dmarkwick

I think that's exactly what's happening. It's supposed to be a "feature" of the board, and there's not much you (or the admins) can do about it. The only workaround would be to turn off cookies for this site. Hmm, well if it's a feature then it's a somewhat unusual one I expect there might be an option somewhere in the admin bowels of the board.

I mention it because it's unusual behavior, and there's no real place to express possible technical issues. It's indeed not a biggie, and it's no trouble at all to check what page I'm on. I mention it because there's no real place to express possible technical issues. Got it?

I don't think it does cheat. It might be very, very accurate and fast sometimes, but for the most part it gets it's information by seeing you. There was a bug where the AI would know where you were when you set off a satchel charge even if you were hidden and 200 meters away, but that got fixed. I've set up enough sniper scenarios to be quite sure that if you're hidden well, the AI won't magically know where you are. After a few shots though, they can work it out.

I run my game in a different resolution to the desktop. As it's a lower resolution I run it in Windowed mode, and TIR runs just fine like that.

Well without mentioning anyone's name I will say that I have seen, first hand, ArmA inaccuracy AND the message "original games do not fade" in Armed Assault. As an aside, is it possible that the training mission which puts you on the range also increases your ingame accuracy? I always thought that would be a cool way to do this.

Dear sweet bleeding Jesus on the cross. The game is boring, but the swimming is OK. I think, ladies & gentlemen, that we have all the salient facts right here.

Is it possible to get the AI units to occasionally make mistakes and fire upon friendlies? I find their 100% record to be somewhat unrealistic the only time I see blue-on-blue is grenades or other exploding ordnance. if I pop up in an unexpected place amongst the enemy, I might expect to be shot at by my own side. I know it happens when in MP plenty Is there a way to get the AI to fist identify a target before opening fire on it? The other effect this would have is that units who've stolen a vehicle from the other side would be in danger, as per real life I expect.

I'm assuming similarly renegade units won't attack each other, but in cases where there's some difference in status, that's what I'm trying to achieve. Accidental friendly fire. Just a little extra dimension to things, to encourage units to stay together rather than rely on the 100% identifying ability of troops

Well I don't think I'll need to save anything, it's just a quick flip of his status, then back again either on countdown or death. So it might look like this: Target at 200m killed - set 20m radius around that target. Any friendly within that radius has status flipped (* -1 to rating). After 3 second countdown OR death status is flipped back again.

So one way to achieve this is to multiply the current rating by -1 to get a negative rating, then after a few seconds multiply it by -1 again to reinstate the original value. So the original rating is not lost, no buffer is needed etc.

Does anyone know if it's possible to use ingame voice channels for new uses? (I know about the current VOIP limitation - I raised the issue ) I'm thinking about using one of the channels for use between radio operators ONLY, available only to units who have a radio, whether issued or found. Actually that raises an interesting possibility, that an enemy could find a radio and listen in Anyone have any idea?

Let me ask this question then: Is there any way at all to get an AI unit to fire on a friendly unit? I think all possibilities stem from this one question.

It seems to me that the AI is already being smarter than it should be, and that we're only introducing a flaw, to more accurately recreate the chaos of a battleground. I was thinking along the lines of an AI, when he sees a vehicle, will have a routine that will check the vehicle against a list of enemy vehicles, then have a small chance of identifying the occupant of the vehicle as friendly, if he is friendly. I think the way it is done now is that each occupied vehicle is fundamentally flagged according to it's side, there's no identification at all. As for the footsoldier method, I guess that might be handled somewhat differently. I don't expect a footsoldier to fire upon a friendly footsoldier UNLESS he's in a place he should not be. Also, I would suggest that really close-up fighting would produce less friendly fire than distant contacts. I'm sure some equation, combination of distance, area of contacts seen, could be cobbled together. Let me see... Lets say that really close quarter battles produce less friendly fire due to heightened senses and easier identification. Then lets also say that friendly fire is more likely if there's already other firing going on toward that area, and drops off after a few seconds of silence. So each sighting of over 100m for example produces, for 3 seconds, a 20m circular area around that target where there is a 25% chance of a mis-identification. Mis-identifications can only be the BAD kind, not the "good" kind. i.e. enemy will not be mis-identified as friendly. I think the above logic might produce some interesting activity, and doesn't sound (to me) as though it would be expensive (in processing terms). And it would make moving too far forward too early less of an attractive idea, and would promote more coherent teamwork by encouraging units to stay together.

