Are we playing with ASR btw?
Today played with friends' group and was surprised that proned soldier took a roll out of my linesight when i started to shoot at him.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
Also, Bravo Explosives.
[QUOTE=Tinter;48495707]If you manage to mess up this convoy I will leave FPARMA.
It's 1km down one road and then you split up.[/QUOTE]
You'll be surprised. We lost several men in the last mission to an unarmed civilian.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;48496239]Are we playing with ASR btw?
Today played with friends' group and was surprised that proned soldier took a roll out of my linesight when i started to shoot at him.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
Also, Bravo Explosives.[/QUOTE]
yeah
Re: the concerns regarding Vcom, the performance impact is minimal. FSMs are run in unscheduled space, so they can run and won't have a performance impact since they're not iterating like normal scripts. Case in point, that FSM that I wrote and mentioned earlier in the thread iterates every 0.1 second, and I had it running on 70 AI with no visible performance drop at all. The dev for Vcom also wrote conditions in the FSM that checks the server framerate and disables certain features, so anything that's run in the SQFs that's too performance heavy gets turned off.
Vcom's also very much dependent on the personality of your group and the missions you make. I don't know what types of missions you guys do, but in the group I'm in we build missions from the enemy commander's perspective, putting out a full ORBAT, and basically leave the AI up to its own devices unless we force them to defend a particular area. Any sort of clearance or satellite patrols are expected to be reliant on themselves. With Vcom, you get interesting behaviour like AI coordinating with each other and conducting flanking manoeuvres, so they make their own tactical decisions rather than the mission maker having to work hard to get that available. Their performance in both urban and open terrain is a lot better. We don't like predictability of the AI because we don't build scripted missions where we try to tell the AI exactly what to do.
If scripted missions is your thing, where you want the AI to do exactly as you want, don't use Vcom. That's not the point of it. If you want to put down some AI and let them think for themselves and not be completely incompetent, use Vcom.
the people who normally zeus our missions micromanage like fuck.
[QUOTE=Holt!;48496359]the people who normally zeus our missions micromanage like fuck.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, you'll not want to use Vcom with Zeus either. Not unless you're fine with just spawning in and order them in the general direction of the enemy, because when Vcom kicks in you'll have a hard time getting control of them again. Only time I think it knocks itself off is if a player is the group leader. So any sort of C2 stuff you want to do, whether that be Zeus or High Command, you'll be in for a struggle.
[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;48496339]Re: the concerns regarding Vcom, the performance impact is minimal. FSMs are run in unscheduled space, so they can run and won't have a performance impact since they're not iterating like normal scripts. Case in point, that FSM that I wrote and mentioned earlier in the thread iterates every 0.1 second, and I had it running on 70 AI with no visible performance drop at all. The dev for Vcom also wrote conditions in the FSM that checks the server framerate and disables certain features, so anything that's run in the SQFs that's too performance heavy gets turned off.
Vcom's also very much dependent on the personality of your group and the missions you make. I don't know what types of missions you guys do, but in the group I'm in we build missions from the enemy commander's perspective, putting out a full ORBAT, and basically leave the AI up to its own devices unless we force them to defend a particular area. Any sort of clearance or satellite patrols are expected to be reliant on themselves. With Vcom, you get interesting behaviour like AI coordinating with each other and conducting flanking manoeuvres, so they make their own tactical decisions rather than the mission maker having to work hard to get that available. Their performance in both urban and open terrain is a lot better. We don't like predictability of the AI because we don't build scripted missions where we try to tell the AI exactly what to do.
If scripted missions is your thing, where you want the AI to do exactly as you want, don't use Vcom. That's not the point of it. If you want to put down some AI and let them think for themselves and not be completely incompetent, use Vcom.[/QUOTE]
So since you can't use waypoints because they get overriden, you just place down units and hope for the best?
Personally I like the predictability, since every OP gets played a single time only, and thus the Mission Maker can exactly define the mission flow how he likes it, and it doesent matter if it's the same every time since it's only gonna be played once anyway.
Charlie Sql
[QUOTE=kaukassus;48496436]So since you can't use waypoints because they get overriden, you just place down units and hope for the best?
