AATF PowerToolkit?

[meade95]

Read below....figured this part out...

[meade95]

I think I'm starting to walk my way through the toolkit a little more.

[meade95]

A few more questions / observations?

What exactly are the "kill odds" section - Within the vehicle database? Certain weapons will be rated a "0" in the five catagories (front, back, right, left, top)...while others are rated a 1, or 2, etc?.

Also, shouldn't the US SOF 1993 vehicle / unit be carrying mostly M4s (not the M16s)??


For the Anaconda Op - I know for certain the SEALs (MACKO 31) guys were carrying Opt'ed M4's/m203GL and Sniper rilfe (Not 16's...as is currently in the DB).


Also, is there an easy way to correct these simple overlooks? The DB's themsevles are write-protected and do not allow for simple changes (it appears).

If I go ahead and save an updated database (weapons, vehicles, etc, databases)......how do I go about using these updated databases with the 14 missions shipped with AATF??


I know persay, these small changes might not make any large difference in the SIM itself (on the whole)....I'm just one for detail and like to have past Ops run as closely to "as was"....as can be.

[JamesBailey]

meade95,
Its my understanding that the AATF powertool kit uses the same nuts and bolts of the ATF powertool kit. There is a good primer on that here:

Get Started Tutorial (http://www.prosimco.com/atf/tutorial/index.htm)

For game purposes (coy, bn level) I don't think there is a real difference between an M-4 and an M-16. As you say, you like the details and I can respect that...

But good questions and I look forward to reading the answers from those in the know!

[meade95]

meade95,
Its my understanding that the AATF powertool kit uses the same nuts and bolts of the ATF powertool kit. There is a good primer on that here:

Get Started Tutorial (http://www.prosimco.com/atf/tutorial/index.htm)

For game purposes (coy, bn level) I don't think there is a real difference between an M-4 and an M-16. As you say, you like the details and I can respect that...

But good questions and I look forward to reading the answers from those in the know!


Thanks for the link - Reading through it now -

I'm also curious to find out more about the "Kill odds" within the database -

Are these figures for if "the weapons listed" were to fire on the "unit/vehicle" you are editing? (odds for killing said unit, if fired upon by these weapons?).

I'm also looking forward to hearing how to go about updating a database and then using this new updated database within the missions that were shipped with the game (if possible).

[JamesBailey]

meade95,
you can certainly edit and update a database to be used in the game's scenarios.
This page of the primer, Number 5, has got a great overview of each values and ranges you asked about
Add a Vehicle to the Database (http://www.prosimco.com/atf/tutorial/3_new_vehicle.htm)

[meade95]

meade95,
you can certainly edit and update a database to be used in the game's scenarios.
This page of the primer, Number 5, has got a great overview of each values and ranges you asked about
Add a Vehicle to the Database (http://www.prosimco.com/atf/tutorial/3_new_vehicle.htm)


Thanks again for the link - Great info -

How do I go about updating a database (with corrected info / units / vehicles) and then use this said DB with the missions already scripted with the game?

Don't the default missions use the default DB's automatically?

[Pat Proctor]

What exactly are the "kill odds" section - Within the vehicle database? Certain weapons will be rated a "0" in the five catagories (front, back, right, left, top)...while others are rated a 1, or 2, etc?.

These are pK (percent Kill) odds that are "rolled" against once a hit is achieved (using a seperate pH algorithm). A 0 means that the weapon is incapable, in any situation, of destroying the vehicle in question. A 1 or a 2 indicates that there is a VERY LOW (1 or 2 %) chance of a kill with this weapon type.

These values are, as you pointed out, by facing. A vehicle, for instance, is more vulnerable to a rear shot than a front shot.

Also, shouldn't the US SOF 1993 vehicle / unit be carrying mostly M4s (not the M16s)??

I had the same question. We were unable to secure a definitive source. Our best sources were for conventional infantry forces, who did not begin to receive the M4 until mid-1995. We went with that. I may have been that the Rangers had M-16s with folding stock, which would, for database purposes, made them identical to the M-16. But, our best sources indicate that the short barrel, M-4 carbine did not enter the US Army until 1995. If you have info to the contrary, I would definitely like to look at it.

For the Anaconda Op - I know for certain the SEALs (MACKO 31) guys were carrying Opt'ed M4's/m203GL and Sniper rilfe (Not 16's...as is currently in the DB).

