baddo

Bravo 6 don't use an image like that for the heightfield... not going to work like that! No wonder you got so spiky terrain... And by the way 3 hours is nothing, really. You are in for a very rough ride if you think that an island is fast to do. Read the Wiki articles about terrain editing. To me it almost looks like you skipped them.

Maybe you should try first with a free, open-source graphics or game engine and see what you can make with it. There are for example programming libraries which have LGPL as their license, and it is possible to use such libraries for absolutely no cost also for commercial products, as long as you can make sure that you can follow their licensing conditions (can depend also on the platform, i.e. PC or console). You could prototype your idea by using a high-level language such as Python or Lua (scripting). Then later, if you find that your idea still looks like it is worth to develop more, you could dvelve into optimizing your program perhaps in C++. It isn't clear if you have programming skills, so I will have to say that you should try simple C++ programming before taking on a big project using the said language. It is a very complicated programming language and it takes years to understand. And this is only about C++ and not about application programming interfaces such as WinAPI, DirectX et cetera. I would say that any programmer who hasn't programmed at least for years, and claims to understand C++, is simply put completely lost This is a word of warning to not have any illusions of rapid development.

Your claims are absurd. The finns were forced to a peace treaty after having suffered series of defeats and after bombing raids on key towns. The victory was definitively on the Soviet side, as it got the territory it demanded (in the first war) and more (after the continuation war). If Finland was of interest to the USSR, that country would've fallen within a week. Sure, not while in the middle of world war 2. But at any other time. Nazi-Germany lost the war, half of Europe was liberated by Soviet forces, but taking finland would be impossible? Sounds like you've heard too much nationalist propaganda. And besides the "socialists" you're talking about are just as much socialist as social democrats or even less. Peace Conditions, Wiki: Eh... did you just not read my post at all? What the hell are you talking about? There IS substantial evidence that USSR wanted to conquer the whole country. My claim is NOT absurd. I have not said that Finland won. Why you start to dispute such a claim when I never even made it in the first place? I did not say that taking Finland would be impossible for the USSR! I said the opposite! Again, what the hell are you talking about? "But at any other time." ? Like during the Winter War for example? It was not in the middle of the WW II. Look what fighting was happening during that war. Was USSR fighting some other big battle then? Was USSR fighting against Germany during Winter War? The Soviets showed major incompetence during Winter War and there is no way you can get around that. It is widely recognized, but you don't agree? Maybe you are right again, and everyone else is wrong. When you say that half of Europe was "liberated" by USSR, don't you actually mean that half of Europe was occupied and oppressed by USSR? Do you think that the Baltic states for example were "liberated" by the USSR? And all the rest of the countries which were left behind the iron curtain to the Soviet side. Do you think they were happy with that situation? It was liberation? We are on a Czech company forum now. Ask the Czech were they liberated by the USSR. Why do you think that you need to post some peace conditions to me from Wikipedia? Does that prove that what I said is wrong? In no way it does. You are disputing something else than what I wrote. Useless discussion. Spokesperson, I told you earlier to re-think your approach. The way you just replied to me is what you are doing all the time... sorry state for a discussion, this is. You are trying to prove that USSR was great. You are trying to prove something about socialism/communism by praising the USSR. Yet it was a failier politically, and this doesn't take much to prove, just look if you can find USSR today. And yet you continue to praise it to make a point about socialism/communism. Don't you see a problem with this logic of having an argument.

