baddo

Click 'Advanced' ...is that enough for you?

I would put my thumbs up for BIS developers if they took the time to write the limits for 3D modelling and texturing into a nice little document, which would then be published for everyone to read. There is even community.bistudio.com ready for publishing... I couldn't find anything relating to model size, except some polygon/vertex limit talk from the OFP modelling article, from the Biki, but that's hardly enough. Anyone who knows well the limits in OFP & ArmA could write a Biki article? Please. It <s>could</s> should be a separate page only for this information.

The rest of the txt says it was a 4 wheel drive...so how can it be a tank? And I posted this image....why did my post get deleted? Read again please... you obviously missed something

Interesting building... I remember some ArmA developer (Suma?) saying objects shouldn't exceed 50x50x50 meters? And what is the 64 m limit Bracken is talking about? Is it a more accurate value. I would be interested to hear what causes this limitation. And what exactly happens when it is exceeded. I have been thinking of modelling large buildings so this information could be useful to me.

Well there is a legendary story circulating in an Armoured Brigade in Finland that in some Winter, a tank was lost into the woods in a training area. What happened, as I was told: 1) Tank crew parked their tank into a forest and camouflaged it as per instructions. 2) Tank crew went into their tent to sleep, some distance away from the tank (we never slept right next to our vehicles, it's a security consideration: if our stuff is close together and an enemy sees the vehicles or the tents, he has found everything we have which is of course not good, so we keep some distance). 3) It snowed heavily during the night. 4) In the morning the tank crew could not find their tank anymore... I can believe this as a true story. Especially if the crew parked their tank when it was already dark, which is very likely as it always was so when we were in training camps... If it snows like it does sometimes here, it is very possible that objects even as big as a tank will get lost, especially if you made sure it is "hidden from the enemy" as instructed on battle training excercises (whenever a vehicle is parked, it is covered as soon as possible if the "heat" is on). It must have been quite embarrassing to report it to an officer... Uum Sir, we lost a tank, Sir?! I had sometimes a bit similar problems with my combat belt... we couldn't keep them in the tents so if it snowed a lot... it was fun (yes I laughed I had such a good time) to start looking for it as it was frozen to the ground outside the tent and covered with snow. The eating kit was frozen too, so it was fun to start eating. The food which was put to the kit froze soon so you better eat fast! I'm talking about -35 degrees Celcius temperatures now. But I had fun doing it believe it or not.

Hmhmh, yes I'm happy to have these addons... I was pointing out an inconsistency in your work, nothing else. I mean at least get the name right Next step for ArmA community would be to get this http://tietokannat.mil.fi/maavoim....dth=640 into ArmA. By the way notice the trousers and jackets of the men in the picture: they are all white.

Can you point to a reason why?

Well I was thinking about the too visual LOD switching problem too. I was thinking maybe it would be possible to switch it off completely when the player is zooming with a weapon? If you zoom only a little bit, such as it is with most weapons, and not by miles, and you have limited area visible to you, then would it hurt performance much if the LOD switching would be completely off when zooming? An alternative to this would be have much more level-of-details, to make the change from one LOD to the next so small it wouldn't be noticed. But this doesn't sound practical and would probably be much more work (and would increase the size of the models and total effect could be just too much) than to just switch the LOD switching off when zooming.

Thanks for this thread. I am also considering buying a console - never had one but played games on the Playstations 1 & 2 and on the old XBox (edit: oops, almost forgot, the old Nintendo!. I started to realize that the PC platform is so full of disgusting, stupid, totally unnecessary problems (reference: ArmA Troubleshooting forum and actually almost the whole Internet). Thus a console started to sound like exactly what I could need... when it's about relaxing and having fun, finetuning/troubleshooting/updating a PC is hardly what is needed. It would probably be the XBox 360 for me. But I'll wait a bit into next year and see what comes.

Wolle, yeah I had a feeling that teamswitch could be a problem... I haven't checked how the mission looks from inside, but I have a feeling that the mission expects some certain unit to be the player (the unit which starts the mission as the player obviously) and when that unit is no more, then the mission doesn't work properly anymore. But I didn't look more into this and this is speculation only. It seems that people often have trouble getting the command line arguments right to start ArmA. I recommend you make your ArmA life easier and use a tool such as ArmA Launcher by Kegetys. Other similar tools exist too, but this is one I noticed does the job and is no more complicated than is required. You can get ArmA Launcher from http://www.kegetys.net/arma/ I also recommend that people arrange their various mod folders into one subfolder of the ArmA directory. On my computer this is: D:\Games\ArmA\@mods Then in that folder I have subfolders for each mod: @mods\FDF_Sounds\AddOns @mods\misc\AddOns @mods\cwr\AddOns @mods\cwraddons\AddOns @mods\bw_flecktarn\AddOns @mods\SpectatingScript\AddOns etc... Makes it easier to enable/disable certain addons when you put them into their own folders, and tidier to have them not clutter the ArmA root folder. Then use a tool like ArmA Launcher to choose which addons you load for a particular session (for multiplayer only those which are allowed by the server you play in). The executable installers which some mods have, such as the CWR, get slightly in the way of this kind of scheme though...

