DaSquade

Don't get me wrong ShinR, although i try me best to understand you and your posts , aren't you lokking to much outside the box. You make a point they maybe aren't allowed to much it 100% accurate (if that can be assumed out of the third part of your post), in the end it is a game. Although i'm not 100% sure if any other game dev. tried and managed to integrate laser, witch i surely think...i haven't heard of any game dev. getting sued or whatever to implant this (almost sound like super doober high top secret technoligy) . Sure, if BIS would have the time and find it important enough to add it, there will be some trolls that don't like it and would have wanted it differently. But hey, even tracers are apperently worth 50 topics . Just my point is, BIS always said they wanted to make their games (and engines) to be part of the closest as realisme can provide. Maybe we simply ask to much and it simply isn't possible, but somehow i dought as other engine have made it possible and atm i don't really see what would be that hard...meaning if the lasers can be implanted they way i think, over lightsource with some kind of shader that is compatible with the NV. I don't think the fact you won't be able to make it 100% (and then i think of the multiple modes of the laser and IR on the AN/PEQ2a etc), can be the overall excuses not to 'try' it. Ok, we the community don't know if they have tried or the fellas in Australia. But like i said, even the simple integration of lightsource as we know (lights on planes, cars, streetlights etc) would be a start if you understand my going...Let the community figuer out the rest maybe, as this was something that stopped most in the past as recreating the feature meant big, unaccurate and laggy alternatives. Anyway, no trolling here and if BIS decide not to take a look at it, fine by me. I and other simply trying to create and help ArmA to an other level... @Sgt_Eversmann: Don't see what hiddenselection could help in the term of lasers and lights imho. In the end, you need to have some form of interacting base (lightsource) that by default interacts with the envirement. Meaning, lightsource afaik should be ale to provide most things you need, like interact with envirement (blocking lightsource) and a cfg'able cone + colour values in combination with the new types of textures/shaders you could simulate the laser beam behaviors... Anyway, just trying to give a civil input .

Accurate implementation: Well getting it 100% accurate would indeed be a hard task, true. But we could live with a less accurate solution i suppose. I mean, (and i mean it in a friendly way ) "technical data (ITAR 121.1.1.i >> 120.10) for an accessory (ITAR 121.1.h)" my Xss . With a bit research you can get the fundamental technical details of it and imho this isn't the issue. In the end 'it' will need to be adopted to what the engine can supply and support, with or without modification. Imho it is just the fact it would need a lot of dev work to simply get it working with the basic principiles of the laser and knowning a lot of time is put in arma to get it bugfree doesn't gives them much time to 'play around' for other things atm (at least what i think). What we do know from earliers community work is: 1. It can't really be done by 'geo'. Meaning, it has to be made out of an actual 'light source' witch interact with the envirement. Meaning, textured geo with some kind of shader (to let it work with NV) should work and atm could be done afaik. BUT it is the way the laser/light needs to interact with its envirement that is the braincracker. Meaning, in case of geo, there is no way (afaik) to recreated the fact the laser bundle gets stopped when blocked by other geo (trees, houses, units etc), as we all know the geo modeled and textured beam would simple continue once passed a blocking item. So it comes down to have it in form as it is, namely lightsource. I'm noob and i don't know if lightsources can be manipulated that way so they have a light cone that narrow, bright and at the same time have the needed shader to simulate the NV only mode. Beside that, maybe the other basic question is, are lightsources possible in arma on weapons? Again an other basic engine limitation witch was never possible in the previous enignes. Ok, it was possible to simulate it in the passed by integrating it in a unit, but lets faces it, why do that if it would be possible to integrate it in the weapon by default. I honestly think this wouldn't require hunderds of houres of work to implate it in the engine..proove me wrong. I mean, if light sources would be possible on weapons, this would be a good start. Then at least we could have lighttortches on weapons witch would be a start and have imho a big impack on gameplay. And frankly, isn't that almost a standard feature in most first person shooters...makes you wonder why it wasn't implanted in the first place, unless the engine isn't that easy to modify in that area but again i dought to believe that... Anyway, i understand it isn't laser or the IR light beam that will make ArmA the ultimate military (soldier ) simulation, but lets face it. In modern days warefare, the ANPEQ or any other laser/IR (and thermal, although last might be a good excuse not to included as it isn't used that often in the soldiers kit...ArmA isn't a flight/tank sim) is one of the technical items that are used and give benifit over those who doesn't...and afaik, this makes the difference in most case if you win or loose. Anyway, like some others, lasers and IR is still one of the number one item/features on my list. Somehow i can understand BIS can't do it (perfectly). But maybe it is a mather of the community to search and investigate if ArmA allows more then what was possible. Just my 5 €cent.

