shinRaiden

If your texture wrap is get reasonable, ie one/two textures tops, you can do that now via hiddenSelections. Not sure that it would still work with rvmat's, but it's worth a try.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article543822.ece/Kruipen_en_schieten_met_je_toetsenbord

Does this mean If I were to "execVM 'script1.sqf'" from here on it would not have to compile the script, or if I did: "call compile preProcessFile 'script4.sqf'" it would only have to compile once. (Which is what I knew before anyway, I just stored in a global variabled as I had learnt from DACv2). Another bit... In your case, you're using nul which is not a reserved keyword, but many people unfortunately have been using nil in that or similar contexts, overwriting the effect/value of nil. So if the context requires a (var = code) syntax where the var is disposable, please use a unique global or better yet a disposable private var.

Yeah, read what Dslyecxi said. Just because the system supports downscaling from 1024x768, doesn't mean that it's in any way useful considering that the lens native resolution is 640x480. No thanks. The AVRS that Dslyecxi alluded to uses eMagin z800, MSRP is $1500 USD, 5x the price to step up to dual 800x600. And even that is like using night vision goggles, since the screens are so narrow even with them shifted as close as possible. There are 1024x768 systems out there, they cost well into the 5 figures. XGA : $17K SXGA : $27K And those are picked at random, I don't even know if they're compatible. That said... In a VR-suitable context, such as the AVRS, it's absolutely awesome. When you have a space to move around in and the objects line up with what you see, it's crazy fun. If I'm sitting at my desk though, no thanks. I'd rather have the big screens.

Much of the 'cool' stuff you see (aside from the UK stuff obviously) was specified in the VTK requirements. The VTK project has been a year of development, with the requirements specified well in advance of that. The actions and capabilities are directed by specific customer requirement. Ah, that's what I was wondering mostly. Looks impressive and I hope it'll help in training. I'm also wondering one thing, if anybody can explain it to me, is VBS used in later stages of training, like prior to deployment, or does it vary? Also, not sure if you can answer this, but are requirements made based on current deployment(like the green zone), or also just something general(judging by woodland UK soldiers and equipment and possibly island)? The requirements from military customers generally reflect current training / operational requirements, but not necessarily in the sense "we're in the green zone we need a green zone". Rather, the VBS prime users focus on skills and procedures. Having the thematic elements is nice, but secondary. Often the objectives are varied and different though than what might be apparent to the instructee's. Uses for VBS have included : Instructional videos Promotional videos (much cooler than text powerpoints) Assessing squad command and leadership Reinforcing communication skills Reaction drill retention Mission rehearsal and environmental adaptation is important, and useful, but far from being the only or primary tasks.

Much of the 'cool' stuff you see (aside from the UK stuff obviously) was specified in the VTK requirements. The VTK project has been a year of development, with the requirements specified well in advance of that. The actions and capabilities are directed by specific customer requirement. Of course BIS/BIA dev's have accounts on the forums and browse here from time to time. However, that doesn't mean they go and lift content from the community. BI needs people to respect their IP, so it would be quite hypocritical to turn around and swipe content. I think stuff like the Warfare gameplay etc shows that BIS is aware of community interests, but significantly, they don't poach the content. As Dslyecxi said, the dev teams are independent, so in some regards it's like ArmA and BF2, they really don't have any relation as to what shows up in the other's content database. BIA does its own thing in its own way for its own customers, and likewise BIS.

Yeah, what he said. My vote is for irregular terrain grid support, though moving the vertices's in the xy plane would cause what are called 'correlation issues'.

1 - Grid size has to do with the map, supporting extremely high density grids would put an unacceptable load on the engine for balancing. You get large areas or high detail, but not both. 2 - Same as point one. The terrain modeled is deformed as much as is practical. If the grid is 10m, how do you propose to model a 1m feature to only occupy 1m and not spread out across a 10m radius? 3 - Sure the animations could be overhauled in an ideal world, that's been requested ad nauseam. 4 - Just because settings could in theory be set doesn't mean that they actually would be by the mission 'designers'.

