shinRaiden

Correct, I cheated and skipped a couple steps for brevity. The pressure indeed propagates as waves, however as the entire waveform constitutes a vast amount of data I logically simplified it by implying ray-analogous vectors with fall-off curves, that could then be sorted for collisions to then create compound samples as required. Secondly, I also wished to draw an analogy to visual ray-casting's technical complexity, which is related. The reason visual engines do not use ray-casting for realtime lighting is because the sequential processing load induces an unacceptable amount of latency. Creating an enclosed BSP map (Doom, Quake, CoD, etc) gives you the ability to create a lighting and audio pre-map defining the occlusion and effect zones by ray-sampling the entire map statically, in ways that are not possible in the realtime requirements of the exterior environment dynamic model of the OFP/ArmA engine. As a result, shortcuts (aka optimizations) must be decided on and at some point someone is going to complain. Now this supposedly awesome reference sound may be 'accurate' from the recorded point of observation. I see no suggestions from the original poster though as to how to remove the propagation and environmental and recording effects to then make the sound a suitable source sound. Secondly, the sound management system, particularly with channel management and mixing, is handled by SDK libraries outside of BIS's control. The final nail in the coffin is that the viable market of normal sensible people for this entertainment product on average does not have an audio system configured to adequately replicate the content they are demanding. Most users have have a noisey/lossy motherboard chipset that they've never tweaked the settings on, that clicks when their hard drive is accessed, and have that plugged into whatever headset or speaker pair is handy. If they've plugged in a 'surround' system, they've shoved it under a desk or anywhere but an acoustically calibrated studio. As such, they are unable to properly experience due to their own lack of commitment to what they insist someone else grovel to them for.

There are several armaments manufacturers that create MIL-STD 1913 compatible Rail Adaptor kits for the G36, an example can be found on the bottom of this page : KAC Modular RAS Altering the model so that it incorporates the proper mounting for forward accessories would go a long way to reducing the criticisms leveled against this project. This is only relevant to the original K series as depicted in ArmA, the later versions incorporated basic rails onto the sides of the forward housing to correct this deficiency. However, the next matter is much more problematic. The G36 optics are by design oriented through the carry handle, not over it as in the classic M16 design. As a result, the divergent angle between the barrel and the sights path is dramatically less than on the M16/M4 series in classic iron-sights configuration. This allows the G36 sights to provide a rounds-on-target arc over a substantially wider range centered on the zero'ed distance than with an M16/M4. Placing a low-profile sight on a rail directly on the top of the upper reciever on an M4/M16 gives them an arc comparable to the standard G36. Adding sights on top of the carry handle, regardless of replacing it with a low-profile handle, still diminishes one of the feature benefits of the G36, and makes it functionally worse, not better. Additionally, the likelihood of switching to unassisted iron-sights as opposed to open optics (Eotech, Reflex, etc) from an existing boosted optical sight I would think is rather dubious. Lastly, although I am hardly an expert in this area, I still rather doubt that there is widespread usage of relatively new US doctrinally oriented accessories among the G36's chiefly international primary operators. The applicability of replicating a given operator's profile would then be rather slim, unless you were intending to replicate an airsofter's loadout. A classic example of this sort of wishful thinking is the SR-47. Advertised to be a promising system, the realities of logistics, cross-training, and maintenance dictated that only a prototype batch of 6 was ever created and delivered before it was canceled. The SOPMOD M4 program likewise, far from being an open-ended grab bag of random awesomeness, is rather a defined standard of reliability and consistency, backed by logistics and training.

* Billy Idol's hair. * David Bowie's ears. * Sylvester Stallone's saggy steroid-laced man-b00bies. * Voice starting to sound like Billy Drago, not classic John St. Jon. * Duke has neither Col. Hannibal's classy cigar, nor Churchill's dreadnought. * UnReal-istic sheen. * Where's the guns? * The silly darkness of Doom. etc. Epic post here ... Then again, everyone's got a brick to give ...

