baddo

The cell size can't be that small I think. Maybe for quite a small island though.

Thanks for the link. It is quite a lot of data. I actually am crazy-enough and went and downloaded the whole DEM folder, it is 14 gigabytes of zipped DEMs. Indeed, it is too detailed to be used as-is in ArmA but it can be re-sampled.

A good middle road could be to enable them by default but allow you to go and disable them. The server admins who don't either know or don't care or are too lazy to do anything about them would have them enabled by default. This way you could still have your way and the overall situation on public servers could improve.

Good initiative. I do support you in what you are doing. I don't know if I can help with that. I'll keep it in mind if I get back to testing Wine later.

It's not a bad idea. BIS could at least ask Softimage what kind of process would it be and how much would it cost them. Then again, as BIS has already created their own, even if primitive and limited, 3D modelling software, do they want to stop developing that. I don't believe they would. It is part of their content pipeline and they can change it whenever they want to support new features. So I think they won't drop that. So the XSI ModTool would be just another choice for the users.

I mean that a building in the game isn't actually as simple as you might think at first. It would be in my opinion quite difficult to think of algorithms to produce buildings like that. For bushes and trees the idea works better as they by their nature do not have so much symmetry and clear shapes and functional shapes like a building does. The building has to have its windows and doors and... you get what I mean better now I think. Also I mentioned textures. You could use some generic textures for different type of materials, but that would mean not much variation between the buildings (this can be ok). Would you want to have also procedurally generated textures. And normal maps. Et cetera. The thing blows out of control quickly if we go deeper into this. I support the idea but I see that it is a lot of work to create such a system. Computer programmers have created city layouts procedurally. And road networks. The creation of large urban areas benefit a lot from those methods. No need for so much manual work. I'm sure BIS has already gone somewhat to this direction, as it really makes a lot of sense. Press a button and you have a city! Press a button and you have the road network! It's all to shorten the time it takes from the beginning to the end of a project. The shorter the time the bigger the profit, is a thumb rule if the end result is the same or even better.

Well, BIS can set it up for them. Not much work for a server admin if it comes as default and is always on. I can understand the argument that closed groups can deal with their members. But how do they know if they are cheating or not? How do you find out about that if you don't use BattlEye and signature checking? You will notice in-game if someone is firing missiles out of his chest, sure... but I think that is not even close to being very useful cheating if one wants to win with unfair play. The good, useful cheating is something you are not going to notice without the help of anti-cheat tools. I can see how it can be an extra burden, but I think that the pros far outwheigh the cons. You could maybe set up some automated process to deal with the signing. And maybe also do the same for "upload to server". To reduce the manual work that has to be done to get signed addons to servers. Yes, that's why I think BIS should consider just forcing them to be on always.

In my opinion this is very simple. When playing in multiplayer, you only load the addons that are required to play. If you try to load something else, then you in my opinion deserve to get kicked from the server  I go even as far and say that BIS should put people in line by forcing this so that it is not up to the server admins.

I'd like that to be instead "fallen trees still act like physical bodies and like visuality blocking bodies". Wouldn't it be better if you could use a fallen tree to your advantage. And same for the enemy. That would be closer to how it is in this real life of ours, and people wouldn't be negatively surprised about it then.

What if 1) BattlEye would always be used in multiplayer mode. BIS can make it happen. 2) Signature checking would always be used in multiplayer mode. BIS can make it happen. What kind of people would not like to have them both on? Do we have to care about those people? Pros & cons weighing. What do you value more. Forcing these features to be on and not leaving the user any option to turn them off is something BIS should especially consider for ArmA 2.

