baddo

I would say it is an image from the Cold War Rearmed (CWR) project. Edit: Biki Recent changes by a CWR team member:

Benchmark results?

They were on international airspace so I don't see a problem in that. Surely UK, USA and others like to fly in their military planes in international airspace too? Different matter is when they come to your airspace, your territory. That's what they have done here. I must clarify my previous post that I don't have a problem with Russia as long as they stay out of our territory (the same goes for the USA and others too). A fact is Russia has failed to stay out of our territory on too many occasions. I think that is much more worrying and much more provocative than if they fly in international airspace close to your country.

Hehehe, well well well... Here in the countries close to Russia it is, I think, a normal procedure for the Russians to try to scare us with their military airplanes. Maybe they want to silence their critics in our political field or something like that. They have flewn into our airspace way too many times, and even during peacetime! I think they pretented at some point that they made errors but honestly, I don't think so. It's happened too many times to be an error. If you make it once I can believe it was an error but if you make it twice or more, I think you are either not suitable for flying an airplane or you did it on purpose (I believe the Russian pilots know how to fly). Estonia has experienced this same thing too, Russian military airplanes in their territory and certainly not invited. For example such an incident close to the moment when Estonia joined NATO. Russians didn't fly into their territory on purpose? Haha yeah right... I've heard a story from a reliable source (border guard) that the Russians have done "practice runs" with fighter jets towards our border in larger formations, which naturally alerts our border guards and airforce. It must be quite an exciting job to watch the airplanes on the radar to come directly towards our border, then turn back in the last moments. Maybe some time they will not turn back and oh boys will that be a bad day for every single one of us... not again I say. BUT there is the other side of the coin! Russia spreading its wings now is a natural consequence of what the USA has been doing. And I think it's needed! Unfortunately. If the USA is expanding its area of military influence, then it is only normal that someone is doing "countermeasures" to have some kind of balance. I must say I don't like the idea of USA expanding its military influence into every damn village (same goes for Russia of course). The closer USA gets to Russia, the more the danger of a war breaking out increases. If you don't see that threat coming then you must be blind. This game might be played between a few bigger nations, but there is a lot more than their pride at stake. If you piss Russia off and a war breaks out, you will effectively draw Finland into the conflict and I am not going to thank you for doing that (I haven't thanked Hitler & Stalin either for playing their little game).

Yes I agree. Well that would be a "convenience" function, as you can, with the currently existing functions, accomplish the same task, so BIS decided they will not make such "convenience" function for you but rather let you write it yourself. weedomatic, yes I know what you said can be true. I also say again that benchmark results would be nice to see as we, in my humble opinion, can not say which method is more efficient if we haven't benchmarked both. I will refuse to guess such things. And about what is "simple" code. When we go to a higher-level language, the language is supposed to do more for us and reduce the amount of code we need to write by ourselfs. Using format to compare arrays is one such case where the amount of code we write can be reduced (let others write the code and maintain it for us).

Well that is exactly what I did many times (after the first attempt in which the waypoints and objectives ticked off in wrong order, making sure the mission was impossible to complete, and I say again I don't take the blame for it), but no success and it annoyed the hell out of me as I saw no way I could have done it any faster. This was with the initial 505 release. I'm not sure if my nerves are ready for one more try yet... Maybe some medication is needed in order to ensure I don't break anything valuable if the mission yet again fails.

Well I think the number of code lines you need to write in order to accomplish something has quite a lot of significance. In other words, the simpler the better. It would be nice to see actual benchmark results by the way. Might do that myself but I don't promise anything.

Yeah I know This has to be the worst mission I have played of the official ArmA missions. I played it many times and everytime it failed. The mission failed, not me. At first the objectives of course went wrong, so did the waypoints. And I certainly don't take the blame for that. After some more tries I got the squad into my truck but really, it was impossible to make it back in time. And there really wasn't any way to drive the truck on the road any faster than I did. I was looking for shortcuts too but there really wasn't good spots to win time by going shortcuts. With a clean, fast drive to the squad, and right away fast as possible back, I was no where near finishing the mission when the time ran out. I came to a conclusion that I will never play this mission again. One thing is clear after playing this mission. Putting waypoints for a player unit must be done extremely carefully by the mission designer, or the result is missions like this. I'd rather not put waypoints for player units at all.

