baddo

You talk like a student, because you are one. People make assumptions about you, because you are too scared to tell them about yourself. You are unwilling to fill in the blanks because you don't feel it supports your argument. You think your idea's should have enough weight of their own, without giving them to us in the context of your life. And they don't. No one is impressed by your idea's. We have nothing to learn from them. They have all been thought before, and we are all aware those idea's exist. If you have some personal experience to share, some first hand insight, then you would be in a position we could all learn from. But you don't. You talk like a teenager who is all intellect and no experience. You don't like people making assumptions about you? Tough luck, when you make preposterous claims without the personal experience to back them up, that's what you get. You want your idea's to be taken seriously and given merit simply because you have thought them, and that's not how it works. There is a big difference between intellect and wisdom. So instead of trying to preach to people who have actual experience of working and investing, instead of trying to explain how it works to them, go out and get a job first. You have to learn before you can teach. Excellent post.

The lack of communication annoyed me a lot on some public servers. It was just impossible to get anyone do anything organized if they didn't want to listen. There are servers in which that problem mostly doesn't exist, though...

Yeah I see what you mean. It is quite easy to script it, though. I did it and had quite a lot of fun watching AI's storm a building (and the walls and the "basement"). Of course it would be better if it wouldn't have to be scripted into a mission.

If he wants to achieve that we think he is a moron, then he has succeeded. But I guess it is just another piece of propaganda and not actually a serious statement. If it is a serious statement... well then see what I wrote above.

From this Estonian article: http://gruusia.postimees.ee/?id=26483 a Finnish news website has translated for me something: http://www.mtv3.fi/uutiset....6 ...which I will now translate into English. Might be interesting to this discussion: (sorry for the little bit poor translation, the sentences would need more re-arranging to make it better... which I am not going to do now) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila To summarize the signs that Russia planned the war: 1) Russia fixed a railroad in Abhasia. The railroad goes to the Russian border. It provides quick transportation for troops. 2) Russia transfered troops in advance to positions in North Ossetia. From there they came quickly through tunnels to Georgia. 3) The separatists of Abhasia and Ossetia were supplied with heavy military equipment. 4) During last months Moscow apparently had given a job for the separatist leaders to provocate Georgia into a military strike. So, this Estonian military commander has the opinion that Russia prepared the whole thing well in advance.

The object loading should benefit from multi-threading (on multi-core processors). A background thread would be loading (and unloading) resources while the main thread is using them. I think there is some limit when this in fact does not bring a performance increase, but my guess is that in a game such as ArmA that limit is well exceeded and it would bring a performance increase.

about the town movement, OFP seemed to have positions identified in buildings (comes up in tactical view) but AI didn't seem to want to move to them, hopefully they will now be able to move through places better now. But I'm sure that sometimes when I ran into a building for cover, an enemy AI soldier or soldiers came after me into the building. When that happened for the first time, I almost crapped my pants because I thought I was safe in the building.

You can start looking for the information from these pages: http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Category:ArmA:_Addon_Configuration http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/CfgWeapons_Config_Reference

For some people also cross-platform support has importance when choosing hardware. And for some people, who do game development either as a job or as a hobby, they need to also consider the tools that can be used together with the hardware. This alone can be a deciding factor. Neither of the two above mentioned points care about some 'ultimate performance numbers' or about 'insignificant difference in price', other things are more important. As far as I know, both NVIDIA and ATI have bugs in their video card drivers. Pick your poison.

Of course it is not my personal preference which decides such things. Of course I can ignore it. Someone complained about editing board being below it. One way to make the frontpage of the forum better is to remove a board which isn't so necessary - off-topic board. And then, the editing board isn't anymore below the off-topic board It was my suggestion to fix something that other person was having some sort of a problem with. Also it is a valid way to reduce the workload of the forum moderators. Having no off-topic board would leave them more time to monitor the other, more important boards. Especially as (I think) most of the moderators are not getting paid, their workload should be as low as possible by design of this forum. Same applies for moderators who get paid, of course...

