Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

dayglow

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1367

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by dayglow

  4. Posted

    Just got an Eyefinity setup and trying to get Arma2 to work with it. Setting up the rez is no problem, but the only triple screen aspect ratio is 12:3 (3 4:3 monitors).

    As my monitors are 16:9 the proper aspect ratio I need is 16:3. Right now when setup ArmA is a little stretched. How can I set a custom aspect ratio?

  5. Posted

    Instead of adding layers on complications to the game why not just play the way you want to play? I can snipe with the crosshairs, but I don't because I like using the sights. I don't need the game to force me to. All it adds is complications and glitches that are unintended. People spend too much time worrying how others play.

    If it's such a concern how others play find other people that like to play the same way. It's no different than before computer MP exsisted and you had agreed rules with your friends for a game of baseball or kickball. Every group of kids have their own rules, yet it still worked. I don't understand why with computer games people expect that every MP game should be tailored to how they want to play the game.

  7. Posted

    There was one for the expansion pack, but all it did was increase the zoom and put a 2D overlay. Not very good; I still don't understand why the developers didn't integrate ironsights into the game, would've made tense shootouts even more exciting.

    The main problem with ironsights and optics is that no game has properly simulated both eyes open when shooting. It's bad enough in ArmA with it's medium to long range firefights having no real sight dynamics, but in a CQB game it wouldn't be fun at all.

  9. Posted

    I always enjoyed the SWAT series more than R6. Mainly because R6 was so ridged to the plan. The ai simply could not adapt to any surprise. Even RS with breach commands did not work outside what was scripted. SWAT with a good voice control program was simply more flexible in a dynamic CQB environment. SWAT 4 improved everything over 3 except one critical area. They dropped material penitration. SWAT 3 was amazing in this regard and really punished a player that didn't understand cover vs concealment. SWAT 4 dropped this because it was to 'hard' for players it seemed.

  10. Posted

    Just wondering what causes the AI to issue itself a move command? Is that them moving to cover? I find that I miss that they went into move, then ready so they no longer stick in the group. As I manouver through a battlefield I can lose a guy or two as he had issued a move then he is no longer in formation.

  12. Posted

    my view on the spacebar cheat is more along of of conversation in the game while I manually scan with it pressed

    AI: Target Right

    Me: where, I can't see shit

    AI: by the tree

    Me: what tree? The one there?

    AI: no, there

    Me: I still can't see anything

    AI: RIGHT THERE!!!!

    Me: oh, that tree......roger.

  13. Posted

    Personally I feel that removing the cursor is highly unrealistic. I have done stance directed fire and it is accurate on a human size target out towards 30 yards or so. To remove them actually makes shooting from unsighted unrealistically difficult. As I stated near the start of the thread that the truemod crosshairs from A1 were perfect in this regard.

    But that is my opinion and don't feel it should be forced on anyone who wants to play in a more unrealistic fashion if that's what they choose.

  14. Posted

    Wrong! As important aspects of the game (Javelin, Stinger, BMP3 gunner etc, guess you didn't read too well) requires crosshairs to be on, turning them off is not a good option. I'm guessing that's why too many servers have them on in the first place. By forcing them off for small arms (only, built into the game), servers could have them on to have this capability.

    Or, if we had two settings:

    Crosshairs General (turns off all crosshairs)

    Smallarm Crosshairs (turns off smallarms crosshairs)

    You can bet that most servers wouldn't have Smallarm Crosshairs enabled.

    Models configs would have to have an extra attributte that defines into which category a crosshair belongs. So when someone makes a good lock alternative (audible lock for Stinger, custom seeking lock for Javelin), all he needs to do for the weapon is to change it from General Crosshair to a Smallarm crosshair.

    But, since many are still wanting to have crosshairs on, I suggest ACE force them off (again, for smallarms and those who have replaced locks in the future), since you obviously have no intentions of playing in a realistic manner anyway. Where is the realism in being able to run around with a small cannon (M107) and use it in close combat? Stick with vanilla Arma and your "fun'n'fast games".

    do you exit the game and uninstall it once you are killed? Since you play in the most realistic manner only.

