Question about infantry animation files

[RockinHarry]

_{I d/l the mods and they look terrific.  However, COWER looks like a normal stance and it is easily confusing with regular.  Also, does the computer take into account the medic is lying down, or is his exposure still calculated as if he was kneeling.  If the latter, it looks more realistic, but the poor sod will still die as easily as he does now.}

 

_{Also, where do we place these .ani files??}

Yep, it looks regular, as it´s the animation taken from regular behavior, a soldier with actual weapon in hand simply lying prone (kar98k-idle-prone.ani), used for all nationalities soldiers. I would´ve prefered a soldier with just this animation, but also with head simply pressed to the ground (not looking forward as in this chosen animation), but it´s not available unfortunately.

Personally I (always) found the standard cower animation looking overly dramatic, particularly with swinging back rifle 180° to the rear. Looks particularly bad (to me) with lMG and such. Whether this (original) is a realistic looking animation is not quite of concern, as BFC intention with this most likely was to give the player a quick assessment of a soldiers status (suppressed). Personally I´m totally fine with just having a look at the units suppression meter, as well as at individulal soldiers status (cowering) for my own troops to get a quick assessment. With regard to enemy units, I even consider this as increased realism, as you can´t see at a glance by taking notice of the standard cower animation, if the enemy (or parts of it) is heavily suppressed or not. Different sort of FOW so to say. At last it´s a matter of taste to use this or that animation style and I´m fairly sure that it hasn´t any other ingame effects, as there´s no actual stance change involved (prone = prone). Also doesn´t hurt transition animations (from any stance to cower and back).

Only question to me remains, if size of hitbox around every individual soldier is either equal, or different (with lying prone as example). If it´s different and hitbox roughly coincides with an individual soldier outer geometry, then I´d dare to suspect, that the standard cower animation offers more of a targetable silhouette, than the chosen substitute animation. So if putting quick status assesment intent of an animation put aside, then I´d find it more realistic, if a cowering soldier would itself make an as small a target, as possible. These are questions only BFC authorities could answer.

With regard to my medic animation substitute, my current "belief" is that the game keeps the actual spotting info from actual visible geometry of a soldier separated. In other words, although the medic is lying prone, the game assesses the medic still as in original kneeling stance (and tracks it as a shootable target). That´s hard to test, particularly in Iron mode, where I make almost all my testing. It´s still very much dependant where and in what hostile environment, a medic makes his buddy aid attempts. If it´s in a trench and the whole unit, where both the medic and WIA is part of is on "hide", chances are greatly decreased that the whole unit will attract incoming fire and the medic has greater chances, to actually complete and not break with his buddy aiding attempts (and start anew if situation permits). Currently, if a unit is on hide and not greatly suppressed by taking a loss previously, the medic will attempt buddy aid in kneel position and thus breaks the whole units hide attempt for quite a long duration. Getting back to your intial question, ...while the medic still might show his own (and his units presence) by the games internally recorded kneel stance, the actual medics prone stance geometry noticably decreases the enemies hit chances vs the medic. General survivability of a medic is noticeably increased, if remaining factors are favourable as well. A medic tending a WIA in coverless terrain, in full view of the enemy, won´t survive long, no matter if he´s in kneeling or lying stance.

Whatever the reason was for BFC to apply a medic soldier the kneeling stance generally, I´d wish for future game revisions some more distinct medic animations/stances that better coincide with a units tactical circumstances. In example, a unit on hide should have the medic put to prone. Can´t tell if there´s ingame abstractions that already reflect certain circumstances invisibly, but from my observations and associated conclusions there´s quite a number, where this is not the case obviously. Not all is WYSIWYG, just like in the case of buildings, where windows and doors obviously are way larger than visible geometry would indicate. Or damaged buildings that offer far less protection for soldiers, although actual building geometry doesn´t quite support the impression. Maybe medics already receive some sort of abstracted protection/LOS modifier, but I just can´t observe it in my games.

