baddo

Well for some mission types a good point system could fit, maybe. Not that I care much though. In the coop sessions I enjoyed in OFP it was many times so that the team worked very well together and it could be so that I did not get any kills, but that did not bother me because the experience was so good anyways. It was great to see a team play well together and being a part of such team was a big enough reward for me. No points needed. To summarize, in coop missions I would not give anyone any points. The reward comes automatically if the team is a team and not a random bunch of hooligans monkeying around. Also I am sure if it is for example a clan that is playing, the people will remember and recognize the people who played well. In the public servers it is very much the biggest problem that there is usually no team leader, there is no coordination, people start to monkey around (me included) and thus the whole session ends up being a disaster.

My bet: the AI voices (sounds) are not working because the names for the voices in GL II by KeyCat are of course, directly from Operation Flashpoint. If the same voices are not present in ArmA with exactly the same classnames, then the voices are for sure not working. Look at ai_voice2.sqs: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">_EastVoices = ["rus1","rus3","rus4","rus5","rus6","rus10","rus13","rus14","rus15","rus18","rus19","rus20","rus19","rus20","rus19"] _WestVoices = ["eng1","eng2","eng3","eng4","eng5","eng12","eng15","eng16","eng18","eng20","eng24","eng27","eng29","eng35","eng40"] _ResistanceVoices = ["rus1","rus3","rus4","rus5","rus6","rus10","rus13","rus14","rus15","rus18","rus19","rus20","rus19","rus20","rus19"] The items in the arrays are classnames for the sounds in OFP:R. Now, I didn't look if ArmA has any of these sounds present but my guess is they are not. So the script is possibly trying to play non-existant sounds. My other bet: you mention in your first post that there is one addon requirement missing. That is the reason why the "AI Remount Vehicle's/Chopper's" is not working, as that functionality in the OFP GL II by KeyCat relies on that addon: Kegetys' Editor Addon 1.11 "ParkingSpot = "KEGres_Misc033" Of course it breaks the thing if you don't replace that addon used as a "ParkingSpot" with something else.

Because the engine is built on a predefined amount of sides. In order to change the number of sides I imagine the engine would have to be heavily modified. A side in the game is a lot more than you think, there's a lot you'd have to do to add one. You'd need new scripting commands, new identities, etc... plus it'd be hell to keep track of that many sides and who's friendly to who. It's not something you're going to see in ArmA, I can practically guarantee you... maybe Game 2. Hmm I think you are just imagining things... ...I think we do not possess enough information to tell what kind of changes would be required into the game engine to allow more sides, or even an arbitrary number. That being the case, you can say nothing about if it is a big task or a small task. That's why I was asking if there is a serious technical restriction or other reasons in the way. The BIS developers can give an answer, if they have had a look at this subject of not limiting number of sides. Best Regards, Baddo.

The original OFP GL II version could only be run once for it to operate properly. You could not use multiple instances of OFP GL II scripts running without getting errors, it was not designed for that. I took a quick look at the scripts and it looks like this converted version is the same in that regard. Also the way how you give arguments to the script does not look right at all (more arguments are needed). One solution for your problem I can think of: put your respawned soldier into an existing group which was originally given as an argument for GL II script as a target group or as an enemy group, depends on what side you are spawning.

Of course you install the latest patch. Didn't cause problems on my computer (slow one).

I wonder why BIS decided not to allow us to define an arbitrary number of new sides? Is there some serious technical restriction why that cannot be made? OK it could be harder on the computer to handle all the different sides but any other reasons? It should be up to the mission designers to decide how much CPU power the mission uses. For me it does not make sense that there is a fixed amount of sides in the game. Another item for Wishlist.

He mixed German and English, I don't know why. KI means AI. Good job with the script pack, I'll definitely have a look and see how it works.

The person who initially came up with the whole "subst" z-drive thingy should really explain why we should do it and what is gained by doing it. As I see it, it is not needed to do to get O2L or Buldozer to work. Unless someone can point out exactly how and when those programs fail if the subst-thing is not done.

ReactOS is not a solution to run ArmA in Linux. Thanks for the link anyways. Please use this thread to discuss how to get ArmA to run on Linux, not on some other operating systems. Thank You.

