baddo

sorry to write that. but you are just an asshole. if you like this kind of government north-korea is waiting for you. See the politics topic and you'll hear what the situation is like by a Russian guy himself. Opinion polls say his opinion is the most common. Before China liberated Tibet, it was a religious and feodal dictatorship ruled by Dalai Lama. China put an end to tibetian feodal oppression. They changed that and introduced capitalism. So there's still oppression, but capitalism is better than feodalism. I'm curious to learn more about this. Was the liberation of Tibet done by China a similar thing like the Soviets tried to do to Finland during WW II? As in, the Soviet propaganda told us that they are liberating us. And we refused to be liberated to their surprise. Well, that was Soviet propaganda. I don't know how much they believed in it. If they did believe in what they were saying then they had missed something crucial about our society. How did it go in Tibet? Did they welcome the Chinese with open arms or did they have significant resistance?

Oh you already saw BIS ragdoll in action? How else can you know how it would look like. There is a problem with this kind of thinking. It is that an assumption has been made that it is the ragdoll physics technology itself which makes things look wrong, always. I'm telling you it is the developer who makes it look wrong or right. Ragdoll physics would be only one component of the total unit system. It would be combined with animations. Also there are more than one currently-known ways to implement ragdoll physics. Some ways are better than others don't you think.

The place I've seen isn't about any weird subject. It is a forum owned by a commercial company. I won't mention exactly which forum, it's not necessary here. A topic is allowed there, but it is not possible to discuss it properly because some of the keywords closely related to the topic are banned   and the words are no-where near swearing or offensive in my opinion. It's like "you can have this topic here but don't talk directly about it". I was wondering, why allow such topics at all if they feel that there is something "politically incorrect" in the topic itself, and thus they have a need to delete most of the posts. I think censorship goes too far in that case. But I give Americans the benefit of the doubt, I've seen one very bad case of censorship now but that doesn't mean others are like that too. I would mainly compare now forums which are run by commercial companies, and not hobby forums. What I'm a little bit worried about is that USA should be a country in which freedom of speech is valued and protected highly, but sometimes I feel like there are some very serious problems of hypocrisy and censorship there. When I've seen Americans advertize their "liberty" and "freedom of speech" I have every single time wondered "so what do they have over the place I am living in?" because I have never in my life felt restricted here where I've born and lived my life (the defensive bloodshed against USSR helped I think, if they would've conquered this land then things wouldn't have gone so smoothly for me). My feeling at this time is that if I move to USA, I would in fact be more restricted than here in Finland. But only experience would tell me if that would really be the case. This feeling isn't based on this one case of forum censorship, it is the sum of the things I have learned about USA. Just thinking about it, I am not a judge here about this topic at all, would like to hear what others think. Insider opinions are valued.

I'm wondering, are American website forums generally more restrictive regarding what you can say compared to for example European website forums? I don't want to make a judgement yet, I need more opinions than mine to do that. Thank You for your opinion.

A bug is when something doesn't work in the game like its developers intended it to work. You will have to discuss this with BIS developers on a philosophical level, to be or not to be et cetera

Yes if you want your AI team mates be very effective, you unfortunately need to micro-manage them. It takes more time but if you have patience then you will get much better results than just trying to play rambo-style without caring about AI team mates. You could even have your whole team alive at the end of the mission, which is imho something that should be aimed for.

I think it shouldn't have been released just yet  it's quite buggy imho crashes constantly I updated messenger and linux but it still crashes I'll return this to codemasters asap

It is not the fault of the technology if it is used wrong. You can make a ragdoll behave unrealistically or you can make it behave realistically. Look at your body, what does it have. Now go and simulate it in a game. You will find that you need ragdoll physics. It is a problem to tune it to behave realistically. I think the main realism problem some ragdoll implementations have is that they have little or none simulation of the natural resistance, stiffness of the body, i.e. the muscles and else which act as resistance to the movement of the joints. So maybe they are more like skeletons without any flesh. Nothing in ragdoll technology forces you to make ragdolls behave like a skeleton and not like a body with flesh.

There seems to be a "OFPEC: Multi Player Tutorial" at http://www.ofpec.com/ could be worth a read.

