baddo

USSR was an aggressor in the WW II. Come to my town, tell the people here that the USSR wasn't an aggressor, you'll get your ass kicked badly. Go to the Baltic states and do the same. Let's see if you get back home in one piece. They even said that they were aggressors until enough time had passed (Stalin dead etc.) But what do they know.

Let me state it clearly: the only thing www.rferl.org has got to do with the article is: 1) to have translated it; 2) to have selected it for publishing in this ocean of information we all drown in. The original link is here. For your theory to be true, you need to prove that Yezhednevny Zhurnal is financed by the US Congress, and that Yulia Latynina, or her editors, are American stooges. I'm not saying it's not the case, but the burden of proof is on your shoulders. In the meantime, I'll just sit back and read one of her other leaders, and take it for what it claims to be, i.e. a Russian, anti-Putin voice. Sure... didn't I say that I can not succesfully refute anything in the article. Doesn't that clearly say that I am not questioning the article, because I am smart enough to know that I don't have the information to do so. I am questioning the source http://www.rferl.org/ though. But I understand that the original source can be some else. But this doesn't end  here. To me it sounds logical that a source, http://www.rferl.org/ , does not select an article to show which presents things so that the U.S. wouldn't accept it. Their job is to spread the message of the U.S., not to be an objective news source (I'm not going to believe that a source funded by the U.S. Congress is an objective source). No, I don't think this automatically makes all their articles, possibly originating from some other source, invalid, but I do think the question must be raised what is the motive to post exactly that article on their website. Why not some other article which presents things on different light. They are not going to post articles at http://www.rferl.org/ which are in favour of Russia's stance in this conflict, is my opinion. Again, I say, I can not refute anything in the article because I simply don't know enough to do that. I would put you into the same position as myself regarding this, if you don't contest that.

It's cleverly written isn't it Giving praise to the U.S. They have sense of humour, was proven.

The source http://www.rferl.org/ can not call itself "independent" or "private". That's a ridiculous statement. Of course, I read the article *first*, and it makes interesting points, but I am not in a position to say whether it contains The Truth or not. There is nothing in the article which I could succesfully refute, but then again how do I know. What I can do as an effort to either believe the article more or less, I can check who runs that news source. If it is run by the U.S. Congress then that doesn't increase the trust I have in that source. In my opinion it is not an independent, private source what it claims to be. During the Georgia vs. Russia conflict, I have not trusted Russian or Georgian news sources either. My estimation is that it will take a long time until we get to know an accurate picture of what actually happened there. Currently there is a lot of propaganda thrown around from both sides, and I do think the U.S. has its own interests to protect as well so I can not take their word for it either. I trust the people from my country who go to the spot and report directly, but even then there is a cloud making it difficult to see are they really getting the right picture of what is going on. They can see "OK there is a bombarded apartment block in the town of Gori or Tshinvali" but so what, *who* bombarded which house, still is not answered.

I recommend that you buy the OFP GOTY Edition and play through the campaigns. Start from the Cold War Crisis (CWC) campaign. It is the best campaign I have played in OFP/ArmA. That will then become your reference point when you play ArmA 1 / ArmA 2 official campaigns. I already know that the official campaign of ArmA 1 totally sucks compared to the CWC campaign of OFP. In the GOTY you have also the Resistance and Red Hammer campaigns. Of these I think the better one is Resistance, but it isn't as good as CWC. Buying OFP GOTY is justified alone by playing through those 3 single-player campaigns, especially CWC.

Did you notice that the http://www.rferl.org/ says that they are funded by the U.S. Congress? And did you notice that they also say that their corporate headquarters is in Washington D.C.? http://www.rferl.org/info/facts/200.html Broadcasting Board Governors: http://www.bbg.gov/ It makes me smile to see the words "independent", "private" and "U.S. government-funded" mentioned so closely together In fact it makes me  Sorry, my intention is not to laugh at your post. I read the article and started looking at the website, asking "Who is behind this website?" and then what I found out made me laugh.

We talked about shininess because it is what we can see on the video. On the contrary, you talk about features of which you have no idea if they are in the game or not. And it is unlikely in my opinion that any of those features you mentioned would be implemented into the game if they are not already in it, knowing that the release date of the game should not be so far away that they could go and add a number of features, without breaking the game and introducing a load of completely new bugs which take X number of months to fix. And some people, including me, prefer the original game instead of community-created content. I can make my own game or addons and make them exactly what I want, but I'd rather enjoy playing what BIS created.

