Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

baddo

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1295

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by baddo

  2. Posted

    So you think you know all the thousands of people in the university that well? Good for you then...

    Even if you knew all the people, there is still the possibility that a gun goes off accidentally and you are in the line of fire. Trusting that person won't help much.

  3. Posted

    I would not go into a university where students are allowed to keep weapons with them for self-protection... that would be a totally insane place. Do you feel safe when you are surrounded by weapons? I don't.

    Even in the Finnish Defence Forces where everyone were supposed to be friendlies, I didn't like the idea at the shooting range that there were some 100+ people close to me with loaded assault rifles. It only needs one error from someone... I didn't feel exactly safe when there were lots of weapons and ammunition close to me. Actually during that year one person even got killed during a battle exercise. He got a bullet into the back of his head.

  4. Posted

    It is not understandable biggrin_o.gif

    The bug report I made shows what happened when editing a mission, surely it was not a multiplayer session.

    "Oh by the way, if you tune your settings down then soldiers will appear sinked into ground! But take it as normal!" Yeah right...

    rofl.gif

  5. Posted

    All guns need not be banned. But some common sense may be applied, it is not forbidden in U.S. either, no matter how "the amendment" is interpreted.

    Concentrate on the guns that people can easily carry with them so that others don't notice it (handguns). Concentrate on the guns that are likely to cause significant damage if someone uses them against others in a crowded public place (semi-autom. and full autom. guns for starters).

    I have absolutely no problem with the hunting weapons. The guns in question are inappropriate for hunting.

  7. Posted

    I think he already has the full version and is not waiting for the U.S. release... he's not talking about what he wants into the demo. He's really talking about having the northern part of Sara in the full version. It just doesn't make any sense if the splitting is the only modification.

  8. Posted

    Oh yes I see what you mean... but I think you gain nothing as ArmA will load the island on-demand and not all at once. You gain nothing performance-wise.

    Just to add, if such an addon is made it is completely mad if for only the purpose of splitting the island and not doing anything else to it, as you would only create an annoying situation where players would need to download your "special" island and gain nothing as a result compared to just using the original Sara island for your missions.

  11. Posted

    Aha!

    Thanks for the info Kegetys.

    In this case the players are ordered to destroy the bridge. For marking the objective done when the bridge is destroyed the workaround is needed.

    By the way I tried to blow the bridge section by placing the 3 satchel charges on a same spot on top of the bridge and that did nothing to the bridge. Maybe it could be destroyed from the top also by using even more satchel charges, but that is not feasible in a mission anymore.

    And I think the object ID's will change if the island is updated, so that is a problem too (which has the same solution). In some wrp editor program this happens even if island is not modified, I don't remember which one it was.

  12. Posted

    Maybe it's the same problem as with summer East Border, the ID numbers are displayed incorrectly in the editor so you have to use nearestObject or nearestBuilding.

    I don't think that's the case...

    I think you are talking about the problem that occurred when the East Border island was updated and all existing missions that relied on object ID's thus became broken. When the island was saved in a wpr editor program, the program saved the object ID's in a different order than in the previous time. Maybe the FDF Mod crew even deleted/added some objects which further ensures the object ID's won't stay the same. That is why the FDF Mod crew then instructed us to use other methods than using the object ID directly, to ensure the missions do not break if the island is updated.

    I had a test session on the subject of this thread and at least the buildings I used to confirm that my script worked, did match the object ID number that was visible in the editor (I used object ID directly in a script to monitor the damage value).

    And as I said, when using setDamage 1 on the specific bridge section and then using damage to check the damage value in the specific bridge section using the object ID directly, resulted in a value of 1 being returned from damage, when it in the start was 0 of course. <s>So that confirms that the object ID visible in the mission editor pointed to the correct object.</s>

  13. Posted

    Hmm... never tried destroying those bridges. But. Maybe they can't be destroyed? Did you try to read the damage value of the bridge after the destruction attempt?

    Edit: It seems if you put the satchel charges on top of the bridge, they won't do anything to the bridge. But if you put the satchel charges to the support column under the bridge then the bridge section collapses. But still the damage value seems to stay at 0. It seems to require 3 satchel charges placed near the column to make the bridge section collapse.

    When using (object 1) setdamage 1 the damage goes up to 1 but the bridge shows no sign of damages.