Yes, bad tactics, but I'm not sure what you're thinking. The USSR could've taken Finland any day. Or don't you think that a country that defeated a dozen of countries including Nazi-Germany would be able to "conquer" Finland? That wasn't their intention. After all, it was Stalin who signed the finnish independence from the bolshevik russian side. Before the war they wanted to secure the finnish border to Leningrad, first by leasing territory, second by offering a lot of territory in exchange and finally by force. They feared a german attack on Leningrad from finnish territory in the event of war. This was seen as probable because the finnish government consisted of anti-bolsheviks and pro-fascists (even if they were called social democrats). There is substantial evidence backing the claim that their intent was indeed to conquer the whole country. It looks like you have either not actually studied the subject or you are making your own truths when it suits your purposes. I think you go quite a lot too far when you say "any day". How many days were they fighting? Were the Soviets just fighting all those days just for the sake of fighting and not caring about getting any results? By your logic they must've been doing that. Yes I too think that they could have conquered the country if they really wanted to do that. But not "any day" like you say, and actually what really happened backs my opinion and not yours. The cost of conquering Finland would have been far too great for the USSR and they dropped that idea. The cost proved to be far too great, and this is from the mouth of the Soviets themselves. They understood for the benefit of both sides that it is not sensible to try and conquer this country. Notice that it was a surprise to USSR that most Finnish socialists did not support their cause unlike they had expected! Socialists were fighting against socialists, together with the "pro-fascists". The USSR could conquer very easily the Baltic states but Finland is not like any of the Baltic states. They had no proper means to defend themselves but we had and we used them, rightfully so. It is laughable how you try to portray Finland as deserving to get attacked when we did not bow to the Soviet demands of giving our territory to them. Why didn't they just move on when we refused the deal? Because they had intentions further than what they were saying. The negotiations, eventually leading to the staged Mainila shots, were just a prologue to the war which had been planned well before. They tried to portray us as the one to blame for the war, but they failed. Such a muppet show wasn't believable, and The League of Nations did not fall for it either and kicked the USSR out. There is also substantial evidence that the Finnish Civil War of 1918 (socialist rebellion) was substantially backed up by Russia. Right after "giving" us the independence, they tried to take it back. You should also notice that it was the Finnish people who declared independence of Finland in 1917 and not Stalin, not Uljanov, not one Russian. Preparations for the independence were made by the Finnish people well before it actually happened. It was not a "gift" from Russia. It was planned by the Finns well before and it only needs to be looked at the Jäger training in Germany which backs this claim up. Vladimir Iljitsh Uljanov saw the Finnish independence "good" at first because it helped him to de-stabilize the Russian Empire, which suited his palace coup plans extremely well. After he had taken power in Russia, he had an intention to take Finland back because that at that time suited his plans. It is what lead to the socialist rebellion in Finland in 1918. So no, I'm not going to thank him for "giving" us independence no matter how nicely you try to put it. And this certainly does not mean that I'm a pro-fascist. Your pro-fascist claims are certainly exaggerated, at least. You should study how the Finnish command behaved towards the Nazi-Germans when we were partners during our Continuation War. Have you heard that Nazi-German military officers gave Jewish people Iron Crosses for exemplary military service? It happened on the Finnish-Soviet front. This should ring bells in your head: how it was possible? There is an answer backed up by substantial evidence for that question but I'm not giving it to you, you should do your studying by yourself. And don't take my word for it, ask the Jewish people themselves. Pro-fascists were not following fascist policy? How weird... As far as I know, you praised the Marxist ideas here. I don't see how the military success or defeat of the USSR is related to Marxism/socialism/communism. USSR was a dictatorship and not what you call the idealistic form of a state. Why do you use it as an example, then. If it is an attempt to show how socialism can work well, it is a failed attempt. Or did you change from one discussion into another on purpose.

In me own words... http://www.amazon.com/Me-Own-....&sr=1-3 Maybe what you saw is explained in the autobiography... ...or how about I Not Dead... http://www.amazon.com/Bigfoot....sim_b_2 You obviously didn't hit when you fired shots into the bushes.

Doesn't the talk about WW II steer the discussion away from what it was intended to be? But anyways, one thing I wanted to say about the losses of the Soviets in the WW II. In the totally stupid Winter War against Finland, the Soviets lost so many men that it almost makes me cry - not quite, I said almost. They made horrible tactical mistakes which cost them huge piles of men. I am glad that they could not conquer our country, but at the same time I'm sad not only for the losses of my country, but also sad for the losses of the Soviet Union. And what did they get with the price they paid? They got a forest cluttered with the corpses of their soldiers. Basically a cemetary. Must've been happy, Josif-man. See my point? Someone here brings up the huge losses the USSR suffered in the WW II, without mentioning that a lot of those losses could have been completely avoided. For example those they suffered against the Finnish Defence Forces. And I do think that also the losses of the Continuation War could have been avoided if the Winter War was never fought. Here most people see it as the second chapter of Winter War, but the Russians might not agree with us on that as we had Germany on our side at that time. It was again that the Soviets attacked, as in Winter War. My opinion is that if Winter War had never happened, Finland would not have partnered with Germany at all during WW II. My reasoning for that is that we didn't have a reason to be in the war at all, we tried to avoid it as best as we could. And I don't think that the Germans would have attacked us, I think they were better aware of our military than the Soviets were and they knew, unlike the Soviets, that they would have lots of losses if they attacked us. (They trained the Jägers for our army which was in preparation for Finland to separate from Russia in 1917. Many of those same Jägers formed the basis of our military field command in WW II, and they were highly succesful in the battlefields. I'm a Jäger also, by the way, but not officer.) But this is only speculation of course, as I imagined a situation in which the Winter War didn't happen. I think it should be noted when you bring up the huge losses of the USSR. It's not all to blame on others, lot of it is also to blame on the incredible stupidity of the leaders of the USSR. First person to blame for the Soviet and Finnish losses in the Winter War has to be Stalin himself.