The premise on which this complaint was lodged is based on a logical foundation of "d'oh" and fail. It demands not only the impossible, but asks for a specific solution that is mutually exclusive of the desired results. To start, consider an analogy of visualization. Much debate has been made over artificial textures vs 'awesome' photorealistic textures. There is an intrinsic difference there, an understanding of which requires an elementary/primary school education in the primitive principles of science. With photo-based textures, you are attempting to use as a surface the reflection of the surface, not the surface itself. This is manifest by the various artifacts present in phototextures. Instead, proper texturing should instead attempt to define the surface by it's pre-emmissive/reflective properties. Errors after that point can then be fairly blamed on the engine for observed visual errors, which would launch into a wholely unrelated topic. The point in summary, and as likewise applies to audio, is that the OP requested that (and as has/is being done by various addon makers - ie YBSM) sounds be changed so that the source content is actually the observed content, and no explanation given as to what sort of observed transformation should then be applied to unmangle the logically proper mangling of said 'uber-reference material'. So what is a sound and how to fix the problem? Audio is the harmonic modulation of atmospheric pressure creating a physical effect on the observer. Naturally observed from inumerable reflective and ray-casting sources, it is simulated primarily by highly-directional limited-range 2-dimensional surfaces in 3-dimensional space, as opposed to the commonly 3-dimensional volumetric natural sources. Multi-channel surround sound replication only adds additional linear points, and if the source material is not recorded in locationally-distinct tracks, must be artificially interpolated. You're faced with two rather pleasant options for the purists. Option 1 : Perfect Audio To obtain perfect audio, you can not record the sound itself, except as part of the calibration process for determining the source itself. Rather, you need to sample and model the primary source, be it in whatever aspect of fluid, solid, or thermo dynamics. Once you have a model of the pressure envelope, rate of change, propagation force and speed, and all the other lovely parameters that are way over my head, then you can then recreate those effects, calculating on the client-side the ray-casted collision and blending of the different pressure waves and dynamically create a channeled audio feed from that. Calculating and distributing such data would be, in no uncertain terms, computationally significant. Option B : Absurd Fidelity There is, however, another option as a viable interim workaround. You can - in theory - take whatever device you need to sample the audio from to a premier anechoic chamber, place multiple recording stations enveloping the device in spherical positioning, cause ever possible sound in every possible operating condition from said device, store them all, then interpolate them back as blended multiple channels. Network traffic would be slightly more than current requirements, and as is evidenced by the market presence of Halo3 Collectors Edition Xbox 360's with "Collector's box edition" premium markup packaging on bundle games, the market can afford a 300% game price markup.

VBS2 has been out for 6 months, the 1.18 patch was released this week.

Battlefield Clearance : Integrated into the VBS2 content system, automatically applicable across all units. Maps : VBS2 shipped with 4 maps (Greenzone and Samawah ported from VBS1, Sahrani and Rahmadi from ArmA), the recent 1.18 patch added in Porto from QG as well as micro-sized Hi-Def 'Prison' map. Because of the difference in release calendars, (GAME) content is generally available in ArmA well in advance of integration and release with VBS2. The 2 maps ported from VBS1 are not calibrated, and missing various other crucial details, can only be used as thematic geo-typical, rather than correlated geo-specific. The other maps seen in the screenshots ('Southern Pines', updated Greenzone, 'Afghanistan Sample', 'Pit Mine' ) are all based off of customer-provided data, and are generally not available to VBS2 customers except where requested or authorized by the original customer. Each map adds approximately 1~2GB of data, primarily in map textures. One map in particular I know to have been derived from approximately 40GB of unprocessed source data. In terms of playability, none of the VBS2-specific customer project maps were designed for any degree of entertainment-oriented playability objectives. Areas designed for entertainment commonly feature thematic arenas and other deliberately balanced artificial lines of drift. In contrast, real world locations modeled in VBS2 are designed rather to recreate exact locations, with their often "un-fun" aggravations.

Imo, this would be the biggest disaster because this would specifically enable and facilitate the very kind cheating that is destroying the community.

You are asking for one or two things, which are bad or worse. 1 - OFP/Arma script has a method to it's maddness, it's closely tied to how the engine innards function. As a result, it can provide much higher performance than relying on an external sandbox like the python or lua scripting seen in various recent titles. 2 - Opening the engine to external API access without having a respectful, disciplined, and guaranteed behaved community would as mentioned previously be inviting disaster of levels as yet unseen.

Due to the introduction of more complex aspect ratio controls, the -x -y commands were deprecated. You will need to create an alternate Arma user profile, and manually a new arma.cfg file in that alternate profile location, and target that profile via a modified shortcut. This is a functionality upgrade, not a defect.

