baddo

Thank you everyone who worked to get this FDF Mod for ArmA done to this level. Your work is very much appreciated. A note to those talking about Queens Gambit. I don't have it yet. I did some small test missions on the new island. I got some error messages, and I guess I was lucky that the game didn't crash. I got to play on the island actually quite a lot without any problems. But when I was flying above the island on a jet, I eventually got a Crash To Desktop. I don't know if it was because of some object was missing but I guess that might very well be the reason. I did not try the campaign yet. Bohemia Interactive will get money soon from me because I will go and buy Queens Gambit. The price for it seems to be 14.95 euros here at a store near me. BIS will need to realize that they are selling Queens Gambit to me now because of this FDF Mod. There was not any sign of me buying Queens Gambit before this, but now that the FDF Mod for ArmA requires it, I will have to buy it. In this case it is very true that the mod makers, such as the FDF Mod team, create income for BIS.

Don't worry about it. Life is too short for worrying about these sorts of things. Just make sure that your own financial survival isn't dependant on things which 'melt' when there is a global financial crisis. Then it's pretty much out of your control so why worry about it.

When viewing the gear selection screen for a soldier, include arrow buttons into the GUI so that we can choose "Next" or "Previous" simply by pressing an arrow in the current screen instead of having to go back and then choose another soldier from the list.

I took a quick look and noticed that there are some texts which are cut off, leaving text out where there should be text. For example a text in one user's signature which is in Finnish and has the 'ä' (a with umlaut) in one word stops where the 'ä' should begin. The rest of the text is missing. Eventually you will have to sort it out as there's also the Czech subforum which also has characters which are not in the basic ASCII character set. You probably knew about this already, didn't you.

I think there is a law at least here that the banks need to keep a certain percentage of money available at the bank in relation to the amount of money people have stored in that bank. So they don't need to have all the money available all the time. I think this isn't even a sensible thing to do. Banks would have huge amounts of cash and for what purpose? All customers of the bank are very unlikely to come to the bank at the same time and demand all their money back. It makes sense to only have as much cash stored at the bank as is needed for the daily operations. It has been said to me many times in a bank that if you want to withdraw or transfer a big amount of money then you should tell us about it a couple of days before. This will allow them to make sure that they actually can do it when I want it happen. Not that I have so big sums that it would matter The same goes for paying off mortgages in advance. They ask to tell them in advance so they can prepare for it. I wouldn't care much about this though, it's their job to arrange it. But in principle, if you sign a mortgage contract, it has certain normal rules of how the mortgage can be paid off and the bank has the upper hand regarding that, because you would be wanting to terminate a contract, a certain payment plan which spans across a certain time, and you need to get the bank to agree that it will be terminated before it would naturally come to an end.

Probably you noticed it but to make sure, my intention was to voice my concern that the label "muslim" is used perhaps too carelessly here. It is like when one Somali refugee here in Finland rapes a woman, people write about it in style "we need to beat the shit out of the somalis" like it's the fault of every Somali immigrant that one of them raped the woman. Why people don't behave like this when a white Finnish man rapes a woman, is a very good question, as those cases are to my understanding much more numerous. I would prefer it not mentioned in the news that it was a Somali man who raped the woman. It does not bear any relevance whether the crime was committed by a white Finnish man or a black Somali man, the crime is the same and there is no need to distinquish between race. Similarly, I would not distinquish terrorists based on their religion as has been done here. They are terrorists to me whatever their religious beliefs are. And further, I decided to write about it here especially because I had not seen anything that confirms that the terrorists in this case are muslims. There is a claim that an islamist group is responsible for the attacks, but it seems that claim has been disputed by various parties so I wouldn't declare widely that they were muslims. The obvious danger for using the word "muslim" in this context is that whenever the general public will hear it, they will go "hey that was something bad wasn't it, terrorists or something, stay out of here you muslims", which is the kind of reaction I don't want to hear especially from the USA after all the PR work done by the USA to create an image of a melting pot and allegedly having a lot of liberty and freedom. To put it short: I don't think the use of the word "muslim" was warranted at this time.

