http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159710-Development-Branch-AI-Discussion&p=2469524&viewfull=1#post2469524

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159710-Development-Branch-AI-Discussion&p=2469571&viewfull=1#post2469571

Fixed, but not merged to public/dev yet.

Cannot repro.

Helicopter lands, player dismounts, helicopter flies away

1. Place 1x CH-49 Mohawk on map. [empty]
2. Place myself + fireteam group [AAF]
3. Order men into chopper via AI control or via Waypoints.
4. Everyone got in.
5. Everyone complained about smell of old flip flops.

We took a quick look at the possibility of an 'empty' radio protocol, but there were some extra issues involved with it.

1. Silent sound-files would, in the current post-process pipeline, still have a radio crackle and an xmit beep

2. Empty sound files would mean the reports in the protocol log would appear and disappear too quickly, as they're currently tied to transmission

Part of our future plans for the protocol may allow us to fix the first issue, so we could take a look at this idea at that time.

This is a data issue (i.e. the models and terrain), the AI cannot path find around these rocks, and will never be able to unfortunately, unless the cave is removed from the map.

Cannot repro. Get in helicopter, order AI to disembark, they do.

rev. 08339, Increased error of player position, when AI is killed by player

REF: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159711-Development-Branch-Captain-s-AI-Log&p=2453005&viewfull=1#post2453005

If you kill/hit/bullet impact close to an AI unit, your position is disclosed with some error. Now the error is bigger and based on range, so it is harder for the AI to find you after one shot.

This individual calculation doesn't currently factor in my weapon type, but my visibility remains a product of that, so - if I've used, say, an enormous sniper rifle instead of an smg - the AI is more likely to spot me, when looking in the right place.

Simulates clutter not drawn at range, 'fix' is a new feature: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4598

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3592

Hmm, yes. We can easily tweak the one in the mission, but it is an automatic pitch shift by the engine (I think).

I'll ask one of our sound gurus to take a quick look at the max values and see if there's a real quick fix.

Limiting the range of the pitch shift *should* be trivial, but it may be something more deep rooted, so no promises, as it's *relatively* lower priority at the moment, as our sound devs are working hard on all the things!

Some improvements to the formatting might be achieved in future, but we have some lockdown on our string database right now.

Thanks for the feedback. My feeling is that we'd want to make it consistent with the radio protocol reports, i.e.

[type] - [distance] - [direction]

Direction in this case may be bearing (which - as I recall - is accurate within 15 degrees intervals) or cardinal points (accurate to 45 degrees). If I'm not mistaken, these values are computed from group centre (in formation).

Currently, if targets are 'long distance' (>850m away), they're accurate to cardinal points, and mid-range (300-850) uses bearings (there are some exceptions). Short range contacts currently use relative descriptions, such as 'front', right, rear. Again, computed from group centre in formation.

In the first instance, I'd pursue consistency here, but usability would be a concern, which we'd need to play-test to be sure of. In the end, one consistent way of listing any target may be more fruitful for players.

All the variables exist at some point, but any new system would require programming changes to get to them, which is why we cannot be certain about our ability to implement any tweaks at this busy time.

Priority/feasibility to be determined by dept. leads.

To be investigated

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3592

Texts and Voice Acting updated to 'I say again' (fun fact: it was originally a reference to some dialogue in OFP)