[WIP] RHS GREF compatibility

[TheMagnetar]

When merged this pull request will add compatibility for the factions within RHS GREF (partially closes #15).

TODO:

• rhsgref_faction_cdf_air
• rhsgref_faction_cdf_air_b
• rhsgref_faction_cdf_ground
• rhsgref_faction_cdf_ground_b
• rhsgref_faction_cdf_ng
• rhsgref_faction_cdf_ng_b
• rhsgref_faction_chdkz
• rhsgref_faction_chdkz_g
• rhsgref_faction_nationalist
• rhsgref_faction_un
• Clean up and squash commits.

When OK for the core dev-team I would prefer to work with a separate file that is included in "addons/main/static/staticData.sqf". Meanwhile, can the "WIP" and "needs testing" labels be added?

[TheMagnetar]

At the moment all groups are defined. However, for the following factions have entries in CfgGroups that share the same group name:

• rhsgref_faction_cdf_b_ground: rhs_group_cdf_b_gaz66, rhs_group_cdf_b_gaz66_para and rhs_group_cdf_b_ural.
• rhsgref_faction_chdkz: rhs_group_indp_ins_gaz66 and rhs_group_indp_ins_ural
• rhsgref_faction_cdf_ground: rhs_group_cdf_gaz66, rhs_group_cdf_gaz66_para and rhs_group_cdf_ural.
• rhsgref_faction_chdkz_g: rhs_group_indp_ins_g_gaz66 and rhs_group_indp_ins_g_ural.

Example:
rhsrhs_group_cdf_b_gaz66 has: "rhs_group_cdf_b_ural_chq", "rhs_group_cdf_b_ural_squad".
rhs_group_cdf_b_ural has: "rhs_group_cdf_b_ural_chq", "rhs_group_cdf_b_ural_squad"

Is there a way to distinguish them or should this be changed in RHS?

Edit: one could technically rename them and make an alias. How would that affect needs to be tested. What do you think @SpyderBlack723?

class rhs_group_cdf_b_ural_squad;
class rhs_group_cdf_b_gaz66_squad : rhs_group_cdf_b_ural_squad {};

[DavisBrown723]

I believe even if they have the same name, it will work as the function that grabs group names checks to make sure they belong to the desired faction (I think.. this was implemented when rhs insurgents had the same issue..).

Although the solution you posted would probably work fine as well.

[TheMagnetar]

I believe even if they have the same name, it will work as the function that grabs group names checks to make sure they belong to the desired faction (I think.. this was implemented when rhs insurgents had the same issue..).

Yes, but in this case these are groups that belong to the same faction. Therefore, making an alias seems to be then the only viable solution.

[DavisBrown723]

Then yes, creating a derivative class such as

someRHSClass;
someRHSClass_alive : someRHSClass {}

Would probably be your best option.

[reyhard]

@TheMagnetar - gaz66 groups are renamed in next rhs version which should be available soon ;)

[TheMagnetar]

@reyhard - MistyRonin informed me privately. Thanks for taking the time to fix this!!

[marceldev89]

@TheMagnetar are you waiting for the next RHS update or are you stuck on something? 😊

[TheMagnetar]

Just waiting on the update.

[friznit]

Updated today. Changelog notes "Fixed config inheritance errors with the new APEX config system". Hopefully this refers to the issue above?

[TheMagnetar]

I will check during the weekend.

[TheMagnetar]

I can confirm this was not "fixed". I think then the only option would be to use an alias for the conflicting group definitions.

[marceldev89]

It seems that duplicate group names don't matter at all. All the group functions (should) use the full config path to get the list of units to spawn.

Here's a list of all the duplicate groups in A3 with RHS loaded: http://pastebin.com/raw/5BaRUq1G. If it does cause problems then it's probably an issue on ALiVE's side tbh.

[DavisBrown723]

Fairly certain the issue stemmed from certain groups not properly overwriting their side attribute when they were inheriting from a different side's groups. Can someone confirm whether or not that was fixed?

[marceldev89]

The side attributes seem to be fine.

[marceldev89]

@TheMagnetar are you still planning to complete the faction mappings? The duplicate groups is an issue that will have to be solved on ALiVE's end so the mappings can be finalized with the current RHS configs.

[TheMagnetar]

Yes, once I get back from holidays ;)

[DavisBrown723]

If anyone takes this up, it's probably easier to just use the ORBAT Creator for this (aside from the static data).

[TheMagnetar]

That is what I was looking into. I am currently testing some stuff.

[AUTigerGrad]

You may want to add the rhs_ussocom faction to that list (The MARSOC/SF grouping for blufor).

[TheMagnetar]

Almost done. What would you prefere, staticData or Orbat outputs?

[friznit]

Staticdata for baking into ALiVE.

Orbatterer outputs would be useful for people who want to fiddle with it but they need to be run in the description.ext

[friznit]

Now that RHS has been updated, is this still needed and if so what still needs to be done?

[AUTigerGrad]

FYI,

I've used the ORBAT to make ALiVE Compatible groups for RHS GREF CDF Ground Forces, CDF UN Peacekeepers, RHS ARFAF VMF Marines, RHS USAF Socom MARSOC, RHS GREF Nationalist Troops. I don't know if ORBAT created groups are useful but I can send them to you if needed.

[friznit]

Unfortunately they're not at the moment as they can't be exported in the format used by static data. If Spyder changes that (he already mentioned it today!) then we could use your versions to generate the export.