monkeyboy27

Well you shouldn't have rushed out and bought it straight away. Would you buy a house without looking inside? Would you buy a car on the first day of retail, based on reviews of pre-production models? Advertizers and PR people say a lot of stuff. You've got to be pretty naive to believe anything they've gotta say. To me, a "masterpiece" is something like macbeth or the mona lisa..... something people still talk about several 100 years after it's creation. You've gotta be pretty slow to realise they might possibly be exaggerating when they use such a term for a video game. I bought the game on the first day of release in my country... I knew exactly what I was getting into.

I don't think people should be complaining about not being able to run the game with everything on max. You could actually look at it as a good thing. Remember when ofp first came out? Nobody had a computer that could run ofp even remotely near max settings. With terrain detail on max, and the view distance on 5000 at 1600x1200, there are very few pc's today that can run ofp acceptably on max settings. I've got an A64 @2.8ghz, 2gb ram and a 7800gtx 256mb, and it still can't run ofp at an acceptable fps with everything maxed out. You've just got to think of it a different way. My pc runs everything on normal settings pretty much fine, and the game generally looks a lot nicer than bf2 does on max settings. Its not a crappy badly optimized engine... its the opposite. Its an engine that has far more scalablility than 99% of others. In 2 years time, I'll have upgraded, bumped up my settings a bit.. and I expect Arma will look almost as good as the games which are still 2 years from release. Just look at the graphics of ofp. Somethings, like the models look shoddy, but with the terrain detail on max, the landscapes still look better than most modern games.

Well you should have researched the product you were buying a bit more thoroughly, instead of going by what's written on the box. Just wait a few months, and there will be more campaigns than you know what to do with.

How about darts? Currently the men fly for 100's of meters up in the air if you fire an m136 directly at them, so if somebody could create a dartboard about 200m high, and somehow make the bodies mark the board when they hit.... it could make an interesting game APC football would be good, but you might as well go the whole hog, and use tanks. If all the tanks were invincible, and we could work out a suitable ball, then the tanks could "kick" the ball with their cannons.

Online play and using the editor are where all the fun is. The campaign and the single missions are more of an example of what's possible, rather than the bulk of the game.

I was wondering how to place units inside the buildings at the various positions. Whenever I place them on the buildings in the map, they just stand on the roof. Is there a script or something, that'll start them off at the specific positions?

Yeah, the landing is under fire. There must be some script or something I can use to disable this behaviour. I tried using the diableAi move, but that didn't have an effect, they still eject themselves.

I reckon the guys with the heavy loads should get fatigued quicker, but thats it. Their walking and jogging speeds should remain the same, just they get tired faster if they sprint too much. This way everybody would move the same speed when the infantry is in formation, but if somebody is using the sprint too much, then some of the squad will get left behind.

Cool, Cheers guys. I'm doing it with the lines satexas69 posted. I can't get it to work properly with the building positions, so I'm just using trial and error for each person.

Yeah, I did search, and I found nothing. I searched "placing units in building" and got nothing. I searched "unit building" and got nothing. Care to tell me what I should actually be searching for?

Hi there, I'm a complete newbie to this mission making thing, and have come across a bit of a problem. I made a mission where you've gotta attack an enemy base on one of the small islands, so you can steal their helicopter and fly to the mainland to move onto the next part of the mission. I've got it all working fine, but I wanted to add an alternative in the event the chopper is destroyed in the attack. I haven't tested what happens if the chopper is destroyed, but I assume the mission will just come to an end.... because you can't complete the "get in" waypoint. I want to add an alternative set of waypoints to get to the mainland, should the chopper be destroyed. If it's destroyed before they've had a chance to board, I positioned a boat on the island, so I want the waypoint to change to the boat. If anybody has any idea how to do this, I'd be very greatful.

It does seem weird. The fact that everybody speaks english kinda bothers me. It seems pretty clear why the map is like it is. They made it similar to Nogova because that way it can have a wide variety of terrain for when its used in VBS2. The plot just seemed pointless to me. In CWC it seemed there was a constant cause of worry. The whole plot was filled with tension, as you felt that the russians could get angry and start throwing nukes about at any moment. The game really felt like you were fighting to prevent a nuclear war. The "war" in arma just felt like a turkey shoot for the americans, with no possible way for them to loose. It kinda feels like the first Iraq war. A stupid and crazy leader decides to attack one of america's friends, and america comes to protect their ally, and completely annihilates the enemy. It just seemed so weak when the first game felt like it was important on a global scale. Tbh, I think the plot would have worked better if they'd said sahrani was a British colony in asia, like Hong Kong was, and then have the chinese invade it. (Or a crazy chinese splinter group). At least that way it'd feel like you've got a formidable and dangerous opponent.

I had this. The guys boarded another truck, so I rammed the truck, and blocked it with my one. Got out, shot the driver, got in the truck, and drove them back to the battle.

The cockpits look a bit rubbish when you compare them to those of a flight sim, but they're a lot better than the 2d textures bf2 used!!

In real life, the M4 does have a faster rof than the m16, so its realistic they put this in the game. The m4 has a smaller bolt and gas system, which takes less time to cycle then the 16's, resulting in a shorter cycle time. Its also less poweful than the m16 because the bullet doesn't reach as fast a velocity with the short m4 barrel. I'm not sure if this has been reflected in the game, but I think it has.

Ditto. Its completely broken. I've completed it twice. Both times I got nowhere as the squad member. The commander ordered us across an open field instead of using the forest for cover, and we got slaughtered immediately.I switched to the pilot, and flew over destroying everything. First time round, I killed as many infantry as I could before I ran out of fuel and bailed out, and ran around the base killing everything I could for about half an hour before the mission ended. The second time I played, I got shot down by one of the vulcans when there were still tons of enemy units alive. I managed to eject, so walked into the enemy base, which was suddenly deserted, and all of a sudden "mission complete" appeared. Such a huge dissapointment when I was expecting a re-make of the original battlefields mission.