So what content would you want and what would you leave out? You sound like you want some sort of a "half-game". Not the full game but one without some content. So where the line goes? What's in, what's out? Campaign is out? 3D models and textures are out? Configuration files are out? Sound files...? It ends up so that you need the full game anyways to be able to do anything useful with it. And the big problem is, as I mentioned already, that if content is stripped out, and if you are not given excellent, full documentation how to use the thing, then you are in deep trouble. You may have something great but you are going to pull your hair out while trying to learn how to use it. That's what many people do with the full game already, how does it sound if (most of) the 'sample' content is left out?

So that all off-topic stuff will be posted everywhere? Not an good idea me thinks. It doesn't have to be posted at all. Seems to work well on other forums.

The off-topic board can be deleted.

He would need to figure out how to use it so he would eventually have to get the original content as well in order to figure out how the thing works... Don't say BIS would give good-enough documentation so that the sample content would not be needed. No-one is going to believe that.

My opinion to this is that you should not think about ArmA II if you want to buy new hardware now. If you want to buy the hardware specifically to play ArmA II, then wait until ArmA II has been published. Let other people try it first and listen to what they say about it. Then make your decision if you need to buy new hardware and what kind of hardware that would have to be. If you look closely at this forum I am sure you will find people crying that they purchased new hardware specifically because of ArmA I and they purchased it before ArmA I was published. And that the hardware they purchased doesn't really work in combination with ArmA I or that the performance they get is just much lower than what they were expecting to get... and then they cry months and months about it here instead of just looking into the mirror. Of course, if you are one of those people who just want new hardware mostly because it's new hardware and because you can buy it, then ignore my opinion...

That isn't quite true. Soldiers have the duty to fulfil orders and by the rules they were obeying (local Positive Law). Quoting wikipedia "Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society.". At that time the law they were obeying said to fulfil those orders otherwise they would face harsh consequences. And that those actions were legal and necessary! Of course one can argue about Natural Law as it was even applied in Nuremberg Trials to condemn the Nazist Laws. But that isn't the point here. The point is, a soldier doesn't care about all this, he needs to care about his family safety and his own. And of course, one can not disregard the role of politicians and generals. These are the ones to blame. These are the ones with the inflated rhetorical speech and the menaces to the soldiers' lifes if they don't comply. They indeed are the war criminals. But of course there are butchers everywhere in the hierarchy, from the foot soldier to the commanders. And that also has to be denounced and judged. I was told in the Finnish Defence Forces that if an officer is giving me an order which results in me breaking our laws, I will have the right to object. But if the officer still insists that I must do what he tells me to do, then I should ask the officer to give me the order in writing and that the officer is then responsible to do so. After that I can then fulfill the order and also prove with the document the officer gave me that I did it because an officer told me to do it and not because of my own will, and that I objected the order. I did not check what our legislation specifically says about it. That's the basic instruction I was given in basic training. Wikipedia tells me that I could not be charged of being insubordinate if the order meant that I would have to break our law in order to fulfill it. Then again I did not read our legislation regarding this. It does make sense; our laws are what should define what we can legally do in our country. Can the military officer make me a new law on the spot whenever he or she thinks that there is a need? This actually brings me to a good point: often the soldiers are not self-educated on this. It is unclear to them, like to me, where goes the line (in our legislations) what the officers can tell them to do and what they can't tell them to do. I do think they can not ignore our laws or create new laws on the spot when they see the need. But how much that wheighs in a battlefield where your life can end to either the bullet of the enemy or to the bullet of that officer. There is a line in our heads which we do not cross no matter what our officers tells us. Where that line is is not known to me or to you, we would find out only if we are tested in a real situation. It must also be noted that to me as a citizen of my country, our local laws are more important than any "international" law. This is definitely the way it has to be. Our local law can tell me to obey an international law, but if it doesn't then I can ignore the "international" law. A law becomes "international" only when several countries agree to enforce it. And the "international" law becomes your law only if your country agrees to use it. I think this is often not understood or people just don't think about it at all. People often talk about "international" law for example when they talk about copyrights. That law does not exist to you until your country has agreed to use it.