It will have to avoid mines like other machines. The robo-dog presented here is not suitable for stepping over a mine as I see it. The lumberjack machine could do that much better. It can remain stabile with one or more foot in the air, and halt its movement while holding a foot in the air. I don't see the robo-dog doing the same, you see its legs are moving constantly and that is the way it has been designed to work, which is a major disadvantage.

A possible solution for the synchronizing problem in multiplayer with the ragdolls could be this: 1) Make ragdoll death simulation individually on each client and on the server. 2) Interpolate the pose of the dead unit on clients relatively slowly to that of the server. This could happen over a period of like 30 seconds or more, maybe over several minutes. The server would have sent the correct pose 'matrix' at an appropriate time, and the client would then make interpolation between its current pose and the one from the server. The speed of the interpolation could be adjusted to fit the situation. Units which are out of the player's sight would not have ragdoll simulation at that player's computer at all, it would just receive the info from the server at a time appropriate for the situation. And delaying the synchronization all the way to the end of the mission could be possible; if the player doesn't come close to that part of the island, then why bother synchronizing at all. If the player is in an airplane, the synchronization of ground unit ragdoll poses could also be 'relaxed' because it doesn't happen so that the player could reasonably notice exactly what happened for one dead unit on the ground. Instant synchronization of the pose would be a performance problem. So why not do it slowly. Most of the time the players would not notice it, they are concentrating on other things. Also, the synchronization could be delayed until the player goes far-enough from the unit to be synchronized: then no visual interpolation is needed as the player isn't watching. Also, consider if the player has a battle at South Sahrani, kills some bad guys, then goes to North Sahrani, kills some bad guys, then goes back to the location of the first battle in South Sahrani: would the player remember anymore in which kind of poses the corpses originally were? Not very likely. Surely there would be odd situations every now and then, when the player would notice that the server didn't register a bullet hit to another player who is hiding behind a corpse, but when the player in fact saw on his machine that there should have been a direct hit. But how often this kind of thing would happen? I think it would be very rare, thus it would be insignificant to the gameplay. I'm making an assumption here about ArmA's internals that the server is the one who decides if a hit happened or not. As an effort to summarize what I'm saying, my point is to delay the synchronization of ragdolls or not doing it at all if possible. When the synchronization happens, it could be slowly interpolated depending on how near the player is. All this is based on an assumption that the server is authoritative over bullet hit calculations and over other important gameplay calculations. The server would always have the 'correct' ragdoll poses. I would be surprized though, if the BIS devs didn't already think about this kind of method.

I posted the exact video a few posts up, but everyone refrained from clicking on it Not true To continue my earlier post. The difference between the dog and the lumberjack machine is that the lumberjack machine can be used for actual work right now. So what I'm saying is that it is a much better product than the dog. It is not at all clear for what the dog could be used. I am not at all convinced that it would be a usable machine at a battlefield, for example. As mentioned already, a tracked vehicle will easily beat it. The added complexity of the legs does not bring enough usability reasons to mass-produce that kind of machines. It is very hard to imagine work tasks in which the robo-dog would be better than a tracked vehicle. For carrying stuff, certainly not good. For disarming bombs, certainly not good. To act as a platform for weapons, certainly not good. Just to mention a few points in which it clearly loses. The nature of the robo-dog is that its legs are in constant movement. Compare to the lumberjack machine, which only moves its legs if needed. Actually, the legged lumberjack machine could be used for the tasks which I mentioned in the previous paragraph. It is a stabile platform unlike the robo-dog. But still a tracked vehicle beats it, and so does a wheeled vehicle. The added complexity and cost is just not worth it, because there is no usability advantage in most use case scenarios. It might look funny and "cool" but if it can't compete with its features against wheeled and tracked vehicles, it can be said to be a product dead on arrival, in its current form. At this time it looks like it is a university research project and nothing more. Unlike the lumberjack machine which can be used for actual work: it could be used to immediately replace the wheeled and tracked vehicles which are doing a similar work task. Although that wouldn't be financially smart. Of course robotics will advance in the future, and practical applications will be developed. But the robo-dog looks more like a problem than a solution, compared to competing technologies. Maybe someone will develop something useful out of it some day.