Generally, my "mod" is not a quite a mod. Rather a foundation for testing features that might become interesting for later game revisions. Or just trying different GFX for matters of taste, like it´s for other sorts of mods too. For animations that do not change stances or corrupt associated transition animations, personally I see no potential problems with it.

Thanks for your feedback, Erwin!

PS: *ani files go to data/z folder as any other modded game content. That info is part of the mod description at GAJ´s.

[A Canadian Cat]

I get what you are trying to accomplish and you even have a valid reason to want to see changes: having cowering less "the world is coming to and end" and be more "crap that was close" is a good thing to want.  Same for buddy aid.  We have heard from some that kneeling to provide aid is SOP but I can see an argument for those giving buddy aid to tailor their stance to fit the situation at hand.

 

...Only question to me remains, if size of hitbox around every individual soldier is either equal, or different (with lying prone as example). If it´s different and hitbox roughly coincides with an individual soldier outer geometry, ...

 

...With regard to my medic animation substitute, my current "belief" is that the game keeps the actual spotting info from actual visible geometry of a soldier separated. In other words, although the medic is lying prone, the game assesses the medic still as in original kneeling stance (and tracks it as a shootable target). ...

 

So, I cannot find a statement by Steve or Phil to clarify it once and for all but I am sure I read it once.  I can offer that I am not the only one that thinks the the polygons for the models *are* the hit box for soldiers (and everything else BTW): http://community.battlefront.com/topic/105664-representation-of-squad/#entry1386904and http://community.battlefront.com/topic/97033-two-stoopid-things-the-problem-with-realism/#entry1270199

 

It makes no sense to track geometry and hit boxes that are separate from the model.  The model is there - use it.  With your change is it creates a separation between what I see on my machine when I play again against you and what you see on yours.  The big problem is that it will change the behaviour of the game depending on who's machine generates the turn results.

[RockinHarry]

I get what you are trying to accomplish and you even have a valid reason to want to see changes: having cowering less "the world is coming to and end" and be more "crap that was close" is a good thing to want. Same for buddy aid. We have heard from some that kneeling to provide aid is SOP but I can see an argument for those giving buddy aid to tailor their stance to fit the situation at hand.

So, I cannot find a statement by Steve or Phil to clarify it once and for all but I am sure I read it once. I can offer that I am not the only one that thinks the the polygons for the models *are* the hit box for soldiers (and everything else BTW): http://community.battlefront.com/topic/105664-representation-of-squad/#entry1386904and http://community.battlefront.com/topic/97033-two-stoopid-things-the-problem-with-realism/#entry1270199

It makes no sense to track geometry and hit boxes that are separate from the model. The model is there - use it. With your change is it creates a separation between what I see on my machine when I play again against you and what you see on yours. The big problem is that it will change the behaviour of the game depending on who's machine generates the turn results.

Thanks for additional links and interesting info from board members. Though it doesn´t clear up, whether hitboxes are used, or plain soldier geometry. I still believe, it´s the former.

For definition of a "Hitbox"

(From Valve Developer Community)

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Hitbox

"A hitbox is an invisible box (or more often a series of boxes) which define the rough shape of a model for purposes of damage-based collision detection. A typical model within a game is much too high-poly to perform real-time hit calculations on, so hitboxes are used instead.

A hitbox is different from a bounding box in that it is more complex and closer to the model's visible shape. The bounding box is used for movement-based collision detection, and is usually literally a single box."

I just can encourage players to test both these animations vs. the AIP or H2H, as otherwise this remains a not so fruitful theorethical discussion only.

I keep the reloading stance "mod" in the bag, as well as other candidates for increased self preservation, as it requires some more intensive testing. Just naming lMG/HMG assistants (loaders) as example, or whole HMG crews. The following pic gives the idea. (now diving into my foxhole.... )

Edited August 11, 2015 by RockinHarry

[RockinHarry]

With regard to standard cower animation, it apparently is one size fits all purpose, that doesn´t intersect with surrounding terrain like foxholes ect. too much. Possible hitboxes or silhouettes, can be roughly compared in the following screenshot (standard cower - edited cower), for which personally I would prefer the edited one, as it possibly gives a slightly better chance not to be hit where it hurts.

