|
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
Manimal
|
Posted: 04 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 11 Apr, 2007 Posts: 1915
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
the86th
|
Posted: 06 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 01 Dec, 2008 Posts: 244
|
|
We keep seeing czars lazing commanders that are underwater. The czar starts lazing, commander makes it under water (sometimes pretty deep, but I don't think they make it to the blue water), and the czar never stops firing. This is with BlackOps and this bug fix patch enabled (I don't imagine a stock ACU would live long enough to notice this). I'd seen it once before I started using this patch, so I don't think this is the cause, but I hope it can be the solution.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Mithy
|
Posted: 06 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 19 Jul, 2009 Posts: 2972
|
It shouldn't have anything to do with the CBPv4 or BO:ACUs. This is why it's happening, taken from the unit's 3599 blueprint: Code: FireTargetLayerCapsTable = { Air = 'Land|Water|Seabed', },
Unfortunately, seabed layer is quite necessary for any weapon that shoots at land targets, as a unit is considered on seabed the moment it crosses the water threshold, even when most of the unit is still above the surface and it can fire back at anything else.
Does the Czar beam fire at an ACU/AAB/experimental that was sitting on the seabed in a deep part of the water prior to the Czar being given an attack command? In other words, does this only happen when it follows a unit into the water, or does it always try to beam things on the seabed?
Keep in mind that it does have depth charges, so it'll always attempt to move over top of something on the seabed even if it doesn't use the laser.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Ghaleon
|
Posted: 06 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 13 Jun, 2008 Posts: 729
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
the86th
|
Posted: 06 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 01 Dec, 2008 Posts: 244
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Kirvesnaama
|
Posted: 08 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 17 Mar, 2007 Posts: 560 Location: Finland
|
|
Hmm Ghaleon, how exactly is that code you posted for the cloak fix supposed to work? I added that bit to the unit.lua, but it didn't seem to stop units from hunting the unseen cloaked Cybran ACU.
_________________
Kirvesnaama's T3 Mobile AA
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Manimal
|
Posted: 12 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 11 Apr, 2007 Posts: 1915
|
Kirvesnaama wrote: Hmm Ghaleon, how exactly is that code you posted for the cloak fix supposed to work? I added that bit to the unit.lua, but it didn't seem to stop units from hunting the unseen cloaked Cybran ACU.
I know nothing of your scripts.
However one thing is sure : I spotted a few script portions that clearly makes the engine working as if it was in cheating mode.
(i.e. it "knows" where units are located, whatever they are radar-blipped or not)
_________________ Console Plus - Solo A.C.U. - Experimental Wars
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Ghaleon
|
Posted: 12 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 13 Jun, 2008 Posts: 729
|
|
Kirvesnaama, I tested this with a bunch of ravagers and a SCU first,
cloaked it put it into range and uncloaked it.
once they "saw" the unit they fired,
once they lost track of it,
ie if there's no omni or nothing else to make the unit visible,
nothing will fire at it once re-cloaked, however there's still the trail of bullets to consider which were shot when the units have had a good lock on the unit.
I also think the stealth fighter wasn't pursued once it was fully invisible to the other fighters, so even keeping a lock on cloaked is out, least from what I tested.
Anyhow, you could just test with tvg 4.83, there's the fix included and afair working. It might however not apply to cloak "fields" as I did not hook that part.
I used civilians/wreckage armies without an AI controller as test subjects, I am not aware if an actual AI will somehow have full omni coverage or not. if it does then the fix only applies to mp /vs scripted enemies.
Or you'd need an AI which doesn't use that particular cheatbuff.
I tested by switching to the enemy army, too, to make certain they did not see it.
