Amphibious APC won't go in the water in editor.

[Cow Obliterated by Train]

So I'm making a scenario that requires several APCs to go in the water and flank around an airfield. But they have better plans, so they go in the water, then back out and drive down the road, right into the airfield, where Varsuks destroy them.
how fix.

Yet another post that will have no solution.

[Cow Obliterated by Train]

UPDATE: I started the APCs in the water, but they just drive to shore and then back along the main road into the airfield.

Hell of a game!

Be great if ♥♥♥♥ just ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ worked instead of needing to ♥♥♥♥♥ on forums for simple ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥.
Is it that hard to code an amphibious vehicle's crew to drive on the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ water?

[Cow Obliterated by Train]

♥♥♥♥ it, uninstalling. At least they managed to get ArmA 2 to a more polished state before abandoning it. If ArmA 3 goes the pace its at now, its going to be a ♥♥♥♥ show when they move on to the next ArmA.

[UBE Chief]

If you've ever used the amphibious vehicles in the water, you would know that their top speed is a pathetic 11 kph. If they get spotted, they're dead. The AI know this, and would rather use their ground speed to attack the airbase than risk a water op, even if the result is the same.

You want a water assault? Use boats with GMGs - at least they can travel faster over water (WAY faster) than any amphibious vehicle in vanilla Arma 3. Or start the amphibious vehicles closer to the shore where you want them to land, so at least they'll go in that direction instead of the shore you wanted them to start from.

Also, using amphibious IFVs against Varsuk MBTs? They're gonna die regardless of how many you put in the water. Just shove a couple boats as a distraction, then have a few SDVs bring an AT force to shore.

It's not that hard of thinking of a more interesting and logical scenario than the one you wanted to. Uninstalling the game because the AI are smarter than you? That's sad.

EDIT: Just saw on your profile that you barely have 200 hours combined in Arma 2 (33h), Arma 2 OA (88h), and Arma 3 (50h). Bruh, get more hours into the games before you decide which is more polished than the other.

[Cow Obliterated by Train]

Originally posted by UBE Chief:

If you've ever used the amphibious vehicles in the water, you would know that their top speed is a pathetic 11 kph. If they get spotted, they're dead. The AI know this, and would rather use their ground speed to attack the airbase than risk a water op, even if the result is the same.

You want a water assault? Use boats with GMGs - at least they can travel faster over water (WAY faster) than any amphibious vehicle in vanilla Arma 3. Or start the amphibious vehicles closer to the shore where you want them to land, so at least they'll go in that direction instead of the shore you wanted them to start from.

Also, using amphibious IFVs against Varsuk MBTs? They're gonna die regardless of how many you put in the water. Just shove a couple boats as a distraction, then have a few SDVs bring an AT force to shore.

It's not that hard of thinking of a more interesting and logical scenario than the one you wanted to. Uninstalling the game because the AI are smarter than you? That's sad.

EDIT: Just saw on your profile that you barely have 200 hours combined in Arma 2 (33h), Arma 2 OA (88h), and Arma 3 (50h). Bruh, get more hours into the games before you decide which is more polished than the other.

The path these vehicles take is out of the way of any enemy fire. Tell me, what exactly is the point of an amphibious vehicle if you can't use that feature in the editor? GOD FORBID someone want an apc to travel over water, we can't allow that!
And There are about 6 Slammers fighting 3 Varsuks, along with the player controlling arty. The APCs are getting wrecked by the Varsuks BECAUSE the AI takes over and drives them straight in. The idea is that by the time they make landfall, the Varsuks are already being engaged, and the APCs can clean up some infantry and smaller vehicles.

And how is my time in game relevant? Yes, I've had a TON of issues with ArmA 2, because bis just can't seem to make a game that isn't a buggy ♥♥♥♥ mess. But I see ArmA 3 having far less polish, considering I'm complaining in one forum or another every few days about another ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ issue.
Also, multiplayer in ArmA 2 doesn't run at 7fps.

[UBE Chief]

Originally posted by munchiesnOOb:

The path these vehicles take is out of the way of any enemy fire. Tell me, what exactly is the point of an amphibious vehicle if you can't use that feature in the editor? GOD FORBID someone want an apc to travel over water, we can't allow that!
And There are about 6 Slammers fighting 3 Varsuks, along with the player controlling arty. The APCs are getting wrecked by the Varsuks BECAUSE the AI takes over and drives them straight in. The idea is that by the time they make landfall, the Varsuks are already being engaged, and the APCs can clean up some infantry and smaller vehicles.