I could imagine a more "realistic" cower to be one of the dead animations like this:

This pic is from the german Reibert, showing a soldier taking full cover (Volle Deckung). "The soldier takes full cover, if he neither wants to shoot, nor needs to observe." Maybe not quite the same as beeing suppressed, or "cowering", but gives the idea about making itself a small target, as was taught to the greenest of soldier:

Edited August 11, 2015 by RockinHarry

[BletchleyGeek]

This is quite interesting. Harry is showing us, just mixing and matching animation files, how one can obtain out of the engine more - realistic? sensible? - behaviours out of our pixeltruppen. This indeed should inspire BFC on how to achieve significant changes in the performance of the AI with no programming effort - just playing around with existing resources. I have no idea of what is the architecture of CMx2, but I don't think it is too different from the layered approach used in F.E.A.R.

 

http://aigamedev.com/open/article/fear-sdk/

 

 

• Actions, Goals, Sensors and Nodes — Most of the files are modular tasks for gathering information (sensors) and making changes to the world (actions), using objects in space with animations (nodes), and evaluating objectives and for the AI (goals).

• AI Framework & Algorithms — The other files starting with the prefixAI contain the supporting code for these specific objects listed above. The SDK also contains the implementation also contains the necessary algorithms for making decisions.

• Game Logic — The rest of the files are the typical game DLL code, with the application logic, code to manage the client/server, etc.

 

Harry is changing CMx2 AI just by changing some of the actions (implicitly by changing how the action is performed in the game world by switching animations) the simulated soldiers are doing in the game world. I have in the past have several interactions with you over the Internet, Harry, and I must say that this is the second or third time that your dedication to understand the workings of game systems leaves me really with a wide open mouth :-)

 

On the other hand, Ian concerns do deserve some consideration.

 

My guess - and it is a guess - is that either in WEGO, one of the two player adopts the role of "server" and the other that of "client", where the "server" is the one that does the actual number crunching. In WEGO, my guess is that the "server" is the second player - one cannot resolve the orders given by each player until you have all of them, and that happens when the second player presses the end turn button. On the other hand, in RT Multiplayer, I wonder if the role of "server" is distributed or is passed around between the two players. If it is distributed, then Ian concerns do hold - probably the game would go out of sync as soon as a changed animation kicks in. In WEGO, turn resolution is fixed - so if the "client" player has shuffled around animation files, he gets results as if he hadn't changed his files, and if the "server" player changes animations, the results would stand for both players.

 

While I do think Ian concerns regarding stability etc. should be weighed in by anyone wanting to try this modding in multiplayer, I don't see any harm being done when one plays the game against the AI. And in multiplayer, the "harm" would be quite relative (game tanking due to players going out of sync). So I don't think it follows automatically that Harry's "research" is a bad thing at all.

Edited August 11, 2015 by BletchleyGeek

[General Jack Ripper]

So, I cannot find a statement by Steve or Phil to clarify it once and for all but I am sure I read it once.  I can offer that I am not the only one that thinks the the polygons for the models *are* the hit box for soldiers (and everything else BTW)

 

I recall the same thing, the "hitbox" for infantry is the 3D model itself.

[Migo441]

@Harry, this is interesting stuff.  I just want to clarify what's happening here.

 

Your initial motivation was to increase soldier survivability / decrease soldier vulnerability by tinkering with the animations that were played according to particular soldier states.

 

The game would specify a standing animation (for reloading a Thompson SMG magazine) or a kneeling animation (for a Landser giving medical aid) and those actions would occur as they always have.  However, during the elapsed time of 'Reloading' or 'Medic', you have substituted a different less exposed animation of one step down (kneeling for Reloading and prone for Medic).*

 

But, of course, it was unclear if this would actually have any true in-game effects or would be purely visual (to the player).  Regardless of what was displayed on screen per the animation, it was possible the game might still treat a soldier with a 'Medic' status as kneeling with all the in-game consequences that entails, e.g., more visible to enemies and presenting a larger area to be hit by enemy fire relative to a prone stance.

