Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About DarkAngel

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 09/01/1965

Personal Information

  • Location
    NE Tasmania
  • Interests
    Models, Reading, Computer games
  • Occupation
    Computer Tech

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If you are just about to launch you are doing it wrong. The Launch carat ( ^ ) has to be on the target when you launch.
  2. Just looking at the picture i can tell you a lot of that data is erroneous.
  3. Hmmm... wonder who that could be.. I made that map knowing full well that it was DSM data but it is better than any of the other public data sources. The options are 90m srtm which is too low res. SRTM 30 which is incredibly noisy especially in low lying areas and where there is sand or exposed water. So for me the best data of the bunch currently available for free is JAXA. Now you can start crowing about LIDAR data. Believe me I have looked at a lot of this data and it is SHIT. It is just as noisy as the JAXA or SRTM 30... In some ways worse as the point spacing is m
  4. Now I did notice that if you plot a direct route from the bridge layer across the river using Navmesh rather than a discreet route then it also seeks to avoid the river. A case could be made (as an extended feature or an enhancement) that a bridge layer given a direct breach route which crosses a river might have a special rule. This would require a fair amount of thought though:- Does the bridge layer have a bridge on board is the bridge long enough to cross the water body is there only one feature to cross. Currently it is using the "one size fits all" system.
  5. This wouldn't work for the mission editor as the graphic is only created in runtime.
  6. Well the system doesn't know what type of unit you are sending into a discreet breach route. You could be sending a miclic or an AEVinto it, in which case you would not want the system to turn off the Navmesh following behaviour and sending them to their deaths in a river. This decision has to be with the mission creator.
  7. Ok I am guessing the route in question is the one near 3/A. This route was plotted with navmesh on which is why the route is avoiding the water. (With "Hold alt to plot navmesh route" off / unticked ) if you try and plot a route between WP 6 and 7 the route will avoid the water. If you instead hold alt (to plot a non navmesh route) between wp 6 and 7 then the unit lays a bridge just fine. What Nils is saying is about subsequent units During runtime if plotting a navmesh route after the bridge is laid will find the route across. This will not work in the mission editor though as the
  8. if it is off and you hold alt to plot a route it will be a non navmesh route
  9. if you click on that menu item it will be turned on or off.. Same as it has been since the navmesh was introduced.
  10. Well it works for me. If there is a tick on that item then i have to hold Alt to create a navmesh route. If there is no tick then I don't have to hold alt to plot a navmesh route.
  11. Yes that item in the menu is also a toggle
  12. No it is immediate and it is saved
  • Create New...