Defunkt

To "snap your hand off" is a figure of speech meaning "I'd be first in line", you seem to have taken in literally. Down tiger.

Great pic Alex72 (and RHS and Raunhofer also of course), certainly amongst the top dozen photo-realistic captures that have appeared in that thread.

No thanks.

I have to confess I've just tried it and came up empty. I expected that given... class CfgSounds { class GlassHit { name = "GlassHit"; sound[] = {"\ca\sounds\weapons\hits\glass_hit_01.wss", 1.0, 1.0}; titles[] = {}; }; }; ...in description.ext you could then use either PlaySound "GlassHit"; or perhaps player Say "GlassHit"; but I get nothing, no error, no sound. This must be peculiar to sounds, as said I can refer to textures within pbo's in this manner.

I think try extracting the pbo and combining what you find inside the $PREFIX$ or $PBOPREFIX$ file with that path, so it would be something like: \ca\sound\Weapons\hits\glass_hit_01.wss

What do you want to use it for? I use one of the vanilla dialog textures in one of my mission dialogs and I reference it with... text = "\ca\ui\data\ui_background_controls_ca.paa"; IIRC ca\ui is the pbo prefix and the rest is the path contained within the pbo.

I disagree, it takes time and money to run a server, those sufficiently interested in doing so will be die-hard fans of the game and are much more likely to want to play the game modded. So you have a situation where (for illustrative purposes let's just use your %'s) 95% of players want an un-modded game but only 5% of server-ops want to host an un-modded game.

When MMA is active you can only select non-MMA weapons in the BIS HUD (default key is [F] to cycle), if you try and select an MMA controlled weapon the selection is advanced to the next non-MMA weapon (i.e. often the cannon) which is the behaviour you described - this is by design. MMA controlled weapons must be selected in the MMA HUD (only) and are cycled using the key you bound within the Use Action 18 custom control. EDIT: Yeah, what he said.

You can actually do it without any scripts by configuring the CQB sight for specific muzzles. You then need to decide if you want to duplicate all fire modes (semi-auto/burst/full-auto) for both sights or associate a particular fire mode with a particular sight/muzzle. The later works quite well in most scenarios, if I'm using the CQB sight I'll almost always want burst/full-auto and for the optic I'll always want to be in semi-auto.

Unbinarised (thus editable) models released for all ArmA1 content as a starting point for user mods (under certain terms & conditions). The same has not happened for ArmA2 (at least not yet).

And because unlike mods, what BIS releases is then standard for multiplayer.

Love the CQB sight treatment, might we see something similar for OpFor weapons? I'd been thinking I might have to revisit O2 and try a proof-of-concept ArmA1 MLOD + CQB sight >>> ArmA2. All weapons with magnifying optics (including sniper rifles) should have a CQB sighting position.

I had the same thing in Pest Control, none of my AI would disembark (mission running on a Linux dedicated server). Apart from that little niggle (we don't much like playing with AI anyway) it was very enjoyable and atmospheric mission. Thanks!

A good quick mission without any of the faults (typically insertions or endings not working) that plague so many. We enjoyed it, well done.

You're asking in the wrong place, look here, there are already two replies in your previous thread.

Amen.

1. What makes you think the new content won't be usable for co-op also? Not saying it will but I certainly don't know how they would prevent it. 2. It may come as a surprise but not every mod is designed with your wants in mind.

Yes, indeed, highlights for me were that they're now looking at working with the TeamSpeak 3 plug-in for VOIP rather than Mumble - nothing against Mumble per-se just TS3 has the greater foothold in ArmA already. And of course the shooting from vehicles if they can pull it off. A shame to hear the release is a ways off but I'm sure it'll prove worth it!

The community is its own worst enemy where multi-player is concerned, 100 servers running slightly different versions of the same mission and all requiring differing combinations of mods and all consequently with only 3-4 players on ain't exactly a formula for great gaming. I don't see that any mission-maker's interest in the growth and success of their endeavour should necessarily end with their compiling it into a pbo, they have rights and should exercise them

Well for 1) you don't need to use any BIS tools to develop a mission and 2) I'm pretty sure the idea that BIS owns all modders work has been thoroughly debunked by modders and moderators alike on many occasions.

Voted. Based on those screenshots I'd probably opt for a lower LOD in favour of better performance or a longer grass draw distance also.

There are already precedents in ArmA. At one time (and I presume it is still the case) www.rp-mods.com games relied on server-side scripts which they do not distribute and which are not downloaded in the mission.pbo. I've always maintained it is their prerogative to do so, they hold the copyright, it's their work born of their vision and I totally understand why they wouldn't want to then compete for an audience with servers running a bastardized version of their own endeavours.

You paid for the product on offer and you were afforded every opportunity to satisfy yourself that you liked it before buying it by trying the demo. Then there's the question of what is a reasonable expectation for $50? I personally think more than 225 square kilometres of terrain, 70 vehicles and an effectively open-ended variety and potential playing life represents exceptional value compared to your 6hr shooter-on-rails experience and a lot more than your "money's worth".

I had just happened across it this morning when looking for something else. And always use Google search with the site parameter: #include site:community.bistudio.com

Documentation: http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/PreProcessor_Commands#.23include