 

After some testing, your sense of the effects was a curious mixed bag.  You thought that the AltA (altered animation) units were just as visible as the 'true' states so there was no in-game effect on spotting.  However, you also thought that the AltA units were less vulnerable.  So there is a possible disconnect between the 3D Models in terms of a "hit box" and the 3D Models in terms of a target to be spotted? Is that right? 

 

* Cowering was a separate case where the default AND edited animations were both prone so this was purely a cosmetic exercise.

[RockinHarry]

@Harry, this is interesting stuff.  I just want to clarify what's happening here.

 

Your initial motivation was to increase soldier survivability / decrease soldier vulnerability by tinkering with the animations that were played according to particular soldier states.

 

The game would specify a standing animation (for reloading a Thompson SMG magazine) or a kneeling animation (for a Landser giving medical aid) and those actions would occur as they always have.  However, during the elapsed time of 'Reloading' or 'Medic', you have substituted a different less exposed animation of one step down (kneeling for Reloading and prone for Medic).*

 

But, of course, it was unclear if this would actually have any true in-game effects or would be purely visual (to the player).  Regardless of what was displayed on screen per the animation, it was possible the game might still treat a soldier with a 'Medic' status as kneeling with all the in-game consequences that entails, e.g., more visible to enemies and presenting a larger area to be hit by enemy fire relative to a prone stance.

 

After some testing, your sense of the effects was a curious mixed bag.  You thought that the AltA (altered animation) units were just as visible as the 'true' states so there was no in-game effect on spotting.  However, you also thought that the AltA units were less vulnerable.  So there is a possible disconnect between the 3D Models in terms of a "hit box" and the 3D Models in terms of a target to be spotted? Is that right? 

 

* Cowering was a separate case where the default AND edited animations were both prone so this was purely a cosmetic exercise.

Well described and yes to all basically! I find it still difficult to find the perfect test environment (map & forces) to evaluate what I observe. Currently I´m testing in Hot Seat mode, so I can truely compare what each side can see and what it is doing. I basically leave all units alone and in Iron difficulty mode, to achieve most meaningful results. It also makes a big difference for visibility of any infantry unit, in what sort of terrain spotters and to be sighted units are in (generally known), elevation levels (gk), having binoculars or not (gk), soft/suppression factors (gk) and distances between all units involved (gk). An important distance water mark lies at the 300m range (rifle range), from my observations. From 300m and up, spotting chances are greatly reduced (without binocs) and most (Tac AI) soldiers with rifles won´t engage at this range by themselves (and beeing more easily spotted). Soldiers with scoped rifles, some automatic rifles and lMG will do if a good target presents itself. With that many variables in effect it´s as said, hard to validate any the edited stance changes.

I figured that medics in (original) kneel position are way harder to be spotted in trenches, foxholes and other good cover terrain, IF range to next hostile observer/shooter is beyond the 300m water mark.

Some tactical measure for a human player to tend casualties halfway safely, would be for the tending unit to go on hide with very short 360° CA, distract any visible enemy unit that could interfere with buddy aiding, with a different friendly unit by either showing as target, and/or engaging with direct or area suppressive fire. Tending unit morale level is also of importance. A unit in nervous or cautious state will take some time, before one the soldiers attempts BA. Some units like small heavy weapons teams will never BA. In example a small HMG team (crew of 3-4, no ammo bearers) takes precedence in keeping the heavy weapon operational, as long as it´s in deployed mode.

Even if a buddy aiding unit is in a "safe" environment, it can happen that BA is aborted by a stray bullet, ricochetting from a wall 100m away and finally falling into the near vicinity of the medic. Happens more oftenly if the medics unit is in not so good morale state.