Are the boats American? That would explain it, as they pay almost nothing for their fuel. Think about Ford Excursion  Looking at the config.cpp file of ArmA1.04.5121/AddOns/water.pbo the following maxSpeed values can be found: RHIB         maxSpeed = 60; RHIB2Turret  maxSpeed = 60; (inherits from RHIB) Zodiac        maxSpeed = 60; Zodiac2       maxSpeed = 60; (inherits from Zodiac) PBX          maxSpeed = 65; (inherits from Zodiac but overrides maxSpeed) <s>I don't know if the values are the same in latest version and can't check now.</s> Checked and yes the values are the same in ArmA 1.05.5136. Cheers, Baddo.

Why doesn't BIS just give us an FPS counter with the game? There must be some performance measuring functionality built into the 3D/game engine already? What can it hurt if performance meters are given with the game? Why disable them?

Hi I have a feeling that Wine does not support DirectX enough to allow usage of ArmA. Also there might be a big problem with the copy protection, and I think I am not going to touch that. I've got OFP running quite well in Wine in Linux but OFP requires older DirectX than ArmA. The talks of games running faster in Linux than in Windows are nonsense at least when it comes to OFP running in Wine: it is definitely slower than in Windows (as I expected), don't even try to say the opposite without proof. Problems I encountered with OFP running in Wine: radio sounds were often duplicated. Texture on water didn't look quite right. Mouse movement was not as accurate as it should be and made aiming harder, maybe there is a way to adjust this but I didn't bother. Cedega & ArmA? I can't say about it at least yet, but the free version of Cedega in their CVS seems quite outdated, and I had problems with it in the times when I tried to use it for OFP (maybe the version I compiled had not the right settings). Cheers, Baddo.

After reading about game development I have come to a conclusion that this issue of duplicated files is because ArmA is based on the OFP:Elite game which is an XBox game. On XBox the game is intended to be run from the CD. The seek times have been reduced by duplicating content on the optical disc. That has stayed in the way how data is arranged over evolution into ArmA. This is my guess.

Make sure .PBO files are associated to cpbo in Windows registry.

It's quite amusing how some companies seem to think they have a right to control what programs a user is running... this could even be worth of a law suit at least in a country like USA. It would be interesting to hear if it has been tried out in court if such companies should be allowed, without approval from the owner of the computer, to control what other processes run in a user's computer, and if yes then what are the justifications. In my opinion such behaviour should go through a court ruling, I find such behaviour highly intrusive and most of all, inconvenient for the many users. And the best part is, locks keep only honest people out.

wex-q I suspect you tried to format your hard disk drive while it was in use by the operating system which you tried to use to format your hard disk drive so... it won't work that way. If it wasn't that then what can I say other than get an installation CD obtained legally and just do an installation and let the installer format your hard disk drive. If the installation takes a long time don't be surprised, it's nothing new when installing Windows. Give it a couple of hours until you say it got stuck. If you still got problems and the installation doesn't finish, make sure your installation CD is okay. Also be sure your CD drive works, that can be a problem too if it can't read your CD's. If you got problems with using Windows to manage your hard disk drives then yes one option is you could use for example a Linux Live CD to re-arrange the hard disk drive. I've got a dual boot computer (both WinXP and a Linux distro installed on separate hdd's) and Linux is very handy in case of Windows puts itself into an unusable state or something else undesirable, as Linux does not care about the file access rights etc. set by Windows. I recommend trying Linux out if you are not afraid to read a good amount of documentation and tutorials. You can play OFP in Linux As a sidenote if you really want to get rid of all the data traces in your hard disk drive, just formatting it won't be enough (to my knowledge standard format means empty file table and check for bad sectors, which does nothing for the data in the hard disk drive (you lose the references to the files but the data locations are not touched). But I think that is not a concern for you and it's not what you asked about. Just to make sure you understand formatting doesn't make all your data go away forever so that no one could retrieve it.