Of course it is evil. So are many other things. Invading Iraq was even more evil, I am sure many think. Which were first, evil muslims or evil christians? General Barron, I was a bit troubled of the fact that you chose to write the word "muslim" into the thread title and into your post. A group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Mujahideen has allegedly claimed responsibility for the attacks, and it is allegedly an "Islamist Terrorist Organization". It is in dispute if such a group carried out the attacks, as you can find out if you follow the link. I was troubled of the word "muslim" because to this moment I have not read anything which would indicate that these terrorist attacks were driven by religion. That's the first reason why I was troubled by your use of that word. For your information, I am an atheist and thus I do not take sides regarding religions. I could understand the association of a religion into these terrorist attacks if there was evidence that their actions were driven by their religion. Currently I have seen nothing which would indicate that. I was wondering if you can educate me on this. Perhaps their actions were driven by politics? Or perhaps by religion? Or all sorts of things combined, including the two mentioned. Then there is another reason why I was troubled by the word "muslim". Should we call them by their religion? Perhaps in some cases, yes. Where does the line go when we should start calling them by their religion and when we shouldn't? If a group of Christians commits a terrorist attack, and they are known to belong to a Church and we know that they were actively practicing their religion, should we call them "Christian terrorists?" That would be right, wouldn't it. I certainly condemn the terrorist attacks. I always do. I'll say put two armies fighting against each other and I'll say it is as fair as it can get. But these sort of attacks are far from being fair. Thanks, and best wishes, Baddo.

Well, I have not been happy with our President here in Finland. I would not have wanted her to be elected for a second term after I learned some things about her past and after I saw what kind of things she thinks as important to accomplish (for our nation). But there was actually nothing I could change about it, enough people wanted her to continue and I have accepted that. I don't feel that I am oppressed in any way even though I don't like many of our President's opinions on some very important issues. Many other people learned the same things about her and unpleasant writings started to appear in newspapers, saying "had I known" type of things, suggesting that these people voted for her but realized their mistake after the elections. They had not studied the backgrounds of the candidate and only after the mainstream media had revealed some facts about her, they realized "wait, that's not who I wanted to vote!" Some of the things not in her favour in the modern-day Finland are tens of years old so it's not like people didn't have enough time to read about her. The same things still can be seen in her politics today, she has demonstrated it in practice many times and then people started to think, "wait, what is she thinking, which side is she taking?" A lot of the blame for uneducated votes goes to the general "It is your responsibility to vote!" atmosphere which is driven strongly by the mainstream media. Because of that atmosphere people feel guilty if they don't vote and then they just pick someone they already know, someone "safe", or someone else who is popular for one reason or other. Background research of the candidates is not done and people just feel better that they have done their "responsibility" so they don't feel so guilty. Like just voting for someone takes the guilt away from their shoulders, but I don't think it's that simple. I think the people who vote like that are much worse than those who decide not to vote after doing some research on the candidates. At least the ones who decide not to vote based on at least some research other than watching news from television or reading their daily newspaper. According to my experience doing that is clearly not sufficient to get a good understanding of what the candidates really represent and what their values are. This is democracy. People vote and a President gets elected. And that's fine. I am not so radical that I would, because of the things our President has done and said as President and before that, to demand her to be removed from the job. It's not that serious. We have disagreements but as long as it's not really seriously crossing my moral values and other values, I have no reason to feel oppressed or to feel that the President should be removed from her job (before her term ends, I mean). I think the same mechanics work in the U.S. Presidential elections as well. People don't generally pay much attention to who they are voting for. The mainstream media has a lot of influence in who gets a lot of votes and who doesn't. They have too much influence but that is not the fault of the media, it is the fault of the voters who do not bother to do some research on their own and making an educated decision instead of just watching television news and reading their daily newspaper. Examples of someone "safe" in the USA are G.W.B. and in Finland as well our current President. Both were "safe" choices for the second terms. Both were elected for their second terms. I personally think that G.W.B. together with his administration has done more damage to the USA than Al-Qaeda ever can. And I was thinking so before he was elected for the second term. So I clearly think it wasn't at all a smart choice by you to give him his second term in the Presidential office. In Finland, things are not so serious and big as there in the "big world" as we like to call it. Just some small things our tiny nation thinks are important. But anyways, it was "safe" to let her continue as the President even though a lot of people here do not associate at all with her ideologies of the past and of today. I can very much agree with General Barron that "government is the only organization in the world that can legally FORCE you to do something against your will. We should be a lot more careful about how we use that force then we currently are." Indeed, be more careful and don't let people like G.W.B. or the ones serving as his closest advisers ever again into the White House. Meanwhile, I will do my best here and try to make sure that people like our current President are never again elected to serve as our President. I remind, what they have done wrong in my opinion are not at all comparable, I could even go as far and say "G.W.B. should be charged" while I can never say that about my President, but that's not relevant, the point is that people with ideologies which are not serving our countries well have been elected and should not be again.