The examples given is for units that both contain the medic AND WIA/KIA, but also applies to BA generally (BA and WIA/KIA in different units).

With all that variables given, it oftenly makes no big difference if a medic is kneeling or prone, but unless the BFC staff gives some details about that, I keep my main assumption that there is a disconnect between what the TacAI sees and what it actually can hit, due to (faked) stance change.

I´m still in the middle of some extensive testing with different situations, so I can probably tell more at a later time.

Note: I´m testing LOS and direct small arms fire vs. medics and any faked stance changes only. Indirect fire (HE) is yet an untested matter.

Some non directly related findings during my test runs:

Sniper teams (veteran+) work best at ranges between 300-400m (vs. infantry). They have good chances to hit (between 1-3 shots) at a static target, while not beeing spotted too easily in return. Don´t bother the targeted infantry unit with other friendly units by shooting at them, so the target units soldiers keep their heads up and do not cower. (More of an exploit vs. the AIP)

With sniper team vs. spotted and stationary enemy infantry, you can deliberately pick off a particular enemy soldier by setting up a very narrow CA just on that particular soldier. Get rid of a nasty lMG gunner rather quickly or relieve the enemy of his squad/team leader by targeting the guy with the binocs (if he has any). Yet there´s no warranty that the sniper´s not picking an opportunity target, slightly outside the set CA. Works best around the mentioned 300m water mark, as otherwise it´s difficult to spot the squad leader at all, as he usually won´t reveal his position by shooting his SMG (<= 200m). If not already visible and spotted, get the enemy unit "activated" and showing itself by providing another friendly unit as target, far away (at least 2-3 action spots)from the snipers position, in order to not get affected from possible enemy return fire. The best sniper is at 300m +, not spotted in good concealment terrain and somewhat isolated from other friendlies.

[weta_nz]

That is some great info about snipers. thanks RockinHarry

[BigDog944]

I'm of the opinion (along with IanL) that this is a breakdown/exploit of the game code and has opened the door to cheating in multi-player games.

 

BFC is going to need to fix this. I hope someone at BFC is reading this thread and adding this exploit to the top of their list of bugs.

[poesel]

Harry - a good test would be to replace the running animations with prone ones. That is of course not something you want to have in the game but then you can test casualties between running prone and running running targets. 

That should give you a very decisive difference.

[akd]

BA kneeling versus prone should be very easy to test using low walls on level ground. Cover and concealment behind a low wall vs. small arms is absolute. A prone unit cannot be seen or shot, and cannot see anything on the far side of wall. This is less true with foxholes / trenches.

[RockinHarry]

Harry - a good test would be to replace the running animations with prone ones. That is of course not something you want to have in the game but then you can test casualties between running prone and running running targets. 

That should give you a very decisive difference.

Interesting suggestion and I could implement that into a quick test by renaming 2 standard crawl animations (from the k98 folder) to 2 standard "run" animations from the same folder. Did an alternative test by renaming 2 idle prone animations for the same purpose.

Result:

Idle prone animated soldiers did not get off the spot at all. Simply keep lying prone with orders set to Quick or Fast!

Crawl animated soldiers start to crawl at normal crawl speed while beeing set to Quick or Fast move and after very short time changed to "tiring" or "tired" status! A german lMG team which has just the mentioned K98k rifle guy animation changed, resulted in the lMG gunner run normally (quick or fast) and have the assistant with the rifle crawl. End result is the lMG gunner quickly reached the objective first (just 2 AS away), while the K98 guy attempts to follow in crawl mode, which at last gots the whole team tiring or tired.

Did a bit of shooting practice vs. the running AIP soldiers in "crawl animation mode". Result: Targetable footprint is obviously the same as when crawling right from the start. Also contact markers reflect the AIP´s actual units stance (low). I paused the test game, quit, removed the 2 mod files and restarted. Previously crawling soldiers now back with running animations. Contact markers changed within 2-3 seconds to fully spotted (if not already fully spotted previously) and targetable footprint changed back to standing/running (for movement animations). All other unchanged actions run as usual (shooting/observing/cowering ect.)

