pwablo

Definitely up North, You get more land for your money and the Vodka is cheap :-)

Moral and controversial aspects aside, I would be more concerned about the tactical advantage a reduced size model would give to players. Where would the realism end? Would 4-10year olds be able to even lift a M136? Drive a M1? I think overall the addition of children to Arma would cause more detraction from realism than add, unless it was done very tastefully that is. Cheers

You could perhaps contact the server admin and ask them to have a play around with some of the performance parameters in the username.ArmAProfile.cfg file. MinErrorToSend=x.xx (where x.xx=0.01 default and 0.009-0.001 - to reduce skipping [lag] when using zoom with scopes) I'm sure some of the other more experienced server admins here could indicate what the optimum setting could be. Hope this helps

Would like to say, Thanks KillJoy for spending the time to create this mission for the community. Also have a small suggestion for your consideration. As opposed to having fixed FARP locations, an element of realism could be added, if COL rank players were able to "Create/Spawn" a single un-moveable FARP via map click at a location of their choice? A further possibility to this would be to allow players to select this FARP as a spawn location? Sorry if this has been suggested previously. Regards

Thanks Gumby123

Hi After installing the 1.07b patch I seem to have an issue with assignments on my JS. When using version 1.05 without issue and all keys / JS configs assigned and working, my POV switch worked fine, but since installing the latest patch POV 0 (Look up) now brings up the Map Screen?? Ive checked the key assignments several times and all is configured as it should be with only the M key assigned to the Map toggle. Could anyone be so kind as to check if this is a bug or otherwise, before I post this to the bug tracker. Ive tried searching the forum, and have so far not found anyone else reporting this problem. JS- Saitek Cyborg 3D Gold Many thanks

Just want to say, big thank you to all the individuals that ported this original game mode and mission over to Arma. It has always been a favorite of so many players and it greatly contributed to help keep the interest alive in OFP for a huge number of players. Thanks again guys, you know who you are.

"Slange va" everyone and all the best for 2007

Well I have been deliberately keeping off this thread until I have had a few days to evaluate the differences in 1.02 FM. Here is my take on it. Pros. 1. The notchy pitch control now feels more smooth. 2. Range of banking angle is now much improved. The freedom of movement that this now allows has IMO contributed greatly to the flying experience. 3. Range of AOT is now also much improved as above. 4. Responsiveness of both Pitch and Roll axis is now much improved. 4. The helo's now feel much more stable at slow speeds, and IMO inspires more confidence when your near the ground. 5. Inverted flight is now possible 6. The badly implemented bouncy ground effect in 1.01 is now gone. Conns. 1. Rudder still feels pretty ineffective over 70-80 mph, which is not a huge problem as it is fairly realistic, however as previously mentioned it makes FFAR's and Manual MG pretty hard to use unless you are within the envelope of rudder control. It is conceivable that by doing this BIS felt it was the most expedient way to contain the helos from being an overly powerful platform. Nobody can deny that helos were pretty much Pwn Platforms in OFP, regardless of the ordinance used. I for one can live with the rudder the way it is. Its nice to have a challenge, and it just means flaring the helo early and harder to scrub off the speed as opposed to using some yaw too. I'm glad to see the helos don't balloon up as much when doing this with the correct anticipation on the collective. 2. Collective is still quite mushy, and does'nt command much authority. Its possible that the helo's maximum transitional speed is governed by the effectiveness of this input to some degree, so maybe increasing the overall thrust available by the collective, will push the helo's past their maximum achievable speed. If this is the case, I can understand why the collective is the way it is. As LSL pointed out, anticipation is the key. In conclusion I think the V 1.02 patch and the improvements we have all witnessed to the FM alone, is a testament to BIS's commitment to the title and the community. So I say Well done and Thank You BIS Cheers

you need to use Command line :- C:\Games\ArmA\ArmA_Server.exe -config=server.cfg not Command line :- C:\Games\ArmA\ArmA_Server.exe -config=server.config *.config file extension would not be recognized by the OS. Cheers

I was thinking cut n paste code sample above and create a server.ArmAProfile.cfg file, and drop it into the same folder as your arma.cfg file. The reason I suggest this is because, when I made a typo in the armaprofile.cfg then ran the dedicated server it prompted a warning regarding the error, which would indicate that the server uses the armaprofile.cfg. You could try it into the Arma.cfg though too I suppose. Hope that works for ya. Cheers

Sorry point taken regarding co-located or hosted server solutions. Here is an example server.ArmAProfile.cfg with cadet mode settings mirroring the default vet mode settings, have you tried sticking a profile in folder with the ArmA.cfg file to see if the server picks it up? I noticed that when I ran the dedicated file after making a syntax error in the profile.cfg it reported the problem when booting, suggests that the dedicated server will read the profile if its present. Worth a try I suppose. Code Sample Cheers

is it still called flashpoint.cfg? also even after i login as admin and choose veteran and a map i still get 3rd person view, is there something i missed? do i need to get the game running and alter the vet mode or can it be done in the server config and if it can how do i do it? will the line cadetMode=0 work for all missions if i just add that? The readme is a beta too AFAIK, The Performance tuning entries go into the ArmA.cfg file located in C:\Documents and Settings\Username\ArmA folder. Someone can correct me if Ive got that wrong Quote by =DI=Viking The amount of slots (max players) is stipulated in the server.cfg file which you will need to create with notepad, and put into the \ArmA folder with the dedicated server file. server.cfg example Edit the server shortcut with the following switches to load the server.cfg file. ArmA_Server.exe -config=Server.cfg -port=2302 Further options for the server.cfg and other dedicated server commands etc. are in the DSAdmin.rft file supplied with the dedicated server executable. Maybe try starting the game normally and set the difficulty options for cadet and vet the same, then exit and run the dedicated server?? Worth a try maybe, until someone has sussed out if there is an entry that can be added to any of the *cfg files. Cheers