Try lowering the skill of the enemies. It has an impact on this but I don't know if it is enough for you.

Hunapu, Sara, after a nuclear attack: Explanation here: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....8;st=15

Bravo 6 have you confused making heightfield with making textures (or vice versa)?

For the 1.09 beta I used the 1.09 beta uninstaller and A10 disappeared. I wrote the exact procedure about it in the 'ArmA General - Arma feedback thread - based on 1.11, Positive or Negative discussions go here' thread in which Maruk asked about it: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....7;st=60 So this doesn't support your theory of using wrong uninstaller. And weird thing was that the 1.09beta uninstaller didn't even delete the beta folder! I deleted it manually to be sure that the old beta patch won't be around anymore. So I would say that the 1.09beta uninstaller certainly didn't work as it should have worked, at least for me. I doubt that it was intentional by BIS to leave the beta folder there, when the point of an uninstaller is normally to uninstall and not leave it and delete something else

I've played with 1.11 a couple of single player missions and some multiplayer sessions. No problems at all during the single player missions. I played multiplayer with battleye. One multiplayer session with length of about 1 hour ended with "session lost". I don't know what happened, but my guess was that the server just 'disappeared'. Internet connection was ok at my end all the time. Another multiplayer session with length of about 3 hours didn't have any problems. Good battles, even though my computer was at times too weak to keep up a decent frame rate in larger towns. I'll just avoid the large towns and wipe out the enemies elsewhere with my heavy machinegun which I like in ArmA maybe even more than the lighter machineguns. Maybe it's easier with such a gun for me to hit the enemy from a distance, as I can 'wipe' a few rounds targeting the legs of the enemy and the gun 'corrects' my aim so that I hit the enemy. It can indeed be somewhat difficult to get the aim right, it usually tends to go a bit off when I try to correct. My perception is that in ArmA it is more difficult to hit targets than in OFP, especially from longer distance. With the light machineguns with optic sights it can take me more time to take an enemy down from a greater distance. I should practice more. I was thinking that the aiming inaccuracy problem can be caused by not having a fast-enough computer. If the game has low frame rate then the aiming might 'jump' and the player always corrects too much because the visual update to the aiming is late. Only 'problem' I have is that my computer is under minimum system requirements and thus in some places the frame rate drops too much, but this is not something I can complain about. I have 1.4 GHz CPU + nv 6600 gt which is good-enough on very low ArmA settings most of the time. ArmA's performance with this computer has improved since the 1.04 version. I didn't even keep the extra cooling fan (sitting on the floor next to computer, aimed at the graphics card) on at all during these playing sessions. At some ArmA version if I didn't use the extra fan to cool my graphics card, I would get visual errors in the game soon after starting to play. But with 1.11 no such errors came even after 3 hours of playing without extra cooling. But I'll do some more testing, I'm sure there are bugs I just didn't notice yet...

Right, that's understandable. However, we're not dealing with average vehicles - we're talking about up-armored HMMWVs, which weigh a great deal. There are IED videos of explosives going off directly beside such HMMWVs without causing them to slide across the road. Those explosions undoubtedly put more force onto the vehicle than the recoil from a single Mk19 round being fired. I think someone may have heard a bit of an over-exaggerated claim from a mil guy. It's not uncommon. Just to comment a bit more, busses have been "thrown" out of roads here in Finland by wind and I am not talking about your typical storm winds, strong wind but not what we call a storm. But when the surface is not icy, then it is harder of course for that to happen. How easily you can affect the direction of a moving hummer, I'd say it also depends on the angle in which the gun is fired in relation to the starting angle of the front wheels. Surely military guys exaggerate, been there seen and done that

Edited my previous comment a bit.