For not too big arrays, you could use the format command to help you compare an array to a string or to another array. Example condition taken from my buildingPosCount function (can be found from www.ofpec.com): <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">format ["%1", _this buildingPos _i] != "[0,0,0]" The _this buildingPos _i returns a position array, which is then converted into a string with format and then compared against an array [0,0,0] which is already in string form. You could construct both sides of the condition statement with format if needed. Note: at least in OFP, if the array was too big, OFP would crash to desktop. But for small arrays like in the example I gave, its very easy and short way to compare arrays.

Can you not collect the logic objects dynamically? Wouldn't that effectively remove the need to name the logics? Aren't there commands in the ArmA scripting language to get at the logic objects dynamically.

Hehe, well there might be some truth in your words. But that's not all. I know one thing the AI does not do a good job with the tanks. I tried to place a BMP into a nice position, a bit hidden between a building and a tree. The idea was that enemy troops will not see the tank from the road coming to the building, and also that the tank would be covered from other direction by the tree. Well the result in the mission was that right after the waypoint triggered for the tank crew, they rammed the tank into the building, and the tank was stuck in their for quite a long time. After I tried this many times and seeing the tank crew do that almost everytime, I finally gave up and placed the tank in another position where there were more space to other objects. If only the tank crew would have driven forwards right from the start, they would have gotten out of their hiding place without hitting anything. But no, they instead decided to turn the tank right into the building, and got stuck there... it looks bad as the AI algorithm obviously lets the tank be stuck for some time before giving it an order to try another route. A tank shaking against a building doesn't look too good I think. I have to say in infantry AI there are certainly improvements over Operation Flashpoint (more flanking, better use of cover, AI infantry can surprise me more in ArmA than in OFP with the default functionalities). About the vehicle AI I am not sure, I have to play more to make a judgement. It's the problem of not having human brains, eyes and all else that you know, those that make you better than a machine. Rise of the Robots will in my opinion never happen as I think a machine will never be able to be as smart or smarter than its creator.

So Intel Threading Building Blocks is The Magic Bullet for multi-threaded programming? It's suddenly easy?

Take a deep breath now Show the error message you get when ArmA crashes. Make sure you have read through http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Troubleshooting and see if there is any help to your problem.

Balschoiw I recommend you try a different model. The SpaceNavigator is small in size and I prefer a bigger one. I think a device which fits better into the size of my hand is much better, so that it gives good rest to my hand. For example an older Cyberpuck is more ergonomic in my opinion: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpuck http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/4297 I think a 3D nav. device has good potential in being used in games, I would (probably) love it if I had that kind of controller for game characters. With that kind of analog accuracy and ergonomics there is a whole lot of potential to improve from the traditional keyboard + mouse. It is really the ergonomics that I appreciate the most about in the 3D navigation devices. For example controlling a helicopter in ArmA could be very convenient with a 3D nav. device. You would then have everything needed to manouver the helicopter in one very ergonomic device. Best Regards, Baddo.

Not suitable for gaming as the hand tires pretty fast. Do you have experience with these devices? I know for sure that using only a keyboard + mouse is a lot more stressfull for my hands than using a 3D navigation device, when used with 3D-modelling applications. I don't see why this would change when used in a game. It is an ideal device for controlling a 3D world, I already suggested some time ago that BIS could integrate support for these devices into their own 3D modelling program, and this could work well in the world editor program too. The 3dconnexion Software Development Kit is free. I think the 3D nav. device which is small in size is not as good as one of bigger size, key thing is it should support your hand so that you don't have to use your fingertips to control the device. So my recommendation is to not buy the smallest one of the devices, but a bigger one.

Overheating graphics card. I have a 6600 GT and it overheats after playing ArmA for some time. Well I don't know what is supposed to be too high temperature on a graphics card (nvidia panel has alarm thresold at 127 deg Celcius as default, my problems start when the temperature goes to something like 75-80), but arranging extra cooling prevents problems like this appearing on my computer so... make your own conclusion from that.