Let's look at the technologies you reference. * RTM's These only animate objects modeled elsewhere. Of primary concern, RTM's only allow for explicit object rotations, without a large amount of variant RTM's the rotations will become annoyingly repetitive. See the ArmA bridges, and also search the forums for threads asking why the bridges collapse the exact same way even if you hit them differently. * Particles Particles are good for making smoke to obscure your behind the scenes magic. Particles are not good for trying to link together. Additionally, you want to get rid of particles as soon as practical because they are typically very high engine load. * SetObjectTexture This is useful for existing model components, but breaking up a model into a sufficient number of parts to avoid variation annoyances results in an engine unfriendly high section count. You could try animating out fire geometry components, and having a wider variation of textures, but then the textures would not reflect the protection. * Delete-Replace Does not work with terrain streaming. Here's a sample house model for reference for brick count : brick house Now multiply that as far as the eye can see. lots of houses To add further fun, the model must not be made of brick-level components, and must have DD from flat quadratic walls exported from external data sources to support automated content development processes. When BIS says that brick-level work is impractical, and nobody else does it (careful study of the crysis trailers from a long time ago shows clearly that they only use pre-cracked sectional models, and there was no 'scamming' of 'true' DD involved), then that should more than adequately state that an alternative is required.

There is an excellent guide from the Soldner development team regarding construction of panel-based destructible buildings. I honestly don't know if that model will be the method used in ArmA two, but I suppose that in theory the idea will be similar. Essentially, you create wall sections with multiple destroyed variants, then link them together to create your building. There are several potential problems with different orders of severity. First, if the building is handled as a collection of proxies, that will require some substantial improvements to the proxy system handling graphically and in simulation. Not that that would be a bad thing, manipulation of proxy components of a main object would be 'nice to have', but also voids the whole reason for proxies in the first place, ie high-speed static optimizations. Another method would be to do controlled deformation of selections. This too offers interesting capabilities, but at the cost of again independently modeling the objects. In all cases, it is essential that changes be consistent across the network. Streaming data support adds an additional problem, in that indexes for damaged objects must be maintained, and can not be deleted in the session. These changes must also be queued and transmitted to JIP clients. From an artwork standpoint, the Soldner content get's boring after the first firefight in the first village. You quickly notice that the mouseholes all look like an identical pattern, and they quickly loose their appeal. The resolution to that is in content, which requires that more complex (= costs of time and disk space) content is required to add more variety. These limitations are hardly unique to ArmA. Much hype was made about the 'unlimited' interaction potential of the Havok component of the Source engine, and little mention was made that in order for that to work, the model component had to be unlocked and flagged as manipulable. As a result, HL2 for all it's gravity gun wonders is hardly an interactively destructible environment. Lastly, back to the bricks. Count how many bricks, how much cubic volume of concrete, and how many linear board-feet of lumber is in your one RL residence. Divide that by how small you want the particles to be. Multiply that by the number of houses in your town. When you have an idea on how to manage and push those kind of indexes and numbers around asynchronously in parallel on a synchronously serial processing computer, let us know. Until then, it's nice of BIS to make a post explaining the real life situation with the eye-candy.

Thanks for the heads up, as was mentioned on the the COD-piece thread, games are turning into junk food. Sure there was gobs of gibs in SOF2, but it had a better story than typical pr0n. Plus mine was free with a gfx card. As for the pricing, if it's retailing at $40, well folks, that's the new 'value' level. What's the premier level looking like? Gamestop has Crysis for $50, and CE packaging for $60. "Best of" bundles jack it up even higher for stuff you already paid for, or was effectively (but not legally) abandonware decades ago. BTW, how many OrangeBox'er's already owned HL2? Your tiers have been pushed up, and all because the neo-conBusHitlerJewishJihadiUberConspiracy wants you to pay Starbucks more for Hot Coffee. Merry Ef'in Christmas Batman, I'm going to kit-bash me a virtual missile launcher instead

Anybody know where I can find a water-proof case for a Canon SD400? There's several that are rated for down to 3 meters, but I'm looking for something that can handle at least 10 meters instead. So far it seems that that is the only model that does not have a deep-water case, by any third party or canon.