If they're listed but not actually used, just delete those lines that refer to them. This was a problem in Operation Flashpoint also.

Weapon & vehicle balancing is a total misdirection of the game's intentions, one weapon may outperform the opposite number's equivalent weapon but that really means nothing, when one soldier is using bushes and the other is using a wall, when one has the sun behind him and the other has it in his eyes, when one needs to cross a bridge and the other just needs to defend it. You play the mission with what you got, it's up to the mission designer to decide on numbers & positions. Most cases the player side is grossly outnumbered in any case to make up for human vs AI tactics & observation, so balance is not an issue.

What if I had ordered him to hold fire, but he had to engage to save his own life? Is he rewarded, or punished? This is the sort of thing that makes it a nightmare to control. Of course, it could be argued that a premature firefight is someone's fault Suffers from the same exception above unless he can get out (his existence is "not to be seen", as far as we're concerned on this topic). Same as the above example, if his instructions are not to be seen, and he's seen, penalty. However unfair that may seem, you got to penalise on some things. Penalties and points based on instructions are really the most logical way to do it unfortunately, as you say lots of things are untestable. You could give team leaders a pool of points to distribute at their discretion, to give it the human touch, but requires fairness and detachment, and observation. As I said, it's too difficult really.

Hmm I suppose a complex script could be cobbled together that tracked the instructions given via the menu system (a ball-ache I know but as you say can't do it via voice channels) and the subsequent actions done by the player. Things like a kill being scored after a hold-fire instruction might cause a penalty. So a guy who's a scout, after being given a hold-fire instruction and a location to go to, would receive points for NOT killing anyone within the area specified, and for targets identified. Something like that. But IMO it's entirely too complex to do, and it would probably prove too unwieldy to be any kind of fun to actually play.

One way to make it workable is to skew the point system away from traditional point scoring activities. Points for teams ONLY. A countdown multiplier, so fast work is rewarded. An inverse-ammunition count multiplier, so only teams that work efficiently get these points. (More ammo used = less points) More points for kills within certain areas (to encourage & reward defenders) That sort of thing. It would be hard work, but it's stuff that's NOT replicated in other games. Look for the unique angles, not the copycat angles

Nope, I don't see this activity at all. Using TIR3 with 6DoF, latest drivers and ArmA 1.05

There's always a market for points-based games, but as you asked for opinions, heres mine: Give points for individuals and suddenly you have a game full of lone wolfs and a direct non-incentive for team-based tactics. In a team, the guy at the back watchng the back door is every bit as important as the guy on point who sees the enemy first, but of course that;s difficult to score in a points-based scenario. I think if you're going to introduce a points-based game you're going to have to understand that you're creating a game that ArmA is not designed to be (which is OK, it's a flexible system), and it won't be quite as good as a game that has that built right in at development. You have to think about what it is about ArmA you like, and what it has that other games do not, IMO that is the necessity for tactical teamwork where the guy doing the smallest job is as important as the guy getting all the kills. IMO natch

I keep seeing in threads I've searched that I should "download the dedicated server" and run MP from that, but I cannot find an online source for it. There is however an "arma_server.exe" in the ArmA folder, is that the one? If so, I don't want to run the server from the same machine I play on, what's the deal with dedicated servers, do I need to install the whole game to another PC and just run that exe instead? I'm under the impression that dedicated servers run license-free, is that also correct?

Aaaaaah nuts, disregard, very first post in the very first forum Why did the search not find it though.

"Pull!" *raises shotgun*

There's a setting, I think a slider. Also make sure you don't have "Super AI" set to on, as that sets all AI to max.

Have you seen the VBS video with the chopper carrying a barrel at the end of a rope ? top notch... Link me