Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

silentghoust

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    342

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by silentghoust

  3. Posted

    Greetings,

    So I spent 2 days on this working on a little problem our mod team has.

    Basically, we have a unit that needs to be tough as nails, take dozen 9.3mm tough. At first, we simply upped the armor value of the unit class, but we noticed that AI didn't play well against this. As they would resort to weapons usually met for an MRAP.

    So our solution was to use https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Soldier_Protection. Offloading the general armor value in favor of massive damage reduction. So far everything seemed to work well except one thing...the Arms. No matter what stat, no matter what class I call. The arms simply won't reduce damage. I tried ridiculous stat increase to the point that you could blast 50.cal rounds into them, but even then, the arms still take almost 1/4 the shots as the rest of the body. 

    We also tried alternative ideas, such as using CrewVanerable = 1 but to no luck. We also set the damage resistance low as well, but again. No luck. If anybody could help us get a working example of a fully protected arm, that would help tremendously with our project. If not that a solution that allows AI to fight a unit that has an armor value of 175. 

  5. Posted

    Greetings,

    I been on a quest for a hopefully simple script where the enemy AI will use its knowledge of a arty position to launch it's own.  I know that the AI within a squad will magically locate any enemy arty fired at them in close proximity. I would like to exploit that behavior by simply having a script that will have any AI within a squad that is manning arty to automatically shell that position. 

    An example would be an officer has several batteries in his squad, and when an enemy arty is spotted, the script fires off and orders the battery to fire on the target. Would it be a bit cheesy? Sure, but at least it would make players deploy arty a bit more liberally then simply spamming it tell victory. 

  7. Posted

    Maybe I couldn't do it with the small testing time I had for tonight. But it seems like crew damage is still using the same model? I couldn't seem to kill any off the crew with close range AP shots, and the global "damage" effect for them seem to come into play. Is this something that will be added to the Tanks DLC or did I just not test well enough to see it? 

  8. Posted

    Greetings,

    So to start out I basically copied and pasted the entire Y-32 VTOL config set up for the VTOL. After some tweaks it seemed to work fine, however, I seem to have one issue.

    At some point, with most common causes being first to move waypoint after take off, and overshooting the target. It usually happens like this

    • AI begins to pull up
    • Flaps set to usually 1st settings
    • Speed gets stuck at 283 or so, no degrade or increase
    • Aileron twitching as if wanting to turn but don't. They twitch based on direction of waypoint/objective
    • AI will continue to simply go up till they reach the max altitude

     

    This seems to be this specific maneuver and in that state alone. Taking control and banking will break them of the state, and altitude causing lack of engine power will as well. Once even a minor outside force effects the "stall" like state. The vehicle will operate 100% normal. Although it can be triggered by overshooting a objective such as after a strafing run.

    Any ideas?

     

     


     

  11. Posted

    M1A3 is my guess as well, it honesly complements the Slammer well. 

    As for indie,
    A safe guess(and sad one) would be the Challenger 2/1. It would fit the EU semi-outdated theme of the AAF. However like other suggestions, I would be much pleased if they went to an outdated tank approach, so it can be sourced out to the other GUE style groups easier. 

  12. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Beagle said:

    I don't see a use for a 90 years old design in ArmA III.

    Soviet glory never dies my friend, only the 7.65mm rounds that pen it's armor :D. It would be interesting to see a old school tank for Syndikat or FIA. Obviously it won't be it though, but who knows. I can't think of many unique EU style tanks that they could model off.

  13. Posted

    Yes, in terms of capabilities. Why the new JET DLC craft can multirole, the original collection of jets still are more suited for CAS. I'm curious what these tanks will offer in terms of fitting into each faction. NATO for example clearly needs a true MBT. AAF(assuming the 3rd is for AAF) kinda has a very nice MBT, and it's hard to see a nitch weapon system they could get with another style of tank. Unless they go oldschool t-34 but the only one can dream.

  14. Posted

    So based on the video we can assume that CSAT will have the T-14, but have they mentioned or announced any of the others? Also, how will these tanks fit the scope and role of each faction? For example, Jet DLC provide air-superiority fighters that complemented the existing CAS aircraft. How will these new classes of tanks complement the Slammer, T-100, Kuma, ect? 

  15. Posted

    21 hours ago, Vasily.B said:

     

    Also what was writed long time ago and can be missed in development - Ai behavior on damaging tracks/wheels/engine. Please make them not disembarking vehicle, it looks really silly if facing armor head-to-head with your own tank, you get hit in track (tank is still able to defend, noone from crew has died) and you are forced out of tank with rest of crew. Same with revert situation - you hit AI tank into tracks, and watch how them disembarking workable vehicle - thats must be changed in order to make tanks fully effective.
    I 

    4

    Too be honest, crew bailing on a mobility kill is just a general purpose behavior.  I.E if you get hit by a tank round and have no location of the tank, would you stay in basically a none-moving deathbox knowing the next round will hit?

  16. Posted

    Yea, hoping this is the last DLC from BI they will give us maybe a tad bit more than just three tanks. Someone mentioned giving us an AT Technical for the FIA, that would be a good start. I do like the idea of at least maybe some light AT? As for speculation, my biggest question is where will these tanks fit into the overall role of each faction? obviously, NATO could use a "true" MBT but I feel the other sides are pretty buttoned up. 

  17. Posted

    Yep missed that as well, I can see it being a way not to bloat the game to big. Then again, I don't really like the idea of dividing the community, of course, these policies are probably not finalized. I honestly would have to see something like Operation Arrowhead worth of content to justify me wanting to download a DLC which isolates my ability to play servers.