A bit lower than yours  You should be able to have a similar viewdistance, maybe higher. Of course when the battles get big, then the viewdistance needs to get dropped. But for average fights 4km is fine. 2km when they get big. And 1.2km for when they get really big Win XP 32bit. AMX X2 3800 (2x2Ghz). 2GB of DDR400 RAM (cheap brand, made in South Africa). There are videos on sites like YouTube that cleary show that the vehicle does not jump back from the recoil. It's a bug in ArmA with the 'shotshell' simulation, ArmA seems to assume that when it's fired from a vehicle it is a tank shell and recoils the whole vehicle. I want to comment here that a wheeled vehicle which is driving forward, can behave like that to my understanding. And I have studied vehicle dynamics. I would call it "upsetting the steering". The same thing can happen if you get strong wind from the side which pushes your vehicle. For example here in Finland during snowy and icy winter driving conditions, it can be quite dangerous if you get strong wind to the side of the vehicle. Also when passing a large vehicle which creates lots of airflow, there is an effect which affects the direction your vehicle is going, at the point when you are just going past the nose of the large vehicle. It can be seen clearly during winter when the roads are very slippery, the driver must be very careful to keep the vehicle in its direction. So my theory is that when a soldier says that their vehicle "changed lanes" when the gun was fired to the side, it is possible as I have experienced such dangerous behavour when driving my cars in slippery conditions and when affected by strong wind or when passing those large trucks. The basic thing is the same, the vehicle gets a force to its side which disturbs its dynamics. But when the vehicle is not driving, then it should certainly not "jump lanes".

Can anyone confirm this? What are the exact steps to have a10 (and armory?) addon removed from the game? I have the 505 Games DVD version updated to 1.09 beta. I don't have Queen's Gambit. Operating system is 32-bit Windows XP Home Edition. I did this to update to the current beta patch 1.11: 1) ran Uninstall_ARMAPatch_109beta.exe as administrator, it reported no errors 2) then noticed that it did not delete the beta folder and the files inside it, so I deleted the whole folder manually 3) also manually removed 'beta' entries from UnInstall.log which is in ArmA directory, also removed beta shortcut from arma directory 4) ran ARMAPatch_1_11_beta.exe, yes to battleye, it reported no errors at any point 5) started ArmA using the shortcut 'Launch Arma Beta Patch' in ArmA directory. 6) got message box telling me that "CA_Hotfix requires CAA10", then checked ArmA\addons and indeed there was no a10.pbo 7) played "Sanitazing operation" without getting any errors 8) Reinstalled ArmA and all patches from scratch to make absolutely sure that there are no errors caused by me. 9) Started ArmA using the beta shortcut in ArmA directory, and now it doesn't complain about anything during startup. My theory without proof is that the Uninstall_ARMAPatch_109beta.exe removed the A10 addon. It must have been in ArmA\Addons and not in beta\Addons I think. Or maybe the 1.11 beta patch installer removed it? I don't know. I know nothing about the Armory, didn't look at it.

Common sense is that they want to sell ArmA on Steam now and not starting at some time in future. Putting a beta patch into Steam isn't really sensible in my opinion. It is in the misty future when the patch currently under beta testing is declared final, and thus why I say it makes no sense for them to wait for that. Just release what they have now as stable, and won't it then update to the next official (non-beta) patch when it is released. The business is losing money every day ArmA is not on sale on Steam. Waiting would be counter-productive for them. Who would pre-order ArmA now when we know it has been on sale for what, something like 1.5 years. I don't think that the 1.08 is bad compared to the 1.04 505 Games release version. Problems on unsupported platforms excluded.

I had the problem with the A10 too. Nice surprise. I decided to reinstall the whole thing to make sure I can blame BIS if it doesn't work   I am not 100 % sure of exactly what have I done in the ArmA folders, it's been a long time since I touched the game...

Nitpick all you want If the next patch released to the great public from BIS is a beta, or a beta version of the patch, doesn't really matter now or does it which way you say it, it's still a beta, anyways, what they'll be releasing next... ...how can you say when a final version of that patch is coming out? You can't. The people running Steam can't either. I'm 99.99 % sure that BIS can't say about it either. Why would the people running Steam wait for a patch of which they have no clue when, and if, it is released. Thus they release what they have now. This makes more sense to me. I'm not buying your argument that a patch which is said to be a beta version by BIS, is now somehow turned into a Release Candidate (by you). Well at BIS they can name it whatever they want... like a Release Candidate now when you said it Point is, Steam should not release a beta version and they should not sit and wait for a final version of the next patch either, because a final version was already released by BIS.

If the next ArmA patch is a beta, why would they wait for that? Why not just publish the game on Steam in its last final version and not as beta.