And how is my time in game relevant? Yes, I've had a TON of issues with ArmA 2, because bis just can't seem to make a game that isn't a buggy ♥♥♥♥ mess. But I see ArmA 3 having far less polish, considering I'm complaining in one forum or another every few days about another ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ issue.
Also, multiplayer in ArmA 2 doesn't run at 7fps.

Had it ever occured to you that to avoid the AI taking the "smarter" and faster route on land, that you would have to make at least one or two waypoints in the water for the AI to follow instead of just an "Attack Here" marker with nothing in between? AI don't account for user limitations, and they don't think the same way as you.

Most people who make scenarios in the Arma series have over 200 hours plugged into each game, not barely 175 hours combined across three. I'm not defending BI in any manner (cuz I agree that Arma 3 is an unoptimized hot mess of sh!t and sucks off all Intel CPUs and gives the finger to AMD), and yes I've had a more stable time playing Arma 2 + mods, but the stuff you can do now in Arma 3 compared to Arma 2 is massive.

Also, the FPS you get in mulitplayer is entirely dependant on the server. Unoptimized scripts, tons of AI and more contribute to low framerates. Just to give an example: The vanilla Invade & Annex server I go to on Tanoa gives me maybe 20 fps. By comparison, a heavily modified Exile on Altis server (MAS wep/veh, RHS US/RUS, TRYK, CUP Units/Wep/Veh) with roaming AI (both foot soldiers, ground vehicles and aircraft) and missions (including a large AI Base on the salt flats) gives me the same FPS. Same graphics settings, same render & object distance.

Why? Scripts and configuration. Also the physical server that they rent. You would be surprised at how many servers with low mods and scripts run badly simply because their hardware wasn't up to snuff, or isn't even physical (virtual servers suck, mmmk?). Blame the server you go to, not the game.

Well, at least Arma 3 ran better before Apex.

[Cow Obliterated by Train]

Originally posted by UBE Chief:

Originally posted by munchiesnOOb:

The path these vehicles take is out of the way of any enemy fire. Tell me, what exactly is the point of an amphibious vehicle if you can't use that feature in the editor? GOD FORBID someone want an apc to travel over water, we can't allow that!
And There are about 6 Slammers fighting 3 Varsuks, along with the player controlling arty. The APCs are getting wrecked by the Varsuks BECAUSE the AI takes over and drives them straight in. The idea is that by the time they make landfall, the Varsuks are already being engaged, and the APCs can clean up some infantry and smaller vehicles.

And how is my time in game relevant? Yes, I've had a TON of issues with ArmA 2, because bis just can't seem to make a game that isn't a buggy ♥♥♥♥ mess. But I see ArmA 3 having far less polish, considering I'm complaining in one forum or another every few days about another ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ issue.
Also, multiplayer in ArmA 2 doesn't run at 7fps.

Had it ever occured to you that to avoid the AI taking the "smarter" and faster route on land, that you would have to make at least one or two waypoints in the water for the AI to follow instead of just an "Attack Here" marker with nothing in between? AI don't account for user limitations, and they don't think the same way as you.

Most people who make scenarios in the Arma series have over 200 hours plugged into each game, not barely 175 hours combined across three. I'm not defending BI in any manner (cuz I agree that Arma 3 is an unoptimized hot mess of sh!t and sucks off all Intel CPUs and gives the finger to AMD), and yes I've had a more stable time playing Arma 2 + mods, but the stuff you can do now in Arma 3 compared to Arma 2 is massive.

Also, the FPS you get in mulitplayer is entirely dependant on the server. Unoptimized scripts, tons of AI and more contribute to low framerates. Just to give an example: The vanilla Invade & Annex server I go to on Tanoa gives me maybe 20 fps. By comparison, a heavily modified Exile on Altis server (MAS wep/veh, RHS US/RUS, TRYK, CUP Units/Wep/Veh) with roaming AI (both foot soldiers, ground vehicles and aircraft) and missions (including a large AI Base on the salt flats) gives me the same FPS. Same graphics settings, same render & object distance.

Why? Scripts and configuration. Also the physical server that they rent. You would be surprised at how many servers with low mods and scripts run badly simply because their hardware wasn't up to snuff, or isn't even physical (virtual servers suck, mmmk?). Blame the server you go to, not the game.

Well, at least Arma 3 ran better before Apex.

