baddo

Answer this question: are you absolutely sure that the filename does not end with .sqs.txt ? This topic will not proceed until that is crystal clear. I'm sorry but we do need to know that as it is by far the first thing that causes these kinds of problems. From your posts it is not clear if you actually know what I am talking about of the file extension. Filename extension... so what is it?

Is the topic title wrong or the posts?

Firefox is maybe the most over-hyped software I've ever seen and used. For example its "security" is a myth, it was laughable how people got carried away with that kind of marketing when in fact it had lots of buffer overflow bugs (critical to security). I am open to see and hear how well this new version does, but earlier versions haven't impressed at all. Thankfully there are other choices. Of course, to each their own.

Do you always come here to talk about what happened to you on some server? Â It's now second time that I can remember. Removing cross-hair can indeed be argued to make the gaming experience worse. We miss a lot of input in a game that we have in real life, and the game needs to make up for that somehow. The cross-hair is one of those things. I don't know about the "other stuff".

Are you saving the files with a .sqs.txt ending? Don't do that. Configure the Windows File Explorer to show also file extensions. If that's not your problem, then I don't know what it could be.

Is that VBS on their screens? Looks very ArmA-ish so I think it's VBS. ( It's from article: Bad conduct gets Army recruits promoted faster, study shows http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/30/military.waivers.ap/index.html ) Does anyone know if Armed Assault is used for this purpose? Is it even allowed by its license?

Had the exact same thing happening in Paraiso. I extensively checked all surrounding buildings, but couldn't find any resistence or opfor left. The capturing-bar just didn't appear. I experienced this problem too. I checked a town quite carefully and did not see enemies anywhere but it was impossible to capture a depot. Other things I have noticed: - Vehicles at a base can be in horizontal position even though the ground is not horizontal. Like a UAZ had its front wheels high up in the air on a slope. When I got into the vehicle, the front wheels dropped to the ground and I could control it normally. - Soldiers are sitting in weird way at a base. Like two soldiers are in a sitting animation pose at almost the same location. There are no chairs, vehicles, weapons or anything under them or close to them, they are sitting on nothing. And they can be buried to ground, like about half of them. I don't know what those dudes are doing but it surely doesn't look right.

Slowly but surely it's coming... Thanks for the new pictures. It reminds me of the number one reason why I keep Armed Assault installed on my computer. There is the hope of the FDF Mod for ArmA some day

Well didn't I say that you could choose from inside the game what you want loaded and what not. Also, regarding the individual missions. You are only playing one single mission at a time. So if that mission uses only some particular addon, it only loads that. So what goes wrong here? Nothing. If you want to have some extra addons loaded, you could say in the settings menu that have this loaded now and then go start your mission. You could have control in the settings menu over what are by default not loaded but which can be auto-loaded and what are always loaded no matter what the missions request. In multiplayer it should be so that the server always dictates what addons you can have loaded. No problem here, if the user tried to force some addon to be loaded via the settings menu, then the game just unloads it when going into a server that doesn't allow it. The 3rd-party launcher way is the lazy way to solve it. It is an anti-solution! Â

The example from Matt Rochelle is someone not understanding. The @ doesn't solve that "not understanding" problem in any way as I see it. If you will be using the command line arguments to load mods, people will always be able to mess it up no matter what kind of names the folders have. Instead of forcing some mysterious character into the folder names, I would put a "Mods" folder into the ArmA folder and only allow loading of 3rd-party content from there. The game would check the contents of the "Mods" folder during start-up and would recognize which of the sub-folders are valid mod folders. There could be some specific file required in each mod folder which would briefly tell the game what the folder contains (maybe config.bin does that already sufficiently, but maybe we need another step before going into that). This system would not use any command line arguments at all. I think that the user should be able to, after installing the game and the mods, forget messing with the command line arguments. The game could have a settings menu to enable/disable mods as the user wishes. The game could initialize and load mods when a mission tells it that "these are required, do you have them in the Mods folder? If yes then please initialize and load them asap". The game could unload and uninitialize mods when the mission started doesn't require them. Actually, I do think that the content is loaded on-demand, but there is some initializing phase which is done with the help of the command line parameters. Why? I don't buy the loading speed argument because if the actual content shown to the user is loaded on demand, why not also configuration. Surely with big islands for example, it could be good to load them on startup so the user gets a little bit fooled about the time it took to start a mission. But that would then be a job for the settings enable/disable mod menu. Get rid of the whole command line argument way of initializing mods.