  15. Posted

    I don't understand why this "optional" thing always gets back. It isn't optional AT ALL!!! Unless 1.05 has done something new that I'm not aware of. Server controls it, and there is not a thing I can do about it. I prefer playing on servers with people instead of playing solo on my own that actually DO enforce no crosshairs. Another thing that destroys the "optional" argument is that it breaks the immersion when someone is allowed to run around with an M107 as an assault weapon due to crosshairs, even if I myself choose not to. And even if they themselves really don't want to, the server dictates the rules so they can't turn it off if they wanted to.

    Anyway, I'm only playing ACE now, where at least I'm able to turn it off for myself via the user config. But it still allows mobile M107 assault cannons for those that wants to do that. But, ACE is slightly faulty in some aspects, like removing "magic crosshairs" for weapons or vehicles that can't be used effectively without them (ex BMP3 sidegunners). This because you can set it only as a config, and not while ingame.

    it is optional, you just have to find people like minded to play with. Asking the devs to force your style of play on everyone isn't the way to go. It's like going to the local Y and complaining to the staff that they should allow people to play horse on the basketball court because you feel that realistic 5 on 5 is the only way to play. The devs have provided the framework for everyone you have to take some responability on yourself to find people you want to play with in the style you want to play.

  16. Posted

    I think it is very simple to explain. As reported beofre by devs that program threads are tied together. As you add more AI the AI thread takes longer and more resources to caculate. Since other threads such as the render thread are tied to info from the AI thread they slow down as they wait for input.

    Very simply we cannot have our cake and eat it too. One of the features of A2 is the complex, free form, non scripted AI. That takes a lot of processing power. As CPU power goes up so will fps.

  17. Posted

    anessen: Thanks, I'll test to make sure the targets issue is solved.

    DayGlow: I'll try making the AI only move around towards cover on their own when they are stopped, so they won't interrupt their movement to a position. Also I'm trying to fix a bug where the AI won't keep moving somewhere, they keep returning to formation. Sorry, no new description list yet. Are there any addons in particular that you are wondering about?

    dialektiikka: Dismemberment is just the person being teleported out into negative map coordinates and replaced with smoke and default body part models. Something similar would only work for specific vehicle destruction effects, like the T72 blowing it's turret off, or car wheels flying off.

    no worries. You will probably be in a state of constant flux and frustration until the betas nail down the new AI so you can work off of it. For now I'm trying to play with just the beta AI and keep everything else from your mod. I'm pretty sure I've removed all the .pbo's that cover AI for now.

  22. Posted

    AI squad still can't keep formation. Playing a city fight map and they work fine until contact. After the initial firefight they are constantly running around looking for cover. I tell them to disengage, put them in aware and constantly tell them to return to formation with no results. I try moving anywhere and I will leave them behind as they run back and forth for cover. AI seems to work great for AI squads, but for the player's squad they will not follow direction.

  23. Posted

    I find dividing my team into different colors really helps. I usually run with 2 or 3 sub squads with F2 and F3 as their 'leader' so I just hit |shift| and their key to order the whole group to a task. Wish there was more a squad leader AI to use. IE I tell 2 and 3 what I want them to do and they then order their squad mates to complete the task. The AI is very competent in ordering themselves and I wish I could take more advantage of that.

  24. Posted

    FlexiAI is targeted to AI led groups.

    On a sidenote, since i hate micromanaging things, i am also willing to activate some FlexiAI-like features for Player led groups (automatic formation and stance switch, automatic hold fire, automatic catchup with leader), but that's a whole different story / many people won't like it ...

    This is exactly what I am looking for. As a squad leader of AI troops I find it very hard to keep them with me in an assault. I have to play constant switching between Aware and Danger so that they will keep up with me while I sprint a few hundred meters to a better position / move to contact and so they find cover when I'm moving slow.

    So far I'm playing a lot with SLX and it has massive improvments to AI except I can't keep them with me. They are either too slow or too relaxed moving around.

×