baddo
-
Content Count
1295 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by baddo
-
-
Last night I tested the 1.07.5154 public beta patch and the A10 airplane was the first thing I played with. When flying over sea the water looked brown-ish instead of blue when looking through the windscreen. I actually was thinking for some time that I still fly over ground, over 'sand dunes' until I changed to external view and noticed it was water, not sand. Also the windscreen was reflecting(or something) light so that I didn't see much through it. I was thinking maybe it is some 'cloud' effect. But then again I think it had more to do with the lighting. Really couldn't see where I was flying to, had to use the map and the compass to get back over ground from the sea. When I got over ground again and flying in much lower altitude, I could see better again through the windsceen. Made me think it is a cloud effect because of the flight altitude, but then again could have been just the HDR.
-
Last night I tested the 1.07.5154 public beta patch and the A10 airplane was the first thing I played with. When flying over sea the water looked brown-ish instead of blue when looking through the windscreen. I actually was thinking for some time that I still fly over ground, over 'sand dunes' until I changed to external view and noticed it was water, not sand. Also the windscreen was reflecting(or something) light so that I didn't see much through it. I was thinking maybe it is some 'cloud' effect. But then again I think it had more to do with the lighting. Really couldn't see where I was flying to, had to use the map and the compass to get back over ground from the sea. When I got over ground again and flying in much lower altitude, I could see better again through the windsceen. Made me think it is a cloud effect because of the flight altitude, but then again could have been just the HDR.
-
Well it is very interesting.
Could bring up personal differences much better than games do currently.
-
I just want to say that BIS is a commercial company, not a group of open-source maniacs who are not getting any money from elsewhere than their own pockets. Buying such a graphics card is small money for this kind of companies.
Putting that aside, your offer is very generous and I raise my hat for you if you really are willing to give such an expensive graphics card away for a commercial company for no compensation.
But I think BIS shouldn't have to buy a graphics card for testing if it works with their products. In my opinion BIS should get this kind of graphics card from Nvidia freely for testing purposes (and then return them when testing is over). That would make business sense for both Nvidia and BIS.
One more thing: we have no clue if BIS has such a graphics card already or not.
-
Hmm... 3 crashes in under half an hour of testing... doesn't seem to be stable on my computer. Also a graphical problem appeared when looking towards a BLUFOR soldier through a Dragunov scope; I can't say what it exactly was, but it was ugly! It looked like maybe the BLUFOR soldier "spread" over the whole screen or something. Or it was the fault of a BLUFOR battle tank which was knocking a tree over in the background. Then the game crashed. Graphic settings were on low mostly.
-
If you are going to talk about a patch made for Armed Assault, please at least get the version number of the patch right.
-
That script is definitely not written correctly...
First mistake: you are assigning values to _west and _east two times for each in the start of the script. I don't know what you pass for the script but it is gone pretty quickly.
Second mistake: you try to compare the distance of the _west and _east arrays. That won't work. You must compare the distance of individual objects (soldiers).
Third mistake: you are trying to make the arrays _west and _east say something. That won't work. You must make an individual unit say something.
I think the thing that you have missed here is how to pick stuff from an array. Let me give you a short example:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">
_west = [w1, w2, w3]
(_west select 0) say "us01"
(_west select 1) say "us01"
(_west select 2) say "us01"
This piece of code will make first w1 say "us01" and then w2 and w3 do the same thing. First item in an array is selected with 0. So with select you use an index number of 0...n-1 where n is the number of items in the array.
-
But it's kind of logical to me now; how would ArmA engine know that a variable was to be a boolean if not initialized, since we don't actually have to declare them?Well the Official ComRef says for OFP 1.85, that where a boolean value is expected, undefined value(variable) results as false. That can be understood only in one way, and that's what I explained in my previous post. I can say for sure when testing for a true condition this works in OFP. The trigger will not execute until the variable is introduced and given a value of true.
I can't access ArmA now but I will verify this to be true for ArmA too when I have the chance to do so.
About looking at other peoples' scripts: it is, from time to time, great to look at what other people are doing. But about initializing all global variables in mission start, it really is not necessary for me to start learning about it from others. It is a good practice (sometimes even technically required, but not always) and I actually learnt how to do that without reading it from some other peoples' scripts. I've written all mission-specific global variables into top of init.sqs and by the way, I put comments next to them about where their values are changed and where their values are checked. That makes editing a mission quite a lot of easier, as I can look at the mission one year from now on and immediately know where the global variables are used.
