Defunkt

Could I please just seek some clarification on case sensitivity? If I set every file and every folder name to lower case will it work?

I could not disagree more, what can or cannot be done (or should or should not be rewarded) should ideally be the sole province of the game/mission. It is surely the goal of any simulation, and especially one that is typically competitive, to present a world that is utterly free from interpretation. Any perceived need for intervention by admins ("I don't like the way you're playing") must be seen as a failure of the game/mission. If you want teamwork the mission should reward it.

Just use Mando Missile and create a named location and it will appear as 3D marker in the HUD's navigation mode.

Re: Vapour, please just add the named points required for the default vapour scripts. It's not a good idea for each individual add-on to come with its own FX and incompatible counter-measures when there are systems already out that can apply these consistently across all vehicles (defaults and add-ons).

I have to say I do find the idea of a 'hardcore' mode intriguing. No RWR for IR but more flares that may be dispensed at will (this would probably require some abstration/combining under the hood to avoid a performance hit). Modern craft fitted with an IR counter-measures package might also enjoy a greater 'always-on' resistance and perhaps launch detection. It is true that ArmA will never model real world ranges but as long as range and speed are scaled down consistently across all elements the net loss to the simulation should hopefully be minimised.

Fantastic to find out you are so close to beta, great work!

You can deactivate an installation and in so doing restore your available install count.

Mission makers rejoice! Mandoble has been really hard at it, not only adding new features but tweaking and improving the ease of use of existing functions. This creates a large documentation burden which I thought I would help with in a little way by illustrating how players can create persistant MMA key binds...

I plan on including the scripted version in my multi-player missions however my feeling is it's a little hardcore for a public server (though infinitely better than clicking on a map to target). I feel displaying a fourth value showing the calculated range at +/-0 altitude would take the edge off that difficulty.

It's hardly re-releasing, it's an unsigned alpha, what more practical way to assist in its further development than by providing the author with a working example of suggested refinements.

Could it be set by a switch either globally, per-class or per-unit? I think in many scenarios the lack of obstruction would be preferable to the pauses. Great work by the way, ArmA really lends itself to this sort of alternate-reality and it looked very much as though this couldn't be done.

Waterhiro's real sniper mod doesn't amend the defaults (though I hope he or somebody else will one day make it so) but instead implements two new classes. IIRC they're under the USMC objects (alongside Men, Cars etc) as something like cheytacbla and m24bla.

It depends, some mods amend/replace default classes and the effect of some clients having the mod and some not will depend on what the mod does. A sound replacement mod will work fine but more pervasive changes will result at best in a not-level playing field and at worst will result in server/client de-syncs. If the mod introduces new classes and these are used (or possibly even loaded while editing) in the mission they will become a requirement of that mission and players without will not be able to join without the mod installed. There really ought to be a sticky here on 'How mods work...'.

I'm not really a fan of the grass layer, it's not terribly convincing and in that respect counter-immersive. What I really hope has been trialled is having the grass draw distance scale up as the FOV decreases, whenever you zoom in your FPS increases as there is less to render, this might go a long way toward offsetting the cost of rendering grass much much further. I also hope that the lowest LOD is just a 2D sprite.

Great to hear you're back on the job, onwards!

But there's nothing suggested there that can't/won't be made by the community which is setting one's sights rather low for a new version. I'd much rather see ArmA 3 bring things that can't be modded, like the interruptible animation system already mentioned.

teaCup, he made some very nice straddle and low jump animations in the same pack. Would love to see that jump in ArmA 2 also, for those 1 foot walls that don't qualify for a full stop and step over.

I think you've just been mocked Sniper_Bait but yes, they will surely be placeable in the editor.

Having established themselves as undisputed leader in this market I would think it fairly high-risk to walk away from that dominance and into uncharted territory. Not saying they won't do it, caring about what they do is obviously important, you only have to look at OFP/ARMA to see that.

Has anyone tried setting MinErrorToSend to a value less than 0.005? Maybe 0.001?

It's not madness at all, if you run a P-v-P server (or to an extent any server) the last thing you want is one group of players able to see enemies farther away than another group. I do not hold with the philosophy that it is the second group's own fault for not coming here and seeking out all of the modding options available. The other issue with this modification is that it causes units to render before the trees that they may be in cover behind and we all know how that pans out with the grass/clutter.

It has been confirmed that OA is standalone and can also address ArmA 2 content if installed. Our server will be OA/A2.

I don't see it flying. 1. There are a whole bunch of shaders that aren't ArmA 2 quality, I don't see BIS wanting to dilute the visual fidelity of the released game. 2. This 'free' content directly competes with what is for many ArmA 2 owners a major appeal of Operation Arrowhead.

It's called Operation Arrowhead.

Don't be so bloody rude. The fact is you don't know enough to know what you're looking at (namely that those latest shots are not in-game but taken in the modelling software), go look at the in-game shots of the Type 99 in the first post and tell me it doesn't look every bit as good as the ArmA 2 defaults. Finally if you want to discuss the Challenger (hopefully more politely) go do it in the Challenger thread. Honestly.