    So the solution for your problem is to instruct players in the briefing to place 3 satchel charges under the bridge close to the support column... or let them figure it out by themselfs (and get frustrated in the process).

  14. Posted

    Well I think they would ban handguns at least if the yearly death toll caused by them would rapidly grow every year, despite of what some amendment in some very old paper is saying... which is even debated if the meaning is understood correctly. So yes it's also a question of how many people they allow to get killed before they do something about it.

    Or... would it go as with Josif Stalin, if the death toll is ridiculously high it would then only be statistics? I don't think so...

  15. Posted

    Hey friends

    I talked about mentality. Are you an attacker or a defender? I am a defender. I defend myself, my family and my country with the help of the police and with the help of the Defence Forces. I have the impression that many people in the U.S. have handguns for self-protection, which I find a dangerous decision by nature, as I already said in my earlier post. If you carry a handgun with you to protect yourself, you should have made the decision in your mind that you are actually able to use your gun to kill someone. If you have not prepared yourself mentally for such an action, then do not carry a handgun with you please, as I think you put yourself into greater danger by having a gun with you and not being able to use it. I know I don't want to shoot anyone, as does CrashDome and others here too. But again, I have an impression that in the U.S. people have a lower step into using their gun to shoot someone. I am in the belief that the people who make the decision to carry a handgun with them, made the crucial decision somewhere in the back of their heads that they actually can use their guns to shoot other people. Otherwise, I think, they would not be carrying a gun.

    It is true that there are a lot of guns in other countries too, like in Finland as CrashDome so well pointed out. Hunting is popular here. I personally know several people who go hunting. They have only hunting rifles and hunting shotguns as far as I know. I appreciate their hobby, I have no problem with it. I have yet to meet persons who carry handguns with them, excluding police officers. Again, I have the impression that if I go to U.S.A. it won't take long until I meet a person who carries a handgun, and is not a police officer. Only an impression and not yet any experience to back it up.

    It would be interesting to see statistical information about how many of all the handguns in Finland (or any other country of your choice) and in U.S.A. are being carried with their owners on a daily basis. I admit I make a guess here when I say that the percentage in the U.S.A. is significantly higher than in Finland. That is the mentality I am talking about. Yes, I made a guess and have no statistical data to back it up. If someone can point out such researched data then please do so. Statistical information about how many guns there are in each country per capita does not tell us enough, as has been pointed out by several people by now.

    I think the nationality of the person in question in this one shooting does not tell much. He might have taken example of the gun-carrying habits of his American friends, or not. Maybe he had been carrying a handgun with him even before he came to U.S., or not. Quite impossible to prove that into any direction. A fact is that the shooting took place in the U.S. and not in any other country.

    In fact the nationality of the shooter brings into my mind a question I asked myself already many years ago: does the fact that there are so much immigrants in the U.S. make the violence rate go up?

    No matter what we say here, it won't bring anyone back. I apologize that I have not yet said so here but I grieve the victims of the shooting(s) and I wish their families strength to get over it.

    Best wishes,

    Baddo.

  16. Posted

    Hmmm... ignorant and dumb? I was talking about how resources are directed. U.S. targets a lot of their resources into something else than to the well-being of their own citizens inside the borders of their own country.

    Wouldn't directing more resources into issues inside the U.S. make it less likely that the people in U.S. go mad and kill others? I am sorry if that sounds ignorant and dumb to you.

    If a war in a far-away land is sucking resources away from healthcare, education etc. then I can't change that fact or can I? Again, sorry if this sounds ignorant and dumb to you. Somehow I just see that the huge amounts of resources thrown into wars could instead be directed to make the U.S. a better place to live in. Fighting a meaningless battle in the other side of the World is something I do not see as making these gun attacks inside U.S. reduce... quite the opposite I think.

  17. Posted

    CrashDome.

    Even if I were allowed to own any kind of gun here in Finland.

    I wouldn't want to.

    Do you want to know why?

    Because I know that I would only put myself into danger if I carried a weapon. As I am very reluctant to harm other people, the weapon could serve no purpose for me, other than making myself a target. That is the reason I will never carry a gun with me.

    War would be an exception, I am trained to use an assault rifle and for sure I could use it against someone who is directly threatening our nation. But in this civilian life, no way.

    No guns in my life, no matter how freely we are allowed to have guns.

