Hackworth

they were all AI controlled Ssnake. these screen shots are from the AAR -- with the "actual unit icons" and "actual vehicle" icons options selected respectively. i didn't even notice the discrepancy until i was viewing the action looking for the units. from the map, it seemed to make sense. the units were bogged down in front of the minefield. i thought one hit a mine or generally goofed -- maybe avoiding the field instead of trying to pave the lane. then i realized all of this. goona test it again here in a minute. i took a look at the events, WPs, etc. to ensure everything makes sense and i don't see any problems. heh, i can create some complicated crap sometimes, but this isn't it. i'll get back to you with the results of the next one. also, this mission was created on the FIRST release of PE. i haven't played it much in the last year or so, but we played it frequently in MP for at least a year after i made it. i've never seen any of these issues before. and it was tested heavily before release both in single and multi player. again, i'll get back to ya after i try it again.

haven't tried single player yet with this version, but i will in a bit. the WP is on the road east of the northernmost minefield. the logic is simple if IRRC -- if 4M has reached WP x, if 7B has reached WP X, and if 8/4D reached WP X. that should cause the event "Bravo Breach" or whatnot to be true. what's funny is that 7B should not have advanced at all if 4M has not reached the eastern WP at the minefield. like i said earlier, i'll take another look at it in SP and see what happens. it takes a while in the mission before this series takes place and the player must achieve a minor OBJ prior to setting off the breach, so it's not too easy to test.

i ran into this one today. i was hosting an MP mission. the blue vehicles in these screen shots are AI controlled. 8/4D MICLIC breaches the northernmost minefield. 4M is supposed to proof the lane with 4M followed by 7B who will mark the lane. Bravo company would then pass through based on an event that all three vehicles that are part of the breach are successful in reaching a WP located on the oppossite side of the breach. these elements did not successfully breach the minefield, therefore the company did not pass through. so, when checking the AAR, i noticed a couple oddities. i noticed that 4M was hung up in front of the breach. so, i assumed they hit mines. but, when i switched to actual vehicle icons, i noticed both vehicles in 4M successfully reached the opposite end of the minefield and continued to their next waypoint. however, the unit icon when set to "show actual position" shows the platoon still on the north side of the minefield. the "actual" unit icon and the actual vehicles do not agreeing with eachother in this instance. these two screen shots are taken of the same "game" time. Actual Unit Icon: http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss148/Feitsmann/SS_16_45_46.jpg Actual Vehicle Icon: http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss148/Feitsmann/SS_16_46_18.jpg the two vehicles icons closest to the east side of the minefield constitute 4M. so, in this case it seems the event conditioned that these three units reach a WP on the opposite side of the field did not occur even though 4M actually hit and passed through the WP. the actual unit icon continued to show on the friendly side of the breach although the actual vehicles had passed through. strangely enough, 7B should NOT have moved to mark the lane unless 4M reached the WP on the opposite side of the minefield (move here if 4M reaches WP##). 7B moving out is NOT set to a universal event or condition, whereas the condition for Bravo company to pass through the breach is. so, 7B moved out because the vehicles in 4M actually hit the WP, but the universal event that should have caused Bravo company to pass through did not fire are events/conditioned based on the "actual unit icon" or on where the actual vehicles are when it comes to reaching a waypoint? i can't think of any reason the 4M unit icon would hang up where it did. also, i don't understand why that when 4M actual vehicles hit the WP 7B moved out, but it did not count toward the universal event that should have caused Bravo to move out and pass through the lane. i was hosting the mission.

cool. early is not late. but im drunk. so, i'll probably be hungover and late. but, i hope not tarball, we're a biker gang. the only crime we commit is allowing my american bootie to run up against some swedish bootie. too bad they're all guys.

still 1800 GMT, right guys?

you lucky b@stard... and you got to pollute an ocean too! two birds, one stone. did eSim send you a t-shirt for your shots with discovery channel? p.s. that's a weird solution. glad it woked though!

lol, i see you figured it out. congrats

what volcano said. but to add to it, if you go "advanced" be sure and give all the units lots of time. when the helo hits the waypoint, the time starts ticking. so depending on the speed of the helo, the troops may spawn before the helo settles. i guess if you imagine the helo throwing the troops out of the helo instead of disembarking in an orderly fashion, then it's okay. i tend to use about a 20 second delay before allowing the helo to proceed to the next waypoint. and for the troops, i normally spawn them at about 16 seconds. you can even get super-duper advanced and have multiple fire teams spawn at 4 second intervals. you can even get crazier and have the helo settle to "nap of the earth" height while on the waypoint, then go back to treetop for the egress. if you want, i have a mission completed you can check out in the mission editor with mass air assault drops. it's not in the dowloads section yet due to the INF not firing from buildings. the air assault portion works perfectly though. the INF are fixed now from my understanding, so i guess i should test it... PM me here with your email address and i'll send it to you.

OMG, thank you, Homer! must have hit it instead of a trigger. it was hot.

not only this... but when the view moves to the 12, sometimes it will ZOOM in the view without any input to do so. this is VERY annoying. this whole feature makes me feel like i have no control over what's going on when in this view.

it seems that when moving into F8 view, if no input by the mouse or joystick is given then the field of view moves to the 12 o'clock position of the turret. okay, no problem. but after moving the view to say 5 o'clock and watching, not giving any input, the view moves back to the 12 o'clock position -- after only about 3 seconds of no input! i don't mind the view moving to 12 initially, but WHY does it have to continuously FIGHT me for where i want to view? every three seconds i have to give new input or the view slings over to the 12! i understand it's probably a requested feature (though i still don't know why the player cannot just move to the 12 on his own). but can we not get a compromise here? why not disable any snaps back to 12 after the player gives input on where he (or she) WANTS to view? Daskal, this might play hell with your videos EDIT: the continuous snap back to 12 seems to only happen when using a joystick to look around in F8. also, sometimes it wants to jump between the 12 on the turret and the 12 on the hull...back and forth. i was engaged at the 12 to the hull when this was happening. maybe it is snapping between direction engaged and 12 of the turret.

im not sure what to tell you, Jhay. regarding the lead, i checked my settings to try and help. there are so many instances where you need to identify a keystroke or joystick button to lead... i probably have 8 different commands for different vehicles using the same button for dynamic lead, TC dynamic lead, and palm switches. all of them work. all i can suggest is going back to the settings ensuring that all commands regarding dynamic lead or palm switch are set to your dynamic lead button. sorry chief.