Defeat? In what way? That the US is better than Cuba? That cuban healthcare is better? That people in cuba can go to school without paying? Full employment, and no homelessness? That it's the only country with sustainable development? I see it the other way round. I present loads of facts that back my statements. People don't know what they talk about even. Is that my fault? Or their? Just because a majority thinks something it doesn't mean it's right. Ask a heap of kindergarten kids what 1+1 and they'll teach you it's 3. Yes I call it a defeat when you are not convincing anyone, and that is not all, then you have to go and use the exact same argumentation again, and not surprisingly, you are not convincing anyone this time around either. I think you really should re-think your approach to these kinds of discussions. If you don't see that you have failed here, then forget about it and just continue posting the same "proof" over and over again, and continue seeing how people are not convinced. And continue telling them that they are uneducated. Now I even see you reference kindergarten. Do you really think that this is the way how you will get people to believe what you are saying.

I recommend that people create a ZIP containing all files needed for their tutorial and submit the tutorial to OFPEC. Don't leave your tutorials to a forum. They will be lost... much less people are going to read them. Links to your example files will break. And so on. Take the time and familiarize yourself with OFPEC and its friendly staff, and submit your tutorials there. Submitting tutorials to OFPEC requires that you follow some OFPEC guidelines but that is to improve the quality of your tutorial packages. That's what the OFPEC staff is there for, to prevent crap from getting through. The Big Crash was in a way a blessing for OFPEC as a lot of very badly made stuff was removed from OFPEC as a result of the rebuilding of the website. The website is now in much better shape and should be used for storing your tutorials and other editing resources you create. Backups of the resources should be kept elsewhere too, of course.

Yes, because how can you discuss a subject if you have no clue what it means? When I hear people discuss fishing, I remain silent, because I don't know anything about it. And I don't think I know anything about it unlike other people here. People who have no clue about what they are talking about, like when they are repeating clichés, are impossible to have a constructive discussion with. If somebody doesn't know what communism means and has an opinion about it, that opinion is utterly worthless. Spokesperson, I asked you what you are trying to achieve because I saw that you are having the same discussion here as you already had in another thread on this very same forum. You are using the same words over and over again. You post the same hyperlinks again. What sense does that make? You really think that by repeating it over and over again your ideology turns from utopistic into realistic? In the other thread I quite clearly told you why your ideology is utopistic in my opinion. I don't like to repeat it here. Don't you realize that all you are getting here is opposition? Shouldn't you try to learn something from your obvious defeat instead of telling other people that they are uneducated? Or then again, maybe you just want to have a discussion - not to achieve anything. I thought you were trying to get people agree with you about the ideology you love, but maybe I was wrong. Maybe you just want to have a discussion without caring if you get any results out of it. Currently it looks very much like there are no results, you are just blabbering and not achieving anything. Well, this is actually inaccurate - you have achieved something - you are driving people away from your loved ideology. You are not only ensuring that I reject it even more strongly than before, but as has been seen already in this thread, you have made sure that other people too are less interested in your ideology now. Don't you really see that the way you are advertizing your ideology doesn't work? Now you have gone to declare me as "too uneducated" to participate in this discussion. Great strategy for a discussion from you. By declaring your opponents as uneducated you win this argument? Life is not so easy, Spokesperson. If it was, the Marxist ideas would have ruled the whole world by now. I don't want your ideology. I looked at it and rejected it. Is this too "uneducated" an opinion? Or is there some number of Marxist books I should read before my opinions count? Please explain exactly how does one qualify into this discussion. You are showing quite significant arrogance - it is obvious by now that you are the one here who is 100 % right and everyone else's opinion is utterly worthless. Why else would you be repeating the same things over and over again? What you are doing here looks like you are not going to re-consider your ideas at all after getting a lot of opposing feedback from others. Why else would you be repeating the same things over and over again, in different threads? There are some goods words to describe this kind of behaviour... I leave your educated mind to find those words for you. An educated, intelligent person would be re-considering his/her ideology and re-phrasing his/her argumentation after getting so much opposing opinions as you have received on this forum. You are not showing any signs of re-consideration and re-phrasing and that eventually made me question what are you trying to achieve here. Why would someone repeatedly hit his/her head against a wall like you are doing here? I don't quite understand that (but maybe it's just because I might be too uneducated to understand).

