Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

baddo

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1295

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by baddo

  1. Posted

    This addon is not only a client side hack but it can break  missions too.. users are not supposed to run visibility above what the server or a mission have set..

    With all the whinning about BIS not doing much to stop cheating its funny to find this one sitting here.

    You really believe that people wont abuse this because you ask them not to? icon_rolleyes.gif .

    How in the world do you attribute cheating and abuse to raising the viewdistace in a game...unless you just have a crappy video card and your machine cant handle the extra load and your FPS goes down the drain but your using "cheating" and "abuse" as a cover up.  LOL how pathetic.

    If people have different viewdistances in a multiplayer session then it is a serious problem!

    Just try to play a session having lower viewdistance than the other players... you will notice you will lose no matter what you do.

    If you don't see a problem then... well... I think your viewdistance is too low then  tounge2.gif

  2. Posted

    As a comment to the speed of motor columns. In FDF we usually had a motor column speed of 60 km/h or 70 km/h depending on the vehicles in the column. This was of course in good roads, not in rough and narrow unsurfaced forest roads. There were no tanks driving in these columns. The tanks were transported over longer distances on trailers or on trains. Over short distances they most often had their own columns with no wheeled vehicles going in the same column (I think this can likely change in wartime so that trucks don't go so much on their own).

    Some vehicles, like some trailers, have a speed limit of 60 km/h. So that often determined the maximum speed of the whole motor column. Sometimes different motor columns were formed to allow faster vehicles go at their own rate and not be stuck in the 60 km/h limit though.

    80 km/h starts to be at the top of the speed range of some of our vehicles, so it was not often used as the ordered speed of a motor column as those vehicles could have trouble keeping up with the faster vehicles.

    Individually, I sometimes drove as fast as the vehicle could go which was somewhere between 85-100 km/h with the ZIL-131. Depending on the exact truck I had. Some went only 85 km/h, some went faster rofl.gif I think even more than 100 km/h was possible if no uphill and no load onboard. I can tell you that is one hell of a speed with that vehicle! It's scary actually. I once passed a long motor column going at 60 km/h by going flat-out past them in a motorway, and the other trucks were honking, laughing and cheering for me, oh the good times... maybe they didn't believe their eyes, a ZIL going that fast!

    biggrin_o.gif

    In off-road I actually seriously struggled once to keep up with BMP's. I was driving my ZIL-131 behind some BMP's, and when we went into a muddy 'tank groove' as we called it, I had to go as fast as I possibly could to keep up with the BMP's. And the speed was low. There I could clearly see what the difference between tracked and wheeled vehicles can be off-road.

    Okay I stop here so you won't need to hear even more army memories.

  4. Posted

    Well anyways, it's up to the BIS developers to consider what features they want to implement into ArmA 2...

    ...if a gasmask fits in, then fine. If it doesn't, then no problems from my side expected.

    I just don't understand why people who are not ArmA developers, shoot this kind of suggestion down. On one hand, they like the idea of playing the most realistic military simulation game available, but on the other hand, they talk against realistic features like a gasmask which would open lots of scenario possibilities. Better it would be if it was implemented in the game by default and not 'modded in'. Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it  xmas_o.gif

  5. Posted

    If it's too costly to have realistically looking ragdoll physics in these kinds of games.

    Then how about this.

    Let animation system handle a death of a character up to the point it does currently in ArmA.

    Then enable ragdoll physics mode and thus let the character follow the shape of the terrain that way.

    One of the ugliest things I see in ArmA is the way the characters often have their body up in the air after death... because they stay in the position of the last animation frame. This could be solved by having at least a little bit of ragdoll physics in there.

  7. Posted

    People seem to have this idea that bodies fly backwards in the air when shot and flop around like rubber balls.

    People seem to have this idea that ragdoll physics means that?

    Where did you get that idea from?

    You will have both animation and ragdoll physics. Ragdoll physics takes over at some point. When it does take over, you can actually have control how much there is movement of the limbs, and at what rate and dampening they move. It is all on the developers' responsibility to make it look realistic.

    It is not the fault of the technology if it is used in unrealistic ways.

  8. Posted

    I go as far as saying that the CWR team should ignore for now what people wish to be 'fixed'.

    I mean how are they going to get the thing done if they listen to your suggestions?

    To me it has been clear that the goal of the CWR project is to bring OFP CWC into ArmA. I think that changing the goal of the project from bringing OFP content into ArmA into fixing what are errors in OFP in your opinion at this stage could be a costly mistake regarding project schedule.

  9. Posted

    If nothing in the scripting seems to help, there is something I think could work. Maybe this has even been done already in OFP? Might be worth checking how some smokescreen addons, which supposedly blocks the AI's view, were done for OFP.

    Create an addon which is invisible to you, but not to the AI.