_________________ TVg V5 Alpha Testers Wanted!
 Bulletstorm released other mods
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Kirvesnaama
|
Posted: 13 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 17 Mar, 2007 Posts: 560 Location: Finland
|
|
Ok I tested it using the cloaked Cybran ACU and a Blaze since it has nice continuous fire. I tried several scenarios where the cloak is removed by omni both by activating and deactivating the omni sensor, walking in and out of its range and disabling/re-enabling the cloak. In every case the casually loitering Blaze on fire-at-will would start firing on the ACU as soon as it's revealed, and stop firing when the ACU disappeared again.
However, if the Blaze was ordered to target the ACU while it was visible, no way of making it invisible again stopped the Blaze from firing at it and following it around, while it was completely unseen. And this is the most important case.
Actually the first case without the order to target works on stock game, the units will cease fire when they lose sight of it. It's that targeting order that makes them stick to the unit no matter what. Is there any way to get a list of units targeting this unit when it re-enables cloak and order them to clear target or something?
_________________
Kirvesnaama's T3 Mobile AA
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
BulletMagnet
|
Posted: 13 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 05 Oct, 2007 Posts: 16426 Location: camping near the biggest power-up
|
you could try;
Code: unit:SetDoNotTarget(true) unit:SetDoNotTarget(false) or Code: unit:SetIsValidTarget(false) unit:SetIsValidTarget(true)
I just saw them in the LUADOC.
_________________
Nephylim wrote: But, an FA army in an FA environment just looks... right. Does anyone know how to use air transports? I cant get them to pick up troops.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Ghaleon
|
Posted: 13 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 13 Jun, 2008 Posts: 729
|
|
Just tested the same, I found there's a difference between point defenses and land units. When given the order to fire at a specific unit, Point defenses lose track of the cloaked unit as it is cloaked.
Maybe therE's a way to use this, though I haven't been able to single out where exactly this difference in behaviour is created.
One could also check if the TargetCheckInterval has something to do with this. but it seems this is all done inside C code.
I've used the SetDoNotTarget(true) in the 'fix'(sigh), though if you manually order a unit as target this setting is not honored. All it does is prevent units from auto targeting the unit if they're within range.
The specific (default)weapon OnGotTarget hooks appear to be not functioning either.
There's still RackSalvoFiringState.Main among others which could be used to check if the target is still visible and if not trigger a OnLostTarget.
Anyhow, it's just too bad, should've tested some more.
I doubt there's any way to hook the per-unit ai's from lua?
On that note, any way to export more functions out of C-code into lua, for it to be hooked?
_________________ TVg V5 Alpha Testers Wanted!
 Bulletstorm released other mods
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
BulletMagnet
|
Posted: 13 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 05 Oct, 2007 Posts: 16426 Location: camping near the biggest power-up
|
|
OnGotTarget needs the blueprint flag NeedsPrep = true for it to work. that was something I discovered in UOKC.
_________________
Nephylim wrote: But, an FA army in an FA environment just looks... right. Does anyone know how to use air transports? I cant get them to pick up troops.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Ghaleon
|
Posted: 17 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 13 Jun, 2008 Posts: 729
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
The_NiF
|
Posted: 23 Mar, 2010
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar, 2010 Posts: 3
|
|
Would it be possible to get another link to the 3603 beta 1 fix? The filefront mirror doesn't work and I cannot find it while browsing there.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
FuryoftheStars
|
Posted: 03 Apr, 2010
|
|
Joined: 20 Apr, 2007 Posts: 1524 Location: VT, USA
|
|
Brute, are you even actively maintaining this mod anymore? Haven't seen any activity from you lately. I realize too that SC2 just came out, but some of us are still playing FA.
If you're not maintaining it anymore, then I was wondering if you could pass the buck on to someone else that could?