True, but would it be economically viable? That's the real question. With broadband and consoles, imho you're going to see a substantial decline in PC gaming centers. The US never had a significant amount of internet cafes, I mean the more complex ones as opposed to wifi at Starbucks. Similar to the flight simulator concept mentioned previously, I once saw a NASCAR themed 'sim center' at a shopping mall. They had a half dozen cars on motion platforms, and probably Matrox TripleHead2Go's for the displays. It was nice, it was fun, I might do it again once or twice, but not on a regular basis. I could see it *maybe* working in its location provided that it was continually subsidized by 'resident' clans/leagues, but baring that I fail to see how it could be profitable in the long term. As was noted previously, the benefits of VBS2 are extremely admin-intensive. Imho, you're not going to be able to get an effective sim center instructor out of the minimum-wage after-school mall rat pool. Those retail settings are more appropriately served by a product where they can push a reset button, go back to the popcorn machine, and print out a stats sheet at the end of the 15 minute cycle. An excellent case example is that used by the Army National Guard Recruitment units. If you go to the county fair, the scenario that four of you in the front of the trailer get to play with is actually the substantially shortened version of the scenario. It's a simple matter of profitable cycle time, whether your intent is to gather recruits or profits. As fun as a 15 minute raid sounds, there's a customer element that would want 2 hour missions, but scaling the pricing appropriately to reflect the seat occupation may be economically non-viable.

Maybe not technically, but surely, surely Spokesperson you cannot tell us that nobody was punished for speaking out against the Soviets? You seem to have taken a step from zealous to delusional. I have been through parts of Central and Eastern Europe and people there told me of what happened in Hungary in the '56, what happened in '68 in Czechoslovakia. Correction : The 'people' were liberated in '56 and '68, the peasants were put in their 'rightful' place for daring to aspire to be workers. Privileges to the providers is the totalitarian model. Fundamental socialism / communism / intellectual imperialism / whatever you whiten that rotted grave with is fundamentally based on the cranky principle that "you are stupid, you can not be trusted with liberty, and that your compulsory enslavement is for 'the greater good'."

this is just what i was trying to say lol i never said BIS would be liable but if BIS did ever make a gore mod and locked it and a modder unlocked it BIS would be liable thats just what i was trying to say lol And I was saying that it doesn't matter if BIS makes one in the way that Rockstar screwed up or if the community makes it entirely independent of BIS, the net effect is still the same in the media's ignorant eyes. @dotted : Of course, arguing with your inept lack of ability in either reading comprehension or logic illustrates my point that people chose to read into what they chose to. Case in point, Columbine. id never made a Columbine High School map, nor would ever. But the community did. Who got the blame? Not the guy who made it, id got the blame for 'facilitating' the production of terrorist tools.

Trunk and branches. "Game2" is the name for the development tree. As engine components become stable and applicable to the content development process and timeline, they get switched on in the branches. OFP was the first tree. Game2 is the second tree. Elite was fairly early in the G2 tree, and for a variety of obvious reasons had to be fairly stripped down, to handle legacy content development and fit in the constraints of the Xbox. Later, while G2 development continued, enough was ready that an interim product could be launched, Armed Assault. The evolution of that product such as it was, is now the product branding of BIS games. Elite, ArmA, VBS2, Arma2, VBS2 VTK, all branch from the Game2 base at different points. As new technologies are available and applicable, they get introduced into G2. As they mature, and have the tools infrastructure to be useful in a timely manner to a retail product, then they get added to the current products. "GameX" would be like id's "tech x", while ArmA, elite, and the others would be the release products.

I can't comment on much of anything that has been said regarding FATS/LaserShot here, for obvious reasons, but I will say that yes, LaserShot does have a trailer-based firearms training solution (that supports live-fire as well as virtual gunnery). I was an instructor on a FATS ISMT system during my time in the Marines, so I'm very familiar with what that iteration of their systems offered. One of the things I always wanted back then was the ability to interface it with VBS1 (at the time) - now I actually work on that very concept with LaserShot & VBS2. I think that says enough. edit: If you would like to see some footage of the LaserShot convoy trainer, you can find some here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b58zI-ZlaXg Compare that with the visuals of the VCCT offered by Lockheed/FATS if you feel so inclined. Just for clarification : The US Army (dunno exactly about USMC, but I suppose it's comparable) has in place the Engagement Skills Trainer. The project manager is Cubic, the equipment is FATS, and I don't know who was responsible for the visuals. The CATT/VCCT is run by Lockheed Martin, with FATS equipment and Raydon graphics. Digging around on the America's Army website, the America's Army Experience, as well as lite versions in National Guard elements frequently visiting state fairs and such, reports using America's Army graphics and Lasershot, Inc. equipment. A good breakout of various systems can be found here : http://mst.texterity.com/mst/2005-4/?pg=17 Some of the information maybe a bit outdated of course.

The content of _rotate comprises what is found within fn_vbs_rotateVector2D, so <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> _local = [] call _rotate; would be an appropriate replacement, just do a search and replace.

