baddo

***snip*** I decided to make my post short as I am not eager to get into a fight over the things I was going to write. I will just give you the last sentences of my post: I call it insanity. Just as Hitler was insane, so was Stalin.

Hopefully the FDF Mod project will convert their FDF Maldevic island into ArmA. A photo from FDF Mod website: http://www.fdfmod.org/newspics/maldevic2.jpg doesn't actually show how nice the island is. But you can see it's with Autumn theme.

What I saw happening was that some people made an alphabetic list of ArmA objects and put it on a website, and as I understood, their intention was to publish every model from ArmA on the website on that alphabetic list in MLOD format. I'm sure all of you people see a problem with that... ...it certainly wasn't a surprise to me when I saw that it had been stopped by BIS.

Make sure you utilize http://www.ofpec.com/ for your mission editing needs.

It was a simple task for you to go to the Wiki (Biki) and read about the functions I told you about... not hard. Sounds like you got it working after all. We require you to do some of the work by yourself, you know at least read the references we are pointing you at. Especially when you ask very basic questions. One thing you could certainly do is to take one or two evenings and read through every scripting function in the Biki. It could help you a lot. Don't care if you understand everything or not, the point is for you to have at least some idea what kind of functions there are.

Sounds like a setPos loop to me

Hey, thanks! I made some research around this very same topic maybe 4 years ago. You want to know what I found back then? I found a program which takes a contour map image and creates a heightmap out of it! It of course required manual input like setting some parameters, so it was not an automatic conversion certainly. I found it after I had been thinking how I could best get my local area modelled into the game. I couldn't find appropriate satellite data for my area so I started looking at generating a terrain from an old-style map. And eventually I found that program, and I have a feeling that there were even more than one program which could be used to convert a contour image into a heightfield. I stopped doing that kind of research and haven't touched the subject for a long time. I have no idea if I have that program still somewhere, or any other stuff I collected back then. Â But it should be found with search engines if someone wants to find it, I think. Best Regards, Baddo.

Thank You. Always remember, Your work is very much appreciated.

Sounds pretty impossible that you have checked the Wiki. You will want to look for assignAsDriver moveInDriver from http://community.bistudio.com/ Also be aware of unAssignVehicle

He's spying for the CWR project? Â

Okay. Thanks for the info about the pictures. It's looking good this far. What I'm wondering if the PC & Xbox360 versions are released at the same time. I hope they are. It would make it possible to see what kind of demand there really is for a Xbox360 version versus the PC version. Otherwise we are just going to buy the version which comes out first (PC I guess) and most people will then ignore the other version. Edit: Me thinks, for BIS' customer support & troubleshooting department it could be better to publish the Xbox360 version first... it could reduce the relative number of PC users and thus would reduce the overall need to troubleshoot problems with hardware & software not created by BIS.

...only a few minutes before you had to uninstall it? Â ...well... why don't you install it again? Would be easier for you to get your screenshots. Or is there some problem which prevents you from installing ArmA again? There is a troubleshooting board in this forum if you have trouble with the game.

Snow indeed reflects light in real nature (much more than the materials you usually have around you on the ground). It can happen so that your eyes start hurting and your vision will suffer if you are surrounded by lots of snow and the sun is shining from a clear sky. I don't know if that is an intended effect or an accident in that virtual island, though. And doesn't look natural to me.

Yes, the underscore _ does make a variable "local" in this scripting language. Yes, defining a local variable inside a scope formed by curled braces {} makes a difference. The variable is only visible inside that scope. My opinion is that when you write scripts, you should define your variables in the innermost scope it is used in. Opposite to this would be to have all variables global. The "scoping" and the function private make it possible that you can have in one script two or more different variables having exactly the same name - if they are not in the same scope. Do not abuse this feature though, as it reduces the readability of your script. Familiarize yourself with OFPEC tags. You should get one for yourself if you get more into OFP/ArmA mission or addon making. It should be used for all global identifiers. It is a way to avoid naming clashes.

IN ARMA2: Â single I want to know if the functions return null values thanks The logic of that code is wrong and there is no reason to change it to be right in ArmA 2. It is right that it doesn't work. Familiarize yourself with the programming concept "scope".

(thanks to respond) that does not work either in arma1. There is a typo isn't there. And it is intentionally done wrong (not the typo but the logic) to show you what doesn't work.

Yeah that's it. Please interview Wipman.