  18. Posted

    So after reading through the thread, and thinking about it I decided my opinion on the matter.I think that any paid Arma 3 DLC should be required to be Armaverse friendly, particularly relating to 2035. 
     

    My logic is this.
     

    Balance

    Assuming that BI will continue its model of adding DLC content for all users, any assets created would have to be up to specs in the balance against current vanilla content. Rember this is content everybody will have, and will pay for to use. It's only justifiable it's somewhat balanced so it doesn't get isolated to nitch parts of the community. 
     

    Consistency
    Part of the awesome of the modding community is the diversity of it. We have everything from sci-fi mods, to archery. However, it's that diversity which makes some mods very specialized. Following the same argument that BI would allow all players to interact to some extent with the assets. It would be ashamed if someone, for example, made a selection of WWI rifles, and either a community embraces them in a 2035 setting, or isolates it so people can't really use them. This would also allow talented modders to ban together with a much easier scope to focus on when it comes to producing high-quality content.
     

    Keeping 2035 lore friendly isn't that hard
    Think about it, BI has given us dozens of factions, entities, locals, and open stories to work with. You could create a Malden defense force that uses M1A1s. You could create a farming asset pack that ties in with civilians all around the armaverse. Syndikat could use some assets, so could FIA. The AAF could have a new special forces branch. The CDF could be turned into a 2035 faction as well, using a mix of East and West assets. Really I can't see much limits.


     

    • Like 5

  19. Posted

    Just did some further testing. When they refer to the commander, they refer to the unit who is in charge of that squad(highest rank in the tank). So yes, you can switch to the gunner and control the same manner. Why I have gotten very good at commanding a tank with AI, I feel it was ultimately a necessary thing. The delay between commands, particularly when he is blabbing away on reports could make you miss your stop mark by 500m+. I assume or at least hope that BI will allow us to go to legacy or disable it based on mission. 

  20. Posted

    Some Feedback and Suggestions

    • Add proper voice clips for each faction. Greek, French, Chinese, Persian, ect. For future changes when we can select factions.
    • Maybe tweak the extraction a bit? Or expand the zone? We literally had to team kill one player who wouldn't just move 10m to get into the zone.
    • Add the abandoned base in Malden to the selection, seems such a waste of a good mission spot. 
    • Maybe dynamic out how missions are played based on area? Smallerr villages = more insurgent, outpost, ect. Cities = Headquarters, vehicle depots, airfields.

  22. Posted

    I was kinda hoping for a Showcase mission. Kinda helps the community get a footing on what they can potentially do with the map. I think it's well designed though, and it's clear that the map designers at BI have learned a lot since the Altis days. 

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    On 6/8/2017 at 6:56 AM, inlesco said:

    Nice test, but it could be that AI was stuck in its initial position and unable to move afterwards. Did you try any other scenarios, like, coming nearby the bunkers from a little further instead of spawning right inside the abandoned bunker compound?
    Anyhow, if the AI really ignores the bunker, I really hope this can be looked into by BIS ASAP, if possible.


    This was a rough test, so I didn't really look into it further. I bet they are fine with the actual map built in ones. Why I know some buildings cause this issue when custom place, I specifically wanted to point this out simply because I expect the community will want to use these heavily. I'll admit the test isn't perfect, but I felt the AI unwilling to at least attempt to get in the building was worth noting.

  24. Posted

    Would like the following.

    • A outdated armor vehicle of some sort for guerilla factions to utilize
    • New variants for the current armor selection. HQ VARIANT PLEASE
    • Crew properly modeled so they can be effected. Nothing fancy, just if AP round hits were said crew is, they die.
    • Proper ERA set up? Maybe something using secondary models that take the blow first.
    • Amphibious capabilities for tracked vehicles.
    • Crew catch on fire! :D, I know terrible but no one has modded this game yet. I kinda miss the ol'screams of terror. 

     

    Edit: Almost forgot, Bobcat recovery functionality. Ability to use it's crane and such.

  25. Posted

    On 6/8/2017 at 0:02 AM, dragon01 said:

    Try putting a tank down in Eden, then clipping your camera into it. You'll see the crew are present inside, as with any vehicle that has an internal space. There's no way to see them during gameplay, but they're there, and probably can be hit if you're very accurate with your shots. For some reason, individual crew damage is far less likely in ArmA than it was in OFP, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work. This is certainly something for BIS to improve when making Tanks DLC.

     

    EDIT: It seems that it's just the commander (sometimes also the gunner), at least in vanilla vehicles. Odd...


    The only crew that will be rendered in the armor vehicles are ones that can turn out.

     

     

    On 6/8/2017 at 10:00 AM, x3kj said:

    Vanilla is inconsistent there, as with many other things.  Drivers will never be woundable because they force-hidden on tank vehicles by the game engine for some (likely legacy) reason  https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83066

    You dont have to be able to see the gunner visually to kill them. The proxy just has to be in the firegeo.

    As said, tank shots (exclusively AP penetrators at that) have to hit the soldier precisely . There is no fragmenting, overpressure or anything. Thats why it is so rare. OFP didnt have real penetration mechanic. It was propably just global damage to the vehicle and then the passengers received a portion of the damage at random or whatnot.


    My testing simply doesn't show that.

    Couple key points on this.

    • Driver has consistent injuries that appear equal to the gunner(the actual target).
    • The shot is near 90 degrees assuring minimal deflection in the internal components, assuming BI even simulates that far.

      My question is if you can model the proxies within the fire geo, where do you define them so the game knows to calculate damage to them as a person?
    • Like 1
×