No I haven't seen that vehicle. The shininess thing isn't a big deal to me, I'm certainly not going to say " I won't buy it if they don't fix that ". It's just something I noticed could be done more realistically probably quite easily. But then again a lot of other things are like that as well. I left out from my previous post that the game looks promising. Maybe it will be the thing that forces me to buy new hardware. ArmA I wasn't enough. But I will wait until it has been published and tested by a lot of people until I make that decision.

Maybe a bit too much shininess at least on some of the vehicles. For example the T-90. You know, a military wants its vehicles not to shine. We use matte paint, and fixed the painting if it wore out. In fact it didn't even have to wear out yet, we would fix it anyways. I think most other nations do the same as we do, regarding the painting of military vehicles. The paint is matte and the painting is fixed quite often. So the shininess you see on the video on the T-90 doesn't exist on our vehicles. But then again, it's a game...

I will give some shots in the dark. Disable the soundcard and try again. Then if that doesn't help, I'd try next to reduce the amount of RAM and try again. The soundcard thing is fast to try, I think.

Tank mating time! That doesn't look particularly bad, actually. In the Finnish Defence Forces once upon a time there happened an ugly BMP-2 crash, in which 2 BMP-2's were driving in a winter-ish forest and crashed together in a pretty-much head-on collision. They were practicing "heat" situation so they weren't driving slowly, but at the best speed which the terrain made possible. Why could they crash like that? The other tank drove from a forest to a road over a small "hill" (not a hill but can't think of a better English word now) which blocked its view. The other tank was driving on the road and suddenly got another tank come from slightly upwards direction right to its nose. The crews hurt their faces badly and the tanks went into "not worth to try and repair them" condition.

I mentioned NATO, but I did not say what you claim that I said. I just have the opinion that Russia is afraid of the NATO expansion. I think this is clear for all of us to see. And I can understand why they are afraid of a NATO expansion. If I were Russia, I would be suspicious about the NATO expansion as well. But I don't think that necessarily is the reason why the Georgia vs. Russia war happened recently. It can be, but I didn't say so. I have not decided if I support Finland joining NATO or not. On one hand, if we face a military crisis again, it would not be good to be left alone (again). For that, joining NATO makes sense. Which country could be our enemy here? Norway? Estonia? Sweden? I'm not alone if I say it would most likely be Russia. It was our Secretary of Defence who kept his famous "Russia, Russia, Russia" speech and that pretty much sums it up. And what sense would it make to fight Russia alone again. The odds are very much against us. If we would be a NATO member, would they attack us? It wouldn't be just to bully us, it would be to start a lot bigger war. So the likelyhood of them daring to attack us just to take land from us would be lower, as I see it, if we are in NATO. The price they would have to pay would be much bigger compared to if we are not in a military alliance with anyone. But then again, Russia is our neighbour and that is not going to change any time soon I predict. Should we not respect our neighbours? I do think our neighbours need to be respected. Russia has voiced clearly that it would not be happy if Finland joins NATO. They have not threatened us, but they have said "it wouldn't be wise" or something like that as I can recall. Respecting our neighbour includes taking their opinion into account when making important decisions like should we join NATO or not. So where am I going with this. The responsibility of the leaders of our country is to primarily protect our interests, without making knee-jerk reactions. Maintaining good relations with Russia is as important as ever, but it must not come with a price of giving up everything else, or to put our sovereignty into danger, to just please the Russians. Friends are those who can disagree and still remain friends. The "respect your neighbours" thing has to work both ways. We must respect Russia, and they must respect us. If they start bullying us again, then we could tell them that if they don't stop bullying us, we will join NATO. So as long as they show to us that they respect us, and are not threatening us in any way, we have no clear reason to join NATO. If they don't want us to seek for alliance from elsewhere, then treat us well. It's a bit like in WW II: if they didn't want us to ally with Germany, then why did they attack us. Just don't do things like that again and we won't have to ally with your enemy. Maybe in Caucasus the situation has been such that Georgia felt that it *needs* to join NATO *because* Russia is treating it like they have been treating them. If Russia would have respected them more, they would not have had so much interest in joining NATO.