I have to say I have been thinking about this long time already after purchasing and playing ArmA. If I were a game developer, I would put effort into making sure that a player's in-game character stops and doesn't walk forward when the player releases the key to walk forward. And I don't mean to ignore the laws of physics, I mean when a brain says "stop" then the "muscles" should do something about it. I said earlier in this thread: can I not cancel a step? Can I not pull my leg back when I was going to take a step forward, but decided to cancel it? Oh yes I can. In ArmA the game decides to force me take the full step and maybe one full step more before the character stops. The connection with the "brain" and the "muscles" is just too slow in ArmA. The in-game character should feel to me like I am one with it, with the kind of character control and animations I have in ArmA it is far from that. I can adjust the control parameters in ArmA settings but this far I haven't found settings which fixes the problem. Feel free to give guidance on the optimal control settings.

Oh yes I complained about the animations too, and I am not a CTF fan. I complained about the inaccuracy of movement. That disturbs me more than slow animations.

Well display drivers are multi-threaded. So from there should come some benefit from using a multi-core processor. Also how about other running processes which also need a processor core to run on? Like the operating system processes for starters.

I just got an idea for the CTF fans out there. If the ArmA animations are not now, and are not changing into what you would like to see, then the CTF missions need to adjust to the situation. There is room for more creativity.

I didn't say you said IT WORKS Â Â where did you get the idea that I said so? Don't answer. And I think the U.S. actually IS naive when asking U.N. to do something in Iraq, like let the U.N. to do something but still keep the U.S. in the lead of the whole operation. Impossible situation, I think that's not going to work. At least not if the U.S., as I already said, doesn't apologize what they have done. THEN it might be different. USA insulted those same nations in the U.N. and now those nations should in the name of the U.N. come and help, and even pay for it? The U.S. MUST give something very valuable in return, definitely. It's them who started it, it's them who created the whole damn mess. THEY are responsible for this whole situation, NOT the Iraqis, not the other nations in U.N.! Not Al-Qaeda, not Osama, this whole Iraq war was started by the USA! Argh!

That's a bug I think. Check ArmA community bugtracker and you should find a bugreport about it. It was fixed in some version.

Expansion pack, just. That is some talk only, not evidence of what will really be in Queen's Gambit... the evidence is seen when I have the Queen's Gambit here and can taste it, feel it, play it.

I didn't say I expect U.N. to take control of Iraq. I said I am afraid that it will happen, as I don't think the U.S. is capable of handling the situation in Iraq, at least not with the current leaders they have. My country belongs to the U.N. and at that point the whole crisis would become too much my business already, even if no our troops would be there. It was the U.S. who brought up that the U.N. should have a bigger role in Iraq, not me. So they already realized what kind of hopeless mess they created, and are looking for a way out of it, there is no doubt about that. I do believe that G.W.B. and his administration are really thinking how to get out of Iraq. Now, when they go and ask the U.N. to do something, that annoys the hell out of me. It may turn out that it is the U.N. who can solve the situation into better, I am absolutely certain it won't be the U.S. who makes the situation better, so it must be someone else. Problem is, the U.S. is not willing to give up the control of Iraq, but would like someone to clean up their mess for them. I personally have a big problem with this, and, don't you get me wrong now, I really, really want the U.S. to clean up the mess, not anyone else! But one thing is a fact. How they are currently doing it doesn't work! Read my lips: DOESN'T WORK! That's what I am trying to message, the problem is, what they are doing is wrong. I am certain the U.N. could do a much better job in reconstruction and humanitarian aid. The U.N. could do a much better job in making sure the Iraqi people feel better. It is for sure not the U.S. military which is going to make anyone feel better. If only they would understand, it is a killing machine and not a reconstruction/democracy tool. Showing people big weapons is not going to make them feel better. Showing people big weapons is not going to make them want democracy.

hmm little offtopic but on the site; 2 x 768MB GDDR3 dedicated video memory... Isn't this wrong. I always thought only first card was used for VRAM.. :P To my understanding in Nvidia SLI the video memory of both cards are used, but the same data is copied to both of the cards, this means that the amount of data that can be stored in the video cards can be no more than what fits into one card. Don't take my word on it, head over to http://developer.nvidia.com/ and read about it yourself.