It is good to know that progress has been made. Take your time. I'll be lurking somewhere and downloading it soon after release. It doesn't matter to me if it still takes a good amount of time to get it released. Thanks all who have been working to get FDF Mod into Armed Assault. It is very important work and I am absolutely sure there are a lot of people who feel the same.

Thank you for the video. Nicely, you are not politically hypocritical and you have placed the location of the crisis thereabouts where it belongs on the real map.

Well, it's the right way to go, let them do the tests.

I can very well understand that if some women don't pass a physical test, then they don't pass it. But it should be the same for men and women. If they don't pass a test, they don't pass it. If they pass it, then fine, they can join. A lot of comments here sound like "women can't do that because they just can't do that." You shouldn't exclude people from a job based on some assumption like that their upper body strength is not enough. You need to measure that per each individual before you decide if they can join or not. If the commanders of the units say "women can't pass the tests", well, there is an easy way to find out if they actually do or don't: let them do to the tests. Don't exclude them before they have gotten to show what they can do. If only 1 woman out of 10 women passes the test, compared to 9 men out of 10 men passes the test, then I think justice served, everyone happy, at least everyone got a chance to show what they can do.

Sissi/recon and ever mighty PST (=antitank) do not take women as far as i can tell, if standarts havent' changed in last few years. These both training branches are pretty regular and big. Reason is because of over 40-50 kilograms of stuff they are carrying regulary. It's something average woman body (back in particularry) just can't take, they lack alot of strenght from upper body compared to men (like 60% if i remember correct, in lower body i think it was only about 10%). This was explanation given to me at my time. Sure some bodybuilder could be different, but FDF isn't most flexible with these things. Also i'd guess artillery isn't taking much women to handling guns as i've heard that even men's backs are in hard stress during service. If you go read from http://www.mil.fi/varusmies/naiset.dsp that clearly says that there is no such separation. It clearly says "Every job possible" for women. If some unit categorically excludes women just because they are women, that is not following the official line of the military. I saw many relatively weak men at the Anti-tank Company. I cannot understand how a fit woman could not fit to that group. There was no women in that Company while I was at that Brigade, though. The women I saw at the Armoured Brigade were at an Armoured Jaeger Company and I think some were at a tank company. The biggest guy at the Anti-Tank Company was a bit crazy half-German who was carrying big weapons (PKM + APILAS and a bunch of other stuff...) but he was really strong and I would not put a woman or myself to carry the same amount of stuff. But most jobs in that Company are jobs which a woman can do as well.

In Finland the men have compulsory military service (can be done as civil alternative service at least during peacetime, but that option isn't popular), women don't. But the women are allowed to do the military service if they want and if the military sees nothing to stop that (same with men of course). The women I saw in the military were more motivated than most men. That likely has something to do with them joining voluntarily, when the men are required by law to do service. Most of the women I saw were trained to be group leaders. And while watching them do just that, I noticed no problems. Maybe they could have raised their voice a little bit more, but otherwise they were very good, very calm and organized. I would say not many of the women I saw had problems with physical strength. Sure, some of them had serious problems with coping with the physical demands, but so did some men have serious problems. I would advice those who try to play down women in military tone it down. There is no job in the military a fit woman could not do as well as most of the men. Tasks which require a lot of physical strength are the ones in which they can have the most difficulties, but these tasks are very rare according to my experience.

Cassie, I support this idea.

Did you submit it to http://www.ofpec.com/ ? Please do if you didn't yet! They can store it for you. They will also do some quality control.

I don't know what the reason will be. I'll wait after it has been published and plenty of people have reported here how well it is working. If I see the Troubleshooting board get flooded again, then I might have to postpone the purchase further, which in fact could result in me not buying the product at all, if I happen to completely lose interest in playing computer games. But let's see what they publish. I would have to buy new hardware, and I have been quite resistant to that idea for years now. Let's see if ArmA II is the thing that forces me to buy new hardware. It's a good example of how the software and hardware sales are tied together.

Yes, yes. I added this wish into the http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Wish_List#Commands some time last year. and I think it should be added to the ArmA II. It doesn't sound like a major change into anything, just a function which returns a value, nothing more. The benefit, as I was thinking at the time when I added it to the Biki Wish List, was that it would be much easier to write scripts which take the current viewdistance into account without having to set the viewdistance (then it would be known). It may not be appropriate to set it, so we would need this function to just ask what the existing value is.