Interesting....

Files changed for the tests:

"kar98k-crawl-long.ani" -> "kar98k-run-level-long.ani"

"kar98k-crawl-short.ani" -> "kar98k-run-level-short.ani"

(changes the majority of soldiers with just a rifle as main weapon, US, GE, CW)

[RockinHarry]

BA kneeling versus prone should be very easy to test using low walls on level ground. Cover and concealment behind a low wall vs. small arms is absolute. A prone unit cannot be seen or shot, and cannot see anything on the far side of wall. This is less true with foxholes / trenches.

Yup, under best circumstances this works as you say. If the whole unit with the medic stays low (prone) as well, the medics chances to complete with BA unharmed are very good. Low walls still are not quite sufficient if watched at from higher elevations not far away (2nd story of a building ect.). That counts for all soldiers behind a low wall, not just the medic. From my experiences with the "tweak", FH and trenches raise a medics chances equally well, if not other soldiers from the same unit show as target. If it keeps on "hide", the medic won´t be seen nor targeted, as when on hide as well. Under generally favourable circumstances, as said.

[General Jack Ripper]

Idle prone animated soldiers did not get off the spot at all. Simply keep lying prone with orders set to Quick or Fast!

 

Just goes to show how realistic this game is. If the soldier isn't actually moving, he doesn't move!

[General Jack Ripper]

I hope someone at BFC is reading this thread and adding this exploit to the top of their list of bugs.

 

I hope someone at BFC is reading this and thinking, "RockinHarry has a point about the Cowering animation."

[Baneman]

Huh, I thought the opposite - Why change the cowering animation so that you can't tell he's doing it ?

[General Jack Ripper]

Huh, I thought the opposite - Why change the cowering animation so that you can't tell he's doing it ?

 

The idea behind the change is that the normal prone position is actually less exposed to enemy fire than the cowering pose. Cowering offers a larger target cross-section if you will. It's also harder to judge the suppressive effects of your own fire if the enemy isn't visibly "cowering".

As RockinHarry pointed out, the normal Cowering animation is less effective than simply lying prone when trying to avoid getting shot, and that one of the death poses actually might serve better as a replacement for the cowering pose.

That's a rough summary anyway, personally I can take it or leave it, but this thread certainly has some interesting information in regards to the game engine itself.

[RockinHarry]

The idea behind the change is that the normal prone position is actually less exposed to enemy fire than the cowering pose. Cowering offers a larger target cross-section if you will. It's also harder to judge the suppressive effects of your own fire if the enemy isn't visibly "cowering".

As RockinHarry pointed out, the normal Cowering animation is less effective than simply lying prone when trying to avoid getting shot, and that one of the death poses actually might serve better as a replacement for the cowering pose.

That's a rough summary anyway, personally I can take it or leave it, but this thread certainly has some interesting information in regards to the game engine itself.

Yup, that´s the basic idea. A confirmation from the BFC staff would be required to have a proof of anything reported to this date.

Leaving any matters of taste aside (cower, stance changes during certain actions yes or no), an additional issue with regard to possible cheating and exploit opportunities by changing animations is valid as well. I already expressed my initial intentions for the changes repeately, so I leave it at that.

Poesel made some good suggestion to test a possible exploit, by changing running animations to crawl/prone. This gave some surprising results indeed. Contrary to my (and likely anybody else) expectations, the soldiers did not "crawl" at running speed across the map like snakes. It rather suggests, that the animation files 1., are not just containers that contain soldier skeleton movement data and 2., that the game is way more complex and sophisticated, as one might suspect.

A soldiers stance directly affects his targetable footprint, as well as his spotting abilities. It appears that these 2 features can´t be disconnected, by changing an animation file. Same goes for movement modes, as most likely there´s data in the animation files (or elsewhere), that ties movement to a particular animation and not the associated order. At least that counts for quick and fast movement animations changed to crawl (or stationary). It needs more tests to evaluate all possible movement/stance changes, if that applies globally.