I'm discussing politics with you. That's all. Hopefully most of you'll understand that you're too politically uneducated to contribute anything. The best thing I can do is to make you realize that. Too politically uneducated to contribute anything? Are you saying that some person is above other people in this discussion? Are you saying that there is a class system in place in this discussion? Some people here belong to a lower class than you do and their opinions are thus worth less than yours?

I'm wondering. Spokesperson, what are you trying to achieve here? It has been said to you before, but I will say it again, no one here seems to be buying your ideas. Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again? Do you think that an utopistic idea becomes realistic if you repeatedly say it, over and over again? You try to tell people how they should live their life. Like they didn't think about it by themselves. I've faced this kind of situations many times in my life, and everytime I thought "What a jerk... he likes to do something and thinks I'm not good if I don't do it too? Why don't he go and concentrate on his own things and let me decide what I will do. I don't want to live my life his way. I saw what his idea was, I considered it, and I rejected it."

- Prince Harry goes to Afghanistan as a soldier. - Media reported that Prince Harry is in Afghanistan. - The British Ministry of Defense announces that Prince Harry will be withdrawn from Afghanistan. So? Â I don't get why there should be a fuss about any of the above mentioned three points.

I assure you that a fair few families would care to disagree on that one. I was only talking about what I heard two British police officers saying. So it is their view, not mine. It is the best information I have about the subject. Sheps, keep in mind not all police officers are rude. I think not in America even. In all the times I have met a police officer, there has not been any unfair behaviour. Only once did a police officer look angry and I think almost yelled at me, because I had broken a speed limit with ~30 km/h in a 50 km/h zone and he wasn't too happy about that (and I wasn't either when I payed the ~1200 FIM fine). But the other guy who gave me the ticket was very professional and didn't make any angry gestures. In all other cases in which I have seen the police, they were very professional and did not behave rudely or aggressively at all towards anyone. So I have a very good opinion about the Finnish police, and I think it is very much because they have been specifically trained to behave well and remain calm. I have never met an arrogant police officer. They must exist sure in some amount here too, but they didn't come my way. I think there might be big differences in police training between my country and the USA. But I can only speculate, I never met any US police officers but only saw videos and news on TV/Internet.

As you provided an example of the Finnish police do carry firearms.. I think it actually isn't an egg and a chicken type of problem. Even Dutch police carry firearms with them and they were relatively rarely used. However recently they are allowed to pull their pistol (not fire) in case the suspect is resisting arrest. We have specialised police-teams (usually ex-SF) which are meant to arrest suspects, which are known to be violent and/or use firearms and too dangerous for common police officers. As far as I know, such teams also exist in the UK. Keep in mind that there are also methods of disabling a crook from a distance without the use of firearms (tazers, pepper spray etc..). They are relatively safe for the police officer and doesn't kill the suspect/crook. Tazers have killed many. But of course the Tazer manufacturer says it's safe to use, they want to get money by selling tazers. Other thing: I believe if a group of people has weapons. And another group of people are going to fight against them. This another group is going to get weapons too. Because they know that they don't have a chance if they don't have weapons. This is common sense logic and there is no way around it I think. I meant with "egg and chicken problem" that which group had and used weapons first, and thus made the other group have weapons too. But I said also that I'm afraid it's too late to reverse this evolution in the USA. It is this evolution which they try to prevent from happening in the UK. And according to the British police officers of the TV program, it has worked pretty well, because as they said, their crooks usually don't have any weapons when they go arrest them. That will change if the police has weapons, is my bet.