For once, I say "listen to bals, on this count he knows, and let them be at peace." @plaintiff1, I am well aware of the 'technicalities' of GTA+HC, my point was that one incident blackballed all versions past, present, and future of GTA, and placed an irrevocable public negative image about GTA. You can not now have any sort of discussion about GTA without HC entering into the context. Some people thrive on negative publicity. Others are buried from it. Is that a risk you're willing to see? The question I'm raising, is not whether it is possible to implement or not. I can think of several methods right off the top to implement it. But, I think given A - the risk of abuse, and B - the inappropriateness of excessive gore in entertainment, facilitating it would be inadvisable. As a delicate case in point, which imho is applicable to this discussion, one prior poster in this thread created an oft-requested content item, which was then promptly abused by the community for inexcusable behavior. The nature of gaming communities and their behavior is such that abuse of human figures, and women and children, are risks that are not generally agreeable to the developers. While implementation may be technically possible, a reconsideration of whether they truely offer any entertainment value, let alone appropriate entertainment, is strongly advised.

ArmA is intended to be an entertainment product. While it may have capabilities to be a medical skills trainer, it is not marketed as such. Those of you with medical training, or experience with the psychological ramifications of trauma treatment will immediately recognize that enjoying gore as a form of entertainment is extremely psychologically inappropriate and frankly damaging to emotional wellbeing of the participants. The emotional desire of the undisciplined desires for shock and bloodlust fairly universally regarded as abhorrent by most societies, and expressions of such are reserved for the most punitive retaliatory punishments for great evils and injustices, and hardly as spectator sports. A close friend was only days ago one of the first responders to a horrific and fatal motorcycle accident. While he commented that he was surprised that he was as little affected by the trauma that lay around the scene, his utmost focus was to aid the victim in whatever way possible so that his certain passing would be as (relatively) comfortable as possible. Until you have been in a similar situation, or have a heart to feel, you will not understand the gravity of what you here trivialize. Not to set the personal sensitivities aside, but as has been expressed previously, the legal situation in respect to entertainment ratings for video games is in limbo internationally due to past ambivalence on the part of designers and publishers towards moral responsibility for their products, and for content produced for their product but outside the original developer's immediate control. Whether you agree or disagree with the defacto status, you should be able to see that implementation of an 'optimal technical solution' would result in serious backlash and legal review of the product. As was the case with GTA, the entire brand was smeared by the one instance of 'Hot Coffee', and no amount of protestation by the developers could remove the public image and stigma attached retroactively.

Fixed a couple typo's for you.

You admit to not being a programmer, fair enough. This however is a good and proper fix, and should NOT be un-done, and here is why ... The key point is the cause, the 'DirectX hook'. What that means, is BattleEye is blocking a program that is altering what ArmA is rendering. Fraps 'changes' the picture by adding a logo or a FPS counter. Soft-TH 'changes' what you see by similar means. Both programs are innocent enough. But the same methods are used for making wallhacks and such. BattleEye can not reasonably tell if Program A is using the techniques for good purposes or bad, so it has to block them entirely. You can't just 'un-ban' a specific program though, because then the wall-hack could be rigged to look like the allowed program. Normal Matrox TripleHead2Go works totally different, it is a single hardware box, that doesn't have to modify anything in programming. It's just like plugging in a monitor. SoftTH and Fraps on the other hand 'edit' what you see on the monitor. Yes, it's a legitimate piece of software, but it uses methods that can be abused as well, and it is not practical for BattleEye to determine which cases are and are not appropriate.

IbidI am happy that marksmanship is transferring from the Laser-shot environment and the fact a training sergeant is saying it is enhancing that process is a great boon. The things that will cause the Army to take real notice are: 1) Improvement the amount of time spent really training instead of faffing about. 2) Improvement in metrics 3) The massive cost improvements I know the licenses BIS/BIA push are enterprise licenses I hope that those in NATO realise that this is for their benefit. If all the units of NATO can regularly train together and improve their communications and experience of their colleagues equipment and methods by the sheer number of times they can train together; it will, I am sure, save lives and make for a more effective force. I draw everyones attention to this article http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/index.p....emid=62 Kind Regards walker From? LaserShot's very much involved, if you want to shoot guns at a VBS2 visual screen you have to go through LaserShot's equipment.

