sdoc

Thanks a lot for undertaking such a venture! I'm on the hedge about buying Arma 3 because of this port. Since it is quite a bit of money, I am quite reluctant at this point until I can see that there is more long time commitment. That does not mean I were angry if there weren't, after all it has to make economically sense for the developer. That it is undertaken alone is greatly appreciated. tl;dr Sitting on the hedge, but ready to jump (and pay) when things are clearer and there is success. Looking forward to play an OPF again!

hostia... last time i looked into one of your threads you anounced you would quit, and now i see those screens! they look excellent now.

hi afp, great to see you modding here!

what makes it the worst for me is, unlike Arma I where i deeply disliked the campaign, i love this campaign. Missions like Manhattan are exactly what i liked to get from this game! (Manhattan worked half well for me) the concept of the missions and the complexity is absolutely brilliant. Sadly at the moment i have to fight 70% of the time with the software and 30% with the enemies.

calling the chopper also works only when you stay at manhattan! when i got the option i was already 1km away, in the middle of dense forests. i can tell you, the chopper wont land... giving a dead end option is not that bad, but not informing the player that a script killed him since this option is a dead end is cruel. ive been trying for hours. driving half an hour through woods, only to get killed by a script at the end, and repeating this over and over again is a real pain.

i spent 5 hours with this mission, one good, and 4 as horrible as it can get. this script killing me without any reason when getting close the extraction point really ruined my day, or rather night. and i know, remembering that i had to give up will make me feal bad the whole week. this script was really really bad mission design. it shouldnt come as a surprise that many players will choose to get to the extraction themselves. geting them killed by a script without any notification is just horrible, forcing them to try it over and over and over again. the pattern of death positions didnt even build a trigger shaped form on the map. i only had certainty after sending razor 2 3 and 4 with the car to the EZ, what they did, the script only triggers with the player. this script also seems to kick in when extracting with starforce 21. it kills the player seemingly random when flying in it. (the crash script only kicks in when battlemage sends the sf21)

the question is not if the f22 is capable or better, but if it is cost efficient. The cost of a F17 should be around $ 30M, four would cost less than a f22. there's still. would 4 f15 armed with standoff weapons and led by awacs as capable as a f22? now go to higher numbers, compare 200 F15 to 50 F22. today large scale war and air combat is not likely, survivability does not have to factored into the equation thus. For smaller operations F15 would need to be about 4 times less likely to return from a sortie than aF22. i can only guess what a pilot costs, but i guess it's well below $ 2M investment. in case of casualty, not salaries. so the pilots live does not matter when considering such expensive systems. running costs are something quite different. at the moment f15, not to old airframes, should be cheaper to keep operative than f22. with costs expected to rise with increasing age. f22 will only drop in maintenance costs if there are considerably more sales - wich is unlikely. Let's reduce the first stipulated order of 4 F15 instead of one F22 to 3. This frees another 30M to 40M, and tco. i'm don't have any numbers here, but i speculate both would be comparably expensive to maintain for the next 10 to 15 years, wich would be enough as i outline below. would be 12 F15 as capable as 4 F22? At the moment we are at the end of the century of the jet fighter, advances in autonomous systems make them obsolete. In defense situations CAS is hardly necessary anymore, as artillery is more capable now. Air superiority in defense situations is also much more affected by ground based air defense. If the ground is under your control your planes only fill a niche. Both roles are only required to a large extend for power projection, an euphemism for being the agressor. I don't expect such scenarios for the next decades, the west had learned that it doesn't work from the examples of iraq and afghanistan. (with the latter becoming completely snafu because of extensive use of bombing. OT: sometimes i think US generals are more afraid of loosing a hand full of soldiers than inflicting heavy civillian casualties as 'collateral damage') What are perspectives for the future? Large scale conflicts with functional states are unlikely, and easily avoidable. North Korea is not to be taken seriously, and china has it on the short leash. (Imho they keep it only as they are afraid of millions of refugess if NK breaks down) There's no real conflict with russia, just the normal power game and some cold war dinausaurs in the US scaring the people. Iran is in a game of power for regional dominance with Israel. However there's no immediate threat, just a bit of a low intensity dirty war (Hamas, Hezbola). Not much of the hyped hatefull desire to destroy Israel, the US or the West. That's just show all sides profit of greatly. By allowing Iran to become a regional power AND involving them in international organizations the tension in the conflict could be greatly reduced. Intervention and reestablishment of the state in disfunctional states and small scale operations against new forms of terrorism will become major tasks however. The piracy at somalia show how important the first. For the latter the emphasis lies on new. Technological advance will allow smaller and smaller organizations to access weapons and methods with huge destructive potential. The first task requires raw manpower, lots of infantry. And the capability for logistic support. Having a squadron of ground attack crafts at ones disposal doesn't help anything if there are only a few hundred soldiers available to seize, secure, police and support a medium sized city. More soldiers and less use of bombings will also cause higher casualties. Somehow the american public doesn't accept them very well. My suggestion do as France did: légion étrangère. This provides manpower, reduces the cost of casualties (40 years of taxes, 60 years of healthcare if incapacitated) and the us public will be mostly ignorant of the coffins. The second task requires an excellent inteligence network, international cooperation, well trained police, and small anti terror forces wich are available in abundance already. My suggestion: Get the congress to spend some hundred millions to set up a global training program for police. and i mean police who are worth that name, not paramilitary thugs or torturers. police has to be accepted by the vast majority to be effective. thus they need high civil standards.

i thought that's the whole point of ACE, and being in a war. actually a very nice compliment to them.