Yep I kept an eye on what happened in Denmark. They didn't have a right to that house so there goes my sympathy for them. It's quite sad how people end up taking part in such "demonstrations" only to cause havoc. It's happened here in Finland too and everytime I think that the people doing it should get much more harder penalties for their actions. Why? There is evidence that many of these "demonstrations" are in fact a form of organized riots, which are masked as demonstrations but many people taking part in such demonstrations are there only to break windows and hurt other people etc. People are even asked in ad papers to take part in the riot by causing as much trouble as they can, with no mention of the original subject. Such people should just get thrown to jail for some time and should be put to pay for ALL damage and other costs caused by them, INCLUDING the cost of keeping them in prison and the cost of using police officers to stop the riots. Now the price is too low so they can just keep doing it.

To my knowledge ArmA can be run on multi-core processors but it does not take advantage of multithreading, which means that the game will use one core only. Other processes can use other cores so there should be a performance improvement. I would not expect multithreading appear into ArmA, if it is done by BIS then good but really don't put your hopes on that. There is a word from the lead programmer of Arma that they could do something for it but they don't promise anything. Edit: In thread 64bit and multithreading lead programmer says:

Can I make a suggestion Bado? How about you altering the wording of the rules to what you would consider 'more friendly' and then presenting it to Shadow? I would like to help but I'm stuffed for time these days. PM me though if you need. I have a feeling that these boards are moving towards a more friendly attitude now anyway ... I've seen some changes for the better already. Yes. One example of rules written in a friendlier tone: Just a quickly written example, but I am sure you see the idea I am after. Of course this is up to the forum administration to decide what to do, if anything. Cheers, Baddo.

Hello NSX I can only clarify my own writings here, and my intentions. I never think about Russians as evil communists. I want to give you the right to choose your political system as you wish, and I expect the same in return. Similarly as I think USA should not tell Iraq how their political system should look like. When I think about the terms NATO, Russia and my home country Finland (Karantan might see discussing subjects important for Finland as selfish, sorry for that but the subjects mentioned in my previous post really are important for me as Finland happens to be the place where I was born and raised and still live in. NATO must take the same subjects into account when deciding how much to expand towards Russia.), I must take in notice the historical facts of my country when I form my opinions. It would be insane not to do so as we should learn something from our history and try to act now and in the future so that repeating the hard times of the past could be avoided. There was some serious mistrust between Finland and the Soviet Union during the World War II, which lead to an unnecessary bloodshed of Soviet soldiers. Our side lost good men too. I certainly hope such bloodshed won't happen again, as I see it benefits no one. As a consequence, I am naturally worried of what happens between Russia and NATO. I can become even more worried if Finland joins NATO and Russia and NATO don't get along with each other. Currently I don't know what would be the right choice for us; to join or not to join. In that question Russia has a major part, even though many politicians do not want to say it out loud as they are afraid of Russia's reaction (the pressurizing towards our politicians, which I mentioned in my previous post, is present all the time). To summarize my thoughts: Russia can greatly influence Finland's decision to join NATO by showing us there is nothing to worry about from their side. Currently the trend is the opposite. Even if our politicians don't say it out loud, Russia is the reason why my country is considering joining NATO. The more aggressive words the Russian leaders throw towards any country (like has happened with this case of the new radar and missile sites), the more worried we become as a natural consequence. I certainly hope USA and other NATO members understand that there are much more at stake than just their own businesses when they expand their military influence. Please do notice that I am not saying it would be Russia starting a conflict, but if a conflict starts no matter who started it, then it is Russia which we are keeping an eye on. There is the one country which seems to go on rampage from time to time, and even be proud of it. Yes you read my words right, I am more concerned of what kind of trouble USA will cause around the World. Best Wishes, Baddo.

I could say it's very likely a Sisu and that the picture looks very much like it is taken in Finland but the model name I could not say.

That's what I said before in another thread, too. It would be a justified consequence for the people who are responsible for the false claims, to explain what they did in a court of law. No matter what the outcome of the trial, it would show people in high political positions that they too must have something reasonable to back up their actions. It's even more important than for average citizens as their actions can lead to a World-wide catasthrophe.