I wouldn't read too much into it. The writer could easily take scripting/mod-style development, not understand exactly what that entails, and make it sound more significant than it actually is. Indeed. The immediately following quote should more than illustrate that point :

Who are you to say what I want or not?! You're definitely not paying attention to this thread nor are judging what I want correctly - or you're doing it WRONG. What I want is the ability to CHOOSE. Not a question of ONLY having ONE FM OR the other. If you didn't understand plain english before, I don't think I could be more clearer in this statement now. So you want the VBS2 simple flight model then? Did you even read the rest of his post? The VBS2 flight model is nothing like the OFP flight model. It seems like you are the one who doesn't understand plain English The simple flight model in VBS2 is not eant to be used in a game - it's to assist training. It's no fun for a game. Of course it wouldn't be impossible to add a second flight model as an option. Just like it wouldn't be impossible to make an option to replace weapons with laser guns. But whether it's possible or not obviously isn't the problem. It would be a waste of development time. Why spend time creating a dumbed down flight model for people who can't handle the current one when they could be creating a new feature or fixing bugs? It's not even that much harder than the OFP flight model. It just doesn't hold your hand as much. What other options would you like to have for the game do things for you Does it not hold your hand enough? Surely there are things more worth debating than a chopper flight model that is too hard for some people? How about having the developers focus on another issue instead of a few people's lack of patience/skill Instead of making other people spend time developing and testing something to hold your hand, spend a few minutes of your own time to learn how to handle something a little more challenging. I must admit I do not know VBS's "simple" flight model but the fact that someone takes a choice away or presumes something on my behalf regarding my choices I find offensive, Madmatt. And what your definition of is may not be the same as for others - or do you presume to be a standard of your own?As for what I'm astonished is that so many people defend BIS whilst others see that BIS broke something in ArmA that already had been fixed in OFP. And breaking that adage is something that can really ruin follow-ups to something that existed there before it. As we all know by now, ArmA wasn't a step FORWARD in every department with regards to OFP. In some perhaps it was, in others it remained the same (some bugs present in OFP made it into ArmA) whilst in some aspects, like the flight model, both for helicopter, but especially for planes, was a step BACKWARD. But, just not to ruin the experience for those that want something more, in your words, "challenging", I'm PRO-CHOICE. And I really don't know why it's so difficult to let everybody choose the ingredients of his own pizza, so to speak. Also, I think you may put too much faith in ArmA 2, for BIS proved to be able to repeat some mistakes whilst creating new ones, I wonder what the heck makes you think ArmA 2 will be the fulfillment of anything you hope for it to be?! I could almost hope that they screw up something you liked how it was in OFP and ArmA just to read your whining lines about your high-expectation ArmA 2... So you insist on the the premise of a 'choice' even though the choice itself would in fact be several steps back from the the result you're presently not happy with? You can replicate it 90% by doing the following : 1 - create a helo on the mission. 2 - create a marker at the pos you want the helo to be at. 3 - create a scripted loop to setpos the helo at markerpos + (altitude variable). 4 - Expand on it by using the action menu to increment steps of setPos'ing the marker around. Get the picture yet? To run with your pizza analogy, it is equivalent to putting you in a straight-jacket and pumping the pizza through a feeding tube. It has it's purpose, but I fail to see how porting that would make the community happier instead of madder. My expectations are somewhat different than what you would assume, but I have never indicated that they were wildly enthusiastic. The only times that I've approached giddy fanyboyish is when observing a fundamental transition in training methodologies, to which in comparison imho little content widgets and sparklies are very small potatoes. My expectations however are tempered by an awareness of market realities, much of which is not privileged information, but what should be common knowledge to any obsessive gaming fanboy with an understanding of business commitments and capabilities.

Reading one of the vbs2 patch changelog here If BIS/BIA can do that on their vbs2, i highly doubt BIS can't do it on ArmA too. hopefully if it does not make it in ArmA for unknown reason, at least BIS should really implement such options in their future game, more options = good , less options = bad. You think there's riots now, you really don't want 'simple' flight model. It's basically automated auto-hover, you set a notch for altitude and airspeed, and step away from the computer. There is a legitimate training purpose to this, but in practice trying combat maneuvers is impossible because that's not what it's intended to do. The purpose is for non-flight crews to do an otherwise unassisted transport, or for crew chiefs to practice their ops. That and plus or minus 5 off of 0 automatically auto-hovers you, so precision maneuvering is also disabled. @RockOfSL : You lie, all that's impossible, simply for the fact that as it's not in the BIS content it is thus clearly impossible, for the sole fact of BIS holding out to extort the community because we all know they're evil. How dare you present evidence contrary to what we wish to believe in our own petty little opinions...