A guide dog to help the soldiers find their way.

Illegally? What's that bullshit. The USSR did the right thing when it attacked mannerheimist Finland to secure Leningrad, and then some years later defeated the nazi-collaborators there. The finns refused to cooperate, so the USSR had to take what was needed by force. I wonder what the finns did to tens of thousands of people in their civil war? And how they treated prisoners, and how the country was infested by pro-fascist capitalism. I'm now totally convinced that you are a complete idiot. I really tried to avoid calling you an idiot, but now it can't be avoided anymore - you certainly are worth it with your continuous excellence at writing idiotic comments. What the international community declared as an illegal attack, you call it bullshit. All the theater the USSR arranged which lead to the war did not help to fool others (maybe people like you were fooled, though), it was certainly an illegal attack and the international community saw it as such. Then what happened in the Continuation War was a direct consequence of the Winter War. Do you not see the link? And who are we going to ally with, if our enemy is an "allied" USSR? We can't ally with the "allied", if one of the "allied" is our enemy number one which attacked us in the first place. Is this hard to understand? For you it seems to be very hard to understand. I don't have to and I am not going to apologize to anyone that the Whites of Finland killed some of the Reds who started a violent war against their own countrymen. If you don't want to get shot by your own countrymen, then don't start a war against them. It is as simple as that. No, spreading socialism is not an acceptable reason for starting a war. Spreading socialism has to be done peacefully, then it has a much greater chance to succeed, don't you think. Does it make you that angry when someone calls an attack made by the Soviet Union illegal? That is what ticks you off? You have to argue against even the most obvious things? Is your life so pathetic?

Maybe. If they were not planned to be in the game, then you shouldn't be surprised if they are not in the published game. And I think this thread is not a "suggest a load of new features" place.

Well, I think what you brought up here in this thread should be at the Suggestions board instead. You are opening a huge can of worms with your posts. It should be done elsewhere than in a thread which is meant to discuss what is shown at a games conference. Now that you are seeing in-game videos and the release date of the game is supposedly close, it is perhaps not sensible to start suggesting a whole load of new features that should go into this product. I would say you are late with your suggestions. And you don't even know what exact features are in the product. The talk about the shininess of the vehicles is not late at all because it is relatively easy and fast to adjust. Thus, to me, it makes more sense to discuss that in this thread than to discuss a load of features which would likely delay the release of the product maybe even by months or by a year or more. If the features you would like to see are not already in the game, then I doubt very much that you will see them in the game when it is published.

"why not use something like pastebin?" Well I'm sure you can use pastebin if you want to. Another improvement to the code blocks would be syntax highlighting. There are existing solutions for that and I believe for example a C++ syntax highlighting rule file can be easily modified to suite the BIS scripting language (I've done it for a text editor and it took maybe 30 minutes max.)

For Finland this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terijoki_Government puppet of the USSR was created when they totally illegally attacked us in 1939. It has to be noticed that the creation of this puppet government happened at the same time with the start of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War What a nice coincidence! It was the government the USSR recognized as the 'official' government of Finland. They created it and then said it is the official government of Finland. So when they started to think they maybe don't win the war they quickly forgot about this 'official' government of Finland and signed a peace with the *real* government of Finland. What a joke! They created a puppet government so they could have a government in Finland which agrees with them and wants to join them. And then they refused to negotiate with the real government of Finland. Of course the real government of Finland was unsuitable for the negotiations because they didn't want to join the USSR or give a lot of land to them. So that real government was simply not recognized by the USSR. A simple way to solve a problem: don't even recognize the other side of the argument. Which didn't work in the case of Finland, because we had just enough resources and manpower to fight back for just long enough, unlike the Baltic states whose very unfortunate fate was to be swallowed by the USSR. That's how the Soviets behaved in the WW II. If Finland would have lost its independence to the USSR in the WW II, Spokesperson could argue here that Finland joined voluntarily the USSR because that is what the puppet government wanted. "The people of Finland" wanted to join voluntarily because that's what the USSR propaganda machine was saying. Here in Finland opinions have been presented in our newspapers that what Russia is doing politically now, isn't actually far from what the Soviet Union did in the WW II. They are using the same strategies, are said. It is not a surprise to me that the Estonians think the same. They have the same reasons as we do. Estonians referred to the Shelling of Mainila http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila when they saw what happened between Georgia and Russia. Think about it, seriously. I would not be surprised at all if about the same thing happened this year between Georgia and Russia.

In your dreams they joined voluntarily.