Operation Snowfox - Persian Gulf PvE Playground - Page 31 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-09-2020, 06:44 PM   #301
Super Wabbit
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 22
Default

Surrexen,

tl:dr - the explosion command in the "Snowfox Persistent World.lua" script is not sufficient enough to kill Shelter Structures.

I think this is only an issue with the three static objects that are listed as Shelters under the mission editor's Structures category:
"Bandar Lengeh - Boat Bunker"
"Bandar Abbas - Missile Bunker 1"
"Bandar Abbas - Missile Bunker 2"
I see your comment in the Persistent lua,"not exact science :/" - lol. It really isn't!

So I tested what explosion value needs to be set in the "Snowfox Persistent World.lua" script. For the boat bunker, a value of 3000 destroyed it but this left the two missile bunkers alive. I found that I had to set the explosion value to at least 3200 to get the missile bunkers to also be destroyed.

I can understand not wanting to increase the explosion for fear of taking out units nearby, so I wondered if a double explosion on the Shelters would work. I edited your lua script by adding "coord:Explosion(1700)" right after the original explosion command:

Code:
for i = 1, StaticIntermentTableLength do
		local SnowfoxStatic = STATIC:FindByName(SnowfoxStaticInterment[i])
		local coord = SnowfoxStatic:GetCoordinate()
		coord:Explosion(1500) --works for Workshop size statics, may hit other things, not exact science :/
		coord:Explosion(1700) --added by Super Wabbit to destroy missile bunkers
		coord:BigSmokeMedium(0.25)				
		SEFDeletedStaticCount = SEFDeletedStaticCount + 1
	end
BTW: "Abu Musa - Bunker 1" and "Abu Musa - Bunker 2", which are actually listed as "Bunker 1" in the mission editor's Structures list, are taken out by the original explosion from the Persistent lua. Also, I don't see this as an issue with the other static objects, like the processing plants, comms towers, hangars, etc. I'm assuming that DCS has some type of health/hit value for static objects and that Shelters have a larger value as they seem to require larger bombs to destroy compared to other static objects.

Just curious, was this similar to the issue with the outpost static object bug you noted in the past?
Super Wabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2020, 10:52 PM   #302
Surrexen
Member
 
Surrexen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Wabbit View Post
Surrexen,

tl:dr - the explosion command in the "Snowfox Persistent World.lua" script is not sufficient enough to kill Shelter Structures.

I think this is only an issue with the three static objects that are listed as Shelters under the mission editor's Structures category:
"Bandar Lengeh - Boat Bunker"
"Bandar Abbas - Missile Bunker 1"
"Bandar Abbas - Missile Bunker 2"
I see your comment in the Persistent lua,"not exact science :/" - lol. It really isn't!

So I tested what explosion value needs to be set in the "Snowfox Persistent World.lua" script. For the boat bunker, a value of 3000 destroyed it but this left the two missile bunkers alive. I found that I had to set the explosion value to at least 3200 to get the missile bunkers to also be destroyed.

I can understand not wanting to increase the explosion for fear of taking out units nearby, so I wondered if a double explosion on the Shelters would work. I edited your lua script by adding "coord:Explosion(1700)" right after the original explosion command:

Code:
for i = 1, StaticIntermentTableLength do
		local SnowfoxStatic = STATIC:FindByName(SnowfoxStaticInterment[i])
		local coord = SnowfoxStatic:GetCoordinate()
		coord:Explosion(1500) --works for Workshop size statics, may hit other things, not exact science :/
		coord:Explosion(1700) --added by Super Wabbit to destroy missile bunkers
		coord:BigSmokeMedium(0.25)				
		SEFDeletedStaticCount = SEFDeletedStaticCount + 1
	end
BTW: "Abu Musa - Bunker 1" and "Abu Musa - Bunker 2", which are actually listed as "Bunker 1" in the mission editor's Structures list, are taken out by the original explosion from the Persistent lua. Also, I don't see this as an issue with the other static objects, like the processing plants, comms towers, hangars, etc. I'm assuming that DCS has some type of health/hit value for static objects and that Shelters have a larger value as they seem to require larger bombs to destroy compared to other static objects.

Just curious, was this similar to the issue with the outpost static object bug you noted in the past?
The 'not exact science' comment is from Pikey as the basis for this was from his simple group saving script. Statics are basically evil. That's the short version. The outpost bug was being caused by a problem in the mission status watcher script thing, were looking for the object could potentially return nil ... it was the same bug that was in in the validation routine that checks if a target is dead or not before assigning it as a mission or not.

And yes, the biggest problem with having to explode the statics is the blast kills things near it. This is collateral damage, and the price we pay for persistent statics lol. I'm about to go on holiday with the family, when I get back from that I'll see If I can work something out for this.

Thanks for letting me know, tis' a good catch
Surrexen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2020, 02:18 AM   #303
Surrexen
Member
 
Surrexen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 379
Default

So it turn's out I 'can' just remove the static objects without having to explode them. This would mean we don't cause collateral damage after all, but we won't have the dead looking object on the ground with the smoke, which is of course good fun. So like everything else I've had to build into this thing, it's a compromise. The other option would be to do something similar to what you suggested, but perhaps get a bit more scientific about it and pull the life values out of the objects and try to calculate how many smaller explosions it would take to blow up a given thing and do it that way (so we aren't guessing how much to blast it by). Or another method is just remove the static object without exploding it, and put the smoke down where it was without having the damaged building left behind. That may look a little strange though.