http://www.arma2.com/ states (as of last year) that ArmA2 is scheduled for release this year (2008). In light of that statement, assuming it is still valid, could any of you provide even a semi-rational explanation about how BIS could integrate in a third-party animation system, convert 10 years of mocap data, debug and test, and have it deliverable before Duke Nuke Forever 2? Wishful thinking about cool tech, and ignoring the realities of a business calendar is what put DNF in the hole that it is. As 'good' as the rendered results of the Euphoria engine claim to be, there are serious and substantial issues that ought to be obvious to even the casual reader of NaturalMotion's website. Point number one, where do the behaviors come from? They don't magically appear ex-nihilo. That behavior must be developed by someone. And that someone(s) can only do so much work in a 40 hour work week, and that someone(s) requires a salary paid out of money advanced by a publisher based on anticipated revenues. Another problem, going along with Dwarden's concern about MP consistency is that the scope and scale of the BIS products vastly exceeds that of any other comparable product. While in COD4 etc you might want to see neato effects when you put rounds on a target 20 meters away, in ArmA we 'demand' that same level of detail 100 times that when we put rounds on target 2 km away.

Thats fair enough then, I still wasn't 100% clear on that aspect of the EULA, and didn't want to get myself crucified one way or the other. You posted on these here forums, get the spikes...

What kills me is the avg whining community member's willful ignorance over how the engine works, and why the decisions were made that way. Going back to 'in the beginning' the purpose was not to create a corridor shooter, the purpose was to create an open and explorable environment, in the FPS genre, but influenced by aspects of the RPG world. Nobody else in the industry has even attempted to replicate it because the idea is so contradictory and impossible. Yet BIS has somehow managed to make it work reasonably well enough. In regards to your points, there wouldn't be any gameplay if that was their focus. And if that is your focus, then it may be difficult for you to understand that. Crysis gave up and requires the content designer to path-plan the environment to death. CoD4 and BF2 didn't even try in the first place. With Arma, as with OFP, the AI has to create a true navigation route from point A to point B. BIS actually explained how and why a a very long time ago, with actual proof of what's going on. Now sometimes, the content designers forget what they're working with and make goofs that screw up the process, like making plant objects with properties that make the AI think that they're bad to collide with. Trees sure, but not grass. And who's fault is that? The engine's doing exactly what it's supposed to. The measure of success varies greatly depending on who you talk to and what your objectives are. Take for example multiple turrets. From the gameplay perspective, you're looking at lots of shiney pew-pew. However, lost in the gameplay noise is how it actually works. It's not a matter of unlocking the 'stuck' selections that existed in OFP but lacked the business resources to implement, it actually required a total overhaul of the object animation control system. The end result however was so monumental that it operates at a fundamental level incomprehensible to those solely focused on 'gameplay'. What you can now do, is make any part and piece move relative and in conjunction with any number of other parts and pieces, whether they be turrets, wheels, radar dishes, stabilization jacks, oil pumps, what not. It's not about multiple turrets, its about building objects that aren't static. Once that's in place, then it's just a matter of indexing for the multiple turrets. And all you see is 'pew-pew', so you have no appreciation for the work that goes on underneath. As for the penetration, a system already exists using the .bisurf data files. While not perfect, it can be calibrated to be adequate. However, it requires a level of collaboration that the community is frankly not willing to support. It also requires significant additional work on the models to implement. For terrains, first off terrain streaming is hardly a trivial operation. Second, as Ondrej mentioned, the terrain area was developed before the tools to create it effectively were developed. In other words, the terrain existed before the tools did. I'd like to hear your explanation for how they managed to pull that off. Additionally, there is now a road network created in the map editing process automatically that provides for more efficient long-range AI usage of roads, as opposed to just 'preferred-zone' scanning. There's a lot more that goes into making it work, than may be apparent from 'gameplay'. As for interruptible animations, a fair point. Particularly imho the issue of death during reload. While iirc it could be interruptible in the configs for the animations, making it look proper would be exponentially more complicated due to how the animations actually work. I doubt they're unaware of the problem, but the fact that there hasn't been a trivial tweak fix would indicate that the underlying issue isn't trivial or tweakable, and would instead need a more complex (and scalable) solution. I suppose this would also tie in with hands-through-m203 complaints. You'd need the ability in general to have micro-dynamic deformation compensation animation capabilities, and I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on how the community can implement this. That to me is the definition of a zombie, it's entirely predictable with no 'brain'. Simply camp a spot divergent from the zombies' lines of drift and *presto*, you win.