Thank's a lot for ACE it's quite as good as i expected! And most importantly it's improving at a fast pace. I'm very much in favour of the unity of the mod, and so are many people i talked to. Some like certain features, mostly restrictions to their cs playstyle, but overall they consider it important to have it the same for all. The central paradigma for those restrictions, like stamina, movement etc is in my oppinion not necessarily to be realistic. This is not possible at all. But it is important to make the interaction of the players, e.g. the fight more realistic. A stamina system enforces you to reduce weight (less snipers with Javelins) and to make short dashes from cover to cover, where you regain stamina, a necessity. haven't encountered any bugs that aren't posted yet. shortcommings not posted yet are also minor: (please not state v 1.02) - no supressive fire! sickboy you had code that seemed to work quite well in your Six Packs. - sight adjustment not available for 1P29 scope on Pecheneng MG. - group of RF are called USSR in editor (F2 dialogue) - RF are rather unlikely opponents for the US, good old SLA ain't that bad. A more general question: is it possible to use the iron sights as backup or CQB sights with scopes mounted on AKs? it looks like the scope does not obstruct the sights? If that's possible it would be great to include those weapons into the CQB system, as they get implemented into the game. Paragraphic I wrote: could introducing a new weapon that accepts all magazine types as it's magazines a possible sollution? the weapon would be added like throw or put to every soldier. alternatively put could maybe be modified to accept all magazines. this is just a random guess, i've never looked deeply enough into the system to estimate the feasibility of this. to conclude this mail: Bloody GOOD mod you got there!

what i really didn't like with this whole thing is how some people responded, and bashed that 75th lad, before they had any neutral information about what happened. This was pure prejudice. I don't critcise Cameron, who had all right to cry out loud as the potential victim, and who deserves respect for settling the issue rather quickly. But some people already got started after the first allegations were posted. Regardless if those allegations are true, as in this case, unrelated mustn't condemn someone based on this. Faster than you think it could happen that you start to condemn people who are presented by police, attorneys or the media as criminals. All groups who, in such cases, always are highly dangerous to trust. Most of us live in countries where we can look back to our history to see whereto such a behaviour can lead us.

have you tested this also without that weapon with laser being involved?

excellent! It has something ofp resistance was missing. I actually cared about my men, they were not just generic canon fodder.

On the picture it looks like only the first vehicle in the column has those additional armour plates. Could they be a mine protection kit?

there's no sound audible for the player, is there? If the ai actually hears you entering bushes, it would be a very interesting mod to make sounds audible for players too. As a first measure so you can hear if you are noisy, and going much further by allowing you to hear others noises. s-hole made a nvg fix , practicaly disabling the HDR effect for it, and allowing to set the sensitivity yourself.

online play takes a lot of commitment and time. sp play is much less demanding. the sp market is often overlloked by devs in the last couple of years, with the mp hype. it has still alarger market share, particulary with grown up players who have enough competition and stress in their jobs. competing with others in online games is often too frustrating to them. sp players are much more silent however and ca easily overlooked.

Unless your want it for arma photography this really doesn't matter for planes. Any one seeing it in game will do it only very briefly and from a rather far distance. The only one close to it is the pilot, actually siting in it, and he sees the least of the plane, except cockpit and a bit of the wings if he turns. There's just one occasion players get close to it, that's when entering the plane before start. by the way, regardless of the 'no offence', i don't think the attitude of telling someone what he has done is pretty much worthless is desirable. i'm a strong supporter of criticism in general though.

judging from the manufacturers page it looks like track ir is using a webcam with ir lights and passive reflectors at the point model. With track clip pro being an active point model. A very sensible solution for people who don't want to work on a point model could be to buy only the track clip pro, and use it with a random webcam and open source tracking software. Even if buying a good webcam it would cost about the same as the track ir, with the advantage of having a webcam that can be used for something else also. And the even bigger advantage of not paying money for the software (i always have a bad conscience if i do). I haven't tried it however, and i don't have experience. Better ask the lads at freetrack etc if it would work.

congratulations on having the first release! i think it's very wise to release the first addons early, instead of waiting for everything in the pack to be finished. This will boost your mods quality as you can spot glitches early on. Possibly reducing your workload as you can implement fixes in early stages for other addons. It also prevents the very common mod syndrom, of starting a very large project, having dozens of addons at stages above 80% finished and never going the last step necessary. Worse is Better! edit: included link to prevent possible missunderstandings

from world.guns.ru I think implementing this could be an interesting improvement for the bizon. Having a munition with much higher armour penetration possibility, and making the gun look much better with a curved magazine. Thanks for the effort RH, it's rather big pack, it looks quite interesting. Can hardly wait to try it out.