Well, what is a game engine? It is something that is not even Armed Assault. It is something more lower level. So, if you would get a game engine only, then you would have to start programming (in C++ most likely) if you want to ever have something playable. But wait - you said "plus editor version of the title"? Is it "Armed Assault" but without any content that makes it "Armed Assault"? Yup, sounds like it to me... So, good luck! Â Â You are in for a very rough ride if you get them to sell you something like that. My bet is that you will soon give up with such a useless package and do something else with your life.

I am not trying to romanticize communism in no way, im just stating that SU wasnt a communist system, in order to critizize something, one has to know the terms, and use them properly. There are 5.5 million people in Finland, im sure that there are some people among them that "want you to be sorry". I am not one of them. Your family in all likelihood had soldiers in both sides, some of them red, some of them white. There were 90 000 red troops and 90 000 white troops, Finland was divided in two. Im very happy of the outcome of the civil war also, but it would be quite naive to assume that your family was only in the white side. the white army wasnt so noble as you portray it to be as you can see from the charts of the aftermath of the civil war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War#Bitter_legacy Your nit-picking about the usage of the term "communism" is exactly the kind of discussion style spokesperson has had here for as long as I have seen him say anything. It's not the point if we call it "communism" or "legoism", you know well what we mean and you should not try to nit-pick your way around it. Maybe you need to come up with a new word for that ideology if it is mis-used so much everywhere. --- You can look to your President and there you see right away one person who is (more) on the Red side. By her own admission. It truly pisses me off how people vote in elections. They have no fucking idea of what kind of candidates there are. Then they are told "you must vote!" then they vote without doing one bit of research. Just watch the TV ads or newspaper ads. And that's it. No more research into what kind of people are elected. This bothers me quite a bit I have to say. I'm not blaming the individual voters, I am blaming the system and the general instruction that everyone should vote and they should vote *now*. Vote, vote, vote! Then people feel quilty if they don't vote. So they vote anyways, without knowing shit of any of the candidates. The President we have now is one such person who would NOT have been elected if only her socialist/communist ass-licking would have been known widely before. I can speak of my family only how deeply I know it. I don't know any one Red, but all I know are White. It is likely that when looked deeper, there are bound to be someone who was on the other side. It would not make sense to argue against that. It is something I can not prove either way. I speak of the relatives which I know, and they are White. There have even recently been statements made by several people (for example in newspapers) of how this and that wrong-doing by the White side should be condemned and an apology presented to the relatives of the fallen Reds. It is the year 2008 and still some people think that someone needs to go to them and apologize that their family members got killed when they tried to overthrow the government of Finland. I think that the Finnish socialists were *naive* of the goals that their movement actually had. I will argue here and now that the actual goal why Lenin first "accepted" our independence, but then later started to support the Finnish socialists in their palace coup attempt, was to regain control of this country to Russia. Why did this happen? Why they first accepted our declaration of independence, but then after some months they start to support the socialist rebels? Answer yourself that question, I already did and wrote it here. There is a term which best describes what was going on, and it is called "maanpetos" for which I think the English equivalent word is "high treason". http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maanpetos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason So, to summarize, I view our Civil War also as a fight for our independence. This view is based on Lenin supporting the socialist movement in our country. If they would have won, in my opinion that would have meant that the socialists of Russia would have been in power in our country. It can be argued that the White army *was* noble when they punished the Reds as little as they did. This is the other side of the coin. It was correct action to fight the people who committed high treason against our country. Especially when we know that the link between the Russian and Finnish socialists is very clear. You have to ask yourself what motive did the Russians have to support the rebels in Finland? Of course they wanted to increase their political power in this country, and I simply can not do anything else but to oppose that kind of movement. And as I already have said here: There is an overwhelming amount of heavy evidence around the world to support the stance my great grandparents took. They did the right thing, they can rest in peace.

