wamingo

Since you have not mentioned temperatures my first thought was heat trouble... especially because I'm melting right now.. too hot damnit.. anyway, a few months ago I had freezes too, so using a program called "SpeedFan" which meassures GPU and CPU temps (and more) (current version 4.40?), and whaddya know... gpu was at 85+ degrees celcius. The then new NV driver refused to increase gpu fan speed over 40-50% rpm's. Now I'm using Rivatuner to increase the fan speed manually before I play games (60-70% keeps my card around ~65'). it's a bit of a hassle, but it works and I got used to it. I also once had to tighten the cpu fan screws. Took me a while to realise the fan had become slanted. if this ain't it, I'm afraid I have no idea. best of luck to you. don't give up, it's a good game.

voice acting can make a game. bioware games eg. Bearing in mind of course that first experiences are typically more memorable, and voice acting aside I thought perhaps they could've contributed with things like quality assurance and design assistance - ie story. Whatever it could have been it might've made the difference, is all I'm saying. Uncharacteristic conflicts, protagonists and antagonists haven't historically made for enthralling stories. Without it you have no drama. ArmA lacks Drama. It rhymes and (I think) it's true.

I've not experienced any gamestopping or terrible bugs. A few notes maybe: AI was moving very slow on the first mission so I basicly solo'ed the last area. Apache AI gunner consistently shoots short of the targets with cannon when beyond a few hundred meters. Maybe he's not adjusting for bullet drop? Low fps in zarbagad here and there, mostly near the mosque. And yeah, a bit too short. Which is really a compliment as well.

I sometimes wonder how much of CWC can be attributed to codemasters.

Not sure, but I think the bandwidth costs might be high with bitmap graphics. Might be better if it was using vector graphics - like if you want to draw an arc it would be just 3 points +/- width, rather than hundreds or even thousands of pixels.

Because people want the best of all worlds :)

I haven't thought this completely through possibly, but... if we kept the system like it is currently, where you add the weapons that should be available: ie an ammo crate contains: -m16 -m16 + acog -m16 + m203 but NOT m16+acog+m203 well then you can't choose that combination, but you can choose the first 3. So put in words: You should only able to change the mods you want at an ammo crate/vehicle/whatever and that container only contains the combo's that the designer wants to be available. Does that work? or would people be miffed if you couldn't hand your acog/m203 mods over to your team mates?

Defects are in the eye of the beholder. Where You see all of BIS' hard work like weapon optics, destructable and enterable buildings and largeaddressaware, others likely still see performance issues, lack of hollywood-style gameplay, and subpar reload animations. To them, little has changed. It does often feel like reviewers are just advert whores who haven't played anything other than flavour of the month xbob games, and maybe that's exactly who they are, but we still need to face the facts about arma... The masses will probably agree with the reviews and the metacritic quote.

If they don't mention the editor and the quite strong community content that has been produced with it, then I agree with you. But at the end of the day, how many people do you think really want to create their own content? BIS keeps touting the sandbox horn despite for years having been told by reviewers and community alike that they want quality campaigns. Now I'm sure BIS knows best what's right for them, but then you can't really call foul on the reviewers.

Can't you just set Aircraft Nose Up / Nose Down to the opposite of Aim Up / Aim Down?

This company could be the ENRON of pc gaming that could make the whole industry come crashing down. They don't need to be successful, they just need to CLAIM that they have so and so many users and that they need to expand to become profitable - which means more funding... All the while the founders are joyriding the investors money. But it assumes that the investors are dumb enough to keep throwing money at it. Of course now that I've exposed them, it won't happen. You can thank me later. Donations accepted.

The number one reason to get a real proper sealed boxed dvd'ed copy is, of course, its distinctly wonderful aroma which the box emits when you unwrap it. Also, if you refrain from using a tool, unwrapping it is often a good challenge. And last but not least you get a slim but engaging piece of literature which will explain almost anything you should wish to know while keeping the learning curve nice and steep. Note that I do not yet own the product in question and that the above is based on previous experience only.