Spokesperson is telling us how we think and why do we do so. Just recently I faced a similar situation here on this very same forum. Thoughts were put into my mind by a mysterious person and then I was told by that person that this is what you think. Even when I argued against it multiple times (which I have since regretted as it was a total waste of time). I arrived at a conclusion that it is totally worthless to argue with these kinds of people. They are telling you what you think and then go on and rant about it as long as you care to reply to them.

I wouldn't expect that your old computer would run ArmA 2 as well as it runs ArmA 1. It can do it but it would not be wise to expect it in my opinion. Sure, ArmA2 will be optimized as much the programmers and artists possibly can do with the resources and time they have available. But the news tells me that there will be for example better Artificial Intelligence in ArmA 2. Somehow this doesn't sound like it would reduce CPU load. What I expect from BIS this time around is that they do more testing on different hardware configurations before publishing the game (or even demo). It could also be good if they would make it more clear to users what they can expect with certain type of hardware. Shoot down peoples' unrealistically high hopes before they get to play the game (or even demo). I have had no problem with the performance of ArmA 1 as I still don't have a computer which fulfills the minimum hardware requirement for it. I can tell how it runs but I can't file a complaint to BIS about it.

One problem is incompatible "total conversion mods" (don't take this term literally) such as possibly upcoming FDF Mod for Arma and Bundeswehr Mod, and maybe others. I don't know if they will be compatible, but how big chances there are for that if both are going to do their own main configuration files. That's definitely a problem if those kinds of mods can't be used together. I just names two examples, but I'm sure you can bring up other examples which you would like to be able to play together.

FDF Mod! http://www.fdfmod.org/ ...it's not released yet! Â

Hey! The idea is good. One thing I recommend for you to reconsider: the green text on black background makes my eyes bleed. I bet it's not just me who would like some other colour combination. I don't know if the font choice is adding to the problem, but it's possible. I'm viewing with Opera 9.25, zooming set to 100 %, 1024x768 resolution. Anyways, nice idea and I hope you keep it up! Best Regards, Baddo.

I gotta say the idea of including addons into mission PBO's has crossed my mind too, some years ago, but I rejected this idea quite soon. Because people are going to misuse that kind of feature by putting too big addons inside mission PBO's. For very small addons it would be okay to do but for most addons not. In case of script addons (the small addons mentioned in previous paragraph), a solution to avoid the need for addons is to just put the scripts into your mission PBO instead of making an addon out of it.

I did not do that. But someone here did. You are actually telling me what did I think about MadDogX's post. Continuing this discussion is obviously totally worthless. It has been totally worthless from the very moment when you initially commented my words by taking that one sentence from my post and totally ignoring the rest.

He was obviously talking about having a complicated ragdoll simulation for every soldier on a complex mission in ArmA. Â The post really isn't that difficult to understand. Â Obviously it's possible to have every soldier have a ragdoll simulation in america's army, because every soldier does have one. Â Moreover, later in his post he goes on to suggest ways to cheat it or to get around the cpu load. Â There must either be some kind of severe problem with english reading comprehension here or you're constructing a weak strawman argument for the sheer joy of debunking it. Â Either way, the specifics of his post are clear, and they are not what you are arguing against. Why do you discuss me and not the topic? I certainly don't like the way you talk to me. I pointed out that saying "impossible" in the topic that has been discussed here recently, is exaggaration and generalization, and I truly believe it is. The rest of his post makes sense. If you read my post you should notice that I wasn't arguying against his points, except the "impossible" part of his post. If you read my posts again, you will notice I also discussed the problems he mentioned and how to possibly prevent the problems from being actual problems for gameplay. I suggest you go to a boxing gym and start to throw your insults around there and not here. I'm not interested to fight with you. I'm not fighting, man. Â Nor did I insult you. Â I'm maintaining that you latched on to a part of his post and aren't understanding the gestalt of it. Â He said very clearly under what conditions it was impossible, and under what conditions it may be possible. Â I don't believe you are fully comprehending the post, and I will leave it at that. I don't know why you keep insisting that. You came into this discussion only to tell me that I have misunderstood MadDogX, post. That is your input to the topic at hand. You have ignored everything else I have said about the topic than my comment about "impossible". Why you do that is hard to explain, what I can think of is that you are here to have a fight and not to discuss the topic. Why else would you ignore ~99.9 % of what I have said. You are simply put wrong about what you are saying. You can stop repeating it now. Edit: I have to add that maybe you have something to say relating to the topic? Riding on "I think you have not comprehended" doesn't in my opinion make a good discussion. Especially when that is the only thing you can say. So please, do keep discussing on this topic but if all you can tell us is that I haven't comprehended something, then you should stay out of this topic.