dslyecxi

No float is for TrackIR. I prefer to keep it disabled when using my TIR. I look where I want, and I aim where I want, and the two are distinctly different. Crosshair is there because it's a rough approximation of various real-world weapon handling realities that cannot otherwise be simulated in games. The crosshair isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative in my eyes.

31-Man MOUT Patrol This is from an impromptu session we had on Sunday after our big 70-player Saturday one. The mission is a MOUT patrol that goes through a very large custom city one of our members made. Enemy forces were ~100-150 in number, and we got through it with only a handful of casualties. It's a pretty interesting vid. The perspective is from me, acting as the overall commander of the mission. The full version can be downloaded from the info link on the GVid page. 31-Man MOUT Patrol

Ever wonder why changing your view distance from 5km to 10km resulted in no visible increase, and even 5km didn't look all that far or good? Apparently it was a bug... and, as you can see, it's being addressed. This is going to be an incredible change for all pilots. Full Resolution I know that the question will come up about performance, so I'll address that now. My system is as follows: Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz Radeon X1950XTX (512MB) 2GB PC2-6400 RAM Raptor HDD 10 kilometer view distances for me are playable but not ideal. This is with my default settings that I use on the ground. I think that lowering texture detail in this situation would result in smoother gameplay. With 10km view distance you can see all of South Sahrani and most of North Sahrani at the same time if you're flying between them. If I had to guess, I'd say that I was getting from 10-15fps at 10km view distances while flying around all over the island, with occasional hitches caused due to texture caching. All of the screens you see in this post were 10km view distance, and there are a few in the directory I link at the end that are 5km IIRC. 5 kilometer view distances are extremely playable for me. With a 5km view distance you can see all of South Sahrani when flying over it and can probably see a bit of North Sahrani as well. I was hitting 20-30fps at this view distance. A 3 kilometer view distance gets great FPS and allows you to see a very long distance. This is easily playable for fixed-wing (jet) aircraft and makes bombing and strafing runs infinitely easier. I'm gusesing I was making 25-35fps at 3km view distances. I have not tested at 1.2km or 2km view distances, but I believe they will look noticeably better than they do currently due to how the distance fog is rendered. Long story short, this is one hell of a change and is going to make the air experience loads better. I can only imagine how cool this must be on dual 8800GTXs with a silky-smooth 10km view distance and with settings cranked. This is a damn cool change. I had my doubts about jets in ArmA previously, but now that you can actually see so far, they're a blast to fly. Full Resolution Full Resolution Full Resolution Full Resolution More screens (11 more, to be precise) can be found in this directory. edit: Added a video

Uh... Hopefully the answer to most of that is "No". I'd hate to see ACE waste time with such things when a stand-up, "traditional" war focus is so much more interesting and enjoyable from the gameplay perspective.

I've had literally hundreds of people purchase TrackIRs in response to my videos or posts about them. Thus far, I have yet to hear anyone say that they regretted purchasing one. Quite the opposite, actually - I hear rave remarks about them often and frequently. TrackIRs are great in ArmA. There are some technical things that could potentially be added to ArmA itself (ie 6DOF in vehicles), but considering what is there, it's quite cool and useful. Especially in aircraft - I can't imagine flying aircraft without a TrackIR these days.

While not perfect, ArmA is still the only game that lets me and my group play 60+ player scenarios any way we want, with custom missions, mods, etc. I'm having a great time in it so far. There's room for improvement, no doubt, but what we have right now is quite solid. As to what walker hinted at... from what I've seen, people are in for a treat. Take the CoC stuff, throw it in with ACE, then get VOIP fixed and you suddenly have something even more amazing than what we're playing right now. I'm very much looking forward to it. Oh... as an example of how cool ArmA can be, take a look at my signature image. That's taken from a ~60 person "Charge of the Light Brigade" server test we did. 60 people charging across open ground in one huge line formation and smashing against an enemy town as artillery, machineguns, and AGS grenade launchers attempted to stop us. It was epic. The other ShackTac sigs are from the same mission, just different perspectives:

What logic did you use to decide on the zoom levels? If it's based on something, I'd like to hear what. I'm extremely wary of anyone mucking around with the FOV/zoom without good reason. Syncing up the initial ironsight zoom to the normal FOV is one thing, but changing the level of zoom available in general requires some really solid reasoning and ideally should be based upon something tangible or even measurable. I like the TIR changes, is there a chance that you could provide that as a separate mod?

Shots of the final printed version. Turned out damn nice, if I do say so myself. Hires Version Hires Version Hires Version Hires Version Hires Version Hires Version

Yes, thanks. I'll give that a shot and see if it fixes my issue.

I like the idea behind the ArmA VOIP. However, the current implementation is too filled with holes to be usable. The primary ones I've experienced (and reported) are: 1. No "Who's Speaking" indicator on the HUD. The scoreboard "Who's Speaking" light-up indication is useless. 2. No ability to adjust or test your mic in-game. 3. Completely unpredictable performance. This is the biggest one - if you never know if any given person can hear you, you cannot depend on the VOIP, simple as that. 4. Direct Speaking volume is seemingly of unpredictable volume for some people. For instance, when I found two people who could both hear me over direct speaking, one of them heard me fairly quiet (as is typical of direct speaking), the other could not hear me at all. Direct Speaking is probably the most powerful and interesting form of ArmA VOIP, so it being reliable and loud enough to be audible is extremely important. Right now the in-game radio commands easily drown it out, and being a few feet from someone makes them unintelligible. 5. "All" chat can be used to transmit to all players when dead. When the majority of these items are satisfactorily addressed, ArmA VOIP will be a huge boon to those who use it. The group/vehicle/direct channels are going to be particularly useful. I plan to continue to use TS on top of it, since the two will be complementary in their features, but I think ArmA VOIP will do a great deal to make organized ArmA comms much, much better.