-
Oh, sorry I didn't notice you actually said your CD drive broke before you got OFP.
One possibility: can you temporarily attach an external CD drive to your laptop? You could then install OFP, patch it to 1.96 and you wouldn't need the CD drive after that.
Another possibility would be to take the hard disk drive out of your laptop, attach it to some other computer, install OFP & patch to 1.96, then put the hard disk drive back to your own laptop. This is for sure not going to be as easy as the first possibility and can actually have problems like your laptop's operating system and the hardware on the other computer not playing well together.
I can't comment on making images out of the original CD's.
-
Yes in SQS put it into one line and it works. If you don't want to do that then just use SQF.
This "one line" style is very okay for relatively short statements, I've used them like that many times and it can even be better for readability to not spread a short statement to multiple lines, even if using SQF.
-
Upgrade your legal copy of the game to version 1.96. Patch can be found from http://www.flashpoint1985.com/
-
Official Command Reference for Operation Flashpoint 1.85 states that if a boolean variable used in a condition statement is undefined, the result is false.
Quote[/b] ]When undefined value is encountered in field where boolean value is expected, it is converted to false.And it actually works like that in Operation Flashpoint. I bet, without specifically testing it in ArmA, that it works the same in ArmA too as I see there is no reason for BIS to change this behaviour. And global variables can be initialized in triggers.
We don't know if this is for single player or for multiplayer as the topic starter doesn't say it.
If we get more information from the topic starter we could maybe see where the problem is. Now that I look at the first post, I really can't say what is going wrong.
-
Event handlers are in general believed to be more efficient but they can be misused so that performance can suffer greatly.
An example of misusing event handlers is to execute a long and heavy script from a "fired" event handler every single time the event handler executes. Think about what happens when all the units that have this kind of event handler engage in a firefight with their weapons on automatic fire mode... In this kind of case it is not the fault of the event handlers if you don't get good performance, it is the fault of the person who scripted it so.
I must add that you can in many cases put all the code directly into the event handler itself, so you need not to execute a script from the event handler. If your code is compatible with the function style scripting, you can try putting it in place of the code in the event handler line where you execute the "hide" script. I have a strong feeling that this must be more efficient than executing a script (but no research done to prove it).
-
Vilas, what happens if you leave everything as is but take their ammunition away? Do they still keep targeting? That would solve your problem if it works.
-
The Yugoslav wars of the 1990's would be interesting to experience in ArmA.
Actually something that doesn't have USA in it would be good and refreshing.
I voted for modern. But I have nothing against WW II -based mods. In OFP's FDF Mod there are modern-era and WW II -era troops. I enjoyed both but favoured more the modern theme as it is much closer to my time in the FDF.
-
Hehe, hehe. Hehe hehe, heh-hehe.
Why some people get so uptight on these forums? Well one reason I can think of is that many people here think they didn't buy a game, but they bought something else instead, like a "almost VBS" simulation. Like they got a $1,500 product for only $40 or so. If you go and translate the word "game" into something completely different, then it is not a wonder anymore if you get annoyed and uptight and whatever else, as you have failed to see what kind of product you have bought.
Yes there are plenty of bugs in ArmA that shouldn't have been there in the time of release. But that doesn't change the targeted nature of the product one bit.
Get more revenue from annual license fees from gamers? Well it's a plan. Another thing is how would it work. I know for sure I am not going to pay any continuous fees for these kinds of products. I do that for the newspaper I read but not for computer games like ArmA. I know for sure I will keep on reading about what is going on in our society, but I am not at all sure if I will keep playing computer games for the rest of the year (there is, thankfully, so much more to life). I am sure people would be even more uptight here at these forums if they even payed an annual fee and then the game still does not satisfy their needs and unrealistic expectations.
Concentrate on a smaller-scale game and do it better? Well that could work in reducing the number of bugs in the released version, but it could also shrink the games to a level where they are thrown away after 3 months of playing. That's not what we want, I think we can agree on this. So again, this could cause people getting even more uptight here at these forums, as they thought they were buying a game of the same scale as OFP, or even better (as ArmA actually is). Just imagine the outbursts of people who played OFP/ArmA when they would realize BIS changed drastically their vision of what kind of games they develop, how uptight would that make people here?