arigram, I am not entirely sure if you have understood my posts in this thread. But I give you the benefit of the doubt... it might as well be my fault for not being clear-enough about what I want to say. Or maybe I don't understand. But anyways. There is functionality missing from Wine which is required to make ArmA work on it. That means major trouble to you if you want to run ArmA on Wine. This has a negative tone, and when I said 'pessimistic' (realistic) I meant that it is realistic, but to some other people than me I might sound 'pessimistic'. I hope this clears what I meant. I don't think that I am pessimistic, I think I am being realistic. Really. There is functionality missing from Wine to run Operation Flashpoint correctly... if they can't have functionality in place to run a game from 2001, how about a much newer game which uses newer programming libraries? It's only going to be worse, as has been proved to be the case with ArmA on Wine. It's realistic (to you I'm pessimistic...) to say that there are major problems and that it is going to take a lot of time to improve Wine so that ArmA runs on it. If you are not going to do the research and programming work by yourself soon, then you can expect a long time until ArmA works on Wine. I can not see what is wrong with this statement. It is in my opinion a realistic statement. I said that the ball is on the Wine developers. You can become one if you wish. If you are not going to become one and start coding it to make it work with ArmA, then the next best thing in my opinion is to move on like I said earlier and not waste time on it. I know I am not going to become a Wine developer, so I decided to move on and forget about it as I have better things to do than to try and run a buggy and a performance-wise very demanding game on a totally unsupported platform.

I can understand why you are frustrated. I am not playing anyone's attourney  Look at your post which you made into this thread on July 03 2008,01:05, and tell me what useful information does it have to start troubleshooting the problem? To me it looks like another one of your "f***" posts. I can understand why you say "f***" but as I said, it isn't helping you. You need to come up with something else than that, something new, which will help other people (BIS included) to start thinking what might cause the problem. The "my disc is scratched" and "f***" is totally useless complaining here. I am trying to give to you a friendly advice. It is possible that the problems seen on your screenshots are at least partly caused by your computer hardware or software other than ArmA. You will personally need to eliminate the possibility that some hardware components are causing the problem or making it worse. You will also personally need to eliminate the possibility that some other software is causing the problem or making it worse. There is no sensible way how we could do that for you. Not me, not BIS, but you have to do it. You will have to personally take that video card out and try another one and see what happens. Et cetera. I am sure you understand that with the information you are providing here, there is pretty much nothing we can do to help you. It is all part of the "joy" of being a Personal Computer (PC) owner. I myself am seriously considering that I will switch my gaming to a console. The life and evolution of the PC game Armed Assault and its troubleshooting forum have a lot of great examples of why would I want to do that. It is not this one game only, I think the whole PC hardware and software industry has serious problems. But someone makes cash out of that, too. The consumer should stop that, if someone.

It is not helpfull that you just repeat the same kind of posting here on this forum. I think I have read quite a lot posts written by you which basically say the same thing. That is what I meant with "Repeating the same things over and over again is not going to help you, you need to come up with something new." It is not helping you. There is little information in your posts for us to think about what could be wrong. There is little information to BIS in your posts. All we can see is that you have graphical problems in ArmA. You need to provide much more info than that if you want that anyone is able to help you. As long as you keep repeating the same kind of posts, all we can do is to give you general tips how to start troubleshooting the problem, as I did in my previous post.

Vilas I think you need to analyze your computer and operating system. I am sure you have done it already to some degree, but I think you need to take a look at if there is other software taking a too big part of the performance away. You could try creating settings for your computer in which you disable absolutely everything that is not needed when you play ArmA. Make sure there is no software disturbing ArmA's performance. After that is done, and if you still get the same problems, then start to check the performance of your hardware, where are the bottlenecks... I'm sure most regular visitors of this forum are very well aware that you have those kinds of problems. Repeating the same things over and over again is not going to help you, you need to come up with something new.

Slowly but it's coming... keep it up! I hope you have enough man(girl)power to make it. Sorry, I am of no help with the project (I've got enough to worry about other things). I hope you will not lose the faith over the project. The reward will be in the end, when we play your work and thank you!

I wish you good luck as well for getting Armed Assault to work on Wine. I just think that the Wine developers have the ball and the development is just so slow that it is unrealistic to expect them to implement all functionality needed to run ArmA anytime soon. It is going to take years at least is my bet. But please do keep trying, do not stop trying even if I sound pessimistic (realistic). I am afraid that you would have to become a Wine programmer if you really want to solve the problems. Thumbs up.