    That is what I mean. In general, the people in the U.S. want to have guns. I don't. We have the police, we have the Defence Forces, that is all we need to protect ourselves. So, in general the people in Finland do not want guns into their lifes.

    It is also question of mentality. Are you an attacker or a defender? Judging the U.S. and its citizens from the factual news I have read during my life (violently conquer large part of North America, kill native inhabitants etc...), I can only say that the U.S. and its citizens are more attackers than defenders.

    What drugs are you on?

    CrashDome. Please do not go down to personal attacks. My opinions have formed during a long time and I assure you I don't make hasty judgements, quite the opposite. Do not see my words as an insult towards U.S. or any of its citizens as that is certainly not my intention.

  18. Posted

    I am blaming their society, culture and national heritage.

    Let’s take the high number of handguns possessed by the citizens of the U.S. as an example. As we all know by now, in the U.S. people have a lot of guns. Why?

    Let's take the U.S. police forces as an example. There have been many cases where the police officers have really gone over the top with their gun usage, resulting in death of suspects who did not have guns and did not threaten to kill anyone. Why do the U.S. police officers so eagerly use their weapons?

    Let’s take the political leaders of the U.S. as an example. I am sure I do not have to mention which conflicts are perfect examples of the political leaders of the U.S. ordering their military to start an attack on foreign soil for very questionable reasons. The U.S. military is a very dangerous weapon and as such, should only be put into use if there is absolutely no doubt that it is needed to defend the U.S. It is very irresponsible from the political leaders of the U.S. to use such a weapon against people who do not pose a real threat to the U.S. Real threat as in, must be able to prove the threat with facts and not with lies or assumptions. Why do the political leaders of the U.S. so eagerly use their military?

    Let’s take the people who vote the political leaders of the U.S. into power as an example. Why do they vote people into power who like to use their military so eagerly? Why do they allow their political leaders to spend huge amounts of money into attacking a foreign nation instead of using all that money into healthcare? Why do they vote such people into power who do not direct more of their huge resources into making their own neighbourhood, workplace and school a better place to be in?

    The answer to all of the above questions is: because they want to do so.

  21. Posted

    Hey Thrott,

    I don't know about caching but the RAM usage of the ArmA process is about the same with this US demo version and with the full game with latest patch to this date. So there is practically the same amount of data loaded into memory as in full version, on my computer. Memory usage for ArmA process on this computer has been around 250-280 MB with the maxmem=512 argument, now it was 277 MB after playing this US demo version for some time. And in full game version the memory consumption was measured while playing on the large Sara island, now the memory consumption is practically same in the US demo version with SaraLite. So no, you can't say that the performance improvement is because there is less data to handle.

    Just to add, maybe data size for some objects has been reduced, like salisan suggested vegetation maybe has been changed. We can't say about that for sure now. But the total memory consumption seems to be the same on my computer. If the size of some objects are reduced in bytes, then it could mean that the total number of loaded resources could be higher, which could reduce the need to stream data from the hard disk drive. But this is just speculation.

  22. Posted

    But... it has been improved! wow_o.gif

    On my "under minimum requirements" I didn't notice a graphic bug! Where is it? And I even adjusted the settings higher than before! No graphics bugs? Why? What happened BIS? I played the Sanitization mission and it worked smoothly? On this old and slow computer?

    Hey, one thing I don't like. Maybe it can be adjusted from the settings but anyways; when I aim with the weapon and stop moving the mouse, the hands and the weapon still move quite a lot, makes aiming at an enemy soldier feel quite odd. I think you overdid it compared to how it was in some earlier version. In full game latest patch to this date I noticed the same effect at least on some weapon already. That is something I'd adjust... I think I can stop the movement of my hands more quickly and accurately even if holding an assault rifle, it doesn't have so much inertia.

    Anyways, looks like a good job but don't let this fool you BIS, keep on working on it!

  25. Posted

    Before you start putting markers into the map in a multiplayer session, make sure you have an appropriate radio channel selected. It affects who can see the markers you put onto the map.

    I am sure you can imagine how much the enemy side laughs at you when you put a marker on the map where you give away your position.

    rofl.gif

    More experienced players have been seen doing this "error" intentionally to fool the enemy side though, by giving false information in their map markers.

    Best Regards,

    Baddo.

×