baddo

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 gotta say your writing style isn't close to clear. Might be a reason why you are not getting many replies. Usually you put your SQS files which you are going to use in a mission you are creating, into your specific mission directory, or to its subdirectory. This doesn't always have to be the case but for you this is enough to know now, I think. An example directory: OperationFlashpoint\Users\Baddo\missions\ChickenGuidedMissiles.Intro Baddo is my username in OFP. The ChickenGuidedMissiles directory was created when I saved a mission in OFP's mission editor with that name. If I want to use script files in that mission, I will put the script files into that directory or into its subdirectories. The .Intro part in the directory name refers to the 'Desert Island', which is called 'Intro' by the game. When I want to start a script file called script.sqs which I have placed into that directory, and which doesn't take any arguments, I will execute this line of code from some place (initialization field of an object placed into the map, Trigger, Waypoint, or another script): [] exec "script.sqs" Does this help you enough to get going? Are you aware of the website http://www.ofpec.com/ ? If you have not been there and read everything they have about OFP mission editing, then I suggest you read everything they have about OFP mission editing Also there is http://community.bistudio.com/ which you should also wade through. You should spend a lot of time reading information from these two sources. Read everything mission editing -related. Good luck!

Explain: 1) Exactly where did you put the script file? 2) Exactly how did you try to start the script file?

Bomb a nation away? Â Why would you want to bomb Chechnya, Israelieagle? Can you elaborate?

Well I think you exaggerate and generalize with that statement at least a bit don't you Never say never. What I actually want is not necessarily ragdoll physics. What I want is to get rid of the very ugly-looking "look I'm dead and 80 % of my body is up in the air!" poses the dead units have in ArmA. I don't care what technology is used to improve it. I see ragdoll physics as a possible tool to solve this problem, and I think it could be made to work like I said, only have ragdoll enabled at the very end of a unit's movement. You could even do it so that not all units would get it, but only the ones the player is going to see very soon. If a player never goes into an area where there are dead soldiers, then ragdoll death would not need to be enabled for those soldiers. I don't think he's exaggerating. Â Then he goes on to give a possible method for decreasing load... Â and then you go on to take the first sentence of his post and go on about how he's generalizing... At best you come off like you didn't read his post at all. What? Oh yes he was exaggerating. He said "Implementing a ragdoll effect for all soldiers in a game is simply not possible." So in what kind of game? See my point? He was generalizing and exaggerating his point quite a lot. My point, why do people jump here and say "simply not possible" if they didn't try it by themselves? Did they try it? I don't know. But being overly pessimistic is surely not a way how technologies improve. What he's describing is what I was talking about too, partly. The ragdoll effect wouldn't have to happen everywhere everytime. What the player sees is what matters. Multiplayer? You will have to leave unsynched other things too. Also, what I was explaining earlier about when the ragdoll physics would take over. It would be at the very last stage of a soldier's dying. It could be after the current ArmA death animation has played to the end. Now, the soldier's position in the gameworld would be fixed to this position (except the height maybe). Then only the soldier's limbs would be moved with the help of a little bit of ragdoll simulation to make it look like the soldier actually rests on the terrain and not in the air. You would not have to synchronize this in multiplayer. What difference to the gameplay would it make if a soldier has its left hand under his right armpit or in his crotch. But for the individual player, this would make things better, as the dead soldiers would look to be lying on the ground more naturally than they currently do in ArmA. Anyways, for letting me know that I didn't read someone else's post.

Well maybe I took IceBreakr's first post a little bit too literally, but I was really curious if he is actually able to point to a specific army which would have no blacks. And it seems he indeed can  About Chinese army: well I didn't check if they have black people. Did you. Sergei_Q's comment about the FDF is spot on. There are black people but the occurrence, at least where I served, was very low. So it would be wrong if in Arma an FDF group would have for example every 6th soldier black, that wouldn't be depicticting reality. My comments in this thread are not for or against anything, I was only curious about what armies are in question. Please everyone, keep the 'racist' accusations out of this thread. I'm sure that kind of thing was not IceBreakr's intention, and it wasn't my intention either when I asked him about it.

Well tell me about it. My knowledge of the World runs out. I am unable to say if there is an army somewhere which doesn't have any black people. I know for sure my army has them, and they have to be in it if they are not Jehova's Witnesses (weird rule, I don't like it), and if they don't have medical problems which prevent going to army, or if they didn't choose Civil Alternative Service (not popular here) or else they go to jail or they escape from the country. So, my army definitely has black people but what armies don't have is the question.

There are some armies in the World in which there are no black people? I am curious to hear what armies would those be. Sorry, not helping you really, but I couldn't prevent myself from asking this Hmmm... AB or KKK armies? I'm quite sure you are not modelling those, but those kinds of things could fit what you are explaining. I'm sorry, if you do not want to reply then my apologies and just keep on working on your armies! I'm just curious where those kinds of armies might be.