As said, any changes to an animation goes both ways, with regard to benfit and penalties. A lower stance makes a soldier less spottable/hittable, but the same time his spotting and (return) shooting abilities are decreased.

I have a number of test games going, that go farther with animation changes, than I have reported to this date. The overall observable effect is that carnage amongst infantry units is somewhat reduced. I see less soldiers die in situations where previously unnecessary exposure during combat, lead to largely increased kill rates. Buddy Aid and full mag/clip reloading in stand/kneel stance are the most prominent ones IMO. Cower animation change is more a cosmetic change as said. Whether normal cower and prone cower animation change has truely a noticeable effect due to somewhat different targetable footprints, is negligible I think.

What also is unaffected by all this, is suppressive effects. There also appears little effect with regard to HE. A near miss can hurt/kill a soldier by blast effects and splinters and most the time it doesn´t really matter, whether a soldier is prone or standing upright. Differences could only be evaluated by intensive testing with various HE, different (cover) terrain and soldier stances. From my observations, soldiers die as often with changed animations as without, when targeted with any HE.

I solely play vs. the AIP and I tend to believe, that the AIP benfits more than a human player, as the AIP tactical finesse is somewhat limited. It shows generally more targets (won´t hide purposely) and uses almost exclusively quick movement modes (or crawl when max assaulting or tired). I have some games/missions, that I created some elaborated AI plans for and could make some direct A-B compare (with and w/o animation changes). Although the AIP doesn´t act "smarter", it takes noticably less losses with my elaborate animation tweaks and thus stays longer in the game unbroken, as well as has more chances to whack the human opponent. The human player has to deal with the changes as well. More prone and kneeling soldiers mean less spotting and shooting opportunities for his own soldiers and more emphasis is now on the guys with binocs for battlefield observation.

Soldiers I got into better cover stance successfully:

Medics (reduced target size)

Reloading mags & clips (reduced target size)

Assistant loader for certain lMG and HMG, always prone. (reduced target size, probably spotting ability)

No more idle stand animations. (reduced target size & spotting ability)

Currently tested:

HMG gunners always prone (see pics further up in this thread).

Soldiers only shooting from kneel and prone stance. (cuts certain shooting opportunities and reduces target size)

Whether some the mutiply used animations look or act bad in other than the intended situations. There´s a couple of them already. Some transitory animations are affected as well and that puts some definite limits, where certain animations can be enforced and where better not.

There´s some animations that are also dependent upon a soldiers main rifle weapon. I.e if the assistant lMG/HMG gunner/loader has also a scoped sniper rifle, then the substitute idle prone animation does not quite work and a standing stance, scratch head animation pops up instead.

[RockinHarry]

Edit: No problem with sniper rifle and MG gunner assistant. Simply forgot to rename and add an additional file. Sometimes amount of certain stance animation files do not coincide with related ones. I.e there could be 4 variations of a single standing stance animation, but only 3 of the connected kneel one.

[RockinHarry]

I have a dropbox link available to the now completed "mod", that includes all of the "features" discussed in this thread. Cower and Buddy Aid is included optionally in the RAR file (no BRZ). Otherwise it´s the same animations as available at GAJ´s. If anybody likes to give it some test play, contact me by PM!

[JoMac]

I'm wondering thou ( as some might suggest ) if BF uses the 'Cower' position, ( hugging or scouring the ground ) as a form of cover and the actual Animation "Look" itself doesn't make any difference ( BF just needed to come up with something that players can relate to ).

If this is the case, then no matter what we change the position you give the 'Cower' ( Stand, Kneel, Prone ) then the 'Hit' Boxes only take into account as if the actual position is laying down. So, then what about Spotting, does it only take into account the 'Cower' position or the position that we can artificially give them...I don't know ? 

Edited August 24, 2015 by JoMc67

[RockinHarry]

I'm wondering thou ( as some might suggest ) if BF uses the 'Cower' position, ( hugging or scouring the ground ) as a form of cover and the actual Animation "Look" itself doesn't make any difference ( BF just needed to come up with something that players can relate to ).

