baddo

Thank You very much. So that's where one can learn SQF... Christmas came early this year! Of course of course, it's not just the syntax and the commands that can be used. I think you missed the most important point: often it does not matter one bit which one you use of these two tools, it is the goal we are trying to achieve that actually matters. Practice against theory etc. etc. that talk you know what I am saying. Some people drive a BMW some people drive a Lada but all are happy, why? Cheers.

Yes yes, teach people SQF by all means I have absolutely no objections to that. I agree learning SQF is not any harder than learning SQS, even though many people have said so in the past. I don't understand why they said so, maybe all the ; made them think SQF is closer to some real programming language and not a toy language like SQS...

SQS is messy? That depends on how you write it doesn't it? It surely is not the syntax or commands that you can use that makes scripts messy... it is HOW you use them. To quote a good old rock'n'roll band: Cheers.

Ensure you are running the patch installer as a user who is allowed to write into that location.

Hi I've got a nice screenshot from Hunapu, Sara after a nuclear warhead attack: In this picture I was testing a mission. There are a total of around 10 standard size infantry groups and 3 tanks in the mission. There are no scripts in the mission. Previously I had tested this mission during the same session as a regular rifleman, on foot. I then decided to try to be a gunner in the T-72 and previewed the mission, and quickly the view changed into like it is in the screenshot. I assume it had something to do with the fact that I changed into a gunner. I had previously no problems while testing the mission as the rifleman. In order to be fair towards BIS, the computer I am using is below the minimum requirements so I can't say this is a bug. I know my computer is outdated and has trouble coping with Armed Assault. ArmA settings and computer specs: Armed Assault 1.05.5136 Resolution: 1024x768x32 Aspect ratio: 4:3 - Normal Refresh rate: 75 MHz Visibility: 803 Brightness: 1.0 Gamma correction: 1.0 Terrain detail: Very low Objects detail: Normal Texture detail: Low Shading detail: Very low Postprocess effects: Low Anisotropic filtering: Disabled Shadow detail: Disabled Antialiasing: Disabled Blood: Low WinXP Home 32-bit Athlon 1.4 GHz CPU 768 MB 133 MHz SDRAM NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB VRAM on AGP 4x bus NVIDIA Forceware version 93.71 3 x Samsung SP0802N IDE ATA hard disk drives, UltraDMA mode 5 DirectX 9.0c December 2006 I start ArmA in high priority (Windows XP setting) and minimize the number of other programs running at the same time. The hard disk drives have been defragmented and the pagefile is not on the same hard disk drive as Armed Assault or Windows XP. As I already said, this computer is clearly too slow for ArmA. But most of the time I can play ArmA with no problems. I played recently the second mission of the campaign and had no performance problems and graphical errors were not noticeable most of the time. There were at some point low level-of-detail in some objects but it lasted only a short time and was bearable. I played the mission using the public beta patch 1.05.5143. When I bought the game in February and tried the campaign for the first time on this very same computer and ArmA had quite the same settings, there were serious problems during the introduction into the campaign. Most objects were on low level-of-detail (for example the female news reporter had no face) and at that time I just stopped and decided to wait for a better time to try it again. Now it seems the campaign runs okay when taking in notice how low-spec this computer is. Best Regards, Baddo.