Well I think you exaggerate and generalize with that statement at least a bit don't you Never say never. What I actually want is not necessarily ragdoll physics. What I want is to get rid of the very ugly-looking "look I'm dead and 80 % of my body is up in the air!" poses the dead units have in ArmA. I don't care what technology is used to improve it. I see ragdoll physics as a possible tool to solve this problem, and I think it could be made to work like I said, only have ragdoll enabled at the very end of a unit's movement. You could even do it so that not all units would get it, but only the ones the player is going to see very soon. If a player never goes into an area where there are dead soldiers, then ragdoll death would not need to be enabled for those soldiers.

I don't comment on anything else but the "can contents of the crate be local". You can fake the contents of the ammo box. Do not have anything created initially, but only after a player has requested weapons, and has been given the appropriate choices, you can start then creating only the weapon the player selects (from his limited selection). Could require a custom dialog. OR detection of which player is close to the crate, and then quickly modify the contents of the crate before the player gets close-enough to look into it. You can include into that a system in which the server keeps book what weapons & ammo have been given away, if you want to have a limited, fixed number of certain weapons and ammo. Or if you want to live your life simple, just forget about this and give the players as many weapons (of the types accepted to them) as they want. Edit: and what does createVehicleLocal do to your problem? Help or not? But the weapons can't be local I think: other players must see your weapon so it can't be local. But yeah, maybe the crate can be local? But are the weapons inside it then local or global? If a weapon inside a local crate is taken out of the crate, will it become global if it was originally local? I never used createVehicleLocal so this is speculation.

Is this a mission editing question? You say you need help so maybe it is. But anyways, haven't you considered how nice it is when you are the enemy of the flanking soldier, and when you get surprised by him? I find it very nice. One of the first things I noticed in the ArmA demo was that, to my feeling, the AI was more capable of surprising me regarding the direction they approached my position. A couple of times while playing the demo I was thinking that I am well aware where all the enemy AI soldiers are, but I was wrong. And I liked being wrong! This coin has two sides too.

Did you skip certain parts of my post? Because you missed something very important, I think. Didn't I speak about a tool to convert between binary and XML? I think I did, IF XML is going to be used THEN it would be better to optimize it into binary format for release. There is a significant performance penalty when reading XML instead of binary. My argumentation was an effort to combat that performance penalty, not to prevent you from looking at data files. When I said "secret" I meant that it would not be necessary for other people than BIS to deal with the binary file formats. Because we would have a program to convert between XML and binary formats. It would still be possible to read the binary files too, just like many people have done this far with the many binary data file formats of OFP and ArmA. Encryption? What are you talking about? To my knowledge there is no encryption of game data in the data files of OFP/ArmA, and I think there won't be in ArmA 2 either. Compression exists but that is certainly not comparable to encryption. Also, I think you are totally wrong in the "something is bound to get lost in the process" part. Nothing would be lost because the XML converter tool would know the file formats. If it didn't know the file formats, then your argument would be valid. Think about this for a second time please. I think the word "secret" might have fooled you a little bit, so I'll forgive you for misunderstanding my post. Also, XML would not be used for scripts. That makes no sense. But for storing data. That is a significant difference. Don't worry, nothing that has been suggested of XML or XML<-->binary converter here is going to prevent you from looking at data or from learning.

http://orly.yarly.org/orly.jpeg[/mg] Espectro, so you think it's obvious... well there are apparently a lot of people in the World who do not agree with jaakko's and my opinion about this. I've said that if democracy is that good, then it spreads by itself and does not need to be enforced with violence. Some people like to go around the World and attempt to make other countries 'democratic' no matter what it costs. That kind of behaviour generally in life is arrogant and insulting. But it's practiced and supported by so many, that it certainly is not at all obvious that they agree with what jaakko and I think about it. Please do notice that this is not a comment about democracy being good or bad.

Looks good! Thanks for the news update. No need to hurry, I haven't yet purchased a computer to fulfill ArmA's requirements... it can be played but it's not exactly enjoyable with my current hardware. I will have to update my hardware at least when FDF Mod comes out.

Hello Cobra5000 I don't know if you know this already, but http://www.ofpec.com/ is a very good OFP mission editing website. For example, it is possible to get your mission rigorously beta tested in their forums. Have a look around at OFPEC! If you make your missions OFPEC-proof, then the quality of your missions will surely go up. And, on your question about OFP2: you do realize this forum is wrong place for discussing that game? It's not made by BIS. Why would BIS have a mission editing competition for a game not made by them? You should ask that question in the CodeMasters forum I think. I will take a look at your mission also. Best Regards, Baddo.

Check www.ofpec.com A lot of stuff which applies to OFP, applies to ArmA as well so don't be put off by seeing 'OFP'. Check the Editors Depot at OFPEC and also their forums. They have both OFP & ArmA resources.

I knew someone comes up with what else is realistic. Great job soldier! Not having a gasmask in ArmA 2 will leave out lots of possibilities for scenarios. My arguments have nothing to do with a gasmask being sweet, nice, cool, etc. I'm looking at the functionality of a gasmask, really. And at what interesting scenarios it could make possible to create, even to the official campaign of ArmA 2. Have the campaign designers of ArmA 2 considered having biological/chemical weapon attack at some point of their campaign? Could make for a very interesting campaign, to have part of it fought in NBC equipment. You could simulate what the US military has been fearing to happen in the Gulf War and in the Operation Iraqi Freedom. Make their fears come real in your game.