CC me as well please

first lesson in relationships: don't tell her.

well, what i was getting at with the Leo2A4/2A5, is that it took even the German army over 10 years to upgrade units from 1A3/1A5. also, the Germans had it easier. they spent the 1990's downsizing their armor units. see Poland, Finland, Spain, Austria. they all went to Leo2A4 during the 90's and later. the reason being that the German army was moving straight to the 2A5 while downgrading the number of tanks held in inventory. the Leo2A4's not upgraded to 2A5 became surplus and were sold. the US downgraded most during the earlier part of the 90's (see VII Corps). but i believe that the US Army pushed their surplus down to the Reserve and National Guard units who were still using even older equipment. both had large standing armies during the late 1980's. both were upgrading existing types of equipment. i don't think size/time to modernize mattered in this case. if you really think about it, both the M1 and Leopard 2A4 are about the same age. yes, we have more modern versions of the Leopard in PE, but essencially most are the same tank. haha, the leopard is not better armored than the M1 -- just differently armored and layed out. if you keep slugging the front turret of the leo, you'll get nowhere. if you aim a little lower and hit near the driver, you'll probably detonate the stores behind him causing a catastrophic death. 1 meter lower. you might penetrate the turret of the M1 from the front, but you will most likely not achieve the same catastrophic result as aiming a little lower on the Leo. both are highly vulnerable along the sides of the hull -- even on the Leo2A5, 2E and strv122. again, don't mess with the turret unless you're going for the ring. i love these M1 vs. Leo discussions. lol, amen Sean.

what a hell of a good time that looks to have been! (p.s. i have "geek" scribed across my forehead.)

jhay, you might check your settings again. i played the STRV122 sunday and didn't notice any problems. so, i just tested it at the tank range as well as the Leo2A5 and there are no problems with the dynamic lead. i tried HE and sabot -- no problems.

howdy Damian, just jumping in here. but, when i was working on decal sets for the Leo2A4 i was surprised to find that during the mid-90's many, MANY German army units went straight from Leo1A3 or Leo1A5 straight to Leo2A5 bypassing the Leo2A4. my point is that the Leo2A4 was almost or 10 years old by the time many German army units were upgrading equipment. by then, the Leo2A5 was under production. so, they went straight to the 2A5. Many US Army units during OP desert shield of the Gulf War still fielded M113's instead of M2's and M1TP instead of M1A1 or M1A1(HA). my understanding is that most or all of the armor was upgraded to M1A1 standards (not sure about whether to HA) during the build up for desert storm. i'd bet my bottom dollar that most armor units in the U.S. Army are still operating M1A1(HA). the only unit i know of that was at A2 or SEP standards was the 4th ID for Force XXI prior to the second Gulf War. hell, in basic training, i had a fully automatic M-16A1. the foregrip was A2 type, but the reciever, barrel -- everything else was A1, Vietnam era. that was in 1992. my first duty assignment also had the same M-16 set-up. i wasn't issued an M16A2 until 1994 - almost 10 years after it was first fielded. (granted i was in field artillery, not infantry). improvements in equipment don't always turn out with the units until much time has passed since development and it's not always a linear upgrade. haha, i just recalled that the first MLRS system to have the capability to fire ATACMS missles was fielded to a national guard unit from OK - 1/158 FA, IIRC. they also fired the first shots by Army ground forces in the first Gulf War (during the air phase). that's not linear in any way weekend warriors firing shots before the professionals...sheesh!

very good song! three cheers for Tac for putting us on track!

dont remove the color channel. you need to access the alpha lchannel. the alpha channel will only be black and white (well, all shades of gray too). this is the layer you want to paint black. anything not black on this layer will show through on the skin (white being fully shown with anything in between (gray) shown based on how light the gray is -- black is completely masked from showing; this info is for people wanting to work with decals). in order to conceal any part of the decal, paint it black. so, to remove any part of the decal from showing on the skin, paint the alpha layer black. none of the other RGB layers matter if you are trying to conceal the decal, only the alpha layer. if you are seeing black where the decal would belong on the skin, then you are working on the RGB channel painting it black. you need to paint the alpha channel. damn it! we're back on topic again KT.

naw, that would just clutter up the battlefield. also add to the enormous task Tac already has. not a bad idea however... the closest you can get to a campaign aside from the multiplayer events would be the few multi-scenario "operation" sets. basically a set of single player missions. i had one on Gold, but it's not updated. maybe i'll take a look at it. in the meantime, hit up the downloads section. there are lots of good missions in there. oh, and i guess my toothpicks.sce and icepicks.sce are supposed to be congruous.

the IDF is too good to use CVCs. they have unnatural insight and communication abilities. clairvoyance, you could say. asking an israeli tanker to use a CVC would be like asking chuck norris to wear a bullet proof vest. ask Nepi.

i've never enjoyed being called a bitch so much!

VERY NICE kt!

Rich, just develop your own chart and map the progress of updates, patches, fixes, nixes, and whatnot. then relate the graph in time. eSim supports.