While I do think that the documentation should be further improved, especially concerning mission editing, I do not agree with you about the "walkthrough" idea. The campaign missions of Armed Assault are certainly easy-enough so that you won't need any walkthrough for them. If the ArmA2 will have a campaign of the same level, then it will be no problem. I hope this will not be the case. The other single player missions might be a problem, but with a little bit of perceverance you will prevail! Often in the missions you are not in a hurry, take your time to look around and stay away from the enemy until you have a good understanding of the area and how you can use it to your advantage. After all, the Artificial Intelligence is quite stupid compared to you. Exploit that and don't play so that the AI soldiers get to use their strengths.

In my opinion the fact that Operation Flashpoint (a DirectX 8 game) runs both slower and erraneously on Wine compared to how it runs on Windows XP, is a good indication that Armed Assault (a DirectX 9 game) is going to have similar problems but even more so as it uses newer technology which is not available on Wine. There is no need to bust any myths. It is my experience which tells me that games run faster on Windows XP than on Wine on Linux. And let's take into notice that both Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault can not be run on Wine without errors, the latter even doesn't get to the 'playing' part at all. Of course the salesman is trying to claim that the product is better than that, but we tried the product and saw how well it works. It doesn't work, move on and spend your time better.

It's not worth it. If it could be run on wine, then it would be slower than when running on Windows. I do think that ArmA runs slowly-enough on Windows... Â Such an open-source project such as the Wine is going to seriously struggle to keep up with what is required to run games like ArmA. I wouldn't expect them to do much about this, it's unrealistic. Yes I tried it too. Already Operation Flashpoint has problems when running it on Wine which are not acceptable in my opinion. It's a lot to ask after that that Armed Assault should work.

I have played a few Warfare sessions and not once did a server crash. I have been kicked out once from a server because too much lag caused the BattlEye to fail, though.

I'm sure that the ArmA AI knows what is a road. It doesn't take much to notice that they do. Maybe you are talking about something else, then, actually.

No I'm not worried of that. It's a so small-scale system that it's only going to suck in a couple of scientists, at maximum. But, if the end of this planet is coming soon because of that, I'd prefer that we all get sucked into a black hole in one big go to not make anyone feel left behind. It could be interesting to see the black hole from the inside. The explanations the scientists are giving to us are not even nearly enough... I'm more a practical work type of guy than a theorist...

Noscript addon on firefox > all Oh, that solves it then... Â Â It's funny how things are, I can't remember Internet Explorer crashing even once. Maybe some other people had it crash but the comparison between IE and Firefox on my computer is very much against Firefox. I got really fed up with Firefox as it crashed randomly and it didn't matter which website I was visiting at the time of crash. And I think that even if the website has sloppy coding, or intentionally tries to crash the browser, the browser should not crash (it's important for the security). And what's with the "install this 3rd party addon to get rid of the crashes!" mentality? It makes it sound like it needs band-aid (or duct tape, which one you prefer) here and there to actually work like originally intended. As I said, I am open to hear how this new version of Firefox does. I am certainly not against having the Firefox project around. Competition is good to have!

Yes I meant that. Then I don't know what could be wrong. Double and triple check that there are no typos. Also one, although unlikely, possibility is that your computer is set up to treat filenames case-sensitively. Although I don't know if that affects OFP. But as it's a possibility, better eliminate it too. One thing you could do would be to un-pbo an original (made by BIS) mission which has script files into the users/mike/missions folder and try to load that mission into the mission editor and see if it works. If it does work, then we know that you are screwing up by yourself at some point when creating your own mission.

I don't think it's possible without editing the world file. Some objects might, when they get destructed, disappear quite well. Maybe you should try that and see what it does to these particular objects. Just try setting their damage to 1 and see what happens. I doubt this will help but try it.