According to Steam's hardware survey aprox 60% still use 32bit. How much need to be adjusted for people not using steam but still buy arma, I don't know, but I suspect it'll be quite a bit higher. Perhaps 70% or more. However, even if it was only 25% it might still be too much.. In other words - long way to go.

oh go on then, make a list

In my humblest, least biased, most objective, opinion, I think they will change their minds about this. Open question - What kinds of digital content is it that people will fork over cash for? Will they pay for new units or vehicles? Engine enhancements? Maps? Missions or campaigns? Different colored helmets? What? What will people pay for? In the context of arma, I think none of the above. The types of digital content that people will pay for are: -Things that make players more powerful - items, equipment, increased level cap. -Things that can make players look unique. -Story oriented character development. -Continuation of cliffhangers. I may be missing some, but I fear the list is short. In other words it's often very socially oriented, or when the player is "attached" to a character or story element in some way. Now, I realise there may have been some execeptions - like modern warfare apparently sold a lot of mp maps or something, but probably thanks to some peculiar, unreplicable reason. So I'll contend that DLC is not suitable for every product line. If BIS decides to pursue this anyway, then I sincerely hope to be proven wrong. I wish them all the best, of course.

Traditional advertisement isn't cheap. And I suspect arma may need an honest marketing strategy - since hype-style advertising has a way with kicking you right back if it's not a product that absolutely everyone wants. I suspect they'd probably be better off making a "make a youtube video" community contest, as user made content is typically more honest.

After seing so much material, I'm looking forward to it very much, but I have to say I'm also very worried that OA's maps are too sparse on objects. There are virtually no trees now so both visual and solid cover are much farther between. You can probably see units at miles distance without issue. The outdoor objects seem to have been replaced by house interior. And what are the odds that AI uses interior much? I may be speaking too soon. We shall see I suppose.

Ah, of course, thanks wolfstrike. Carl is interested in changing it via a mod, I'd rather BIS made it standard. Dayglow - I really look at it from a realism-perspective. This is about how accurate unsighted vs sighted is in real life. And it shouldn't really be more complicated, because like learning how to ride a bike - Sighted is more steady/accurate than unsighted - It makes perfect sense and feels natural and so it's learned quickly. I realise this has nothing to do with wolfstrike's original proposal. sorry for going so OT. About that I'm not sure what to say yet.

Carl, pardon me, but what do you mean by: "check if you're in the sights" ? Are you talking trackIR? But this is a suggestion section mainly for BIS. I don't care terribly much for half-solutions to be honest.

Yes you're right, it would be harder to re-adjust. So what? Isn't that really the point? I'd like to see anyone try accurately re-adjust an aim unsighted at 100m's or more. And pot shots != accurate aim.

I like that you avoid the proposal :) But I'll do you one better, I have tried playing with no crosshair at all and zero float and after just 30 minutes trying it I can easily shoot stuff at >100m unsighted. I'm sure the the no-crosshair no-float people can relate to this. It ain't that hard to find the center of the screen. Finding the center of your new crosshair style? Even easier - guaranteed. Now from the little bit I've tried using an air rifle, lining up a weapon unsighted is quite a lot more difficult than this game depicts. Your aim is moving all over the place, frankly. Even keeping a sighted aim steady is hard. Not to mention the weapon gets heavy quickly.. heh! I did not try firing unsighted though. Just imagine the bead moving within a larger circle of the crosshair bars -- and then make the bead invisible. What's not to like?

Changing the cursor style won't help bugger all. If you want to reduce the accuracy of the crosshair you want to semi-detach the gun-point from the cursor. Or put different, you need a sway or drift that the cursor does not follow. Removing the bead might be necessary though. The jumpy cursor when exhausted/wounded probably ought to go anyway.

To be honest I probably shouldn't have opened my mouth as my knowledge on the field is limited. :) sorry

or

I don't want to be forced to be in sighted view to actually move slowly. I like it the way it is.