They have money again to build a better military. They want to be a superpower. They are afraid that the USA comes right to their doorsteps (NATO expansion and the planned new missile stations). I can understand why they are afraid. I hope the USA can act in such a way that more trust is created between them and Russia, I see that as a key thing to making sure that Russia doesn't go totally crazy with its military. Right before Estonia joined NATO, there was a report that Russian military jets crossed into Estonian airspace. Surprise? Not to me, not at all. It was to be expected. Don't tell it was an accident! Â They sometimes tell Finland that "it was an accident", when their military airplanes (not fighter jets to my knowledge, in this century) cross into our airspace. Or they simply say "it didn't happen". But there have been instances when they have admitted it and even apologized To me it is just one way from them to keep us on our toes. They test our radars and the time it takes from our military jets to get into the air and recognize their plane from a close distance. That's what they are doing as I see it. A story I heard from a friend of a Finnish border guard. The border guard told that the Russians sometimes fly with their military jets in formation towards our border at high-speed. Then just before arriving at our border, they turn away. Imagine the hell this causes at our border guard and radar stations! They can see that a formation of Russian jets is coming at high-speed and if they don't turn away very soon then they are inside our borders. Pretty nerve-wrecking job to monitor such a radar... and think about it, every time that happens, they must alert our own fighter jets to get up in the air to prepare to meet the Russian jets, if they cross the border. They can not know if the Russian jets are coming over the border, because the distance is so short and the time is not much, they always have to send our own jets to the location. I see this as well so that the Russians are taking time how long it takes from us to notice what they are doing and how long it takes from us to get our own jets ready. It can also be a political tool. I could live my life very well without all this, it is exactly what I don't need. Just stay the hell out and let me live in peace. Chances are high that most people in other Russia's neighbour countries have exactly the same feeling about it as I do. As an example, I can look to Estonia and I see them thinking the same way like I do about it. I guess all the countries which have been bullied by USSR or by Russia are in the same boat, having the same feelings, just stay the hell out with your military and everything is fine between me and you.

Well, would you do what the reporter did? I know I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't be surprised if the protesters would knock or push me down, out of their way. The reporter saw a stream of protesters coming and he chose to stand in their way. I call that "not smart". It is either that or he wanted to get the reaction he got, as I see it. I give him the benefit of the doubt and not call him stupid. Also, to me there was no problem understanding what was protested. Why the reporter had problem understanding. I bet he didn't have the problem (see, I don't think he is that stupid), he was going for a certain reaction and that is what he got. Well done. His boss must be proud of him. Now they can make all kinds of headlines out of that. I do understand what you are saying. Sometimes the protesters are as well ignorant, stupid people (collective stupidity?) who are not really there to protest, they are just there to have some fun (in a weird way to me). Probably they know almost nothing about what they are protesting. It happens in my country as well and I don't give those people much value for what they do. I mean those people who just like to get in trouble with the police, throw rocks at them or break a window or just insult random people while "protesting" for a "good cause". Makes pretty much no sense at all. Luckily this isn't common here in my country. But in this case I can see that what the reporter did smells like he wanted the reaction he got. Yeah, the protesters were rude, but as I said I wouldn't go stand in their way and irritate them on purpose, like the reported did. To me he either was stupid or he wasn't and wanted the reaction he got.

A large dataset loaded in the middle of the game in a single thread (all runs on a single CPU core) will cause a noticeable drop in performance. A large dataset loaded in the middle of the game in another thread in another CPU core doesn't cause that drop in performance. I think we all have seen how ArmA I has problems with loading resources during playing. Streaming world data is the first obvious thing for which another CPU would be used, as I see it.

Doesn't look particularly smart to walk (or stand) against a stream of protesters like that. Makes me think the news reporter wanted trouble. Or he was just stupid. Or both.

So what? I wouldn't expect to have much protection in that kind of a vehicle. The light vehicles are not good for protection anyways, you'll be shot to pieces in them. This is a good question: of all the possible Humvee variants that are in use by the real armies or which you can imagine, which is the one BIS should have modelled?

That's more a physical thing, you know. There is another thread for discussing physics. Of course it would affect the graphics, or "visuals", as well if you have better physics simulation. Maybe that was your point. There is the forcefield in the PhysX. It is possible to create wind which affects the physical simulation with it. Or a vacuum cleaner... or a magnet. Etc. And there is the fluid simulation. And the physical particles which don't go through physical objects. And then there is the ragdoll. What could be used of the PhysX features to improve the graphics. The physical particles would look more "right" than the current particles which go through objects. The ragdoll could help to solve the problem of soldiers hanging in the air after dying, at least. The forcefield would not be much useful if there isn't added a lot of dynamic actors (dynamic physical objects) to the game. It has to have something to throw around. It could blow like a wind to the trees and bushes (which would be physx physical objects, maybe cloth or soft bodies or a combination of them), that's what it could be used for. Sure, it could improve the "graphics".

But where are those men looking? Doesn't look right to me. Maybe the Artificial Intelligence needs some adjustments.

