sbsmac

>One think i was proud of ARMA 2 or/and CO netcode was.. no matter what ping you had (within reason) every match was fair. >You could easily tell where your opponent was *just faster than you. Agreed - my (subjective) experience is that at lower frame rates, hit detection (or maybe damage) seems very unreliable.

Let's not argue over semantics. The expected behaviour is missing whatever the root cause. ;-)

I'm also working on getting the old pvpscriptpack working again. One annoying thing is that setflagowner is bugged (which is why all the ctf games at the moment attached glowing markers to the flagcarrrier). If you care about CTF please vote for this issue... http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11119

Excellent video - still hoping for the ToH flight model to come back myself.... ;-)

Personally I'd like to see BI go a bit further and embrace the platform concept a bit more fully by acting as custodians for a QA-approved set of 'core' content developed (at least partly) by the community according to set of interoperability standards. The model I'm thinking of is RedHat who distribute a QA-approved build of Linux which of course has contributors from both RedHat and the general development community. Now I know that some people will point out problems with this - IP 'provenance' is a risk, some mod makers might not wish to contribute their efforts for 'free' when BI are ending up making money, some developers might not want to adhere to standards and BI themselves probably have no experience in (or spare resources for) running this kind of open-source project but I think that despite all of the problems, this is worth exploring as a way to build up a consistent content library for the sandbox.

>The fact that compiled code is running up to 20 times faster then uncompiled, is a hint that the compiled code is something like metacode? The comparison being made there is compiling once vs compiling multiple times inside a loop (by using execVM). SQF is always 'compiled' (in the Arma sense) even if it's done implicitly by the engine when loading init.sqf or running execVM. >but is true that there is an intermediate representation of a SQF, however this intermediate representation doesn't qualify as a bytecode because this binarised format still requires parsing by a grammar to make a set of instructions free of semantics like object type and scope .rap is incapable of expressing sqf (except as an embedded string) and in any case is a storage format rather than an execution format. *Edit* (Too long since I actually wrote any sqf!) You can get an idea of how much is determined at 'compilation' simply by checking when the engine emits errors of various kinds. Function calls are obviously symbolic references since you can redefine the contents of a function by 'compiling' different code against the original symbol (as was done in the recent MP hack) Type correctness (what little of it there is) is determined at runtime not 'compile' time. IIRC operator and syntactic correctness is determined at 'compile' time which would imply that the internal representation is some kind of expression tree but perhaps I'm more disposed to think that's true because it's how squint represents code for analysis.

Let's see what the arma3 alpha looks like ... ;-)

As proud as I am of squint and as unlikely I think it is that someone has compromised my homepage, I would strongly recommend against disabling or ignoring your virus checker. As I say, better to check on the Avast forums whether this is a false positive (which also has the advantage that future updates of avast might not incorrectly flag the application as infected).

I had a quick look through the source code to refresh my memory. There are no links to armaleague except for a single mailto: reference in the event you decide to send feedback to the author. You can double check you are using the ntlworld version: first the version number should be 134 and secondly if you look at the start-menu properties for the shortcut you should notice that the application is actually called squint2, not squint. >Avast complained about it and has quarantined it. Have you thought about submitting the exe to Avast for proper analysis? If nothing else, it would be nice to have it confirmed that it is a false positive (hopefully). >Now it won't launch and gives the errors that sorophx describes above Can you see http://homepage.ntlworld.com/n.macmullen/projects/squint/bin/ ? Use wget or curl if you are really paranoid.

Orcinus has reported that there is some possibility that the old armaleague.com site from which the original installer ran has been compromised and contains malware. You should not even be able to run squint anymore if you installed from this site but on the off chance you are thinking of installing it again, please use the link in the above.

FWIW RC3 still has the problem reported here. I can confirm that this only occurs in the challenge missions and does not occur when I use the same Hinds in the editor.

One minor issue I've just noticed is that the main HUD sight in the armed helicopters (Independent, light, ION-armed) is aligned with the center of the screen rather than the axis of the helicopter. On the light helicopter there is still a small dot that aligns with the helicopter. This means that if you are using Track-IR and looking off-center, the main sight will be well away from the impact point of missiles or guns.

Thanks Tony - this was an excellent suggestion and solved the problem :-) I've confirmed that the issue was caused by the class ModLauncherList - in the original cfg this contains entries for: name="Lingor Island 1.4"; name="Take On Hinds"; name="Take On Noisecontrollers"; name="TKOH: Rearmed"; with "Expansion" being disabled The working version contains (after re-enabling Lingor) name="Arma 2 OA Common"; name="Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead"; name="Lingor Island 1.4"; name="Take On Noisecontrollers"; name="Take On Hinds"; name="TKOH: Rearmed";

Historically that requirement has meant that you need _at_least_ the specified version not that you need the exact version And bear in mind there have been quite a few patches so which 1.05 would we be talking about exactly ? ;-) Generally it's up to the installer script to say if it can't perform an update. Shoudl also have mentioned that I have Hinds installed as well.

Hmm - not so great I'm afraid. I am unable to start the game after applying this patch. The first error I get is "No entry 'config.bin/CfgInGameUI/MPTable.shadow'." This is followed by: "Error compiling pixel shader PSSpecularAlpha:0" I installed RC3 on top of RC2. For RC3 I did accept the choice to reinstalled 'Rearmed'. I have Arma2, OA, BAF, PMC etc.