Personally I like the predictability, since every OP gets played a single time only, and thus the Mission Maker can exactly define the mission flow how he likes it, and it doesent matter if it's the same every time since it's only gonna be played once anyway.[/QUOTE]
Eh, they still follow waypoints, but once they go into combat behaviour, that's when the extra behaviour kicks in. So rather than the usual terrible fire and manoeuvre that they do, where they bound as individuals in vanilla, they'll put in fire support and go flanking, or get another section to help them out. It's not so much "hope for the best", moreso if you want to make a mission yourself and not know exactly what'll happen. So it's pretty good for mission makers themselves in that sense.
Again, like I said, it depends on the type of Ops you make. If you want them to be more independent, use Vcom. If you'd prefer if they didn't, don't use it. It's certainly not the be-all-end-all, but it helps facilitate a certain type of gameplay.
Bravo Ass. AR
I just tried Vcom. Mech inf were broken as fuck, the crews would dismount their vehicles with the actual dismount team.
nvm
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;48496676]I just tried Vcom. Mech inf were broken as fuck, the crews would dismount their vehicles with the actual dismount team.[/QUOTE]
I spoke too soon, this was just another symptom of RHS having to be a special little snowflake that's incompatible with everything.
m16s in whichever modpack they come from sound amazing
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;48496755]m16s in whichever modpack they come from sound amazing[/QUOTE]
Well, they're being improved by us in the next version of the modpack (if they're roberthammer)
And I was wrong about Vcom breaking mech inf being an RHS problem only too. Vanilla crewmen don't dismount with the rest of the squad, but they still run the fuck away if one bullet hits their vehicle.
Alpha driver
Bravo light AT
[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;48496339]Re: the concerns regarding Vcom, the performance impact is minimal. FSMs are run in unscheduled space, so they can run and won't have a performance impact since they're not iterating like normal scripts. Case in point, that FSM that I wrote and mentioned earlier in the thread iterates every 0.1 second, and I had it running on 70 AI with no visible performance drop at all. The dev for Vcom also wrote conditions in the FSM that checks the server framerate and disables certain features, so anything that's run in the SQFs that's too performance heavy gets turned off.
[/QUOTE]
not really
as stated by Xeno, FSMs have the same problem as scheduled scripts do, under high load execution can be delayed. checking conditions per frame costs more time than a simple sqf condition check, especially if there's more than one condition linked to a state. fsm have no advantage over normal sqf AND the editor is the absolute worst.
[quote=BI developer]
The power of the FSM is it's programming style, not it's performance, that should be the same as a normal .sqf script.
One interesting thing about FSM is that the conditions are run on a non-scheduled environment, but the States do not.
[/quote]
FSMs are handled by the script engine, they don't live in magic land
there's a reason mods like CBA, ACE, ACRE etc does not use FSMs but instead CBA's perFrame handler when they need to do continuous checks
it also guarantees to run every frame if specified so conditions should be simple
[editline]20th August 2015[/editline]
[url]https://dev.withsix.com/docs/cba/files/common/fnc_addPerFrameHandler-sqf.html[/url]
Alpha Team Leader pls
[QUOTE=Mallow234;48496763]Well, they're being improved by us in the next version of the modpack (if they're roberthammer)[/QUOTE]
i dont understand this
Why take so much time and effort editing configs and changing sounds for weapons that are fine already.
Don't fix what ain't broke.
what mission is the second picture from?
I recognise the HUD
Goddamn im bad at picking
Charlie AR
Can I be Charlie light AT?
[QUOTE=Fippe;48495826]Artillery computer is literal garbage though, having the range tables and exact script is so much more accurate and faster, as long as you're not dumb about reading it. That one 'nam op we were putting shells within 20m of the targets like no problem.
as such I vote for actual range tables any time we have mortars.[/QUOTE]
I miss ACE 2's artillery system with the M101 howitzer, where you pretty much had to have one competent forward observer, an artillery gunner, commander & loader in order to achieve sub minute adjust fires
I miss scribbling notes down as the observer reads out his info, entering them into the humvee's computer, then reading the gun deflection to the gunner and munition charge to the loader, then reading the ETA to splash to the observer
[t]http://puu.sh/jHGwe/62fd235d83.jpg[/t]
then frantically doing it all over again to walk the artillery onto the target after the adjust fire misses by 50 meters
shit was autistic as fuck but satisfying
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
