Defunkt

Er... if he would like to see it included in ACEX (and my point is that including it is the only way to ensure it's available for use in multi-player) surely he has to suggest that to the ACEX developers?

That's a good point, obviously you will (and should) do whatever interests you but I would point out several already released aircraft that feature good quality models and skins but are a little sub-par in the cockpit department. I'm thinking here of the CMA Mi-28, CMA Ka-50, ACE AH-6/MH-6 Littlebirds and Southy's recent port of the F-4E Phantom. Just a thought.

That's not the whole story though Manzilla, what you're suggesting still won't see those units on many ACE servers. ACEX is a defacto standard for additional content and server-ops know that players who join their 'ACE' server will have all the included units. The fact that an ACE2 config is available for other content is neither here nor there really, most people will still not have them.

Admit it, you were playing OFP:DR weren't you?

Signature checks are made against installed key files so if you've used the same key to sign both versions both will be allowed on the server. I assume this is why projects like ACE issue a new version/time stamped key for each release.

Sorry I don't follow, signatures are only tested (when VerifySignatures = 1) when loading pbo's (merging content into the game's file space), a signature of a signature will never be checked as part of that process. A signature (or a signature of a signature if desired - not sure to what end though) might be tested with CheckFiles but as far as I can see a failed check will only result in a chat message. If one were tenacious, a combination of BinPBO, De-PBO and Swiss File Knife could turn inserting addon dependencies within a mission file into a drag and drop operation with a batch file but I lack the time to attempt this right now.

De-pbo each mission and create the dependency there before you add it to the server. This could actually be automated with a batch file.

Well I've just had a play with this and while CheckFiles dutifully reports on missing files none of the documented server events seems to be called in response. So given... CheckFiles[] = {"x\acexpla\addons\main\config.bin"}; ...if I join without ACEX_PLA a message is then printed saying... deFUNKt uses modified data file - x\acexpla\addons\main\config.bin ...but none of OnUnsignedData, OnHackedData, OnDifferentData or RegularCheck seem to be called in response so as far as I can tell the test has no teeth (unless an admin is on to kick somebody in response).

Have some of the shaders been tuned down some? I have to say I personally prefer the finish visible in the OP and I had a similar feeling about the latest images of your F-14 port. Obviously it's only one opinion and probably not everybody's but I do think the models look better with a slight sheen.

I'm surprised nobody has suggested turning off triple-buffering (aka pre-rendered frames), haven't experienced it myself but I understand it can add significantly to input lag.

Checking the signatures is a good idea and would save having to dig into the pbo for a path prefix.

No walker, you are incorrect. A signature only permits an addon it does not make it mandatory. ---------- Post added at 07:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 AM ---------- More on CheckFiles, it seems you can check a single file from an addon pbo so you can just test (for instance) the config.bin/config.cpp within the addon (using its pbo prefix). In this way you could enforce its presence but rely on VerifySignatures to ensure it hasn't been tampered with. I'd be tempted to clear the default entries in the array, one at least looks like an OFP leftover. I think perhaps this might be why the OnDifferentData server action is empty by default.

VerifySignatures isn't enough to do what he wants, specifically make certain addons mandatory.

That's the theory though I've not read of anyone using CheckFiles successfully yet. As said, if you do let us know how, if not you can always add the addons as mission requirements instead.

Optional addons are handled by VerifySignatures = 1; just add the keys for the permitted addons to the server's keys folder.

I believe... CheckFiles[] = {"HWTL\dta\data3d.pbo", "dta\data3d.pbo"}; ...might be turned to this purpose by adding more files to the array. Not sure which of the server-side script actions (OnUnsignedData / OnHackedData / OnDifferentData) would be called on a failed check as I've never tried to set this up. If you have any joy with it please post a how-to. The simple way (but the way which requires ongoing maintenance) would be to open each mission on the server and reference the required addons within these instead.

Oh dear, something's been lost in translation there I think.

Everybody struggles with the movement when they first start playing ArmA, the inevitable result of being brought up on Quake and COD where you can adjust your position through 360 degrees in centimetre increments like you're on castors and you run everywhere - even indoors. I think most people who stick with ArmA grow to love the movement and the integrity of ArmA's full-body animations (freelook, proper disruption to sighting when moving or changing stance). That's not to say I wouldn't like the animation system to be more interruptible but I understand why they elected for what we have and I think they opted for the right compromises.

Whether an addon version is ultimately released or not please also maintain the script version, it's the only way improvements to the fidelity of the game can be extended to public servers. Mando Missile and this (and before this, Jones' Mortars) are outstanding examples of what can be achieved without having to bury potential players in addon requirements. ---------- Post added at 11:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ---------- Incorrect actually, it is already possible to include MMA within a mission download and I know Mandoble is currently working toward releasing it in a more optimised fashion (smaller download) specifically for this purpose.

There now, ain't you pleased you've got us to come back to?

Not in my experience, nothing like.

I have to confess I wandered away back when MP looked to be off the menu but you have my full attention once again. I mean what's a zombie mission without your buddies watching your back?

I have to say it bothers me much less than I thought it would, there's something slightly cinematic about the way it cuts in and out but, yes, still rather artificial. I do think gradual blur would work better, I just wonder if they're trying to avoid over-using that effect as it's so widely applied in the various 'shell-shock' events.

Yes indeed but is that possible with the engine? Even if it is there should still be some other cue so it's not just can-run/cannot-run. As I understand it there's no way to vary the preset movement speeds dynamically.

Can I just ask what units are replaced by this config? Have been holding off downloading these on the understanding that they are destined to replace Army 2009 in ACE, is that still the case? Hope so, they look super!