If this is the case, then no matter what we change the position you give the 'Cower' ( Stand, Kneel, Prone ) then the 'Hit' Boxes only take into account as if the actual position is laying down. So, then what about Spotting, does it only take into account the 'Cower' position or the position that we can artificially give them...I don't know ?

Only BFC can tell, but in the case of cower animation, it´s firmly tied to the heavily suppressed/pinned state of the cowering soldier, with all its inherent penalties (no active spotting attempts, not able shooting...) Different stance cower animations, just makes a cowering soldier a bigger or smaller target to the enemy, both with regard to spotability and being hit chances. It appears, that the game really evaluates, what it actually sees (3D geometry), which is dependent on target size and thus a soldiers stance. You can help testing and evaluating, by trying the mod!

[JoMac]

Thanks again for your explanation, Harry, and this is interesting for sure.

 

Yes, I have downloaded your Mod from GAJ and will be play testing as time goes by...So far it does "look" a little more realistic compared to stock ( not that it was that bad to begin with, but ), but having the greater possibility of 3D interaction is even better.

 

Thou, you do wonder, if the above is true, why would BF make the original 'Cower' Stance be given a slightly better chance of getting hit compared to 'Prone' ? ( if that's indeed the case )...Maybe the 3D interaction is not exactly as we think and the 'Cower' or 'Prone' Trooper occupies the same type Hit Box with same chance of getting hit ( but 'Cower' penalized more so for spotting, etc )...Or, maybe one or the other Stance has a better "Savings Throw" ( using the same type Hit Box ) compared to the other.....Just some things to ponder I guess. 

Edited August 25, 2015 by JoMc67

[RockinHarry]

Thanks again for your explanation, Harry, and this is interesting for sure.

 

Yes, I have downloaded your Mod from GAJ and will be play testing as time goes by...So far it does "look" a little more realistic compared to stock ( not that it was that bad to begin with, but ), but having the greater possibility of 3D interaction is even better.

 

Thou, you do wonder, if the above is true, why would BF make the original 'Cower' Stance be given a slightly better chance of getting hit compared to 'Prone' ? ( if that's indeed the case )...Maybe the 3D interaction is not exactly as we think and the 'Cower' or 'Prone' Trooper occupies the same type Hit Box with same chance of getting hit ( but 'Cower' penalized more so for spotting, etc )...Or, maybe one or the other Stance has a better "Savings Throw" ( using the same type Hit Box ) compared to the other.....Just some things to ponder I guess.

I forgot to mention, that I very much like the animations in the game generally and one can highly praise the work that was done by BFC 3D modellers! With regard to cower or buddy aid, it´s rather a matter of taste, as well as gameplay reasons to make them the way they are now, not quality of the animations themselves. Personally I prefer the "modded" cower animation, not just it looks "better" and is more "realistic", but also adds to fog of war. The modded version at least gives an option that everybody can decide to use or not.

Yup, it´s just speculation on the part of so called "hitboxes" to be used for soldiers in the game, or not. Some board members suggest, that all of a soldiers geometry is used for tracking and registering a hit, which would be quite an advanced and accurate method. From my extensive observations, tracking single bullets causing hits and WIA/KIA, I´d confirm that either the hitboxes are very tightly modelled around the soldier geometry, or the geometry is the hitbox itself. If sort of "die roll" comes into play, I´d suspect the seriousness of a hit/wound to be resolved this way.

I´d suggest that the changed cower animation has the smallest overall effect, of all the changed ones in the game. The soldiers footprint for enemy fire and spotting is rather negligible and whether one pose or the other is more likely to catch a bullet, remains plain luck I´d say.

Buddy Aid is a slightly different sort, but to make it short (again), ..in an environment where a medic has little chance for survival generally, a prone one will not fare much better, most of the time. Presumed the buddy aid action could be triggered or completed at all.