Haven't tested anymore, i had MS precision 2 and it worked as my Saitek now. Haven't used the MS since 1.07 and my saitek, but it did work in 1.05 (and 1.05). See my cfg line in the other topic if interested. Not sure if my current line would also do the trick, but i know my MS precision line didn't worked on the saitek...but maybe i changed axis bindings :s. The only problem i still have is that some buttons-hatches doesn't work atm in ArmA, but BIS should be on it i hope.

Well like i told Armored_Sheep in the reply, or i don't understand him or i have a 'bug'. I mean now i have trust controle over the full axis and afaik it works as it should (now, after the tweaking). Very strange it doesn't work for you. PS: not 100% sure but are you using 1.07 + hotfix? As somehow it didn't worked for me in 1.07beta and 1.05beta, at least if i did it correct back then.

Let me first post a pm i received this afternoon (it that is allowed, in the end it surves the ones who are interested in it i think): This might explain why the trust isn't working that good, but i suppose you have checked my latest post regarding my ingame key bindings. Anyway, those key combos and my joystick sensitivity code line gives me what i want. Namely, once i go over or under 50% the trust kicks in. The more i pull or push, the more trust input i receive. Sometimes a bit hard to feel and see, but if you take the A10 for a test'drive' on the runway you will notice you can nicely adjust the speed. Maybe i mis your point but coming from the +80% only trust input i find it with these settings as it should. (PS: feel free to pm me if you need help, but i suppose you know what to do....).

Ok, if it helps you, my ingame key bindings for my X52: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> Increase trust Stick Z+ Axis Decrease trust Stick Z- Axis Left turn Stick Z- Rotate Right turn Stick Z+ Rotate Bank left Stick X- Axis Bank right Sitck X+ Axis Left pendal Stick X- Rotate Right pedal Stick X+ Rotate Noise down Stick Y- Axis Noise up Stcik Y+ Axis and currently using the following cfg codeline: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">joystickSensitivity[]={0.500000,0.500000,0.300000,0.600000,0.600000,0.600000,0.200000,0.200000,0.500000,0.500000 ,0.300000,0.600000,0.600000,0.600000,0.200000,0.200000}; I suppose a different axis-rotation setup here then you and like said i don't use the pedals that much, only at low(er) speeds to atjust my direction. At higher speeds i use combo of left-right turn with banking to adjust the start and exit of my turns (to get the heli horizontal again). Maybe i misunderstood how to fly a heli, but feel realistic (enough) for me and does the job... EDIT: just to add, like i said atm i don't use the pedal (ingame pedal) not that much altough i think it would help more if i would have a pair of real pedals instead now i use the rotating knob near the trust stick on the x52. It isn't that handy to use due to the fact it doesn't really have a good center (at least hard to qiuckly find it). Might look for the saitek pedals, but guess i wait untill it is really supported by BIS instead of working with that joystick mixer program, as i don't know if it really works.

Looks like you just haven't searched to good or looked around . http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=56004 As for the pedals, atm i only use them at very low speeds (atm set via rotation knob on the X52). It works as it should...and even at medium-high speeds at gives input, although i find it a bit useless at highspeed. So in case you wonder, make sure you don't have your rudders mapped the same as your pedals. Afaik, it doesn't support force feedback, but no force feedback here (luckly ) so beats me frankly. As for the search, must give you some space as the search is indeed the best... Good luck.