Hmm that gives me an idea. In a mission if you get wounded badly. So that you lose consciousness, or almost, right away. The screen can go partly black and fully black at times. When the screen is partly black, the player would hear medics rushing to help him, and taking him to stretchers. The player would be taken to a field hospital to receive treatment. Then the player can either survive or die at the field hospital. The medical staff working around the player would be talking "Quick, he's bleeding to death!" and so on. Blood would be on the screen. The player character would make sounds of dying. The player could hear how the pulse is getting slower and slower. The breathing would become more and more difficult, this could be heard as well. The player character would start to cry for mama if he can. He would tell the people around him to tell his loved ones that he loves them, if he can. Et cetera. All this could be simulated in the game. Surviving at the field hospital could become one crucial thing in the game. In campaign mode dying at the field hospital could mean that the whole campaign for that character will end right there and then. The storyline would be changed from that dead character into someone else, who would continue the campaign, but so that it is distinctly different from what the campaign would have been if the earlier character would have survived. You could start the campaign as a machine gun man. Once that character has died (for the first time which is also the final time), you would have to jump into another character, which could be a sniper for example. The storyline would adjust accordingly. It would not only be important to avoid being shot in the battlefield, but also the time it takes from the troops to take you to the field hospital, and what kind of field hospital it is (there can be badly-equipped or well-equipped field hospitals, and bad and good staff, this all can make a difference and it could depend on the situation in the campaign what kind of field hospitals you have at the area), would decide if you survive in the mission or not.

You can use an extension cord which has a switch so it is easy to "unplug" the computer and other devices which are attached to the same extension cord... not too difficult to do everytime the computer is used. Also provides at least some sort of protection from over-voltage caused by for example a thunderstorm.

In the socialism the number of parasites increases significantly compared to capitalism. There are far better chances for parasites in a socialistic system. I have actually seen plenty of evidence of this, but what does it matter, it is just the things I saw and so it doesn't count here or does it. Also, Spokesperson, you are time after time writing the same flawed math here as proof how the capitalism rips people off. It is wrong. Every time you write about it, you ignore what the business owner must pay in order to have the business and to keep it running. You don't seem to understand the realities of how the businesses work. Without the business owner there would be no business. It is an absurd, laughable idea that all people in your community will just happily get together and form whatever businesses are needed. It just doesn't happen. You can try to force it, like they did in USSR, and where did that get them. You don't seem to value the freedom of an individual much. You would prefer people to be tied into a system such as the one at USSR, instead of letting them make their own chances and innovations. You would prefer to take their motivation away by putting them to manufacture something like a million rubber boots a year, just because "the community" (=some dictator at the top) thinks that the million rubber boots are what they need. And you like to play it down when someone mentions Stalin and the horrors he caused to many. That right there is an insult to millions of people who were oppressed and directly or indirectly murdered by Stalin. He is right up there with Hitler when we look at the worst criminals of the 20th century. It really makes me sick that we have people here who can not see that. It makes me even more sick when we have someone here who talks like it was necessary for Stalin to be such an insane dictator, a murderer. Don't you ever condemn Hitler if you like Stalin so much, they are in the same lunatic category so you should be proud of them both.

An option is to freeze this forum, leave it here as it currently is, and start a new one from scratch. That would leave BIS with two forums. One in the freezer and one in the fireplace. People could go into the freezer to look at the old posts. When they get cold and want to warm up, all they need to do is step into the fireplace. If it is not what BIS would like to do with this old forum (if they don't want to have it as a public archive), then they could import the data from the old forum into the new so that problematic parts of the database are not touched - if something is broken then leave it there and forget it. Obviously not all of the database is corrupt because we can use this forum. Also, the off-topic board is not worth it to import it at all.

I will have to disagree with you Commando84 about the use of the languages. Yes, it is good that we have some common language to use. But if you join for example a French server and 19 out of 20 people there speak French but not Swedish or English, why would you expect them to use English? That just doesn't make sense. The solution to your problem is to learn the languages or to only join the servers in which you can use the languages you know. Or you can just try to handle the situation somehow. I've played on French servers and it was great. I communicated in English and everyone else communicated in French. I gave information to the others about where I spotted enemies and what I was going to do next. And the other guys started to cooperate with me even though they did not speak back to me (at least I didn't notice if they tried, I don't understand French and they never mentioned my nickname). That was better than usually on public servers, even though I could not understand what they were saying. In my opinion there is no point trying to force everyone to use English, especially when they are running their own servers and they didn't specifically ask you to come to their server to talk to them in English. You just went in and expected that they communicate with you in English - that is bordering on arrogancy as I see it

It's a variable and not a function at least on the surface.