Defunkt

Textures are usually stored in pbo's (similar to a gcf or pak from other games) so you'll need a tool to de-pbo, the default pbo's live in the \AddOns folder. The texture files usually have a "paa" extension and the diffuse map you're intially after will often end with _ca or _co (ie. texture_ca.paa). The ArmA tools come with a tool called TexView2(?) which allows you to convert to and from this format but there are others including a Photoshop plug-in by Kegetys. Do not place your new texture back in the original pbo (this would fuck your game install), you will instead have to create your own AddOn, there must be tutorials on this. It will involve writing a config (a textfile with a .cpp extension) which describes how your texture replaces that of a default class or is referenced by a new class you've added. Unfortunately most character models do not have the 'hiddenSelections' that will allow you to simply supercede the default texture so you're going to have to add the original model into your addon and hexedit the texture names within to point to your own paa's. Help for most of the above should probably be sought HERE.

For me the current betas have massively improved performance, I would urge BIS to wrap this up into 1.05 sooner rather than later (once CTD's are resolved of course). It would be as well for BIS to have their best foot forward while disgruntled PC users looking to ditch other 'consolised' titles are taking a first look at ArmA 2 (right now).

Nice, looking forward to putting our server up. Thank you for your continued (and outstanding) support of PC gaming.

I think it would be a hell of a lot easier to fix object pop-in by lowering the fog render distance (as a proportion of total view distance) rather than tweaking the render distance of individual classes or object types.

Ditto, without wanting to be impatient, I haven't tried the Stormtroopers yet as there was early talk of a fix for the blasters (damage, bullet drop). As far as I know that hasn't been released yet, or has it?

I haven't tried it myself but from that video it looks poor in terms of weapon model collision (shotgun clipping through box). I wonder if it uses the two - arms - floating - in - space - bullets - fired - from - forehead spatial model that is the bane of so many older games. This allows you (in games like COD4) to engage enemies with only the top inch of your helmet visible. Any sort of automatic-interaction with objects even if only setting the height at which you crouch seems to me to be at odds with the unique integrity of ArmA's player animation (being able to freelook, see your own body and the 100% connect between 1st & 3rd person views).

If you've got a suggestion post it in the Suggestions forum, ONCE and stop spamming every second topic with "I want... everything". It is hopelessly naive to imagine it will achieve anything, desperately annoying for everybody else and contravenes the forums 'no cross-posting' rule.

Yes, quite right, an even better mechanism.

Are you using a non-standard profiles directory (i.e. your command line contains -profiles=...), that causes this problem for me.

In terms of a control mechanism variable stance (combined with the current lean) only needs to work as freelook already does, hold another key down and your mouse is manipulating your body rather than your head.

Am I missing something here? They're playing with cheats and/or altered gravity, right? That's hardly synonymous with 'dedicated server'.

I think fully variable stance would be a very welcome addition if only because it would almost certainly also signal an interruptible animation system. Can't see it happening for Arrowhead though.

Excellent, it is a very good thing if BIS can see some tangible and ongoing reward for continuing to support the things that make PC's the première gaming platform.

If I could offer a contrary view, it's something of a mixed blessing to me, what was a kick-arse stand alone mod will (I'm forced to presume for now) only be available as part of ACE. So now if I want to use Fromz' awesome PLA units I have no choice but to accept along with it whatever features I might not particularly care for from ACE. It makes ACE the Microsoft of ArmA modding, assimilating anything that might be competitive and requiring (by virtue of a monopoly on quality content) everybody to play ArmA the ACE way (blackouts and all :omg:). This is assuming of course Fromz will no longer be offering his PLA units as a separate mod also, something I presently have no way of knowing just now, hence my own reserved judgement on the news.

Wow, things are really in free-fall over there, it's like CM pushed that TemplarGFX guy out front to hold the fort while they make a clean getaway out the back door...

The cat was a bit out of the bag 5 pages ago:

Easy tiger, his opinion is just as valid as yours. Turning off non-essential services will help but only very slightly (in his experience, imperceptibly), defragmenting the game files will help but, again, only very slightly.

Yes, dedicated servers (Windows and Linux). Given where you're coming from I would definitely recommend you try before you buy, it is nothing at all like COD.

Those are looking great Coma.

Vilas I would use your data, which is not intended as a reproach of any other maker (and certainly not OHMOD) but consistency is all. Vilas please do start another topic so we can discuss this further without derailing this one.

What bothers me about this emphasis on a bug-free release is that they might take the same approach every other studio does and simply curtail their ambition. In the context of the game's massively open world I actually consider ArmA II to be amazingly free from defects and believe that the first public release of something so non-linear will inevitably always turn up things that no amount of testing could be certain of finding.

If I might beg your indulgence Fromz, I would like to respond to Vilas' post here. You're absolutely right and many would agree with you (and did within the thread you linked to) but what do you expect should happen next? People are unlikely to form up into expert panels of their own accord and even if they did they have no way of forcing add-on makers to bend to their standards. What is more likely to work is if somebody knowledgeable of both the real world systems and the mechanisms at play in the ArmA engine (I'm looking at YOU here) just starts publishing corrections (or better yet 'fixed' configs) for specific mods. Add-ons that introduce new vehicles and weapons have little or no footprint in public play but rather become accepted into the 'list of add-ons' used by different communities. Many of these groups I'm sure would choose to first re-pbo with your corrections applied, relieved to know that everything they add is consistent with everything already included. If these corrections become widely used (and I feel they must) I believe add-on makers would eventually make an approach to check their assumptions before release. A lot of work for one person (at least initially) but I do believe it's the most immediate way of instigating a standard while keeping you from becoming embroiled in any fracas about permissions (because you're only posting suggested data).

It's true that you can often only achieve 75% of the solution in script but you can reach so many more players so much more easily. IMO scripts are the only way to extend gameplay on a public server, I hope where feasible you'll at least consider both versions in any future improvement.

His key point is that you cannot charge around the battlefield with a map always fully unfolded and available for instant review hence you are forced to stop and crouch when reading your map. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be.

My PC actually runs ArmA 2 better than ArmA 1, I'd suggest buy the game now. There's a lot to learn and experiment with mission-making-wise (even if it's only barely playable) and given where you're coming from it'd be as well to know you like the game before laying down a lump of cash on an upgrade for it.