Hi I've got a nice screenshot from Hunapu, Sara after a nuclear warhead attack: In this picture I was testing a mission. There are a total of around 10 standard size infantry groups and 3 tanks in the mission. There are no scripts in the mission. Previously I had tested this mission during the same session as a regular rifleman, on foot. I then decided to try to be a gunner in the T-72 and previewed the mission, and quickly the view changed into like it is in the screenshot. I assume it had something to do with the fact that I changed into a gunner. I had previously no problems while testing the mission as the rifleman. In order to be fair towards BIS, the computer I am using is below the minimum requirements so I can't say this is a bug. I know my computer is outdated and has trouble coping with Armed Assault. ArmA settings and computer specs: Armed Assault 1.05.5136 Resolution: 1024x768x32 Aspect ratio: 4:3 - Normal Refresh rate: 75 MHz Visibility: 803 Brightness: 1.0 Gamma correction: 1.0 Terrain detail: Very low Objects detail: Normal Texture detail: Low Shading detail: Very low Postprocess effects: Low Anisotropic filtering: Disabled Shadow detail: Disabled Antialiasing: Disabled Blood: Low WinXP Home 32-bit Athlon 1.4 GHz CPU 768 MB 133 MHz SDRAM NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB VRAM on AGP 4x bus NVIDIA Forceware version 93.71 3 x Samsung SP0802N IDE ATA hard disk drives, UltraDMA mode 5 DirectX 9.0c December 2006 I start ArmA in high priority (Windows XP setting) and minimize the number of other programs running at the same time. The hard disk drives have been defragmented and the pagefile is not on the same hard disk drive as Armed Assault or Windows XP. As I already said, this computer is clearly too slow for ArmA. But most of the time I can play ArmA with no problems. I played recently the second mission of the campaign and had no performance problems and graphical errors were not noticeable most of the time. There were at some point low level-of-detail in some objects but it lasted only a short time and was bearable. I played the mission using the public beta patch 1.05.5143. When I bought the game in February and tried the campaign for the first time on this very same computer and ArmA had quite the same settings, there were serious problems during the introduction into the campaign. Most objects were on low level-of-detail (for example the female news reporter had no face) and at that time I just stopped and decided to wait for a better time to try it again. Now it seems the campaign runs okay when taking in notice how low-spec this computer is. Best Regards, Baddo.

There are women serving in militaries of many countries. Could be in ArmA too, there is no moral problem. Civilian women are of course needed too, lots of different sizes and shapes and colours thank you.

Hmm I doubt BIS controls the Windows pagefiles, I think they let the operating system handle that... would be much easier programming that way I think By the way, if you want to see how RAM is properly utilized, try a Linux-kernel based operating system and watch how your swap partition (or "pagefile") is not used until as a last resort.

Show us your proof. Or is it just a matter of believe? Applications link to specific release dll, like in ArmA's case d3d9_29.dll (or whatever it was), which is October 2006 release of DirectX. Newer versions have different DLL's, latest one being _32 I think. So updating DirectX won't help at all with ArmA? To add, could that linking not change via patches made for Armed Assault?

This is in fact just a matter of belive...! A new DX runtime never made something "older" faster as it was before. Show us your proof. Or is it just a matter of belief?

Well yes if the group is all-AI so that the players can't have any effect on if the AI unit with the variable initialization ends up into the mission. Ask yourself a question: will the unit with the variable initialization code be always present in the mission, regardless of what people choose in the multiplayer lobby? If the answer is positive, then you have no problem with this. That should do it, yes. Even if there is only one player in the session, no matter which one of the units is selected by the player, the variable is always initialized. Take in notice that there can also be a situation where players do not select any units from a group with playable units, and AI units are disabled. This would mean no units from that group is present in the mission, and your mission should still go on error-free. In other words, if you have multiple groups with playable units in a multiplayer mission, do not expect all of them to be present in the mission (one player is enough to start a multiplayer mission). If you absolutely must have a certain group present in the mission, you must somehow force the players to choose characters from that group. In such case you may need to prevent wrong logical behaviour of the mission by stopping the mission right after start and telling the players to choose the required characters in order to proceed with the mission. Multiplayer mission editing has lots of gotchas like these, it's not even near as simple as single player mission editing.

Maybe it could be fair to have "Arcade" and "Simulation" flight models in ArmA. For multiplayer it should be possible by the server admin or by the mission designer to say which flight model is used for all players, so that the playground is level for all participants. So that in a hardcore coop missions the persons who have extensively trained to be good pilots will get to put their skills into use, and be an important factor in the missions. Lose your pilot and you're screwed as so to speak...

Maybe people need to stop playing stupid, boring, life-wasting computer games and get a life! Edit: Added "life-wasting" as it really belongs to the same group.