It's not too long ago when I watched a TV program in which 2 British police officers travelled to Chicago, USA, to see how the local police works there. They participated in the everyday operations the Chicago police was doing, and got to see closely the differences to their homeland. They also analyzed the differences between the police forces of the two countries. A summary of what this particular program told me: - In Britain, regular police are not given handguns expect in special situations. In USA they carry a handgun. - In Britain the crooks usually don't carry handguns or even knives. In USA most of them carry a weapon of some sort most of the time. - In USA drunk drivers are sometimes let go with a warning, but in Britain this could not happen according to the British police officers. Video footage on the program proved this actually happened in Chicago - the police were drug police and they were not that interested in a drunk driver, so they just warned him and let him go (the officers knew about the video recording). In this same program the British police officers interviewed some sort of chief at the local police station. The chief gave a statement which doesn't sound too good to me - he said that his men are "aggressive" and thus good police officers. This is completely opposite to how the police officers are trained in my country: they are trained to remain calm and not to behave aggressively. I know it is an important part in their training because a police officer told me it certainly is. I have seen the Finnish police in an emergency situation, and they were acting calm and certainly not aggressive. And it certainly helped! They made people at the scene feel themselves safe and made them to calm down by being calm by themselves. They never raised their voice to a tone which could be taken as aggressive. This is how I believe that the police should behave in 99 % of the cases they have to deal with. The rest are then the "hard" criminals which need a gun pointed at their face until they understand to give up. The police in Finland also carry handguns by the way. There are hard drug criminals here too, and I think that's what the police have their guns for. Only very rarely there are reports in our newspapers about shootings involving police. Problem in USA might be that the crooks have lots of guns so the police need them to, and the bigger the gun the better. But is it an egg and a chicken type of problem? Which was first? And if we take the guns away from the other side, what the other side will then do with their guns? I'm afraid it's too late for that now. I read about both the Sean Bell and Jean-Charles de Menezes cases when they happened. Both cases sound quite amazing... problem is that we actually have very little information of what actually happened. The Sean Bell case sounds, as reported by the CNN, like very bad behaviour from the police but Sean Bell wasn't actually helping as I have read. One thing I don't quite understand. Why would you fire tens of rounds into a vehicle which is taking off? Is your imagination so limited that you can't come up with any other way to stop the vehicle, than to kill the passenger(s)? The police of course says that the vehicle is a deadly weapon too but I think in most of the cases when the police shoots a car full of bulletholes, it's bullshit that they really needed to do that.

I think when the USA economy is "failing" it can still be doing very well. When they have a decline in growth of their economy, news start to hit the streets "US economy is starting to fail" but actually, the growth can still be much better than in many other countries. It can still be growth and the news start to tell us how depression might be coming in the USA. That's how I have perceived it. Other countries which have no significant growth of their economies in the first place, can have more stable economies but they can't compete with the USA even when USA is undergoing an economy slump.

It's just not going to happen. To me "human level AI" has to mean something which is able to do all the things I have done throughout my life, intellectually, and I don't see a computer algorithm ever being able to follow the same intellectual learning and experience path that I have had (or any one of you others). Some neural network can probably be trained to be very good. But "the little something" is always going to be missing. A computer is basically very mechanical: a bit is either on, or it is off. This is how simple a computer is. By combining bits you get more complex algorithms. But how many bits can you add. How many bits can you combine. How intelligent those bits are. At maximum, no-where near as intelligent as you are, Mister Computer Scientist. The time of the World will run out before you have added enough bits and combined them intelligently-enough, to reach close to the human brain. Also consider this. A human brain is an organic system. It is able to recover from damage. If artificial intelligence is said to be at the level of the human intelligence, then it has to be able to fix itself when it breaks down. Without any outside help. When someone grabs a part of your brain and throws it away, your brain will start to re-route its messengers. How is your electro-mechanical device going to do the same. It is fascinating to think of a machine being intellectually at the same level as humans, but I think it is an utopia, it will never be reached. Great stuff for Hollywood though.