"Had it ever occured to you that to avoid the AI taking the "smarter" and faster route on land, that you would have to make at least one or two waypoints in the water for the AI to follow instead of just an "Attack Here" marker with nothing in between? AI don't account for user limitations, and they don't think the same way as you."

No ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥? Do you actually think I'm unaware of how to make waypoints? I spent half an hour trying to get this to work, don't insult my intelligence.

"Most people who make scenarios in the Arma series have over 200 hours plugged into each game, not barely 175 hours combined across three. I'm not defending BI in any manner (cuz I agree that Arma 3 is an unoptimized hot mess of sh!t and sucks off all Intel CPUs and gives the finger to AMD), and yes I've had a more stable time playing Arma 2 + mods, but the stuff you can do now in Arma 3 compared to Arma 2 is massive."

So like at the 200 hour mark, do the APCs start following orders? No? Then my point is still valid, and yours is not. I completely ignore the time spent in game argument, because it is completely irrelevant. My opinion is similar to Jim Sterling's on this. I've put in 50 hours in ArmA 3. Is that as much as you, or some of the nolifers in the community? Hell no! But in order for the game to make up for itself in the next fifty hours, Kerry's going to have to suck my ♥♥♥♥ through the screen or something. Again, at 200 hours, does the game MAGICALLY fix itself and become playable? No, it doesn't. You can just live with a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of bugs, and that's fine, but I don't tolerate lazy devs.

"Also, the FPS you get in mulitplayer is entirely dependant on the server. Unoptimized scripts, tons of AI and more contribute to low framerates. Just to give an example: The vanilla Invade & Annex server I go to on Tanoa gives me maybe 20 fps. By comparison, a heavily modified Exile on Altis server (MAS wep/veh, RHS US/RUS, TRYK, CUP Units/Wep/Veh) with roaming AI (both foot soldiers, ground vehicles and aircraft) and missions (including a large AI Base on the salt flats) gives me the same FPS. Same graphics settings, same render & object distance."

So is that why maybe half the forum threads are people saying they have decent rigs and can't get good fps in mulitplayer? I guess they all just must be going to only the few ♥♥♥♥♥♥ servers, right? Unoptimizes scripts? Like the ones in the base game? And yes, Tanoa is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ optimized. Another point for the away team.

"Why? Scripts and configuration. Also the physical server that they rent. You would be surprised at how many servers with low mods and scripts run badly simply because their hardware wasn't up to snuff, or isn't even physical (virtual servers suck, mmmk?). Blame the server you go to, not the game."

Again... Which servers are good, then? And why are none of the threads I'm seeing in the discussions about low fps in multi solved by someone saying "oh guys, this server is good! This one has high fps!" I have NEVER seen that.


Well, at least Arma 3 ran better before Apex.

Agree.

[UBE Chief]

((On an unrelated note, have all the posts somehow duplicated themselves, or is it just me? The forums says that this thread has 11 posts, and yet I'm on the second page, wondering wtf's going on))
Anywho...

I was suggesting that maybe you haven't tried all possible avenues before giving up. Maybe it requires more waypoints, or different kinds of waypoints for the AI to "smarten up" and travel via water instead of driving on land. Maybe water waypoints only work for boats, where AI know for a fact that they can work. AI are fairly stupid, I agree, and BI needs to make them more realistic, or at least smarter.

While the amount of time spent ingame isn't an indicator of one's prowess with the game or genre, it does indicate how long they've spent with that game's engine, it's functions, and how everything works. And, in my optinion, if you don't have a lot of time plugged into a game, you don't have much experience to call on when making statements about it. Hence my statement that most scenario makers have over 200 hours in the game. They've tested a lot of things, have a better idea of what could be going wrong, compared to someone with - using your example - 50 hours.

I'd say about half of the community are playing sh!t gametypes, like Life, KoTH and Exile (yes, the very mod I play). Ergo, most servers are on cheap-a$$ virtual servers, which bog down performance like a mofo. You want performance? Get a good, physical server with dual OC'd Xeon cores, 32GB of RAM and SSD's for days. Not some virtual slushbox that you rent for pennies a day.

Having good system specs is also going to be a boon. As I've stated, Arma 3 loves Intel CPUs and hates AMD cores with a passion. I run an older AMD Phenom core, and I get sh!t frames. Arma 3 is unoptimized. There is no going around it. You're better off with a 4+GHz unlocked i7 with 16GB and a beast GPU than what I have. And even then, you're not guaranteed to get decent frames. Because Arma 3 is a sh!tstorm of an unoptimized mess.