Bridges are not roads, they never have been in OFP or Arma. They are only simple collision objects with a roadway LOD placed to trick AI that accidentally lands on them. To make bridges pretend to work, requires special tuning of the map so that the AI runs off the end of the road, becomes confused as to what to do, and decides to just run off of the mysterious building it found itself on. If however, the AI speed is sufficiently slow enough that inertia does not propel it onto the so-called bridge, or if the road objects do not overlap sufficiently far enough over the bridge deck, the AI will properly pull up short and refuse to traverse the obstacle. On the other hand, in cases more typical of steep embankments (Nogova river bridge embankments) road objects diving down well below the bridge deck can result in a different chaos, where the AI insists on trying to drive through the alleged bridge deck to continue following the road, even though the path is obstructed by the bridge collision geometry. The short answer is, there is no such thing as a logical bridge in OFP or Arma. It would be interesting to see if setting the model to be a road class object would help, or if collision and other simulation components are deactivated.

Matters of this nature effectively require legal counsel, to ensure that there is adequate representation in what is a legal matter. Depending on the applicable rules of jurisdiction, you may be required to have contracted legal counsel, or be required to affirm that you have declined counsel understanding fully of the consequences of doing so. Licensed is not the proper terminology, however the idea is comparable to their authorization to actually practice law. Included with that authorization is a demonstration of qualifications, which then gives you the client legal recourse if you are the victim of improper legal representation. Community custodial rights support groups or other family services agencies can give you referrals to reputable counsel, you should also be able to check with the family court clerk's for references as well. Legal fees, although high, are very justifiable. They represent a recoup on years of non-paid investment in training, as well as support costs for the staff to research and prepare materials for the casework. The problem with lawyer fees is not the fees themselves, it is with unscrupulous members of the profession that create needless work to unnecessarily inflate actual costs. The consequences of inadequate legal representation may include the loss of ability to adequately appeal an adverse decision. Community advocacy resources specializing in family law can provide need-based referrals depending on the case. If you are military, your respective family services support resource groups may be able to also provide a list of qualified agencies.

This is way too OT for OT, if there were any legally competent to give legal advice, they would professionally decline due to the contextual situation. Given that there is ongoing custody legalities, you should already be communicating with your current legal representation, which would be more familiar with the matters of your case. Because of professional liabilities, the only advice you should be soliciting is that in a duly contracted legal representation from counsel qualified and certified to practice law in the respective classifications and regions of concern.

I beg to differ. There is damning pic's of the Crysis sandbox out there showing how the horrendous amount of AI control elements required to make a usable mission would throw all your idealism right out the window. Any particular reason why you would want to cripple the ability of any Arma user to be able to create any sort of a usable mission? 150kb pic another and another still not convinced? This is about as bad as trying to make a truly AI-functional BSP map for other engines like id's. - Point 2 - VBS2 was developed substantially independent from ArmA by an entirely different development team. Rehashing that old insatiable flame war will only result in warnings and thread locks. Tread lightly there. - Point 3 - BIS has already promised a lite version for ArmA2. Why a 'lite' version? For the simple fact that it would be nigh impossible to prevent cheating exploits. In fact, the essential commands already in ArmA, inherently allow for mass manipulation of content to the point that the engine is inherently a cheater's dream. I'm not even referring to system-level memory watching, I'm referring to the user-mode scripting commands begged for by the community who then turns around and complains about the abuse of those very same commands. Putting this into a lite mode, ie only allowing the 3D editor in an offline development mode, is one of many efforts BIS is making to try and help the community, which refuses to discipline itself. For the record, I am unaware of any instance at any time of any sort of cheating in the VBS2 community, while the system is as 'vulnerable' as is Arma. - Point 4 - The video linked, is a user repost of a Bohemia Interactive promotional video of an early beta, and reflects development status of over a year ago, and does not reflect the substantial amount of ongoing development supported by Defense support and development contracts.

My post was intended to instruct you on how you can change which of your installed controllers is designated as the primary controller. If your controller does not conform to the proper DX standard for identification essential for setting the primary controller, then the issue is with a defective controller, instead of user error for failing to designate the intended primary controller.

start -> settings -> control panel -> game controllers -> advanced -> (select primary) Answered before elsewhere, on numerous threads.

