baddo

"||" and "OR" both work... initialize your boolean variables in init.sqs/init.sqf and try again (like set them to false for example).

Get it already.

Well I think not all is in your hands. This thing called "internet" is such a beast that it's not necessarily your wire that is not working. You could try playing on other servers and see if you still get the same message in the same manner. Edit: Oops yes you said you have tried many servers... well all I know is I haven't had such a problem with Armed Assault. I won't play on high ping servers.

Well it crashed quite soon after starting a mission, just like the previous beta patch did. Only a few minutes of play and a crash.

To this date, the only good show I have seen in the contest was last year's Hard Rock Hallelujah. It was exactly what the contest needed, to be shaken up. This year it seemed to be back to the normal routine. Thanks for the video GranQ.

Well it was a disappointment for me to notice that Armed Assault doesn't provide string manipulation functions for us as found in for example C/C++. There must be some good reason for BIS to not include such functions. If it is purely a business decision then it is okay for me. If the reason is technical then I'd like to hear it from BIS. If the reason is performance problems then I say leave it to mission designers to decide if their mission is too heavy or not. An ugly hack is really just that, an ugly hack which might or might not work in future versions.

Just make sure you don't ban people based on guesses. "It feels... it feels to me like... this ID has to be pirated! BURN IN HELL YOU SCUMBAG! *BAN*" And at the other end of the line, little Mary, 5 and still wearing diapers, starts to cry as her legal copy of Armed Assault just became impossible to use on her favourite server. Do you feel better now? What?

Maybe the Artificial Intelligence gets in your way. You are asking the Artificial Intelligence to do something. It may or may not obey your wish exactly like you want.

william1, I am not trying to imply that you do a bad job when you edit your mission. But even if you make changes to your mission in very small steps, it doesn't in any way guarantee that your mission has no technical or logical errors. I am saying we should see what you are trying to do and how you have tried to do it before we can jump to any kind of conclusions. It is likely that if your CPU is in flames then an error is more than likely. But in my opinion this kind of speculation (not based on facts about your mission) does not help you in determining what is the cause of your problems. What are your problems? We still haven't heard what exactly is going wrong in your script. It can even be a bug in Armed Assault believe it or not. The problem of AI units not continuing on their waypoints has been discussed here already, I have even seen it many times in a mission I am creating. I would say that it is either a bug in Armed Assault or something in the AI system has changed since OFP and we do not understand how to use the new system to achieve the same result as in OFP. This problem for sure is not caused by high CPU load.

I can sign these experiences. At first try the mission didn't seem to go onwards from some point and I gave up playing the campaign for some time, maybe even patched the game before attempting this mission again. At second try it worked. I can't say what were the version numbers of ArmA when I played this mission.

In my opinion it is more likely that the mission has some technical or logical errors. When you increase the amount of waypoints, triggers, scripts, etc. in your mission then it is quite likely that you make an error at some point. A small mission is easy to get right. We should see what he is trying to do and how before saying what is wrong.

Well... showing the script could help people to help you out. Otherwise it is difficult to say anything about your problem.

An enemy group is supposed to say something when they encounter the player's group. The player's group is just supposed to hear what the other group says. So I would say, the logic here is not correct as you are trying to make the target group also say something when they shouldn't. Do you want to change this logic somehow? This comment from the top of my head without looking at the original OFP Group Link II scripts. If you want different logic than how it is in OFP GL II then there is not much I can say to this (too little information from your side).

Just disable the signatures already

I think he wants to have them targeting but not firing. A friend or a captive won't do that and that must be vilas' problem.

If you are scripting for single player, then the publicVariable is completely unnecessary. It broadcasts the variable over network to other computers in a multiplayer session. To get terms straight, a type of a variable is not one of public, global or local. A type of a variable is for example boolean, array, float and so on. Public, global and local are about where your variable is visible. Scope of a variable as so to speak.

Bardosy I think it is not a problem if your program requires JRE. Don't worry about it too much It's much more important to make the program cover more of the places where localizable strings can be used. You have made good improvements already, keep up the good work!

You can edit the program's data files to add new items.

I feel honestly sorry for you. I've read your story many times already from these forums. It's not nice to see that someone has so much disappointment after using a lot of hard-earned money into new hardware and into ArmA. It doesn't take a genious to say that all that money could have been used better, like for example into a digicam and a vacation. That's a good tip by the way, I might do just that. Cheer up friend! Maybe you should really go to a vacation now and come back later, maybe you would then have better tools and documentation available to do your hobby.

Last night I tested the 1.07.5154 public beta patch and the A10 airplane was the first thing I played with. When flying over sea the water looked brown-ish instead of blue when looking through the windscreen. I actually was thinking for some time that I still fly over ground, over 'sand dunes' until I changed to external view and noticed it was water, not sand. Also the windscreen was reflecting(or something) light so that I didn't see much through it. I was thinking maybe it is some 'cloud' effect. But then again I think it had more to do with the lighting. Really couldn't see where I was flying to, had to use the map and the compass to get back over ground from the sea. When I got over ground again and flying in much lower altitude, I could see better again through the windsceen. Made me think it is a cloud effect because of the flight altitude, but then again could have been just the HDR.

Last night I tested the 1.07.5154 public beta patch and the A10 airplane was the first thing I played with. When flying over sea the water looked brown-ish instead of blue when looking through the windscreen. I actually was thinking for some time that I still fly over ground, over 'sand dunes' until I changed to external view and noticed it was water, not sand. Also the windscreen was reflecting(or something) light so that I didn't see much through it. I was thinking maybe it is some 'cloud' effect. But then again I think it had more to do with the lighting. Really couldn't see where I was flying to, had to use the map and the compass to get back over ground from the sea. When I got over ground again and flying in much lower altitude, I could see better again through the windsceen. Made me think it is a cloud effect because of the flight altitude, but then again could have been just the HDR.

Well it is very interesting. Could bring up personal differences much better than games do currently.

I just want to say that BIS is a commercial company, not a group of open-source maniacs who are not getting any money from elsewhere than their own pockets. Buying such a graphics card is small money for this kind of companies. Putting that aside, your offer is very generous and I raise my hat for you if you really are willing to give such an expensive graphics card away for a commercial company for no compensation. But I think BIS shouldn't have to buy a graphics card for testing if it works with their products. In my opinion BIS should get this kind of graphics card from Nvidia freely for testing purposes (and then return them when testing is over). That would make business sense for both Nvidia and BIS. One more thing: we have no clue if BIS has such a graphics card already or not.

Hmm... 3 crashes in under half an hour of testing... doesn't seem to be stable on my computer. Also a graphical problem appeared when looking towards a BLUFOR soldier through a Dragunov scope; I can't say what it exactly was, but it was ugly! It looked like maybe the BLUFOR soldier "spread" over the whole screen or something. Or it was the fault of a BLUFOR battle tank which was knocking a tree over in the background. Then the game crashed. Graphic settings were on low mostly.

If you are going to talk about a patch made for Armed Assault, please at least get the version number of the patch right.