Thanks for making me laugh real hard, mate.

There is a problem in multiplayer if you name groups like that (only in one unit's initialization field). If the unit which has the "squad_11 = group this" on its initialization field does not end up into the mission (doesn't get selected in the multiplayer lobby to be either a human player or an AI unit) then the squad_11 variable will not be initialized and the mission will fail to work correctly. So when editing multiplayer missions make sure the mission will not get broken if players will not select a unit to be in the mission.

Well I had an odd feeling that something had changed in the graphics, I don't know what it is. Maybe the green ground (grass is disabled) looked better when looking from a distance, I think it was somehow smoother or softer than previously. But I might be just imagining. Performance might have been improved. I have to play more and try better settings to confirm this.

I am sure BIS will welcome any actual research done by you on the subject of how easy it is to destroy a tank in real life.

I hope you get it done, I am looking forward to play this mod. There is nothing wrong with creating German WW II era playable troops into a game. People who have a problem with that really should look into a mirror and ask themselfs if everything is okay. It is very boring to see the Americans as the only or main playable side, as the "good side", in most games. Maybe it is only for financial profit reasons but there must be some "political correctness" in there also, which I find hypocritical. I hoped that BIS would have been done something different for Armed Assault but no, it's again the Americans who get to be on the spotlights. Czech Republic's army would have been a better choice for example. I wish good luck for this mod and hopefully you will have the motivation to finish it. Cheers, Baddo.

The installer asked me if I want to update public beta version to version 1.05? Well I hit "Yes" of course! Jokes aside. I have no problem to test a beta patch, if someone has a problem then don't touch it it's as simple as that.

Hi all Mmhh well... ...it's very hard to simulate real life accurately in a computer game. What I'm thinking is that there must be some way to simulate the inaccuracies of real life. In the game there are many things missing compared to real life like getting sand/snow into your eyes, getting sand/snow into your weapon's ironsights, rain coming at your face, your hands freezing in cold weather (It slows operating your weapon and reloading quite significantly, I know this from personal experience in temperatures of as low as -35 degrees Celcius. It can get extremely hard to reload a magazine with bullets if you must expose your hands to the cold air in that kind of temperatures. Aiming and pulling the trigger is also slowed down as your hands and fingers just don't work as fast as in warm weather.), actual fear of dying, getting tired like not getting enough sleep (you know it has an enormous effect on your abilities if you experienced good and exhaustive training lasting a couple of days at least while you were in army) or too much physical stress. In practice sessions in military yes from 150 meters one should quite accurately be able to hit a static target of about size 20 centimeters when in prone position (RK-62 with ironsights only) and taking the time to aim properly. It's just that it is a much more relaxed situation than I imagine it to be in an actual battle. During the battle simulations in army the physical and mental stress already rises enough to reduce accuracy quite a lot from what it is at the shooting range. How do you simulate that effect in a computer game, is I think why the BIS developers let the bullet go also left or right instead of just dropping as I believe that way we get closer to the accuracy you can achieve in a battle situation. I think if we truly want to simulate a real battle situation then it is too easy to hit a target in the game as it is now. I don't believe I could be able to reach the same level of accuracy in a real life battle as I can in the game. My 0.02 euros. Best Regards, Baddo.

I think you made a very misleading topic title... you are not asking about XML, you are asking questions about the squad.xml file in ArmA. I looked at the topic title and asked myself, does someone really come here to ask for a "beginning to end explanation" for XML? There is quite a big difference between those two subjects...

Look at the ofpec website a little bit more, then you will see that it is a website for Armed Assault too. OFP and ArmA mission editing are quite similar, a lot of the things that work in OFP will work in ArmA too.

Yes.

http://www.kegetys.net/arma/

Well of course you do not just get rid of the Biki Wishlist, many people made valid wishes there and would you throw all away? I am sure you find some other way to do it like import it into bug tracking system if you wish to do something about it. If the wishes are to be made in the BTS then all the wishes must be there, there is great danger that the wishes in the Biki would be forgotten otherwise.