While you're at it, how about alerting everyone to the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide? The real fact is, there are millions of eyewitnesses all testifying that your wishful thinking is all smoke and mirrors. You either are forced into a nihilistic anti-creationist viewpoint insisting on the inherent evil of all humanity - which ironically then gives license to the very behavior you purport to be outraged by, or remain conflicted by *gasp* REALITY staring you in the face. Here's the point. As your premise you insist that the so-called Bush regime is evil incarnate, in order to rationally condemn what you are politically opposed to. However, in order to prove that point, requires you to make leaps of logic well in excess of the misguided slander and ridicule aimed at creationists, to the point of becoming psychologically impairing. On the other hand, you have to assume that the same incrediblely organized and functioning globally conspiratorial administration is the woefully incompetent and intellectually deficient ever to exist in the history of the world. Proving that point would also require admitting to the futility of ever winning over the apathetic zombie populace which facilitated said course of world history. So finding yourself between the proverbial rock and hard place of incredulous and illogical, you have chosen the middle course of irrational and shake your fist at the heavens insisting that the sun does not shine at high noon. I prefer to maintain a belief in the inherent goodness of humanity, though clouded at times by false indoctrination from those who wish afflict others with their own personal self-induced misery. Whether you chose to pursue an optimistic course of life is up to you, it's a nice sunny day out today.

Sickboy's code is functional, but redundant. You only need to expose the classes in the immediate parent of the class you intend to modify, iirc. The rest of the inheritance stack is inferred. Very handy, but makes reading configs in a big project a real monster to track.

This is why health officials caution you not to sniff the fumes, it damages brain cells and turns you into a paranoid left-wing sky-is-falling rumor-monger.

The msg in question is not an error, it is informative only. You are correct, this section <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class Land: AllVehicles{}; class LandVehicle: Land{}; is bad. Note the previous snippet : <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class All; class AllVehicles: All {... While class All does not in fact inherit from anything, let's suppose for the case of examples that it does. We don't care about its parent, all we care about is the pointer to the class called All. So, this is correct : <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class All; Now in AllVehicles though, we need to open it up to expose the classes to edit later. The net effect of this is that by including the prior parameters, we can reference to them just like normal inheritance. That's why we have the more expanded sample : <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class AllVehicles: All {... Now if we just had this <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class AllVehicles: All {}; it would be interpreted as a NEW AllVehicles class, completely overriding the existing one, if the access permissions allowed. In theory at least, there was some question about whether it was properly working in OFP, and I haven't checked to see if it behaves as expected in Arma. As for your example of 'how it was done before', unless something has changed dramatically, that code's not going to work because the subclass definitions are set outside of the CfgVehicles context, when they are actually configured inside the context of subclasses of CfgVehicles.

This is correct, it 'includes' the MainTurret class as defined for later inheritance and/or modification. Attempting to edit it later, without being 'included' previously, invites bad addon mojo. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> class Turrets { class MainTurret; }; This is incorrect, it flattens MainTurret to be a blank class inherited from NewTurret. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> class Turrets { class MainTurret : NewTurret{}; };

You don't want to get rid of that msg, actually that's an extremely crucial help to what you're trying to do. BIS has set up their <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class m113 : ... and you've got a notion to go and change it's behavior. There's a couple ways you could do that : A - hax0r -------------------------------------- Run bin.pbo and vehicles.pbo through eliteness, manually edit the config.cpp files, find a host to push 1gb of data for one line of changes, and laugh at the community while they scream bloody murder about your 'mod' being utterly incompatible with anything and everything, not to mention BIS patches and any sense of MP normalcy. B - Inheritance -------------------------------------- You can, in your own addon, have something like this : <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class m113 : m113 What does this do? It allows you - provided the access param is set to something proper - to go and update the values of the class, without directly editing the other content files. You can edit pretty much any property then just as if you were writing a child class instead. Note that you should include the appropriate base definition classes that you plan to edit later. So what you'd actually be after is something that logically looks more like this : <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">class All; class AllVehicles: All { class NewTurret { class ViewGunner; class Turrets; class ViewOptics; }; class ViewPilot; class ViewCargo; class ViewOptics; }; class Land; class LandVehicle; class Tank; class M113; class M113Ambul: M113 { ... class ViewPilot: ViewPilot { minAngleY = -60; maxAngleY = 60; }; ... }; Don't just copy and paste though, double-check on your own to make sure that's all correct class names. Now what's going to happen here though, is you're updating the viewPilot class in the the M113Ambul class. That's where the message comes in. It's especially crucial for addon developers to watch that, and in my opinion, a list of all those generated in an addon ought to be published in the addon's readme as a documented reference for addon compatibility. Perhaps this would be another wonderful OFPEC project, a library of classes updated, so you could click a couple drop down boxes and see if the addons match up for compatibility, or if they're flagged as incompatible for modifying the same properties.