Segway squad. Man thats awsome. Could make a TV show about it and call it "segway squad". Hmm I think I saw a squad in action somewhere... Segway Squad in Patrol Seems to be real action... I think at least one of them is a Ninja.

Well those people know how to ruin cars. The wheel angles will be wrong after less than that  I know some people in the FDF did that kind of things as well, and they were equally stupid. If they want to break stuff, then break something that they own 100 % and not something which was paid with public money. The video claims some of them were held financially liable. That's very ok. But there will be new idiots already on their way to do the same here and there.

Yes... YES! Â For the slider to control civilian population. It's a lot of work to do as I see it, that's why there isn't such a feature in ArmA now. To automatically populate an island. The population should take into notice if there is a war going on or a battle near them. That's a problem. You can't put civilians driving through an intense firefight, because, well that's not what you would do. So it's even more work. But it would really give the game a lot more depth. Missions wouldn't be no-where near as dull as they are now, if the islands wouldn't be inhabitated only by the fighting troops. It's a lot of work for a mission designer, so, if BIS did it then people would use it. Otherwise not many are going to use it.

Why can it not be so that if the user doesn't accept the installation of BattlEye, then the whole installation of the game is cancelled? Because BIS can write into the ArmA EULA "use of BattlEye is mandatory". You can show both EULA's separately and the user has to accept both if he wants the installation to continue. What problem could there be with this approach? If the BIS ArmA EULA specifically says that the game shall not be used without having BattlEye installed.

Linux is not the panacea some people think... I've used it enough to know. It's good for some things but I am yet to see a Linux distribution which I would recommend to my good friends. Bier AIG Freak, the difference between Armed Assault and Unreal Tournament 2004 is that the Unreal Tournament 2004 doesn't use DirectX when you use it on Linux. Armed Assault relies on DirectX, which means that porting it to Linux is far from a trivial task, and is likely to be non-profitable as well (charity). What is discussed in this thread is that people are trying to use Wine to run a DirectX game. Wine is needed as Linux doesn't support DirectX by default, so people needed to come up with a hack such as Wine to try and make it possible. It is in no way BIS' responsibility to support running their games on a hack like Wine. You can, however, raise the question if they should also enable their games to use OpenGL for rendering instead of Direct3D, and for other DirectX technologies their Linux replacements. That could well mean that pretty much a complete re-write of their game engine would have to be done in order to allow that. You can start to estimate if it is profitable for them to do that. As I already hinted above, it could be kind of charity if they did that, as they would in my opinion not get enough money as a result of that to justify doing it in the first place.

It is? If my memory doesn't fail me horribly now, I can remember how the ArmA patch installer asked me if I want to install it. From ARMAUpdate_1_14_readme.txt: In my opinion that means that BattlEye is an optional component and thus is not enabled by default. I get that you mean "when it is installed, then it is enabled by default" but I think that is not relevant. As long as the user can choose not to have it installed, then it is not enabled by default as I see it. What I am suggesting is that in the next game (or in the next ArmA 1 patch) that BIS creates, this kind of anti-cheat tool should be installed without asking the user if the user wants it. No harm done if then the server admins can go and specifically disable it if that is really what they want to do. I am even doubtful if leaving them that option is really necessary, but it is a middle road and probably acceptable for more people than my more radical suggestion to not allow them to disable it.

Go to http://www.ofpec.com/ and have a discussion with Mandoble... doesn't he have some solutions already for firing missiles? Maybe see what he has and adapt to your situation... or ask him nicely to help you make one. Check out Mando Missile ArmA for starters: http://www.ofpec.com/forum/index.php?topic=29031.0 Although that might be a bit overkill to what you want. Present your question to Mandoble.