Oh yeah? What does your Zoom In/Out keybind list the TrackIR axis as? I've tried a few things to fix this on my end and have not had any luck with it so far.

Do you have a TrackIR, Johnny?

I think you're overlooking something very significant. It is a full-color, 168 page 8.5x11 document. That costs $$$ to print. It is also from a print-on-demand vendor, which means that the cost-per-copy stays relatively high because they're not being printed in the kind of bulk that allows for bulk savings to be made. In any case, it's available for free online to anyone who thinks it's too pricey. ACE is a big part of my group's future, and it's not hard to write towards that effect considering our experience with the precursor, WGL. Better to include the relevant aspects of ACE that we know about now, and have that information available from the start, than wait until later and try to retrofit it everywhere it needs to be. Well, yeah. Hence the title. ShackTac ArmA TTP. Even the sections directly about ShackTac are relevant to any ArmA groups. You can see how we do things and then use relevant parts yourself if you want. At the very least it gives an idea of how a large group organizes itself. Like what? I think I have been very straightforward about what the printed version is. It's the online one, except in hardcopy form. It costs money because I wanted to keep it as a full-color document. There was never any intent to put "extra" content in it, the idea for it is that it's a hardcopy, well-laid-out PDF full-color version of something that you'd otherwise be reading on your computer. If you want a hardcopy version, it's the route to go. If you'd rather just view it freely on my site, go for it. I'm glad you're ultimately happy with it, but let's not forget what it is intended to be.

Wrong. Try this in 1.08 and tell me what happens. Perhaps you should pay more attention to the changelogs in the future. The occlusion of explosions is VASTLY improved in 1.08 and you can (gasp!) use walls as real cover now. I suppose you don't really care, though. I'm sure you can list all sorts of things that you don't like about ArmA, and whenever one of them is addressed, I get the feeling that it isn't going to count and you're just going to move on to a new complaint.

Not at all. Even at 81 players it was still running smoothly for us. Yeah, the music and "This is ShackTac!" sounds were embedded in the mission itself.

70+ player Camel Dogfight. Youtube: Hires: http://dslyecxi.com/videos/jun16_camel_dogfight.wmv Session peaked at 81 players.

Unfortunately, the implementation in ArmA does not actually "simulate" anything. It's eye candy and nothing more. An actual simulation-level implementation would have the focus be on the front sight tip (leaving the target and terrain blurry) when actually aiming, with an accuracy penalty if not. An actual simulation-level implementation would also make holographic and reflex sights like the Aimpoint and EOTech have real-world usefulness compared to the ironsights. ArmA's "depth of field" when applied to weapons is nothing more than eye candy. It is loosely based on realism (to be nice about it) and is not authentic or accurate and certainly should not be touted as "realistic".

The posted image is not my book. My book is serious, though. My book is available for purchase here, it's a 168 page full-color softcover book: http://www.lulu.com/dslyecxi Or online (free) here: http://www.dslyecxi.com/armattp.html The posted image is a mockery of the "ArmchairGeneral" guide, which has all sorts of false, not-applicable-to-ArmA info in it. My book is actually by an ArmA fan who knows what he's talking about in regards to tactics and such that are APPLICABLE to ArmA, and not just ripped from military pubs helter-skelter without any idea as to whether they work in the game or not. edit: I posted about the ArmA tactics guide being available for print a day or two ago on the forum, you can find that post here if you're interested.

HIRES VERSION, click on this so you can make out the finer details that are missing in the lowres one. Created by Mofo, same guy who did the printed version of the ArmA Tactics Guide.

If this was said tongue-in-cheek as a joke, it's the funniest thing I've read today. If it wasn't...

What the hell are you babbling about? Why does everything have to be a silly conspiracy theory? This is ridiculous! Atari didn't write it. The authors are listed here. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?page=1&p=3380 You'll note that the ATARI logo shows up in the same place on every page, and has a URL from which you can buy ArmA below it. If you can't figure out why it's there, I'm sorry. I don't know what to tell you.. aside from that you certainly do not have a future as a detective.

Come on .. i like your work and really appreciate it. But how can you stand up for such marketing strategys? edit: I really don´t care about who delivers the content for their promos. imho they have to make sure that stuff like this doesn´t happen! I think you missed what I said. Everyone here is getting in a tizzy over "Atari" doing these things, but what proof do you have? The box cover, yeah, that was probably them. The sounds for the trailers, you have no evidence that Atari did that. Hell, I remember an ooooooooooooooold ArmA trailer from BIS that had obviously faked sounds in it. As to the "Armchair General" article, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to find that the magazine itself made and doctored those screens, and not Atari. The article is full of stuff that does not exist, but it seems to be ignorance on the author's part and not at all malicious. In any case, this is a silly thing to get worked up about.

Why do you think that's Atari's doing and not the people who made the guide?

Thanks. The screens at the start were all part of a batch of US PR shots I created for Atari. I don't think I've ever seen them released by Atari, or used for PR. Well, I've seen two or three of them from the same batch, but only once, and that's out of 100+ images. Silly Atari

Full-color is expensive. In any case, the online version of it is free for those that can't afford a printed copy. Eventually, sure.