_________________ Nuke/Shield Collide Mod topic thread My Mods
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Manimal
|
Posted: 08 Apr, 2010
|
|
Joined: 11 Apr, 2007 Posts: 1915
|
Manimal wrote: After this was tested, the Air units didn't crash on the ground anymore. However this part of the AirUnits class does not looks that clean (and clear too) anyway. It'd need to be rewrote. (I'll do that if I find some free time after completion of ExpWars)
_________________ Console Plus - Solo A.C.U. - Experimental Wars
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Veqryn
|
Posted: 19 Aug, 2010
|
|
Joined: 07 Dec, 2007 Posts: 122
|
|
ok, i just want to confirm that i am doing this right,
I have FA 3599.
I want to have all the updates of the 3603 MOD (not patch), and I want all the updates of the CBFP v4 listed here.
So, do i download the CBFP for 3599, then Turn On both the 3603 MOD and the CBFPv4 MOD?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
conKORD
|
Posted: 19 Aug, 2010
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul, 2007 Posts: 139
|
|
Fix this patch issue where ship's torpedo defense do no activates vs airborn torpedoes?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Legion Darrath
|
Posted: 19 Aug, 2010
|
|
| Forum Scout |
 |
 |
Joined: 23 Feb, 2007 Posts: 8749 Location: Belgium
|
Veqryn wrote: ok, i just want to confirm that i am doing this right,
I have FA 3599.
I want to have all the updates of the 3603 MOD (not patch), and I want all the updates of the CBFP v4 listed here.
So, do i download the CBFP for 3599, then Turn On both the 3603 MOD and the CBFPv4 MOD? I never tested it but I doubt they're compatible.
_________________
 Global Moderator and creator of LabWars
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Veqryn
|
Posted: 19 Aug, 2010
|
|
Joined: 07 Dec, 2007 Posts: 122
|
Legion Darrath wrote: Veqryn wrote: ok, i just want to confirm that i am doing this right,
I have FA 3599.
I want to have all the updates of the 3603 MOD (not patch), and I want all the updates of the CBFP v4 listed here.
So, do i download the CBFP for 3599, then Turn On both the 3603 MOD and the CBFPv4 MOD? I never tested it but I doubt they're compatible. so does CBFPv4 contain all the fixes from v3 aswell? If it contains all the fixes from v3, then I basically don't need the 3603 MOD right?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Mithy
|
Posted: 19 Aug, 2010
|
|
Joined: 19 Jul, 2009 Posts: 2972
|
|
The 3603 mod and the CBP have different fixes, and the former has balance changes as well, but there is probably no completely compatible combination of the two. You can try the 3603 version of the CBP, but you'd probably have to modify it so that it looks for 3599 instead, and it would desync a multiplayer game.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Veqryn
|
Posted: 19 Aug, 2010
|
|
Joined: 07 Dec, 2007 Posts: 122
|
Mithy wrote: The 3603 mod and the CBP have different fixes, and the former has balance changes as well, but there is probably no completely compatible combination of the two. You can try the 3603 version of the CBP, but you'd probably have to modify it so that it looks for 3599 instead, and it would desync a multiplayer game. yes but, does cbfp v4 contain ALL the fixes from cbfp v3 (not talking about 3603 mod here...)
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Mithy
|
Posted: 19 Aug, 2010
|
|
Joined: 19 Jul, 2009 Posts: 2972
|
|
Yes, and the first post makes that fairly clear (that it includes all CBPv3 fixes, and fixes some things that v3 broke).
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
trashin
|
Posted: 12 Sep, 2010
|
|
Joined: 23 Jul, 2010 Posts: 3
|
|
Both links for the 3603 CBPv4 beta at the first post of this thread has gone dead.
Can someone provide alternative links or do a fresh upload please?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
the86th
|
Posted: 12 Sep, 2010
|
|
Joined: 01 Dec, 2008 Posts: 244
|
|
Speaking of uploads, would it be considered bad form if someone else put this on the vault? I mean I'd link back to this thread and credit Brute, but it's obvious that he's gone, this will never come out of beta, and he will never upload it himself until it comes out of beta.
_________________ Posting from Swaziland... I wish I was making that up, I miss the internet.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
 |
 |
|