This would probably be best implemented in the col_player() function in collisions.bb as that is where the current collision code is.

Assassin moder two things i dislike about that proposal - first, I would get a misaligned collider which only serves as an invisible obstacle. Second, I want to be able to move the player with the ship, tree, etc.

I considered a few options:

A)having gravity temporarily disabled or greatly reduced to prevent falling through collider

B)Giving units multiple different colliders, with slightly different sizes, in order to make it more robust (this did not work, at least with my implementation)

C)Finding some way to know if the colliders are overlapping with each other, and then based on where the overlap is (y level above player center or below player center) offset the colliding unit.

D)Checking view line from the unit center to both the top and bottom, and if one is obstructed move the unit accordingly.

E)When collision with a moving object is detected, it makes the collision detection much more thorough.

JasJack67 doing that would essentially be going backwards, and be even worse than where I began, although I can see what you're saying. In the source code, I turned two models (visible and collider) into one. The problem is that the visible one sways to simulate wave movement. The quickest and fastest way to fix this would be to eliminate wave movement effects, or make it optional, as the boat would then not rock, but I would like to find a cleaner and more elegant solution to the problem, partially because it could fix the problem with almost all moving entities.

There is a new behavior, 'oncam', which essentially mounts the unit onto the cam. Additionally, for 'oncam' behavior, ai_attack is the animation played when the player shoots.

The reload animation is ai_idle2, but it does not play due to the fact that I can't get the clip script to work (it is only enabled for the pistol so far, and does not work)

There's some cool features that work too, but they aren't relavent to this discussion