I'm leaning towards option 1 as it's quick, clean and will stop the problem of blowing things up unnecessarily around statics and not suck up resources by not putting smoke everywhere. Let me know what you would prefer.


Code:
for i = 1, StaticIntermentTableLength do
		local SnowfoxStatic = STATIC:FindByName(SnowfoxStaticInterment[i])
		local coord = SnowfoxStatic:GetCoordinate()
		coord:Explosion(1500) --works for Workshop size statics, may hit other things, not exact science :/
		coord:Explosion(1700) --added by Super Wabbit to destroy missile bunkers
		coord:BigSmokeMedium(0.25)				
		SEFDeletedStaticCount = SEFDeletedStaticCount + 1
	end
would just end up being

Code:
for i = 1, StaticIntermentTableLength do
		StaticObject.getByName(SnowfoxStaticInterment[i]):destroy()		
		SEFDeletedStaticCount = SEFDeletedStaticCount + 1
	end
for example.

Last edited by Surrexen; 01-10-2020 at 02:22 AM.
Surrexen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2020, 06:08 PM   #304
solidGad
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 122
Default

here's a quick question. does destroying a building that could be part of a mission, but not the current one wreck anything? or does that mission just get removed from the pool? I am realizing i am probably blowing up a lot of buildings that are for missions.
solidGad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2020, 07:41 PM   #305
Super Wabbit
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surrexen View Post
So it turn's out I 'can' just remove the static objects without having to explode them. This would mean we don't cause collateral damage after all, but we won't have the dead looking object on the ground with the smoke, which is of course good fun. So like everything else I've had to build into this thing, it's a compromise. The other option would be to do something similar to what you suggested, but perhaps get a bit more scientific about it and pull the life values out of the objects and try to calculate how many smaller explosions it would take to blow up a given thing and do it that way (so we aren't guessing how much to blast it by). Or another method is just remove the static object without exploding it, and put the smoke down where it was without having the damaged building left behind. That may look a little strange though.

I'm leaning towards option 1 as it's quick, clean and will stop the problem of blowing things up unnecessarily around statics and not suck up resources by not putting smoke everywhere. Let me know what you would prefer.


Code:
for i = 1, StaticIntermentTableLength do
		local SnowfoxStatic = STATIC:FindByName(SnowfoxStaticInterment[i])
		local coord = SnowfoxStatic:GetCoordinate()
		coord:Explosion(1500) --works for Workshop size statics, may hit other things, not exact science :/
		coord:Explosion(1700) --added by Super Wabbit to destroy missile bunkers
		coord:BigSmokeMedium(0.25)				
		SEFDeletedStaticCount = SEFDeletedStaticCount + 1
	end
would just end up being

Code:
for i = 1, StaticIntermentTableLength do
		StaticObject.getByName(SnowfoxStaticInterment[i]):destroy()		
		SEFDeletedStaticCount = SEFDeletedStaticCount + 1
	end
for example.
I fly in VR and anything that helps performance is welcomed but I honestly don't know that removing the destroyed static objects would noticeably increase performance. But also in VR, we wouldn't really care if we saw the smoke of destroyed static objects.

So....

Option 1, while not as visually interesting, would be far easier to implement and maintain than doing all the testing to verify how many little explosions it takes to destroy a static object. Especially considering the same type of static object took differing amounts of damage based on terrain. Having to test each and every static object. We've completed Clear Field and Snow Fox and through the many hours of playing this mission, the most common problem has been an issue with static targets.

Thanks again for all the hard work and enjoy your holiday!
Super Wabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2020, 07:44 PM   #306
Super Wabbit
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solidGad View Post
here's a quick question. does destroying a building that could be part of a mission, but not the current one wreck anything? or does that mission just get removed from the pool? I am realizing i am probably blowing up a lot of buildings that are for missions.
It should not. In fact I did this just that last night and it worked just fine. It's my understanding that after a mission target is destroyed it'll pick another random target from a list of unfinished targets - ie targets that are still alive.
Super Wabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2020, 08:10 PM   #307
Surrexen
Member
 
Surrexen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Wabbit View Post
It should not. In fact I did this just that last night and it worked just fine. It's my understanding that after a mission target is destroyed it'll pick another random target from a list of unfinished targets - ie targets that are still alive.
Yeah you can blow things up whether they are the current mission or not. The script will figure out that the group or building has been destroyed already when it tries to select that mission, and will just mark it as completed already and go select another one.
Surrexen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2020, 10:57 PM   #308
solidGad
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 122
Default

thanks guys!
solidGad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2020, 11:01 PM   #309
Enemymine
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 1
Default

Dear Surrexen,


solid work, I love that mission. Any chance to maybe make the airfields capturable? I would love to play this in rather a "continuous capture" way than single missions. you see any possibility to do that kind of setup too? best regards
Enemymine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2020, 05:05 PM   #310
Super Wabbit
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enemymine View Post
Dear Surrexen,


solid work, I love that mission. Any chance to maybe make the airfields capturable? I would love to play this in rather a "continuous capture" way than single missions. you see any possibility to do that kind of setup too? best regards
This would be a great game mechanic!
Super Wabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:02 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.