Defunkt

Jeez, if you want help make a little effort, maybe start by defining what you mean by 'doesn't seem to work'.

You're dumb and you need to learn scripting.

Sounds very good, ignore the troll, it's your work and up to you to decide who hosts as far as I'm concerned.

Not terribly surprising, view distance is a killer and you've set it to over 4x the default.

In Mando We Trust

QFT :bounce3:

Just a wild idea, I don't suppose it would be possible to alter the lowest LOD (which now has the same model/textures as the one up) such that the maps have a 50% alpha channel added as a pseudo fade-in effect?

IIRC not vice-versa. You can probably load Chernarus and Utes in OA but not the other way around.

Well it is posted as an Alpha though it is not clear if the OP is still working on it. I think what's required is a small committee of (say 3) military 'experts' (we can't be short of these) to create a few matrices comparing all weapon classes and specific AT weapons to all vehicles in the game. In each case we'd need a probability of penetration and also a weapon damage modifier (applied once penetration is achieved). I also think it needs to be done in script (without relying on config changes) so it can be included in and downloaded with missions. That's the only way to make it truly widespread (like Norrin's Revive is) and this script can then easily be turned into a standalone addon also.

I honestly didn't expect to like it (say 'NO' to visual compromise) but, without having done any controlled testing, Vegetation_Low_Visuals_R_PROPER feels vastly better, I'm only very vaguely aware of any diminished IQ but it just feels so much smoother. Free lunch on kju!

And... "Beginner's guide to ArmA Modding" Project ...or even more applicable... Arma 2 Sound Modding 101.

This sounds exactly what is (IMHO) required for good PvP and what I hoped to create myself in time, good job.

I asked the same question and the answer was; "Of course". :)

I don't recall seeing anybody suggest that there's a purpose to this thread other than to say thank you. Maybe you only do things if you think you can get something out of it but not everybody thinks like you. Now GTFO.

Sad but OT thanks.

Where I'm heading with this is, can certain classes of aircraft, I'm thinking of slow and otherwise vulnerable types, have a greater ability to dispense countermeasures. So in the case of it is dispensing in large quantities in multiple directions, extra eye-candy aside, what would be the best way to model this? More than one real flare (in this case 3)? Or an approximation by making the efficacy/attractiveness of the one real (rearward-launched) flare configurable (in this case higher)?

No problem. I meant to ask, with regard to the flares, is the number of launchers and flares configurable per-vehicle? And is the spoofing modelled to the point where more simultaneous flares will influence the result? Or even to the point where the attitude of the launcher (i.e. the direction the flare is launched) comes into play?

Wow! This basically creates a whole new game within the game, I've had a heap of fun this evening just working my way through your test missions. It's an amazing achievement for one person in this slightly cranky scripting environment. Other than the C130 arc of fire already mentioned and which you've suggested is more about parameter fine-tuning I think I only struck one bug; The HUD' 'Show Ordnance' menu action didn't appear to do anything [Edit: Mandoble has since told me it's an obsolete left-over.]. That aside this seems well and truly ready for public beta, I will probably check its behaviour on a dedicated server at my own next sitting. Found my way around most things quite easily though as you know I couldn't work out what the grey circle was for. I also didn't work out the purpose of the following MFD function keys (possibly a WIP): F4 Man / S.Aut [Edit: Okay just read a little on this function in an earlier post, is it working? Can you manually steer? With mouse?] F3 Loc / Rem RWR is just perfect, SAM's are still downright dangerous but if you're fast enough, show them your tail and launch flares at the right distance you'll usually get away. The firer can increase their chances by picking the shot that prevents you from doing that.. I still think the RWR should be bottom center and in fact there's no reason for it to be shown until a hostile launch is actually detected which should do away with any issues about chopper pilots' view of the ground (least of their worries at that point). I think the flare launch should have a sound effect. Hopefully the RWR texture can be specified per-vehicle along with the MFD and I think there may be other UI components like the ACTIVATING SYSTEMS and THREAT indicators that would benefit from nice raster graphics. I'm no artist but these things are quite easy to knock up with bevel and drop shadow and it'd be great to have instrument sets that suit the various different vehicles: HUD is a little problematic for me as I drive and fly everything with my left hand and am always free-looked with my mouse, then there are those who use Track IR. Can't be helped but I think there should be a key to toggle the HUD on and off. It might then be possible for me to pair it to the freelook bind and have it switch on and off with that mode change. If the RWR was auto-shown on threat then this would completely do away with the action menu entry (always a good thing). Not sure if there's any provision for people to map their own keys in advance but if not then I think you should consider using the 'Use Action NN' binds as the first choice for default keys so anybody who regularly plays on Mando equipped servers can have their preferred keys pre-mapped (in which case some of the help text could be assumed unnecessary as well and turned off) then fall back to the current defaults only if those aren't bound. Great to have the option to change keys in game though. As for the camera, mouse as analogue joystick makes perfect sense but I'd love to see the pointer go, apart from being a bit 'PC Game' it can be a little frustrating to have to click on the target with the same device that moves the view around (not sure if that difficulty is intended). IMHO TAB would ideally select the lockable target nearest to sight center but of course it has to be very close to center in the first place (as it is now). I'm sure more will occur to me even before I try it again. I'd just like to say I've enjoyed playing around with it very much and ended up doing much less work today than I should have!

Signed, unreservedly.

I'm not anti-OFP:DR but the fact is the entire OFP:DR forums are nothing more than sheer speculation, the product of CodeMasters imparting nothing but sales pitch to anybody about anything.

If you take a hatchback off a sealed road and onto anything even the slightest bit rugged you'd better be driving slower than a run or you'll bust your suspension or steering in no time flat. Try it on your own car if you don't believe me.

Well it can't if you disable it.

Swapfile on a RAM disc is absurd, it achieves nothing that couldn't be done more efficiently by just disabling the swapfile, think about it.

Thoroughly looking forward to it. Just one thought I had when viewing one of the WIP videos which is now on my mind again having read Kremator's summary; is there really going to be a visible mouse pointer to select targets? Ideally given the MFD paradigm it'd be function keys for everything and TAB to cycle targets, click-and-shoot with a little white arrow strikes me as a trifle 'gamey' though I guess it'd be a lot of work to change. Maybe in a later version or if somebody else (like me) submitted a tweak/patch at a later date?

You should probably make your problem known to the server-op. One possibility is that they have set onDifferentData="" to kick, when I tried this on my own dedicated server a number of friends would join and then get kicked after a bit, I'm not sure of its purpose, are you trying to run the Beta on a 1.03 server perhaps?