Not sure if i 100% understand your 'yaw'...you mean the Z axis? If so, noticed i had to turn it down to 0.2 (pos and neg values). Although it is pretty 'hard' now, i like it as it give more precision for attack mode + overall all settings are a bit less sensitive witch make the heli 'feel' a lot heavier imho witch i like. Maybe the yaw part and 'Yaw doesn't seem to work properly in ArmA' comes by the fact you need to make good use of the banking AND yaw to make you manouvers, at least that is what i do. Additionally i recently added the left and right pedals to the keybindings (at one of the rotating knobs on the X52) and must say they help a lot. Meaning it gives you a more stable horizontal movement at (very) low speeds as it helps directing you to your final distination, like rotating the heli while decending to LZ etc... A bit unhandy at as the knobs doesn't have a real center, so maybe i need to look into a pair of actual pedals and hope that virtual joystick mixer works (unless decide to throw in the multiple joystick input patch soon ). Anyway, just play around with the values... Maybe start with mines and adjust were needed. And in case you wonder, you don't need to restart your arma. As long as you esc a few out of your test misison and edit and save the arma.cfg, you're ready to test it.

Only recently started to fly the A10 (joystick issues witch are almost fixed now). Maybe it is me, but once you landed once it isn't possible to pull the gear up anymore. They stick in the down position for ever. Also the A10 most of the times has big delay in exploding when you crash it (was testing the explosion ). Like mentioned still a few buttons aren't editable here (X52) but managed to remap a few and avoided conflicts and will look into using a profile in the hope i can get more buttons and hats to work as now almost 40% of the additional buttons and hats don't work. As for performence very good and don't really see big change between 1.05 witch preformed very good on my 8800GTX. One question though: one of the main reason why the early 1.07beta patch worked 'normal' for me was the trick of Lee to set HDR on 16 and nonVRAMLocal = 0 (and made the arma.cfg read only). But i was wondering if now with the hotfix we still need to use that trick or has the VRAM fix some other kind of influence? No CTD while flying over 2h with some crazy lowflights, so guess pretty stable for me. But i did had 2 CTD (no error, just a ArmA needs to close standard message thingy) due to the fact i was in the key settings remapping some keys. It CTD the moment i pressed 'next'. Small one, but maybe still a conflict regarding the keys? Maybe a silly request and not really path (fix) related, but since i tend to fly most of the times on low altitude in the helis i sometimes come very close near the powerlines. This is mostly by accident as they are sometimes hard to spot, at least the powerlines itself. So i was wondering if BIS might consider to add those heli-plane warning balls the hang on the powerlines near busy airfields or hospitals. Maybe it would be too much to have them on all of them, but maybe the ones near citys or airports where pilots tend to go low when going into pre-land. Just a suggestion, would add some atmospher but most important it would be more noticable for pilots .

First of all, i'm a bit lost with all the different 1.07 troubleshooting topics and the sub topics regarding 1.07 individual problems... Anyway, just installed the hot fix for 1.07 and tested out my joystick X52. I haven't changed or looked into it much, but i did notice i still got the mapping problem, namely i linked the autohoover (on) to one button and autohoover (off) to an other. But when i press the on one, it gives me the action + it uses the toggle manual fire on-off aswell although that was definate on an other button. Even after leving the key for toggle manual fire empty, i still got it. Thought they fixed the joystick mapping bug in the hot fix?

Looks i just found the cfg i needed to fix my (and apparently other X52 users) trust input problem. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">joystickSensitivity[]={0.450000,0.450000,0.200000,0.600000,0.600000,0.600000,0.300000,0.300000,0.450000,0.450000 ,0.200000,0.450000,0.600000,0.600000,0.300000,0.300000}; The above code gives me the full axis trust response. Not sure if it was due to the fact i just aplied the 1.07 hotfix or not. Anyway, works for me. All i changed was adjusting value 7 and 8 and 15 and 16 to a lower value (0.30000) instead of the 1.00000. Although i thought i had tried a simular value in patch 1.07 :s. Ohwell, works for me... And if interested: My question to Suma if he could provide any more info on the rouge description armoured sheep provided on the cfg line:

Well, you might want to keep an eye on this topic: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums....&page=4 I helped the guy a bit collecting any picture i could find of the cougars, but afaik he already had a bit collection of the RG31 and will post them in a few days. Got a few too, but not that much...might post them once the guy starts adding the RG31 pics. Well, in case you haven't search military photos, it would be good to give it a try. Especially in the daily pictures they tend to pop up now and then. Maybe a few other interesting (info) links, french but there is a build in translate thingy, although it only works half for me: http://www.armyrecognition.com/Ameriqu....res.htm http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe....res.htm For the rest nothin i directly have, but not that rare vehicle anymore so you should be able to find a few good high res pictures. I hope you will integrate the easy roll over feature the RG-31 apperently has, from what i read once. Meaning it has a high above the ground pivot point witch can case it to tip over at high speed and high cornering... Maybeyou might be more interested in the new one (if not mistaken): RG 32M PS: wild shot, but did you try to contact the manufactures of it. You never know that wiling to give you a kind of blueprint. I never tried that too, but it was suggested to me once...

@Exaercase (and other still encoutering problems with their 8800): have a look at the topic in troubleshooting, as there were some fixed you can try out and that did the trick for me (as good as 1.05 now in not slightly better). My findings on it are on page 4 (mix of Lee's fixes and Bonko). 8800 texture bug topic Additionally: Maruk just posted a hotfix that should deal with the texture bug for 8800 users. Hotfix for Beta path 1.07 Hope it helps you...

Thanks for the quick update and investigation for our problem. As customer, much appreciated . Still downloading, but is this a fix regarding the texture problem (only?). I mean, the fix Lee provided in combination with AA controled outside the game fixed the texture bug for, although i must admite i only tested it max. 1h. Anyway, i suppose there will be a txt explaining it a bit more inside the patch...

Hehe, well i guess you are right. Well, atm it was a test...meaning 8xS was the end result (highest setting) that have me equal FPS compaired to the ingame settings i used, afaik that was very high but not sure what that really stands for. Maybe normal 16x? Anyway, so i guess Bonko the Sane made his point that if you let the video card controle the AA (maybe same for the AF?) you can get more out of it for the same FPS. Anyway, 1.07 finally gives me same performence and quality i had in 1.05 or maybe even more (who really knows). Fact is i can life with it again, just hope the shadow bug get fixed with i don't dought will be . Also i'm starting to think the vegitation performce slightly better now, but maybe that is a bit due to the shadows... PS: I noticed yesterday that there is an other beta driver for the 8800 availible. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">ForceWare 160.03 Win 2000/XP Version: 160.03 Publisher: NVIDIA Date added: 2007-05-08 04:59:34 File Size: 40 MB OS Support: Windows 2000/XP/MCE 32-bit License: Freeware Downloads: 23192 downloads Software type: Videocards - NVIDIA ForceWare (32 bit) 160.03 @ guru Although i prefure official drivers, read it might give simular (if not better) performence. Anyone tried them before?

Might be a long time ago, jees it feels like it was 1985 , but i think they mean this old fella OFP rifle mortar

Well, i decided to give it an other go. Followed the instruction of Lee and other suggestions: HDRPrecision=16; (haven't tried 32, if it improves anything or has impack) nonlocalVRAM=0; (made sure my arma.cfg is read-only) But also tried the AA tip. Although i didn't directly noticed any quality impack, ingame AA or nvidia AA, but there was a big drop after i passed the following options in my nHancer for ArmA: Anti-Aliasing Supersampling 8xS Enhance ingame-AA Gamme correction Multi Tranparency AA (on super i noticed a slight drop, not sure if super is that noticable) For the rest no changes in res. or other visual settings: 1280x1024x32 85Hz VD 4432 Terrain: High Object-textures: Very high Shading: Very high Post: Low (not much of a high-very high fan here) AF: Very high Shadows: High-very high or normal (got the shadow bug, but guess BIS is aware of that) AA: Low (see above) Blood: High Hardware: Asus extreme striker EVGA 8800GTX ACS3 E6600 (stock atm) Raptor drivers (1x75gb Windows XP Pro SP2 - 1x150gb ArmA) Software: Windwos XP pro SP2 DX9.0c (april patch) 158.22 nvidia drivers So sofar for me it fixed my previous problems, namely the lod and texture bugs. Haven't test so long and intense, so no report of a CTD or any errors. So maybe it is possible to get the 8800 running after all, but damn it almost feels you need to mod (outside) the game to get it up and running . Anyway, sofar again a happy boy. Time will tell.