Can BIS/Someone please confirm where the server performance tuning parameters go? ArmA.cfg, <Username>.ArmAProfile.cfg or server.cfg? Cheers

Excellent Progress BIS, Many thanks for getting this released so soon. I'm sure there will be many happy faces this weekend. Best Regards

AFAIK Nvidia 76xx and 78xx cards handle v3.0 shaders better than the 66xx and 68 series so I would expect the 7600GT to perform pretty much the same as a 6800gt. I think you will be looking at 1024x768x32 with Normal settings to get 25-30fps but you may have to reduce textures to low with a VD of 1200 to maintain the frames when flying over the larger cities. I would'nt expect wonders but it will certainly be playable for you with that card. Cheers

Updated with Results from final release version 0.2. Dropped by 500 marks with fixed tests 2 & 3 Thanks for making this Benchmark Mr Burns

I suspect there maybe something going on with the reporting, a maximum number of servers that can be displayed or something, I'm not sure. I put up a test server yesterday, it appeared on the list fine using Code Sample reportingIP=207.38.11.34; // or reportingIP="armedass.master.gamespy.com"; I Turned it off and revisited it this evening, and it would'nt appear in the list either. I also tried to see it in a LAN game, but it also would'nt show, even when trying to use the remote IP. Thinking that there maybe an issue with the LAN somewhere, I fired up the OFP server on LAN and it appeared happily in both remote IP, LAN and in the internet browser. I'm pretty sure that Ive not made a mistake in the config as Ive changed nothing since I ran the server yesterday, consoule creates the host fine etc., so I can only assume that something has failed to work which is outwith my control, maybe with Gamespy?? Still does not explain why the game does'nt appear under LAN or Remote IP.... Anyone else had any issues connecting to a LAN game using the -server switch? Update 05/12/06 - Server now appears in Gamespy without making any changes, and connects no problem, but it still does not appear in LAN games or using Remote IP function. Can someone be so kind as to please try running a dedicated server on their LAN to see if it shows or not? I would really appreciate it, and it may help confirm if the problem is unique to my system or maybe an issue that needs to be appropriately highlighted... TIA Cheers

Thanks for the update Sickboy this is going to be real handy. btw. The included read me does not state that you need at least 1.24GB of free hard disk space for the extra files. Although most people will have free capacity, it is possible that someone who does not, might attempt the patch and cause all sorts of problems. Thanks again.

Thanks for that I wasn't sure, so I'd thought Id ask, because I noticed other games like FEAR Combat Dedicated Server also gained FPS when running this tool. Cheers

Sickboy, Regarding Server FPS, In OFP dedicated using a P4-3.2Ghz HT cpu I gained several FPS when using the "TimeCall" tool HERE Do you think it is worth testing this to see if ArmA gains any extra FPS when running dedicated? Cheers

Ive been using one of the actual reporting IP addresses for the master server, just in case DNS is dropped somewhere on route. Try this in the config, Ive never had any bother with it. reportingIP=207.38.11.34; Cheers

Aside from being able to fly the choppers reasonably well now with a bit of practice considering the radically new feel of them, has anyone managed to get a FFAR to actually impact or collapse a bridge yet? So far as I can tell, FFAR's don't even detect bridges as being solid objects, they just pass straight through them, and impact on the surrounding terrain. Chopper seems to stop quite well though, when they smack into the side of them... Cheers

If you think of the way points in the editor that the AI would fly, they often intersect at obscure angles, so i'm assuming that the AI would also use a similar method to determine their vector after a given command. I think that because the model has constraints on the control, i.e. larger turning circles, reduced banking angles, no rudder at speed etc., the AI often overfly the intersections of any calculated vector or cannot align to it in the first pass, so they have to repeat this several times. Same may apply, when trying to get the AI to hit a static target. This gives the impression that the AI just cannot "get it together". As was mentioned several times by other posters, the new model requires the pilot to think ahead, anticipate control inputs and act on them before an "event" (e.g. collective delay). It does not look like the AI are very good at this either. I'm pretty sure that if the model was given a bit more range of control, the AI would do a far better job at flying it more efficiently. Edit - I forgot to mention previously, I use a Saitek Cyborg 3D Gold USB Joystick, with 10 buttons, and 4 configurable analogue axis, and 8 point POV control. Cheers

So, re saying you want to go back to the old "ground following" thingy? Good lord no, the "ground following" thingy was horrid. Id just like to see more 1) sensitivity in cyclic pitch, 2) authority on the collective, 3) a rudder that can be used at speed. The maximum bank angle is a bit low, but I can live with that. The rest of the model is superb, and much better than FP's. Thats the problem Matt. Its too easy, too soft. All the control inputs that make it exciting have been wrapped in cotton wool.