-Snafu-

http://www.armedassault.com/william/?p=26 A little history of the island.

IIRC I think the US Civil War mod for OFP had something similar to this. A couple medics with a stretcher would go and pick up the wounded then take them back to the field hospital. I'm sure I remember something like that, the stretcher bearers were definitely there.

In the real world you need to have evidence to back up your points to show that they are correct and/or worthwhile. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time. You can't base your argument on the possibility that evidence to support your theories may appear. The same goes for 'well it's a middle of the road view'. Facts and evidence are needed not feelings and wishful thinking. The nuclear detonation case is incorrect because the effects of a nuclear explosion were not present therefore it was not a nuclear explosion (intense heat and light, radiation, huge explosive bang etc.). Traces of a nuclear detonation would be left. In addition to that the complex nature of such a thing would leave trails (people, paper, money etc.) that would be nigh on impossible to cover up.

Requiring credible evidence to prove a case isn't a point of view it's a necessity you can't dodge by stating your trying to put forward some moderate middle road view. The reason that most people would dismiss out of hand nuclear weapons theory is the points I mentioned above and the fact that the effects when a nuclear weapon goes off were not present.

Yeah, obviously the evidence would have to be credible and not BS which I think I mentioned.

While there are 'official' views it is nonsensical to judge them as incorrect just because they are 'official' unless you have evidence to support that. Furthermore, 'official' view on Sept. 11 attacks is backed up by unofficial experts and reports. The idea that the US government would kill thousands of its own people and destroy a piece of New York to go into Afghanistan is lunacy. For starters there are other and far more simpler ways to gain support and justification for a war. If Sept. 11 was a government attack on its own citizens then there would be clear cut credible evidence of that by now. The operation would obviously be complex, involve hundreds if not thousands of people, have a large paper trail as it would be necessary to put such complex orders to paper, require millions of dollars and so on and so forth. There's no way that could be kept secret. If a simple White House affair cannot be kept secret I fail to see how such a complex and expensive operation could be. The bottom line is that without evidence your argument is worthless.

Historians don't know what exactly happened in Scandinavia during the Viking Age. They also do not know what exactly happened during the Suez Crisis in 1956. There are many more examples of this. However, people try to conclude what happened with the information that is available to them. Thinking about 'what if' is pointless and irrelevant. We conduct investigations and make conclusions with the information available to us. Pondering over a possibility for which there is no evidence to support is a complete and utter waste of time. The WTC conspiracy theories will remain so until they produce credible evidence and not speculation and BS.

When conducting investigations evidence can be discovered that may or may not cause you to change your conclusion, significantly or otherwise. I do it all the time. The basic fact is that the conspiracy theorists have failed to come up with credible evidence to demonstrate the current conclusions as incorrect. No, posting links to dubious websites and videos isn't credible evidence.

You got girlfriend Vietnam Takistan?

Depressing reading indeed. :confused_o:

How is that moving the goal posts? Do you think the police have all the necessary evidence on a silver platter at a crime scene when they arrive? No, some of it will appear later, like forensic tests (which can take months), and if it reveals something that invalidates their previous theory they obviously cannot ignore it.

I have it, currently uploading. :) Done: http://www.multiupload.com/8ORKTNXG5Q

Great stuff, thanks very much!

Thanks guys but I eventually managed to fix it myself. I cut down the number of waypoints, put the initial one far inland and had the paras jump out by trigger far behind that waypoint. The second waypoint has the aircraft going out to the delete trigger. This way the scattered drop I want goes to plan and if the aircraft do go in circles at the waypoint the players won't notice. If engine noise is heard then that just adds to the immersion. No need for fancy scripts. :)

I'm having the same problems as the OP. I've made a large-ish MP (non-dedi hosted) mission on Cherno where the players and friendly groups of AI are on 3 C130s (the players obviously being on only one). The aircraft start off the coast, fly to the edge of Cherno, then to a new destination inland and finally to the other edge of the map where they are deleted. This all worked perfectly well for some time but now the AI planes constantly miss their waypoints screwing up the mission. I tried putting completion radius to 200 but no dice.

Is it possible to use triggers instead of markers like in Kronzky's UPS?

Works perfectly, thank you.

Not sure if I should post in the mission editing topic or not. I am making an MP mission that is a night time airborne drop over Cherno. All players start in a C130 (ch1) which moves to a waypoint 1 and then waypoint 2 where this is in the activation field: nul = [s1,s2,s3,s4,s5,s6] execVM "x\ace\addons\sys_eject\jumpout.sqf"; s1, s2 etc. are the players. The units are equipped with a parachute. The problem is that it just doesn't work. nul = [ch1] execVM "x\ace\addons\sys_eject\eject.sqf"; The above works fine for having the pilots of ch1 eject though. It's probably something obvious I'm missing. Any help appreciated. :)

Guys, I wasn't saying remove the jungle but maybe having something like this napalm that when dropped took away some of the vegetation and left the area a little burned and scarred. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=63682

Sounds like we need chemical defoliants or napalm. :) There was a napalm addon for ArmA back in the day by Mondkalb that burned away some of the vegetation. Could be useful. Although the mod is WIP I love it nonetheless. I didn't need to tweak any settings, the whole thing runs as smooth as butter for me. Firefights with Charlie can be a bit challenging at times as people have already said but other than that it's great. Jungle patrols have a great atmosphere.

CoC Enemy Stack

In the ECP readme it mentioned there was a developer version. Does anybody have a working link for that?

Most missions and campaigns use the old version of Tonal, like Nominesine's Blue Skies, for example. I currently have the old one running as I am playing through that campaign. I haven't got around to re-downloading the new one. No reason you can't have both installed. :)

The accents are quite different but I think he was basing that idea on the connection Aus. had/has with the UK. Even today you still get people from the UK moving to Australia and it's certainly not uncommon to spot Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and even South Africans (read Sniper One) in the UK forces. I actually just finished reading an account of a Canadian RAF Pilot about his time in Afghanistan. I guess it's the same vice versa. Nevertheless it's not a huge deal. The addons are great either way.

Wazfo1HJu_I Tour of Duty Season 1 - better than the Hollywood crud. Congratulations on the release guys, I know I've been looking forward to it for a while. I've been doing a lot of reading on Vietnam lately with a bunch of books on ORBAT, TO&E, location of bases and summaries of operations so I'll definitely be making a mission. :)