[Cow Obliterated by Train]

Originally posted by UBE Chief:

((On an unrelated note, have all the posts somehow duplicated themselves, or is it just me? The forums says that this thread has 11 posts, and yet I'm on the second page, wondering wtf's going on))
Anywho...

I was suggesting that maybe you haven't tried all possible avenues before giving up. Maybe it requires more waypoints, or different kinds of waypoints for the AI to "smarten up" and travel via water instead of driving on land. Maybe water waypoints only work for boats, where AI know for a fact that they can work. AI are fairly stupid, I agree, and BI needs to make them more realistic, or at least smarter.

While the amount of time spent ingame isn't an indicator of one's prowess with the game or genre, it does indicate how long they've spent with that game's engine, it's functions, and how everything works. And, in my optinion, if you don't have a lot of time plugged into a game, you don't have much experience to call on when making statements about it. Hence my statement that most scenario makers have over 200 hours in the game. They've tested a lot of things, have a better idea of what could be going wrong, compared to someone with - using your example - 50 hours.

I'd say about half of the community are playing sh!t gametypes, like Life, KoTH and Exile (yes, the very mod I play). Ergo, most servers are on cheap-a$$ virtual servers, which bog down performance like a mofo. You want performance? Get a good, physical server with dual OC'd Xeon cores, 32GB of RAM and SSD's for days. Not some virtual slushbox that you rent for pennies a day.

Having good system specs is also going to be a boon. As I've stated, Arma 3 loves Intel CPUs and hates AMD cores with a passion. I run an older AMD Phenom core, and I get sh!t frames. Arma 3 is unoptimized. There is no going around it. You're better off with a 4+GHz unlocked i7 with 16GB and a beast GPU than what I have. And even then, you're not guaranteed to get decent frames. Because Arma 3 is a sh!tstorm of an unoptimized mess.

I spent an hours trying to get it working. The AI knows better, apparently, and I guess driving into 3 Varsuks is better than driving 150 feet over water to engage infantry.

Yeah, somethings up with this thread.

[UBE Chief]

I have an idea. What if the player, who can control artillery, is in charge of the squad of amphibious vehicles? Would they follow the player to the waypoints in the water?

[Cow Obliterated by Train]

Originally posted by UBE Chief:

I have an idea. What if the player, who can control artillery, is in charge of the squad of amphibious vehicles? Would they follow the player to the waypoints in the water?

Maybe, but the idea is that the player simply supports the armor and infantry capturing the airfield.
That would be a workaround and would require the player to command the units instead of just firing on enemy positions.

[Paarma]

Haven't tried it myself (and can't at the moment), but according to this: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/AIBehaviour if the AI behaviour is set to "safe" or "careless", they'll try using roads, but if they're set to "aware" or "combat" or even "stealth" they might take more direct route to the waypoint.

[UBE Chief]

Originally posted by Paarma:

Haven't tried it myself (and can't at the moment), but according to this: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/AIBehaviour if the AI behaviour is set to "safe" or "careless", they'll try using roads, but if they're set to "aware" or "combat" or even "stealth" they might take more direct route to the waypoint.

I can confirm that with both Combat and Steath attributes that amphibious vehicles will travel to water-based waypoints. It'll take the AI longer to work through the waypoints than with a player controlling the lead/commanding vehicle, but it works, nonetheless.

(Tested with CUP/RHS mods, squad of 5 BTR-90s attacking)

[Nox]

Hi there, just found this discussion as i was having the same problem (And for the record, i have 400+, which i am aware is not a massive amount, and extensive experience in a large amount of other games editors) and kinda found UBE to the classic experienced Arma player, talking down their nose to a newer player that is frustrated with the dumb ai the experienced player has just come to accept. Anyway, in the end i just ended up using like 40 way points over a stretch of like 200 m. Annoying as hell.

[Sgt Smash]

Originally posted by Actual Cannibal Ben Shapiro:

♥♥♥♥ it, uninstalling. At least they managed to get ArmA 2 to a more polished state before abandoning it. If ArmA 3 goes the pace its at now, its going to be a ♥♥♥♥ show when they move on to the next ArmA.

Still playing Arma 3 over 3 years later i see lol

[paradise]

Dunno if anyone already said this, but there is a command from BIS which replays player movements, just show how they should move, set a few triggers, and there! Done!