Correction

I bet I know who drives that...

"Even worse?!" I think I'd have a lot more fun being female than a dwarf.

That´s most probably a result of your hardware that is at the lowest line of minimum specs. As a result pathfinding calculations are very limited. I don't understand why pathfinding calculations would be dependent on hardware. In fact, it's not even pathfinding that's the problem, although it is still a problem if the AI are looking at a wall between them and their destination and deciding that a straight line is the shortest route. But really the biggest problem here is collision detection. Even if an AI does decide to run through a wall or a building, the physics engine should stop him the instant he smacks into it. And again, I don't see how any of these calculations would be correct on one system and incorrect on another. The math should all be the same regardless of which ALU performs it.

I also should have also mentioned that I'm still able to sit down and watch a battle from the sidelines and spot several AI magically running through buildings and obstacles.

The new features seem pretty cool. However, I'm disappointed to see that vegetated areas are still virtually unplayable for me regardless of how low I configure my video settings. Pentium M 2.00 GHz 1.00 GB RAM ATI Mibility Radeon x700 256MB I realize my computer (unfortunately a laptop for now) isn't the latest and greatest, but I should still be able to play this game at least at the same quality of Operation: Flashpoint. I think the problem is simply a lack of advanced control over video settings. It seems like I can only choose between having everything look like Play-Dough, or having everything including every single blade of grass in super high-res shader quality.

Mushrooms grow naturally in the wild... I'm not sure how this qualifies as an easter egg.

Because most creatures' genitals are located in generally the same area?

Any chance we might be getting "baby hornets" in the future, as well?

Alright fine, I'll try to answer his questions realistically: 1 - This really isn't something we can answer for you. Difficulty settings are entirely a matter of personal preference. Do you like being able to switch to a third-person view? Then turn it on. Do you think it subtracts from the realism too much? Then turn it off. If you find the game too easy, raise the enemy's skill level. If it's too hard, lower it. 2 - Another personal preference. Go to the MODs section and browse for something that appeals to you. Or play the game Vanilla - it is, after all, sold as a standalone game. You don't need any to have an enjoyable experience. 3 - You don't need to look out for performance issues. When you have them, you'll know.

I'm not trying to be rude, but why don't you just play the game and find out for yourself? Honestly, I don't think I've ever bought a new game, come home with it, and the first thing I did was jump on the forums and ask what I should do first.

I got the impression that Mandrake5 is asking how to do this from the in-game command interface, not for mission editing. Mandrake, the only method I know if so far is to order the pilot to dismount. This is one of those delightful annoyances from Operation: Flashpoint... if anyone knows of a better method, I'd be interested to hear it as well.

[im]http://arabistyka.ovh.org/templates/Akagahara/images/logo.gif[/img] Are you sure? BIS is a Czech company. I think it's safe to say they don't code in Arabic.

Probably not. I'm not by any means claiming to be any programming expert, far less related to ArmA, but I would think on that level it comes down to the order the developers loaded the files in code, which is most likely determined by various dependencies in code, or for our purposes entirely arbitrary. Actually they were loaded alphabetically in OFP so it's probably the same in ArmA. A method to hide a cheat would be to override the default g36a.pbo with a z15256_g36a.pbo, the latter one's config.cpp would be used and the server would have no way of checking it due to not knowing the filename. Wow, then I'm totally wrong. It's happened before!

Probably not. I'm not by any means claiming to be any programming expert, far less related to ArmA, but I would think on that level it comes down to the order the developers loaded the files in code, which is most likely determined by various dependencies in code, or for our purposes entirely arbitrary.

Command line arguments in computer land are parsed left-to-right; at least that's how I've always seen it done. I don't see any reason why anyone would go backwards, since humans read left-to-right, it's simply the most intuitive way to do it. Somewhere in code, the tokenized strings have to be compared against recognized strings in order to work, so it would only make sense to parse them left-to-right to avoid having to flip them around. With that said, without any real testing I'd put my money on rightward mods overriding leftward mods.

What is the @ symbol for? I've been running it with "-mod=beta;cwr"

That would be digital, not absolute... well, really that would be digitally absolute. :P

I guess I'm just a bad helicopter pilot, then... I'll stick with fixed-wing craft. They look cooler, anyway. I just wish some good fighter aircraft addons would start showing up!

I'm no helicopter pilot, but as I understand it's the pitch of the rotors that make the plane go up and down. It just doesn't make sense to me that we should have to hold down the "throttle up" key to keep from running into the ground. The throttle in a real helicopter only goes up so far - they don't have to HOLD it up. It just seems like somewhere in the calculations, some thrust is continuously leaking out.

I'm not sure what the official word is on this but I assumed it was in like with the trippy plane throttle. My fingers are still crossed for a fix, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

How about the... uh... ArmA mission editor?

From reading the question and several answers, I think something that really needs to be clarified is whether the question is "How should it happen" or "How would it really happen?"

From reading the question and several answers, I think something that really needs to be clarified is whether the question is "How should it happen" or "How would it really happen?"

Airstrips - I know it's boring, but it's simple, long, and open.

I've also noticed that ATI cards still can't properly display .jpg custom faces. They have to be converted to .paa, which requires a lower resolution to fit into the 100kb limit.