Geting south Ossetia as their own territory seems to me like the worst case for russia. Probably it would not take long until the Ossetians would like to join north and south ossetia, and probably after a while the united ossetia would get an desire for freedom. While they are a part of georgia however, they keep the country occupied with internal buisness. Preventing georgia of becoming a regional power and very effectively prevents geogia from joining NATO. In a comment a Deutsche Welle correspondent considered the desire of Georgians gouvernment to join NATO a main reason for the conflict to intensify since the last election. In order to join NATO countries must have all problems regarding seperatist movements resolved. The end of Georger W. Bush's presidency was a long known date, and it is very unlikely that the next US president would enforce Georigia joining NATO. Something most european NATO members oppose. When Saakashvili was runing for reelection whe knew that he has a time window of less than a year. The most reasonable thing would have been if there was a UN peace keeping force. Allowing things to calm down enough for But this wasn't in the interest of anyone involved. Not for Georgia, who wants a clean house, to get into NATO. Not russia wich probably doesn't want more foreign troops in the area, and seeks hegemony in the kavkas region. Not for the US who want to have an outpost in this central region. Not for the europeans who didn't care in the first place, and would have to find excuses for not sending peacekeepers. Tough luck for the civilians in Ossetia, and Georgia who have to suffer now. oh, btw, i have a request: if someone feels emotional about this, or even patriotic: please refrain from posting until you cooled down. particulary if your country is directly involved in a war is the moment where you have to swallow your pride, get rid of the stupid patriotism and try to get a neutral point of view. (It's also a good point to get outside and start a demonstration to get a new gouvernment, the old one has shown their complete and utter incompetence by leting things get that far.)

doesn't seem weird to any of you that so many things sound the same as ten years ago, just with reveresed roles? At that time Serbia was trying to reestablish controll, by force, in a seperatist region. With nato stopping them, and russia complaining. Now we have georgia trying it, with russia helping out and some western media complaining. Just imagine what happened if US or NATO peace keeping forces would have been directly attacked, and several killed? How would a US reaction look like? The peacekeeping force, was legitimate by the way, result of a ceasfire agreement in the 90s. Oh, i have no doubt that russia has it's very own agenda. That it tries to be hegemonial in the region, and that they helped to keep the conflict alive during the last years. But puting all the blame on them this time, and whitewashing the georgian gouvernment would be just blind. The only one who actually deserves some solidarity are the people of Ossetia, regardless what passport they have. We are generaly in favour of most seperatist movements, from irland to tibet or most recent kosovo - fairness requires us to treat ossetians equally.

i use vi almost exclusively for any editing, i just can't miss the 's'(ubstitute) and repeat '.'(repeat) functionality. also the regular expressions, i've seen people clicking around for half an hour to do fix something repeatedly in a file, a regular expression could have done it in less than a minute. I prefered to learn for 2 h, instead of doing a boring task for 30 minutes, so it wasn't a problem for me to learn how to use regexp. After 4 such boring tasks, you got the time invested in learning back. however i'm quite noobish when dealing with the operating system itself, as the most time in linux i spend at work, where it's maintained by the admins. i generaly haven't had much success with running games through wine. ps.: wooot - just read that one of my favourite games Mount&Blade is platinum with wine 1.1.2!

for a mission where only SLA and RACS are involved the mission maker can easily place the conflict a decade into the future, the weaponry won't be as cutting edge then, as it is now. In the north time stands still anyway, and in the south aren't much things that would give away the current year either. The sahrani map could be as well 1990 as it could be 2015.

In the mission editor you could change the name of the unit to reflect the army designation: eg "N. Guba (E18)". The other name is seen only in the editor anyway, or when joining a mp game. For both cases it's important to know the weapon the unit has. As the equipment of the soldier model doesn't change when you change weapons and loadout, running to the next weapon crate to swap a SAW for a SPR isn't feasible anyway. At least not unless someone is such a powergamer that he doesn't care if he breaks immersion and roleplay for his squadmembers. @jonny: i'm really excited about a new version to come! Best unit addon so far even becomming better, and more versatile. Thank you for hearing to the constructive critisism in the thread. I've got one request too: Unless you've done so already could you please change the camera position in the model from the top of the head to the right eye? The default BIS model is not correct, causing the first person view to look somewhat unreal/out of proportion. There's a thread here describing the problem. Cameron McDonald may also be helpfull, as he implemented it for his 1st ID. (you can do a test with a normal soldier and a 1st ID and switching units, to see what it looks like.)

for me the biggest problem with windows is that it's extremely unsuitable for any development work or rather any work. no vi, no shell scripts, no sed/awk, no easy way to utilise perl scripts. so all config edditting gets really really labourous. as for many arma users the actuall playing is like 10% or less of the time, testing new addons, fiddling around or modding the game are the remaining 90%, slowdowns or other problems wouldn't matter. time lost due to an unergonomic work environment does. however with the many workarounds bis used to get arma running that well on windows, i doubt it will run with wine. particulary as it's not that popular that it justifies a lot of work by wine devs.