Only load the game with the addons that are needed to play.

Maybe you have a bug in your mission (can be in DAC) which makes it so that your mission is continuously creating new objects but never deleting old ones, or re-using old ones?

I'm thinking that this would add a lot to the game. I've mentioned it earlier somewhere on this forum. It is not exactly a small thing though. It would be great if ArmA2 would have Russian characters speaking Russian. I'm sure the Russians would love it too as long as its properly done. It irritates me quite a lot when in movies there are "Germans" or "Russians" et cetera which do not speak their own language! How am I going to believe that they are Germans or Russians if they speak English? No way!

Yes, definitely

The FPS was very low yesterday when I was kicked out of the server due to BattlEye client not responding. It was a diashow right before the kick for a couple of seconds. This happened no more than maybe a maximum of one minute after I joined the mission. I can't give an FPS number but a diashow should tell how slow it was. Totally unplayable. I told it here as I saw other people mention it and thought that maybe their problem also is caused by the computer choking on the workload. Then the BattlEye can't get a response and kicks the player even when the player is not cheating and has the BattlEye client running. I have to add that I have played Warfare 1.0 succesfully on other servers in which there were less players (16 max. I think) and the FPS was much higher (playable).

It's odd. I haven't got a single crash with this 1.14 patch. If you have a mission which always crashes for you, maybe it could be usefull to upload it somewhere and give a link to it here so other people can try if it crashes for them also.

I got "Client not responding" on a Warfare 1.0 server. The server had something like 26 players I think. And it was quite laggy. My game turned into a diashow quickly after starting to play, and soon after that I got the "BattlEye Client not responding" message and I got kicked out of the server. I would go and say that the message "Client not responding" can be a result of the server and/or client hardware and/or network connection struggling with the workload, which makes the BattlEye think that there is some sort of cheating going on or that the BattlEye client isn't enabled when it in fact is. The ping to the server was I think around 50-60 ms. I filter servers which have a ping over 100 ms away. My internet connection is at maximum 8 Mbit/s downstream and 1 Mbit/s upstream, but mainly at least 2 Mbit/s downstream and 512 kbit/s upstream (as advertized by the Internet Service Provider). My ArmA version is 1.14.5256 and I have no other than BIS made content loaded into the game. I have made sure that there is no firewall problem at my end. My computer is well below the minimum requirements set by BIS for Armed Assault.

Anyone can use their money like they want as long as it is legal what they do. Me personally, I don't waste money on newest computer hardware. Why? Because it is irrational! You can do it but it doesn't make much sense from an economical point of view. It is a very bad investment. So, go on and pre-order what you want and be happy while doing it I will be happy for you. In the end it doesn't matter how the money gets used, we will die anyways.

I don't even care. Use the tool which is better for the job at hand.

Let's add to the argument that someone actually claimed to be able to run Operation Flashpoint in Linux in an emulator faster than natively on Windows... Â I'd like to see the evidence for that. The evidence I collected in my own experiments was very much against it. Also the sounds were working incorrectly and some of the graphics, plus networking. At least those... Yeah I know this hasn't got anything to do with servers, just giving you more to discuss about Windows vs Linux

1. You look it up from your motherboard manual... if you have it that is. An alternative is to open the case of the computer and start reading. If you have trouble locating your motherboard, then that would be the board with a lot of small parts attached to it, and also with smaller cards attached to it... Try to find the make and the model information from the motherboard itself. Then you go to the motherboard manufacturer's website (google.com helps to find it) and start looking for a BIOS update download. 2. You will follow the instructions that the motherboard manufacturer gives you. 3. It is not 100 % safe, but if you think that your power doesn't go off suddenly, and if you follow the instructions the motherboard manufacturer gave to you, then it should be OK. Usually the motherboard manufacturer says that if your computer doesn't have any problems, then don't update the BIOS.

