ok i only have complains about the reaction when you throw something on the npc ,then he ignore other sounds like you running to crowbar him...
i will find in youtube or do it and post

...but as noted, that's sort of the whole point of throwing things to distract NPCs.

If you recode that, then you essentially have a whole set of code in place to allow NPCs to be distracted, and then a whole additional set of code in place to tell them to ignore the first bit of code.

i found
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72emYR6O4GA

well ok the npc get distracted by the sound of the knive on floor but not hear you running on him is a awful glitch...

Are you actually reading anything I'm posting?

Look, seriously, it would be easy as fuck to make NPCs simply NOT react to projectile impacts or item drops: you'd just have to remove the AISendEvents from those classes.

The point is, then distraction wouldn't work. You'd throw a crate, they'd ignore it. You'd fling a box into a corner, they'd ignore it. You'd hurl a throwing knife to the floor, they'd ignore it. You personally make any footstep noise at all, they turn and shoot you.

What you're not seeing here is that if you were to run at the NPC and then throw a knife on the floor, the NPC would ignore the knife. The distraction does not take priority, whatever happens first does.
They can only respond to a given event within a given time period. If you distracted them, then waited, then charged at them, they'd detect you and shoot, because the 'blocking' timer for event responses would've expired.

By hurling something to distract them and then charging at them, you get the drop on them...which again, is sort of the whole point.

NB: I'm only guessing at what you're doing here, since I can't watch the video.

sorry... well ,if theres no workaround like creating other triggers is a shame.
theres no way to make the npc just look to where the sound came for some seconds but keep him able to "hear" ?

You're still not getting it.

This is intended behaviour. You're supposed to be able to distract people by throwing shit, it was specifically programmed to do that. It's not a glitch. What you're proposing is to remove functionality from the game.

Exactly.

If it was recoded to let them react instantly, they'd look round when you threw the knife, then immediately swivel back and shoot you the moment you made a sound.

So..you'd have to silently sneak up behind them to avoid them doing this.

So..you could simply just silently sneak up behind them and not bother distracting them in the first place.

So..distraction becomes pointless.

You see?

ok , its a feature ,but is a very exploitable feature...

You mean just like hiding in darkness is a very exploitable feature? You know, the sniper rifle is a very exploitable feature, you can exploit it to kill people very effectively at very long range

well the sniper rifle is almost like a real one..except that the silencer is too eficient and for work would requery unique heavy subsonic ammo(less AP). he could do some noise for not be used for closed killing of packs.



im not trying to start a flame war , i just like more simulation then arcade especially if i have the option realism in the difcult menu. dx is wonderful game but its not perfect.

I think what we have here is an axiomatic disagreement.

LoL didn't we just have this discussion, Jonas?

As it turns out, I agree with Jonas. Realism isn't always "fun" or playable.

well for you that think that realistic is too hard,unplayable,no fun there is dificult levels
easy
normal
hard
realistic

lol , i know dificult levels were not well implemented on dx . and i know that a total realistic behavior is impossible/undesireable but get closer as possible in the hardest level would be interesting .

Realistic is all I play D:
Also with the enhanced AI in this mod it's even tougher. Just a shame i couldnt get the snipers on the liberty statue to work right. I did at one point though.

Yeah I play exclusively on Realistic as well. It's not a matter of difficulty, which for me again indicates that you don't really understand what I'm saying. It's an axiomatic disagreement.