Hi Well I think a link to the rules should not be individually in each section of the forum as it looks to be so currently. One potentially good place for the link could be in the top bar where we got the links: if it is possible regarding the space available in that bar (forum admins probably have more links in that bar?). The basic idea is to put the link to the rules into a "base template", into a file which is low in the template file hierarchy so that the link is always there no matter what section of the forum is currently viewed. This is just an attempt to make everyone's life easier, really. Putting the link individually into some subsections of the forum creates inconsistency for the users and maintenance difficulties for forum administrators and as such is in my honest opinion not even close to an ideal and easy-to-use solution as getting the link to the rules depends what section of the forum I am viewing. Every now and then moderators are reminding members of the rules; wouldn't it be easier for you if the link to the rules was more visible for users? When the forum software is updated then you'd need to make sure the link to the rules won't disappear from the template but that's not really a big thing to check and fix if needed (I suspect you have to do it already with the current position of the link). This is really not a question of authority and power, you do not need to give up any of your power if you go and improve the forum as suggested. About my original point: I still think that the rules are written too negatively, you could get friendlier behaviour from visitors of this forum if you use a friendly tone yourself where ever it is possible. In the rules it is definitely possible as a new forum member has not yet done anything bad in the forums and must not be made feel threatened in the moment they are joining this forum. Unfriendly behaviour is really a major problem of this forum and efforts should be made to reduce and discourage such behaviour. As I said before, it all starts from the rules as the rules are an entry point for new members. Best Regards, Baddo. Edit: Well there you said it Kronzky, that is exactly how it was for me when I tried to find the rules. But I'd put the link to the rules to the top of the page instead of the bottom, as it is more often so that we have the top of the page visible and have usually no need to look at the bottom of the pages. The link in "Help" is an improvement but yes it could still be better.

So does this mean that I need to de-register and re-register to read the rules? This is exactly the attitude of what I am talking about. The users of this forum are not here for the moderators, the moderators are here for the users. A link to the rules is not for the forum or for the moderators or ex-moderators, the rules are for the users of this forum and as such a link to the rules should be much easier to find than it is now, especially when moderators are all over the place reminding people of the rules. If you disagree with that then what else can I say than the basic principle is completely wrong. If moderators want people to respect the rules of this forum they then better make sure the rules are never more than one click away. Now it isn't so. I very well know and understand that when I register, I get to read the rules. The situation changes significantly when time passes. People forget the rules. Moderators revise the rules. The rules have changed since I joined this forum, or do you disagree? This is exactly the behaviour I am against and why I made my suggestion in the first place. You start to make unfriendly remarks when I propose that the forum rules be improved to create a more friendly atmosphere, and to make it easier for people to find the rules. Why you speak with that kind of tone is hard to understand, as I am not trying to create anything evil and I for sure do my best to respect the rules, and the moderators who deserve to be respected. Do you really think you do not need to make it obvious for users how to find the rules? The current link to the rules is NOT easily spottable. This is just unbelievable - are you trying to imply that I don't want to contribute positively? The rules were not easily accessible for me, as the rules were some time ago posted as a forum thread if I remember correctly. Now the link to the rules is somewhere else than as a sticky topic. Your comment is just unbelievable to be honest - this is exactly the behaviour I do not want to see in these forums... sorry for making a proposal into better, I obviously wasted my time. Edit #1: All hope is lost. Edit #2: ...and where did I say that I hadn't read the rules? When you say "you had plenty of time to review the rules" what do you mean, other than I have not read the rules? Did I say I have not read the rules? Show me where I said so. I have not been reminded of the rules, so I really wonder how you came to a conclusion that I had some trouble reading or understanding the rules? All hope is definitely lost.

Why are the rules of this forum written in such a negative tone? Wouldn't it create a more positive and friendly atmosphere into these forums if there would be no negative words in the forum rules? I am sure it would benefit this community if there would be a more positive and friendly attitude towards new members, from day one. It all starts from the rules. You can express the same rules as sentences using no negative words. Also the number of rules is quite high, I think some of them could be combined or removed without losing anything. Just my opinion of course. One more thing: You MUST make it easier to find the forum rules! If you want people to follow the rules of this forum then why it is so hard to spot the link to the rules? Why there is no link in the frontpage of the forum to the rules? You don't want people to read the rules? You don't want people to refresh their memory about the rules? I suggest you make it so that no matter what page a user is viewing, a clearly visible (appropriately coloured) link to the forum rules is always on the page.