Well... let me tell you my opinion about the points you brought up. 1 cars that can open doors It is a feature if standard cars don't have doors which do not open, and as such it is a matter of opinion. 2 AI range fix where the AI had a more realistic sight This is also called a feature. And a matter of opinion as such. Other people define realistic sight differently than you do. 3: Urban patrol scripts that fix up AI in an urban area This is also called a feature. And a matter of opinion as such. An urban patrol script obviously is something that wasn't needed for the original game. 4: tons of sound mods that replace all the sounds in Orig Arma Having sounds that do not please you as well as some other sounds is called a feature as well. And a matter of opinion as such. This is highly subjective. One man's beautiful sound is another man's annoying noise. 5:extended event handlers in the mission editor. This is called a feature. And a matter of opinion as such. Who is the one to decide if this is really necessary? Can you point out to me why the original Armed Assault the game would need this? Why was the game shipped without it? You are saying this is a fix to some problem, so you should be able to point out what the specific problem was that needed to be fixed with it. 6: replace the vegetation with a lesser impact of performance. This is called a feature. And a matter of opinion as such. A highly subjective thing. One man has a brand new blindingly fast computer and another man has an old and very slow computer; are they going to feel the same about this. Why not tune the game down so that we can use a computer that only just fulfills the minimum requirements told by BIS to run it with high visual quality settings. 7: fix the vegetation so that the AI can see you thru a bush. This is called a feature. And a matter of opinion as such. Different people will tell you different opinions of how much one can see through a bush. In fact, out of your 7 points, I see that 7 of them are matters of opinion. There is a lack of evidence that any one of those points actually needed to be fixed as you chose to word. They are matters of opinion. Yes, it is great that The Community makes more choices for us from which to select. I am not downplaying anyone's effort, just pointing out an obvious flaw in your thinking. Maybe you could have made a better list which actually contains some things that we can agree that were clearly broken and needed to be fixed by a common agreement, AND which were fixed by The Community. Things which are highly subjective do not belong to that list at all.

In SLI the data in the video memory is actually duplicated, according to the SLI documents I read at http://developer.nvidia.com/ Maybe they changed it in newer cards, I don't know. I read an SLI document some time last year. I understood that there is one dataset for each Graphics Processing Unit (GPU). That would mean there is more data transfer than on a single-GPU card. I do not know if the additional transfer happens only inside the graphics card, but I can imagine it could make sense. One transfer to graphics card, then at the card give the other GPU its data too. Or is it possible for them to separate the data already before the graphics card (there are different rendering modes in SLI so I guess it depends on those too). I do not know, this is speculation. But it makes sense that the problem might be data-transfer related if you feel that the problem is slow loading of textures. So a possible cure could be to make sure that the datatransfer speed from Hard Disk Drive (HDD) to Random Access Memory (RAM) and then to graphics card is optimal. I'm no expert at all on this subject.

Check that you actually have the hardware you paid for. It wouldn't be the first time when a dealer installs something else into a computer than what the buyer is paying for. And it could have happened accidentally too.

I think that offensive private messages could be reported to moderators instead of placing them on public display. That way the public argument could be reduced. But there is no written forum rule about that. <s>So I guess it is everyone's decision what to do with their private stuff.</s> Edit: Although I have to say that at least in some jurisdictions there are laws which protect private "letters" from being published without permission. It also applies to electronic communications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence That could very well apply here too. In fact I think it does. So I will retract my earlier statement about "private stuff" above. My personal opinion is that private messages should stay private if it is not agreed between the sender and the receiver that the message may be published.