

I can't quite understand how come that word "jungle" is not considered to be an antonym to "great combat". The only thing for which jungle combat is great is F-4 Phantom with napalm bombs, for pretty much everything else it's the worst thing imaginable. Jungle combat might be challenging, interesting, special but definitely not great. Especially for PvP — AI at least is not going to lie under a bush waiting for another player to run out of patience and then shoot him out of nowhere.Unless I'm missing something, BI have chosen a very peculiar place that likely will not provide a diverse and dynamic gameplay.

Technically you're right, there is one asset of each type but the problem is variety of those assets, especially civilian ones. There is 1 hatchback, 1 SUV, 1 truck, 1 pickup and 1 Apollo-looking civilian man with 2 or 3 different outfits. Yes, civilian stuff is not a priority in Arma and it's great that there is at least something civilian but operating room sterile cities without any signs of life are outright boring.

PvP in areas with dense foliage isn't going to be very fun either, every mission is going to be Vietnam War with FPS drops instead of napalm bombing. I think that BI will do something about AI though, releasing a DLC that won't proprely support the major part of a base game because they don't care is a pretty bad move.

Because it's out of game's scope. I think I should implement some kind of filter that will prevent user from creating a thread if this or similar sentence can be found in op-post.

Oh, that's great news! :cool: As always, thank you guys for your outstanding work! :)

I think you are confusing clipboard with "Save to". Exporting to clipboard should not create any files, the sole purpose of clipboard is to provide a convenient way to transfer text between applications without creating any additional files. Anyway, what exactly do you trying to export? I can't seem find any "export to clipboard" options anywhere in editor.

You mean Virtual Arsenal loadout? Nowhere, VA does not create any files, you need to paste exported text manually via [Ctrl] + [V].

I was talking mainly about underwater part of the sea since water surface implemented on acceptable level and apart from synchronizing waves, adding something like setWaterLevel command and making tracked vehicles able to swim I don't really see a room for significant improvement. I would love to play with a full-scale (ok, even something bigger than inflatable boat) sailable/walkable/sinkable ships though. :)On a side note, I really hope BI will manage to fix ponds. Xirolimni Dam makes me sad every time I see it.

I thought about naval scenarios for some time and figured out there's literally nothing to do in the water except insertions and wreck recovery. The visibility is extremely poor, the movement is slow and somewhat annoying, the combat is non-existent, the landscape is basically a sandy valley with some rocks here and there, the AI have a hard time navigating and so on. There's nothing BI can do about most of those things - just because ocean is indeed big, boring volume of water as far as "military sandbox" concerned.

I really hope the new terrain isn't an asian/jungle-themed unless BI did a complete AI and gameplay overhaul. Even then foliage ain't going to make firefights more interesting, it's going to make them very frustrating, especially for those who plays with A3's vanilla units/weapons. Source: chernarussian grass and awesome Unsung Vietnam War mod for Arma 2.

Guys, please consider adding an ability to return to old context menu. New 3D menu looks nice but sadly it's really frustrating to use even in "listed" mode.

There is a green generator-like box few meters to the right of the radio tower. Come near it and invoke usual action menu, a "Hack" option should be in it.

Congratulations on release and thank you for your work, folks. ACE for Arma 2 was amazing and I'm totally looking forward to countless hours of gameplay with ACE3! :cool:

I had IF installed previously via PW6 and removed as usual folder (not through PW6). Mine was "Addon AiA_Effects_IF requires addon AiA_Effects" message box at startup, and "No entry: bin\config.bin/CfgVehicles/FunctionsManager.scope" in main menu and in editor. When trying to preview some map with a unit (no matter whether from IF or vanilla) I get a loading screen and then game returns back to editor with message "Script ca\Modules\MP\data\scripts\MPFramework.sqf not found".Another guy who downloaded lite version had the same errors, he managed to fix the issue by adding all required mods into a new collection manually. I figured out that replacing @IFA3SA with @AllInArmaTerrainPack in the startup line causes these errors to appear again but I'm pretty sure that there was only IF-related mods in PW6 collection that I tried to launch earlier. Yet another guy said that patches have failed to install because they couldn't detect IF installation or something like this. He somehow fixed the issue but I'm not sure how exactly. Finally, the third guy had "Addon AiA_Infantry_IF requires addon LIB_sov_characters" warning and "bin\config.bin/cfgExtended_HUD/LIB_M4A3_75/Layers/Vehicle/Layers/ltrack/: Cannot find base class 'ltrack'" critical error. We were able, however, to get the mod up and running by removing all @IF... folders from Arma 3, checking IF integrity in Steam (1 file was corrupted and had to be redownloaded in my case) and carefully following your tutorial (many thanks for it! :)).

Does it still supposed to install the mod correctly? I used it couple of months ago to install IF and everything went great but now me and my friends are getting errors so I assumed that mod in PW6 is no longer maintained.

Is it still possible to install this mod via PlayWithSix? I've managed to install it with Günter's tutorial but my friends keep running into dozens of various errors (IF is not installed, Addon A requires addon B, something-something function scope etc) so a one-click solution would come really handy. :)