I only needed a quick look at your photos and I was thinking "Does this guy work as a Automotive/Mechanical Design Engineer?" I was thinking maybe you took models from your workplace If you didn't, then take it as a compliment, you have done quite detailed work. Looks like taken from a CAD program. Take it as a compliment no matter what! I like what I see (I'm used to seeing the CAD screen and mechanical designs). Damn I even think you have realistic radius in some steelplate corners and in some hollow tubes in your model! Hehe, I just can't help it but looks so much like CAD models to me!

Well there will be some way to release toxic gas somewhere, so there will also be a way to detect where it has been released. If you have a moving cloud (as you should) then tracking where most of that cloud is won't be a problem I'm saying. You can have many ways to do that. For Operation Flashpoint such thing was done many years ago. A toxic cloud, if you enter it, you die. If you stay out of it, you survive. I don't know how it was done in that particular case I tested in action, but it worked I can tell you that.

radical.ghost, I wasn't combating anything you have said. HogRoot, I was combating your idea that players being able to adjust their viewdistance in multiplayer is not a problem. It is clearly a problem, that is indisputable. Your talk about hardware isn't relevant. Edit: I think BIS should make setViewDistance only effective when run from the server. Individual viewdistances could be set, for example for pilots, but the command should come from the server and not from the client. It would be up to the mission designers so you could still have what you want.

Yes, yes... many more important things... ...you did notice I was among those who suggested it is easy to add a gasmask to the game? But calling it ridiculous to ask for a gasmask based on facts that it's what soldiers are trained to use, and that it has been in real battle use in recent years... even by the military which is presented in ArmA 1 and will be presented in ArmA 2... I'm sorry I have to disagree with that being ridiculous. A gasmask is standard battle equipment of the army which you will play on ArmA 2.

Well the militaries around the World train their soldiers to use gasmasks! I carried a gasmask with me on every battle exercise I was in. And the gasmasks get used too. I even saw it on (I think unedited) video material from Operation Iraqi Freedom how the Yankee soldiers had their gasmasks on on many occasions. And you know what? The enemy side was a nation! Do you think the US military doesn't have chemical or biological weapons which could be used against enemy troops in battlefield combat? I certainly do not believe that they wouldn't have such weapons. Also I would like to see factual evidence for your argument that terrorists use chem and bio weapons more than nations do... exactly where have such weapons been used and when, by terrorists. Well sarin gas in Japan, I remember that, but where else?

How in the world do you attribute cheating and abuse to raising the viewdistace in a game...unless you just have a crappy video card and your machine cant handle the extra load and your FPS goes down the drain but your using "cheating" and "abuse" as a cover up. Â LOL how pathetic. If people have different viewdistances in a multiplayer session then it is a serious problem! Just try to play a session having lower viewdistance than the other players... you will notice you will lose no matter what you do. If you don't see a problem then... well... I think your viewdistance is too low then Â

As a comment to the speed of motor columns. In FDF we usually had a motor column speed of 60 km/h or 70 km/h depending on the vehicles in the column. This was of course in good roads, not in rough and narrow unsurfaced forest roads. There were no tanks driving in these columns. The tanks were transported over longer distances on trailers or on trains. Over short distances they most often had their own columns with no wheeled vehicles going in the same column (I think this can likely change in wartime so that trucks don't go so much on their own). Some vehicles, like some trailers, have a speed limit of 60 km/h. So that often determined the maximum speed of the whole motor column. Sometimes different motor columns were formed to allow faster vehicles go at their own rate and not be stuck in the 60 km/h limit though. 80 km/h starts to be at the top of the speed range of some of our vehicles, so it was not often used as the ordered speed of a motor column as those vehicles could have trouble keeping up with the faster vehicles. Individually, I sometimes drove as fast as the vehicle could go which was somewhere between 85-100 km/h with the ZIL-131. Depending on the exact truck I had. Some went only 85 km/h, some went faster I think even more than 100 km/h was possible if no uphill and no load onboard. I can tell you that is one hell of a speed with that vehicle! It's scary actually. I once passed a long motor column going at 60 km/h by going flat-out past them in a motorway, and the other trucks were honking, laughing and cheering for me, oh the good times... maybe they didn't believe their eyes, a ZIL going that fast! In off-road I actually seriously struggled once to keep up with BMP's. I was driving my ZIL-131 behind some BMP's, and when we went into a muddy 'tank groove' as we called it, I had to go as fast as I possibly could to keep up with the BMP's. And the speed was low. There I could clearly see what the difference between tracked and wheeled vehicles can be off-road. Okay I stop here so you won't need to hear even more army memories.

I'm just curious, what is the practical problem you are trying to solve with this? Â Or are you just being a 'scientist'.