Yep. Good catch.

Also, is there an easy way to correct these simple overlooks? The DB's themsevles are write-protected and do not allow for simple changes (it appears).

If I go ahead and save an updated database (weapons, vehicles, etc, databases)......how do I go about using these updated databases with the 14 missions shipped with AATF??


Simply open the DB for editing and then save it with a new name. Then, for each scenario for which you wish to change the DB, simply open it for editing, and change the DB it references to the new database. You will have to save the scenario with a new name (this protects multiplayer play from cheating). But they can be loaded by selecting "Single mission" instead of "Campaign mission" at game start.



I know persay, these small changes might not make any large difference in the SIM itself (on the whole)....I'm just one for detail and like to have past Ops run as closely to "as was"....as can be.

[meade95]

Pat - Thanks for the info -

So, to use a new updated database - I simply choose "create a new scenario, from an existing one".....and then from there "import" the new DB I would like to use?? - All the other AI logic, conditions, etc, will all remain the same?? Do I have this correct?

Additionally are the values (weapons values mainly) different between DBs because of terrain, and other scenario specific elements?

I notice some differences (different values) associated with the same weapon type between the AATF DB and the Anaconda DB. RPGs for example, as well as several others. They will have different penetration values, reload times, etc.

To make it simple (for me to understand. Ha!). Should an M203GL have the same penetration value ....no matter the database??

Additionally in the Anaconda DB....the RPG launcher doesn't have any of the *special requirments* associated with it. Like "limited firing distance" and inflight time requirements.


Also, if I can add....This game looks / plays fantastic. My limted play testing makes me absolutely thrilled to have purchased this game! I want to make that understood first and foremost for any who are thinking about buying this terriffic game/sim. Without question.

My above quesitons / observations are nothing more then me looking through some of the guts and trying to get myself familiar with all the in's and outs (in between the learning curve playtesting the actual game itself).

[Pat Proctor]

So, to use a new updated database - I simply choose "create a new scenario, from an existing one".....and then from there "import" the new DB I would like to use?? - All the other AI logic, conditions, etc, will all remain the same?? Do I have this correct?

Right.

Additionally are the values (weapons values mainly) different between DBs because of terrain, and other scenario specific elements?

I notice some differences (different values) associated with the same weapon type between the AATF DB and the Anaconda DB. RPGs for example, as well as several others. They will have different penetration values, reload times, etc.

To make it simple (for me to understand. Ha!). Should an M203GL have the same penetration value ....no matter the database??

Penetration value has nothing to do with pH OR pK (I know the name is misleading). The value only helps the engine decide what precedence to assign this weapon when making decisions about what to fire at what target. it is an arbitrary number, set by the scenario designer, and is only valuable in relation to other weapons in the database.

The other numbers vary as to why they might differ between database. They might be "fudged" to account for some peculiarity of the force using them, or the terrain through which they will be fired. They might just reflect a difference of oppinion between the respective database designers. We test the WHOLE product, at the end of the design process, to ensure that the results are feasible, realistic, and the general trends of the database make sense. We don't get too wrapped up in the individual numbers, as long as the result is correct.

We do care that the database is correct. But, ultimately, whether the RPG takes 15 s or 20 s to load will make little difference when the DB runs in a game.

Additionally in the Anaconda DB....the RPG launcher doesn't have any of the *special requirments* associated with it. Like "limited firing distance" and inflight time requirements.

Some of these weapon caps are place holders for future development on the game engine (most notably "time of flight"). It is a good idea to go ahead and fill them in, in anticipation of the time when these features are implemented in the engine, but they will have no impact on the current revolution of the AATF Engine.

Many of these questions are answered, in a round-about way, in the Scenario Builder help pages at:

Get Started Tutorial (http://www.prosimco.com/atf/tutorial)

But please, continue to ask questions about anything that isn't clear. I am sure you are not the only one that has the question.

Also, if I can add....This game looks / plays fantastic. My limted play testing makes me absolutely thrilled to have purchased this game! I want to make that understood first and foremost for any who are thinking about buying this terriffic game/sim. Without question.

Thank you so much for the kudos. I definitely poured my heart into the game. But Gary, Curt, and another designer who wishes to remain unidentified did ALL of the maps, database, and scenario design. I just thought up a couple scenario ideas. They are the ones that really turned them into a GAME.

Good job, guys!