I did 1 teamswitch during the mission which didn't end properly. In case that has any chance to mess things up. Also only 2 of our team were alive in the end. I will have to test it again a few times to see if I get it again...

Yes I used the "fixed" version of Skirmish, I installed it before even starting CWR for the first time. Well good if you are already aware of the 3rd person view problem... I'll do some more testing, but I'm 100 % sure I couldn't rotate it in T-72 in a couple of different situations in my first testing session.

Thanks! This is great! Some problems I noticed after quick testing: - In Skirmish mission: helicopter went some way, then stopped before a mountain. And stayed there until I exited the mission, and even though I did my part, the mission was of course left uncompleted. - Can't rotate 3rd person view when using T-72 (at least not with the mouse). - I noticed recoil is very low at least on PKM? Didn't do extensive testing but it caught my attention quite soon. Also the AK the same thing I think. I don't know if this is done on purpose or is it unintentional, but in a quick test it's something I found to be a bit odd. Maybe worth investigating if your recoil values are ok. Or is it because of patch 1.09? I haven't tested 1.09 other than with CWR. Otherwise, I need to say I really like the way the Malden and its grass looks. It's very ok compared to the original OFP Malden, which I never learnt to like. Best Regards, Baddo.

Do you call it Winter Kolgujev or Winter Kolgujew? I think it makes a difference, and should be clarified and fixed to be consistently called in your own documentation and configuration.

It's a beta patch, that's why. And it was only just released, give people time to react.

I have just one hope to the CWR team: don't rush with the release!

Nice! I too have a foggy memory of seeing this earlier... can't remember when. But it's a well-done short film, original to say the least. yeah there seems to be quite a lot of staff behind it if you read the credits at the end... a couple of commercial companies also listed there. Hyvvee Joulua!

Notice that I just edited the code; I copy&pasted at first the same parenthesis error into my code. But is now fixed.

You will have to figure out a way to add the eventhandlers for each crew member as well. In fact, let's see if you can do it on your own... Â Edit: oh well I will give you something... I'm not 100 % sure if this works, but it is in the direction at least... add it to the vehicle's initialization field: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">this addeventhandler ["dammaged",{(_this select 0) setdamage 0}]; this addeventhandler ["hit",{(_this select 0) setdamage 0}];{_x addEventHandler["dammaged",{(_this select 0) setdamage 0}];_x addEventHandler["hit",{(_this select 0) setdamage 0}];} forEach (crew this); Note: this piece of script requires that the crew of the vehicle is in the vehicle right at the start of the mission. If they are not, but are outside, then you can just add to the initialization field of each individual unit the same as you gave to the vehicle: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">this addeventhandler ["dammaged",{(_this select 0) setdamage 0}]; this addeventhandler ["hit",{(_this select 0) setdamage 0}];

The number of parenthesis is wrong, already in Gaia's example... take the last ) away from both eventhandlers.

What sales figures? Where? I am not taking part in the argument between you two. But it would be great if you could point me to The sales figures. I can see some ratings at amazon.com but that is totally insufficient to know anything about ArmA's sales figures.

This has crossed my mind too, and my conclusion was that it would require quite a lot of programming/hacking to get it done. I was thinking, for example, there could be a Command Panel touch-screen which you would use to control your troops. Maybe you could drag soldiers/groups on a map by your finger "you go there". But is this worth to implement by BIS, how can they justify it as a business decision, when we can make a good guess that most of the people who have ArmA and are quite certainly going to buy ArmA II, will never buy a touch-screen for a single computer game. So it would have to be done by some user, like you Start hacking already

I even go as far and say, it's not a bug! I think it is a feature. I find it bad too. BIS, consider dedicating some time for reducing this visual problem in your future releases.

Well in shooting range holding breath helps to stabilize and to keep position of the weapon after a shot has been fired. But I think in battle exercises this wasn't done... there's just too much other things to worry about. Like not getting shot etc., plus changing positions often don't really fit well together with holding breath.

Keep your head down. Do not stay for long in the same position if you revealed yourself. If you play as a team leader, with AI group members, you will need to give lots of commands for your teammates or you will not have an effective team (most of your team usually dies soon into a mission if you don't take care of them). Take lots of time practicing how to command your team. How to position them, how to give them targets, and when to give them the order to fire. Yup you told them not to, didn't you. If you see an enemy team in the other side of a field, if you need to take them out then best is to use all your team's firepower. This means you will need to give each of your men targets, and only once everyone is ready to begin shooting, give everyone order to fire. That way you will be effective against enemy groups with AI teammates.