Defunkt

Very nice work, a keeper, thank you.

Right, well at the risk of embarrassing myself (the blind leading the blind here) I would consider: 1. Imagine the triangle formed by the radar, the aircraft and the right angle between them. You know the length of two sides (2d coordinates, difference in altitude) from which you can determine the vertical angle of the aircraft as seen from the radar. No idea what the formula is off the top of my head but it'll be easy to find. 2. Sample at intervals from radar to aircraft (say 100m) the same angle for the terrain height at each interval (no idea how you can read this without actually placing an object). If at any stage the angle is larger than the angle to the plane it is concealed.

I also suck at maths so cannot help but I wonder if object A is a player? If he were you could possibly use WorldToScreen and then ScreenToWorld the result to find where the line of sight intersects with terrain. Apart from that I have no idea, odd that there is no built in function.

Agreed, add-ons and public servers just don't work without auto-download. Mods like Mando Missile, Norrin's Revive and Jones' Mortars (which can be incorporated into, and downloaded with, the mission) rule for this purpose.

Suggest: (AssignedCargo _plane) select 0;

That is also a perfectly valid choice.

Leaving aside for the moment that this is of course a work of fantasy, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that once the virus has run its course and the host expires that the corpse might be re-animated as one of the walking dead. Infection (by either type) would create a new infected (fast) which after a period of time would die and rise again as a zombie (slow).

Yeah, I've had that often, I've always assumed it's tied to using Expert mode, you?

Sounds good, I look forward to seeing your missions but be aware Fortran's F117 needs to be updated so it plays nice with MMA, it has an out-of-date version embedded which is not an 'approved' use as it causes all sorts of problems.

Well after I made that post it also occurred to me that having ArmA throw more memory at performance is only going to end up as an exercise in file caching. So I decided to look into what adjustments can be made to Windows own caching and have resolved to experiment with SysInternals' cacheset (and similar) and the LargeSystemCache setting.

Right, that problem again. However, assuming a fix for the infantry weapon index doesn't materialise (and I suspect it won't), I think you should stop worrying so much about what other mods might do with the IncomingMissile EH. MMA is the only mod that is ever likely to provide a consistent treatment across all launchers, any other missile handler can GTFO IMHO.

Well if you take the delete-and-replace-on-launch approach surely the default lock, which isn't indicated in any way in Veteran/Expert mode, can simply be ignored?

I am hopeful that Mando Missile (which can be included for download within missions) will provide a HUD and targeting for these launcher types before too long.

ArmA already generally uses less than the 2048 it may be allocated on 32bit systems so there's more to it than simply re-compiling, the only immediate (probably slight) advantage is additional x64 instructions. I'd guess that the problem with using memory to save HDD access is that you still need to be able to turn in respectable performance in 1GB so without rewriting everything multiple times for different RAM budgets your methodology is irrevocably linked with, and largely focussed around, how that first GB is utilised.

Yeah, I'm all for something better but what's there does the job just fine, I don't get the big hate on the muzzleflashes.

Well I'll give you points for finding your own fix but I doubt it'll prove a happy one for terribly long.

And removing which of those mods (in turn, one at a time) causes the 'strange weapon effects' to cease?

This is not a general get-my-favourite-issue-sorted thread, to treat it as such is to dilute its usefulness for its intended purpose; providing feedback on the changes presented in the patch betas. If it gets flooded with extraneous rubbish the developers will simply stop reading it. When you potentially have the ear of the developers I for one would appreciate it if you'd refrain from applying derogatory terms like 'shoddy' to their work. We're very lucky to have this kind of access, it's rare, please post with that in mind.

Yes, SetObjectTexture or by filling the "hiddenSelections" array in the object config but your model needs to have er, well... hiddenSelections configured which IIRC are tri's grouped together by texture map. Many of the default vehicles have these but generally only where the model is re-used between factions.

I'd guess it is simply posted in response to the numerous threads asking "why aren't all my cores fully utilised?"

Compared to which other developer I wonder? So far we're getting a patch a month and the opportunity to test the betas in development, I've never seen a game better supported by patches. Funny, that's just what we're all thinking.

Suggest "Dragon Rising" as the sort of thing one might actually use to name a boat.

Would you prefer they just left airpower out completely thereby giving modders nothing at all to build on? Because that's what every other studio does, just leaves out the bits they don't want or can't afford to do. This title already includes far more of everything than most and there is no market for the game that would cost 2-3 times more and permit them to apply the same fidelity to all aspects. Would I like a better air combat simulation in the vanilla game? Of course, who wouldn't? Do I think it's reasonable to expect BIS to provide it for what I paid for the title? Not at all.

1 - You cannot, it's a limitation to preserve balance. 2 - Not me, if you have other addons loaded they could interact negatively, perhaps make a comparison without first.

I guess that's because it looks a lot like you're nagging the makers to tailor this addon to your liking.