Defunkt

Cleverness!

I never played Infiltration but I have a mate who raves about its realism. Dslyecxi has a thorough (rave) review of it HERE written post-hey day for anyone who's interested.

I just wish I could take the very best aspects of both games and roll them into one, I suspect mostly ArmA but with a more fluid first-person experience.

Gee, you guys should go play that other, more accurate, milsim, you know the one that renders absolutely everything on the battlefield 100% accurately all the time. Can't quite think of the name but it must exist given how easy you clearly believe that is to do.

Most of the makings of a post-apocalyptic battlefield men-vs-machines; somebody must surely take up this offer? Could it be another community-made initiative like the Mi-28 where the work is shared around different specialists?

Don't be a knob, the game already provides 2x the content of comparable titles and never set itself up as a flight simulator; there is more than enough fidelity to represent the influence of air-power on land battles and that's more than OFP2 will be including. If you want to play a hardcore flight-sim go buy one, despite never having been much interested before I had so much fun with the GLT F-16 mod I picked up a cheap copy of LOMACS. The problem there is that the land/sea component is all together absent and I'm just not interested enough in flight-sims alone to want to invest so heavily in such a narrow simulation. Clearly there is a growing desire for more complete air-combat and there are initiatives under way already, much of what we all desire will be made by the community and before very long (as those of us with a little patience measure things anyway). ArmA 2 with a few community upgrades is all the flight-sim I actually want especially when it exists within a complete battlefield.

1. ArmA is a game you must invest in, future-proof your investment by playing the latest, most up-to-date iteration. 2. You sound like a girl.

There are good reasons (as detailed above) why most games support this. It should be a trivial change, for the server nothing more than delivering a URL and a checksum, that's it. A little more to do for the client (support for http:// downloads) but still not much. If the resource is missing or the checksum is wrong both fallback to the current behaviour. Of course this should be done.

Nevertheless, you can always return 0.0 damage for the 7.62mm vs T-72 scenario which is a huge improvement.

If Valve and EA can't rebuild a state-of-the-art animation system (skeletal, blended, utilising IK AND unified with the world view) into their engines then we must accept that it is difficult (my point above) for BIS also. Let's give them a little credit for the way they have cut their cloth, it's too easy to knock a game for not having the best of everything but you can over-invest in an engine (for instance) and end up with content and a game nobody wants to play (ET:QW for instance).

I've misunderstood then. I understood your return from handleDamage is always applied as the vehicle's new total damage in which case maintaining a separate running total (not susceptible to getDamage's vagaries) that is always returned by handleDamage would see the final damage correct regardless of the order called.

Bummer, it would be great to get a better penetration system. I'm new, is there anywhere else (i.e. another property of the vehicle) you could store the accumulated damage so the correct value is available to you in each handleDamage call?

It's not up to the development team to accept responsibility for every possible combination of PC hardware, OS and third party driver out there. That's PC gaming, if you're not up for it consider getting a console. I sympathise, sucks to be in the (very small based on the number of people I know with the game) percentage of customers that are having issues but the reality is, you're at least as responsible for getting your own platform running this as BIS and ATI are each.

You must be referring to another Half-Life as the Half-Life I play has exactly the 1st/3rd person disconnect problem I'm referring to? Q: What is this? A: The only thing a Half-Life based game has to render (anywhere) in 3D to convince you of your own ease of movement. COD4/5 (and I'll bet COD6 too; recent enough?) is another one, hide behind cover with nothing but the top inch of your helmet visible and you can still blast away with your shouldered weapon, because the two views don't actually have to match. ET:QW may well have something better, you'll note I didn't say it was impossible but you can hold up a single feature from a truck load of other games and say "this is better than ArmA" when there are 10 other things those same games won't do as well (in ET:QW's case getting people to play it for a start). But please, don't let a few facts stop you from puffing up your forum ego.

Just tried ArmA Edit, very handy. You can actually update the commands list yourself and it turns out somebody already has.

Thanks a lot, I've only just found ArmA Edit and a Google for "commands.dat" and "arma edit" led me here.

A lot of anticipation for this mod, keep us posted; if we can't have a release then news of it is the next best thing!

Personally I have no idea what IT is (RPG?-WTF!) but they wrote IT, they own IT, they have the ability to protect IT and, unless required by some prior license pertaining to work that they've modified or included there is no onus on them to release IT. I can well imagine that building a community around their server, their forums and their desired gameplay is the primary motivation to write such a thing in the first place. The last thing they probably want to do now is compete for an audience with a bastardised version of their own endeavours. Quit bleating and write your own.

The question makes no sense, it depends where you install it, if you'd spent the same energy reading up on how to install mods as you have bleating for a spoon-feed you'd have it working by now.

I think people underestimate how difficult it would be to create an interruptible animation system. It is done in other games but those generally (possibly always) have the disconnected first/third person views where your own view and that of others viewing you can differ and your entire perception of your own movement is based on two arms floating in space. For a simulation, the fidelity of what we have now is vastly superior as those engines are riddled with inconsistencies like players (apparently) shooting bullets out of their forehead while completely behind cover.

Wow, once again, they just sound so good. One question, are the engine-off sounds looped with the game diminishing the pitch or is it one sound-bite played from start to end? The reason I ask is, if it's the latter, I wonder if it might be possible to pre-mix a smoother transition by cross-fading from a little of the engine run sound at the start?

I like the movement very much and more the more I experience it. I have just two small gripes: 1. There needs to be a finer sideways step (when sighted AND walking) as it's too easy when trying to adjust aim around a corner to suddenly find you've taken a full step out of cover. 2. There are times when coming to a full stop to run the step over animation looks daft for many very low (say 1 foot high) obstacles. Dare I say; this would in fact be best dealt with by a low (and exhausting where repeated) jump.

Cheers, have been looking for some Vehicle TDM, I'll get a crowd together and try it out soon.

It needs that anyway, funding anti-cheat is just one more reason why.

Sounds good but how about just posting the mission as a beta so we can host it ourselves? That way we don't have to try and get on when a particular timezone is active or play at a huge latency.