Eh? It's either a typo in your post or you really used the setViewDistance command wrong. There should be no =

I know that my idea "Games should not have to be patched at all!" will get a beating in this nerd- and computer technology fanatic -infested community, it's not a surprise. Also people who want to see feature additions and feature changes made into a game are not happy with that idea surely. I don't want to see a game change significantly through patching. I want it to be as stable as possible. Stability is what we need and not disorder and chaos. Also consider the people who can buy a game but don't have fast access to the internet? Tell them to download a 1.5 GB patch and see what kind of reaction you get... a happy reaction? Oh really Think about all the people who buy a game from their local store and don't know that the game has a website which has updates for it. Yeah I'm sure there are plenty of such people in the world. What do they like if they buy the game and it doesn't work most of the time. They think the whole game is total crap, and the developer/publisher is crap too. And they throw the game away, without ever learning that the game was fixed to work in patch number 96. And those people deserved a good, working game too, no matter how hard you try to ridicule them for not knowing about the game's patches. They paid for it didn't they. But there are these people out there who just love patches! And I let them do just that. If they get happy when they get a patch then I am not going to take it away from them. I am questioning if it is a proper state for a game developer to be in, if they need to create huge patches for a game. I am opposing that state indeed. Whether it makes sense for you or not. So, let's continue. What am I seeing when I see people asking if BIS is going to support ArmA II? I am seeing people who expect that ArmA II needs significant fixing after initial release. I am seeing people who want patches for a game which hasn't been released yet! How crazy is that?

Your expectation is completely unrealistic. No it's not! I have played lots of games which were at their initial release version and I did not notice a single bug during the whole time I played those games. So a conclusion has to be made: it is a realistic goal to make games which do not need hundreds of megabytes of patching after initial public release. And that is what should be aimed for. My comments about this "patching" are meant to remind people who seem to want patches that they have fallen into something which is certainly not needed. They have fallen into accepting that they constantly buy seriously flawed products and "it's okay as long as we get patches x years after initial release". And then the screaming starts here at this forum "when is the patch coming out!!". I hope ArmA II will not receive so huge patching as ArmA I has received already this far. I hope the game is good-enough that there is no need for so huge patching. Is there something wrong with this kind of hoping? Unrealistic hope? I certainly don't think so. wamingo, Microsoft Windows is an operating system and as such it is a critical, very complex component of your PC. I think we should not start to compare operating system patching to game patching, the two are not comparable in my opinion. Your games are not responsible for anything other programs are supposed to be doing or for communicating with the hardware directly, unlike an operating system. Also your example about cars is not really good here. The car manufacturers get revenue from the work they do after the initial sale of a car, when they sell spare parts and maintenance work. Did you pay BIS for your ArmA patch? No you did not. I said earlier it is the nature of the beast, unfortunately. That statement in my opinion should have made it clear to you that I understand why errors get into software products and why they need to be patched. But there exists proof that not all software products need huge patches, so it is not unrealistic to expect that others could make such products too.

Games should not have to be patched at all! It is a sorry state for the industry if they need to keep fixing their products patch after patch... ...it can be called "good support" and it can be that. But wouldn't it be better for all of us if the patching would just not have to be started at all. The developers don't get revenue from the patches, and the customers have a painful task of tracking all patches and downloading and installing them in correct order. And getting correct patch versions... that is how you like to spend an evening? Well I prefer to do something else honestly. It's the nature of the beast called PC I guess. Only way to avoid it is to avoid the PC.

I am not defending scientology either when I question the other religions. In this kind of discussion it is in my opinion right to raise the question of how more right the other religions are about the basics of what they are teaching than scientology is. This is certainly not an attempt to defend scientology. I will never defend anything I don't believe in.

I agree. Don't be afraid to say your opinion about religions, you have as much a right to do so as everyone else. What you said about other religions is what I think too. It's basically no different, the style is different but the basics are indeed the same.

Did someone say that it is? Certainly not me

Hey thank you! When you have finished the tutorials please consider submitting them to http://www.ofpec.com/ It's The Place for storing your tutorials. You should make a package having all files needed for the tutorials, excluding the tools not authored by you, and submit it to OFPEC.