I made a quick and rough calculation of how much community members we have compared to the sales of OFP. According to http://www.codemasters.com/, OFP was sold at least a million copies. As of today, Bohemia Interactive Forums, OFPEC Forum, OFP.Info Forum and Armed Assault Info Forums have a total of 69,401 registered members (this value is inaccurately high as it includes many members that have registered to more than one of these forums). Now by doing a calculation we can find that out of the one million OFP copies sold, under 7 % of the buyers have registered themselfs onto the mentioned forums. That is a very small minority and it even doesn't take into account all the sales of the OFP series and the sales of ArmA. Even if we double the number of registered members in this calculation, and keep the sold copies at only one million, we are still under 14 %. I think we can say to a good accuracy that this means that a significant majority of people who bought OFP have not been involved in creating content for the game or modifying it. So, when you speak about creating content and modifying the games, bear in mind that you belong to a very small minority. This should put into some reasonable proportion your wishes and the wishes of the rest of the people who do not want to see the technical details.
From now on, we should concentrate on how to make this forum a better place instead of arguying why it doesn't feel like a good place. How to reduce the uptightyness. How to make people smile more. How to make people actually feel that this is a friendly place to be. I am starting this movement by going outside my house, there is a nice flower growing there. I will look at the flower for at least 5 minutes and only then I allow myself to come back and, perhaps, use the computer. I recommend others find some similar means to reduce their uptightyness.
-
Baddo, if you want to be just a user, fine, there are many studios happy to serve you....and BIS is one of them. They are selling a game to us via publishers. They are not selling just a game engine in the package that says "ArmA". There is a significant difference and to be honest with you, I think you didn't yet understand this difference.
It's quite radical to tell BIS to fire their workers, don't you think? They are creating a game, their primary target is not to provide you a game engine + documentation which you can then use to build a game. I want a game that can actually be used for playing and having fun as first priority, right out-of-the-box, and I am absolutely sure the majority of people who buy ArmA agree with this. You are telling BIS to fire their workers who create content, and concentrate on the game engine and on the tools? For sure they will lose a lot of customers if they do that.
It's great to be able to modify a game and even better if the developers of the game (or the copyright owners) are cool with it, and even provide support for the people who want to modify the game. BUT I want the game first, with content. A suggestion to fire the people who create the content is... not a good suggestion in my humble opinion.
It would be interesting to see statistical analysis of how many of the people who bought OFP or ArmA have actually created content for them. My bet is that the portion who create content is a small minority of the total number of people who bought these games. Most people just want to play and have fun without going into the technical details of the game engine and the content.
-
Then we could take care for the content.I am sure you can buy a game engine from somewhere and develop a game on top of it as you wish. Go ahead and do it but don't drag me into it.
-
Well they are at war with each other, what do you expect them to do? Not fire when they feel threatened by the enemy?
Luckily there is solution for your problem as was already described.
This belongs more to Mission Editing than to Troubleshooting...
-
I am not disappointed.
I have an old and slow computer and I didn't expect ArmA to even work on my computer. I was surprised that it even runs.
So. I bet much of the crying on this forum is due to people buying top-of-the-line hardware, having their expectations skyrocket as a result, adjust graphic settings to high, then disappoint when their expectations of high frames-per-second were not fulfilled.
Please notice, I left the numerous bugs in ArmA out of the previous paragraph. Just talking about performance problems not caused by bugs.
-
It will work. I play on 1.4 GHz, 768 MB RAM and GF 6600 GT 128 MB VRAM. It can get slow at times but in general it is playable. Just don't expect to be able to use the highest settings.
-
How animals are killed in Western countries?
Yup the video is disturbing, cruel etc. But apparently the people do it for a living, not just for fun unlike in some Western sport fishing: Think about how cruel it is to catch a fish with a cruel, for sure painful method and then throw it back to the water. And then do it all over again. Now that is definitely something I have a problem with. I wouldn't have a problem with it if the fish were actually eaten but doing it for just fun, that is cruel. Then it's not about survival of the human beings anymore, but only about having fun.
-
I bet you put that script line into the initialization field of a unit.
You should try to execute the script only for the unit (on your computer only if you are the cameraman) that should have it. I am sure currently you execute it for all participants. There are scripting commands that can help you with this.
-
1.07 beta primary weapons bug
in ARMA - TROUBLESHOOTING
Posted
I feel honestly sorry for you.
I've read your story many times already from these forums. It's not nice to see that someone has so much disappointment after using a lot of hard-earned money into new hardware and into ArmA. It doesn't take a genious to say that all that money could have been used better, like for example into a digicam and a vacation. That's a good tip by the way, I might do just that.
Cheer up friend!
Maybe you should really go to a vacation now and come back later, maybe you would then have better tools and documentation available to do your hobby.