8800 user here (so suffers the lod/texture bug, but aobut to give it an other try with latest tweaks :s). Well i'm a bit interested to know your findings. I must just i'm running on a very fresh system, liek 2-3 weeks new system, and i instantly installed the april update, so i don't have any feedback of pre DX9c setup... So, there is a change it can have an impact (as afaik part of the update was related to the latest type 'pre DX10' GPUs....). Although you don't run the 8800 it would still be nice to know if it had an impack on your ATI.

So it looks indeed it is a limitation on the X52, as so far i haven't received or read a positive comment about the x52 trust input. I really hope it is us and the fact we just can't seam to tune the joystick cfg correct. But like mentioned i was albe to fix it for my old MS precision that had the same problem. So somehow i refuse to believe a more expensive and more used kind of joystick would have a limitation, unless it is something BIS left out or forgot to integrate for us X52 users. I will have an other go tonight (last time) and play around with the settings of the joystick sensitivity. But i sure hope BIS will look into this (if they have access to a X52 or has someone in the 'real' BETA team with X52). I'm not sure if it is just a few of us X52 that have this problem or it are all x52 users (and maybe other joysticks too). So please if you read this and have a fixed setting for the X52, please report it. Would be so a shame i have bought this one, just to realise my older joystick works better (appart from better stick center and controle). PS: I pmed ArmoredSheep regarding a more precies guide what the difference is between AXIS and ROT(ation), but no reply so far. Maybe someone else knows it, as that is the start that i would need to know before i start 'guessing' what settings would effect full controle of trust.

@Dr. Mojo, PhD: Try the arma.exe in the beta folder itself. I had the same errors with the shortcut provided after the 1.07 install.

Well i'm not the SF here nor i know what is normal, but i thought part of it was they should blend in and not run around with a mark 'here i am , mr. SF, shoot me first'..if you understand my point...But good temp sollution maybe untill ArmA gets spawned with custom beaked units.

All good and well, it does fix the HDR lightning on textures, but afaik this introduces other problems, like hard to see through canapy glass textures and not sure but that caused very strange 'artifacts on some textures (like in the UH60 the textures of the interieur, it looks like the textures have a life of its own and a lot of white lightning stripes appear and dissapear on it ). Swapping to 1.05 gets away with it..so no fix in my book .

Sorry to bump this again, but nobody with a Saitek X52 joystick knows how to edit the trust axis-rotation so it can be fully used instead of only the last few 10-20%? I know it was possible with my previous stick (MS precision), so it should be possible. Like mentioned i tried the original cfg and tried the cfg i used for my old stick but not change at all. Can't believe it is simply not possible (but received a pm from forummember he also still hasn't found it out ). So please help... Also a small more detailed explanation regarding the difference of AXIS and ROT(ation) would be appreciated.

Hello, First of all i know there are a few 8800 topic flowing around but couldn't find any usefull in them. Well first of all, i recently added ArmA to the Nvidia controle panel (program settings), but now somehow the moment i try to select it out of the list, the controle panel crashes and closes. Someone encountered this before? Maybe i need to reinstall it? In game i (beside the lod bug and grey texture bugs etc) encountered the fact i think the mipmap settings get overwritten and don't use the latest 'lod' of the texture. This is very visible in the UH60 etc as the instrument panels lack detail and i also have multiple flashing (mipmap switching?) errors on the interieur textures. Not sure if it one of the settings i added in the controle panel. But since i can't select or delete it atm i'm wondering....

Well i tried everything possible. Although i got ride of the ugly brown HDR textures created in dark envirements (Post progress ->low afair) and the HDR 16 fixed a few things, in the end this is a big mess up at back at start for us 8800 users. BIS or Nvidia might of fixed the white fog in 1.07, but opened the gates of hell on us again. Rolled back to 1.05 without adjusting nvidia controle settings (thought one of the AA things or other settings had messed up my textures and especially the transparant parts), 1.05 as good as it can get! Like others, we understand this is a beta (as is 1.05b afaik), but with 1.07 we can start helping bugfix atm.