    A wall which blocks their view but doesn't affect collision calculations. I'm thinking in the 3D model files there is possibility to do this, as I recall the 'level-of-details' are separated so that you can have the physics geometry, visual geometry and 'view' geometry separately. This leads me to thinking this could be exploited to make an invisible wall which blocks only the view of the AI. I could be wrong though, as I never tried to do it. It could block also your view.

    You would then put such walls around them into the distance you want.

    Not really good, but I think if you want to achieve it, this way you could. Maybe.

  10. Posted

    Reminds me of how I asked the FDF Mod folks for a gasmask, and they (well the one person at the IRC channel) ridiculed the idea  tounge2.gif Also at their forums this idea didn't really get much serious support...

    Why not have a gasmask in a game? I have good memories from the army using it! Running in the icy, snowy steep hills of Hämeenlinna with the gasmask on was fun! Especially as my breathing technique was obviously not perfect, as the visibility lowered quite substantially due to the moisture inside the mask... I was surprised to make it out unhurt of that training! Not all did by the way.

    Creating an overlay to block visibility like a gasmask does to you would be easy to implement wouldn't it.

    Also the 3D model, technically possible too isn't it.

    And why not have some scripts to make characters die in a gas cloud if they don't have their mask on.

    This opens so much possibilities scenario-wise, that why not do it.

  11. Posted

    Well it was a right decision to cancel the race.

    Think about organizing it... how do you change your plans as drastically as changing the special stages to another country in the last moment? Better just drop it and have a look again for next year.

  12. Posted

    WarWolf @ Jan. 05 2008,01:01)]Userrights? Its a DLL running in ArmA space, therefore as ArmA seems to run reliably only with Admin rights then this is sort-of a moot point?

    Uh, what?

    ArmA runs stable when I use a restricted account... I know not all games work well if they are not used by admin account, but all of those which I know are old games and their developers probably never were thinking that users might actually have accounts and different permissions.

  15. Posted

    Before you shoot down an idea, please understand not everyone knows even the existence of a "Print Screen" button... I've met enough people who didn't so I thought why not make sure this guy here knows about it.

    Surprisingly often people don't know it can be used to take screenshots.

    But I'm sure Deusrexmachina now knows enough options.

  19. Posted

    Yeah... happy new year!

    The year I will turn 30 years old!  crazy_o.gif  Should I go  yay.gif or  banghead.gif

    I don't know yet about that.

    But I have an odd feeling inside me that this is going to be a much better year for me than the last one  yay.gif

  20. Posted

    Well yeah... if you look only at what kind of equipment an army has... the Finnish Defence Forces have lots of Soviet equipment. BMP-1, BMP-2, T-55 smile_o.gif T-72, BTR, ZIL, UAZ, GAZ, MtLb, AK, PKM, Dragunov, helicopters, well the list goes on and on... if you look at that huge pile of Soviet equipment we have, you could think it's a Soviet/Russian army when it certainly is not...

    We have made lots of equipment on our own too. Mortars, artillery guns, rifles, APC's, Nasu, trucks, come to mind now.

    And purchased lots of stuff from Western countries. Weapons, AT launchers, Leopard tanks, American jet fighters, European transport helicopters (well if only the manufacturer would deliver them! )...

    The point is, the equipment just doesn't tell what nationality a game is portraying, if it isn't explicitly pointed by the game developers to a certain nation. In ArmA it isn't. Soviet equipment is so wide-spread that many nationalities have it in significant amounts. It's then up to your imagination to choose the side of a game as you wish.

    Also, I have no morality problems playing any side in games like OFP/ArmA. I can play as a Russian soldier and shoot at the FDF. Because it's a game. In reality I would not do that of course, being my patriotic self, but in a game it is richness to be able to play other sides too.

  23. Posted

    I think If BIS have an programe or engine where they can create random nature obstacles constructed on some maps, why shoudn't they create random building structure based on maps too. It would be nice if every house will be different. And it will take less work on  map creating wink_o.gif

    Yeah it would be cool...

    How about textures? Does your tool generate those too? Well maybe some common textures could be used for the many different models.

    There is going to be lots of work for this.

    If you take a look at the building 3D model files, you will notice it is not just the simple shape of the building which makes up an OFP/ArmA building model file.

  24. Posted

    Yes I agree, if you are about to write tools then XML is nice. I've done that myself and reading/writing XML is very easy to program. Even in C++ if you use TinyXML.

    But there are drawbacks also, ones I mentioned already are readability problem and performance penalty.

    If XML is going to be used, I suggest BIS should have a converter program which converts between their internal "pre-parsed, compiled" binary format and XML. That tool of course would be given to community. This way we can have the files loaded into the engine in an optimal format, but also have the files in XML if wanted so.

    The binary file format should be BIS' "secret", other people would then not need to do anything with it but just use the XML. This way BIS could change their binary file format and not break other peoples' tools from working. Because their binary<-->XML converter would handle the changes.

×