Defunkt

QFT. There's obviously no way your monitor could be used to blind you realistically so what? Just don't bother representing sun-strike at all? LOL crosshairs. So now with perfect vision in any direction, including directly toward the sun, you won't need to wear out your spacebar scanning for enemies! Play your video-game, I'll be enjoying a simulation.

You should probably follow your own advice and read back a bit further before admonishing others.

ROFL @ AA3 - what an absolute abortion!

Kegety made a library that would limit your framerate for ArmA 2 and posted it here recently. Don't ask me to find the post but you could maybe check his site. ---------- Post added at 09:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ---------- Uh, found the post.

Maybe you should grind that axe elsewhere and come join this discussion when you've sorted out your device driver crashes.

You're clearly too selfish and stupid to realise that what you're suggesting will spell the end of all decent user-content. The good developers like RKSL and whoever made these aircraft (which may or may not be SARMAT, pity they didn't just say) will give up being ripped-off.

So it's up to every author to patrol every game forum personally to make sure they get to veto unauthorised use of their work or, as has been suggested by RKSL-Rock (perfectly reasonably given SARMAT's apparent track record), should this audience expect credits and any applicable permissions be spelled out up front? One possibility defines a community that respects the tremendous amount of work involved in creating these assets and the other is decidedly greedy, grabbing and unworthy. Honestly!

Each to their own I suppose but I really don't understand, isn't it more realistic/immersive without such a modification? Making the game easier doesn't necessarily make it a better game. But then I liked the head bob and motion-blur only it's now disadvantaging oneself to enable those. :confused_o:

danyshu is absolutely right, ArmA2 P-v-P desperately needs more structure set by the mission maker and better interfaces to lead players through the must-know stuff, in both cases so they can immediately participate effectively. There is nothing at all in that which need compromise the realism or immersion. Unfortunately the P-v-P mission maker also has to do a lot of other extra work because things like join-in-progress, respawn management, team-killing are so poorly provided for.

Possibly their track record extends back before Join Date: Jul 2009.

"Yes"

Yeah, even if it's the same for all maps I'd use a North/West hills only version of this if it can be done. Even away from Chernarus, an island like Utes for instance is very likely adjacent to a land mass but with open sea in the opposite direction and it would turn something disorientating into an aid to orientation

Left/Right Turn combines bank when in motion and otherwise pedal, I guess it's a feature. If you instead use the separate Bank Left/Right and Left/Right Pedal binds you'll never have such a problem. Verifiable, non-anecdotal source please because you've been corrected on this before... The only reference I can find to nap-of-the-earth system in a Blackhawk is a "UH-60A RASCAL NASA-modified version for the Rotorcraft-Aircrew Systems Concepts Airborne Laboratory".

1) Yes, big job but a lot of effort goes into other nearly as complex missions some of which hardly ever get played because they're so all or nothing when it comes to player numbers. 2) I think you'd always need 4-5 objectives which must be contested in some sort of order if not always serially. So that first street would have 4-5 capture points and the 'map' could be won by capping them all out. Otherwise the moment enough players join mid-game that street and it's objectives would then distill into a single larger neutral objective and (for instance) 4 more would be added 2 either side of the new central zone and already in the possession of either team. At this point the first low-key (i.e. HMMVW, UAZ etc.) vehicles would start to become available. Rinse and repeat until it's 64 players, a whole island with artillery and CAS etc. The key is that at any scale there are always 4-5 objectives (contested in order one at a time to keep action focussed) and your team can always win by grabbing them all. If players leave the game scales back.

Rather than limiting it to one size game or other missions need to be written to scale with player numbers. Four players get to fight over a street, eight players over a city block or village and so forth, if that first street is placed centrally then more objectives can be opened up outwards as players join until they're contesting the whole island. This way a handful of players can hope to enjoy a fairly entertaining game while waiting for the whole combined arms experience to eventuate.

Then you don't understand what the key/signature system is. What it isn't is a claim to ownership, rather it is an approved-for-use (on your server) mechanism.

Good Lord, if it's your own server you're worried about take 5 minutes and learn how to sign it yourself: http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Addon_Signatures

Looks great, is it JIP capable?

It has nothing to do with it being a sound mod, it's a server-side setting. If the server op requires mods be signed by an approved key then it will be so for all mods regardless of what is altered.

Could I possibly request the addition of a simple FPS counter HUD element as an alternative to the debug text? This would save running two separate plug-ins that are essentially looping to monitor the same thing.

Ideally they'd appear to the North and West of Chernarus and not out to sea but that's probably asking too much.

Could I suggest that if you're going to use U.S. Air Force etc. that the displayName for USMC should then be updated to U.S. Marine Corps. Personally I'd prefer to see the periods dispensed with (i.e. US Marine Corps, US Air Force) such that where acronyms appear (i.e. CDF) they're all treated the same. Could I also suggest while you're at it that you propose guidelines for simple colour/camouflage variations. IMHO your grey and black F-16 variants should really have been listed in the one US Air Force faction along with the default scheme and differentiated in the unit listing with a prefix like [schwarz] F-16C Mehrzweck. A prefix means they'll group together so if you were (for instance) placing Marines on a Middle East map it's easy to pick from the desert marpat versions...

Well worth the price of the game right there.

Thanks to all who have contributed along the way, we appreciate your time and effort. Couple of niggles, does anyone else get the following: Untextured/lo-poly near (interior view) LOD for the prop blades (don't remember this from the previous release): Moving diagonal lines over the controls other than the working horizon (this I do remember from the last) or is it a feature? Also, haven't de-pbo'd it to see but does it have a hidden selection for the main mesh to support runtime texture loading? Thanks!

The problem with that, and at the heart of the crosshair debate raging elsewhere IMO, is that your unscoped position is so far to one side. You should be able to aim over your optic using the scope/weapon itself as a rudimentary CQB ironsight. As it is, magnified optics are overly penalised in CQB when crosshairs are disabled.