Defunkt

@galzohar: Possibly but given it's desirable to acknowledge/communicate the change (and we can't do touch) a very slight movement accompanied with a faint *click* would be a very acceptable indicator IMO. ---------- Post added at 01:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 PM ---------- In fact, even better than a text message telling you what you've switched to, distinguish instead with an alternate *click-click* when you've cycled through to semi again. So, starting from semi one *click* to burst, from burst one *click* to auto, from auto a double *click-click* back to semi simulating the move through two positions and also serving to remind you what you're on in a more evocative/immersive manner than a text message.

No crosshairs for me thank you, doesn't matter how they're rationalised or justified, it would impact negatively on my immersion. I'd like it if there was more visual feedback from the first person weapon position/animation but I'll make do without if needs be.

Good job, looking forward to it. For Buildings/Plants/Misc am I right in assuming that only those classes not already represented in A2 have been included? Can you say if, where there are class name collisions, the A2 content always provide the same or a basically similar object?

Hmm... sorry not something I've had cause to complete yet. I should mention that the circle around the button wasn't something I added, I just linked to an existing image on securom's site. Personally I would try the online revocation myself first.

Just start ArmA2.exe with a /revoke parameter and you'll get the following dialog (for the Metaboli release at least):

1. Create an @ARMA mod folder and place in the \AddOns sub-directory the following files from ArmA 1.14+ then append the @ARMA mod folder to your -mod= list start-up parameter. You can instead just chuck these in with Uhao but I also use this same mod folder containing these same files for my port of Avgani & Afghan Village (which I'm still chasing down the last few errors on). .\@ARMA\AddOns\misc.pbo .\@ARMA\AddOns\misc.pbo.bi.bisign .\@ARMA\AddOns\plants.pbo .\@ARMA\AddOns\plants.pbo.bi.bisign .\@ARMA\AddOns\roads.pbo .\@ARMA\AddOns\roads.pbo.bi.bisign .\@ARMA\AddOns\rocks.pbo .\@ARMA\AddOns\rocks.pbo.bi.bisign .\@ARMA\AddOns\signs.pbo .\@ARMA\AddOns\signs.pbo.bi.bisign 2. Un-PBO uhao.pbo somewhere and delete: .\uhao\config.bin. 3. Download these files an unzip with paths into the unpbo'd uhao folder so you're adding: .\uhao\config.cpp .\uhao\obj\clutterfix_grass_long.p3d .\uhao\obj\data\x_grasslong.rvmat .\uhao\obj\data\x_grasslong_ca.paa 4. Re-PBO the uhao folder and move the resulting pbo to your @UHAO mod folder replacing the original in the \AddOns sub-directory. You may as well delete the uhao bisign file at this point. ---------- Post added at 03:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:22 PM ---------- Just had a look at arma2.rpt and I see a few missing config errors, not sure of the implications but I might have a go at fixing them when I'm done with Avgani et. al. The CAA1 project may well simplify such things in the future.

Very nice indeed, in fact ArmA II quality. Am I the only one who gets the shadows from ordnance following my freelook?

I think we'll all muddle on quite nicely without you and the other average gamers.

To hell with triple-head, I want THIS:

Good Lord! Would you please just go and buy a graphics card suitable for a 1920 x 1200 display.

As mentioned elsewhere, rather than an unsighted crosshair I'd like to see an interim ironsight position where your weapon is raised but you haven't yet placed your eye to the scope/sights. This would offer much better CQB usability for weapons with medium/high-power optics and/or dual sight arrangements. One suggestion was a quick tap and release to toggle ironsights or hold down (1 second+) to go to full aiming through the sights.

I know of three people now who have reported a large increase in framerate by reverting from Vista to XP.

I would be very much in favour of striping out HUD elements that provide information you wouldn't have in real life. Surely this could be modded by the community?

That was possible with ArmA1 but dependent on the model having those selections setup. If they exist for more entities in ArmA2 then great, I should think you suppose correctly. I'm importing the desert marpat skins from ArmA1's Marines but unfortunately AFAIK only the ghillie suits are textured as hidden selections so it's still hex edit the p3d.

Very nice. Between this and RobertHammer's helicopter(s) mod we're in for a great soundscape.

What Meek said. An algorithm (i.e. for culling unseen geometry) that yields the best result in the majority of cases will hardly ever yield a perfect result in any case. You can't draw any conclusion from this test.

Isn't this the requirement that A.C.E. ended up filling? I didn't like everything about A.C.E. but on balance it was a very good to have a de facto standard arrive.

Well by that logic you'd make the crosshair and 3rd-person view available to anybody who felt it made up for their poor hardware. Everyone says this game is about options; if so then what constitutes a level playing field in MP should be for the server-ops' to choose.

You are still depicting the entire scene in only 20 or so diagonal inches (for most people), you can hardly consider that in the periphery of your own vision. Not that I see that this is particularly related to focus area. When I run I find it much harder to track fine detail, my natural compensation for movement is imperfect and the more so when it is me (and not just the scene in front of me) doing the moving or when I actually "whip (my) head around", I consider this distinction very well represented by the new FX. Similarly looking toward the sun makes me squint and impairs my view immensely. Short of somehow creating a similar discomfort with actual luminance the current bloom effect seems to me a very desirable approximation of that phenomenon. IMO this adds considerably to the simulation but more importantly, to go back to my original point, it must be the same for everybody in MP.

What are you talking about? Unless you're playing in front of a full-wall projection your own natural focus area will easily include the whole of the in-game scene depicted on your monitor including those portions that should represent the periphery of your vision. Could your monitor output luminance equivalent to the actual sun for the benefit of your actual eyes?

I value all of these effects, I consider them very authentic and they add greatly to the immersion, just as worthy of their rendering cost as the other graphical improvements. Attacking with the sun behind you is now an important tactical consideration, running makes it hard to track fine detail just as happens in reality. I don't get why anyone would want to remove these components from a simulation but if it is to be optional it must be done such that it is enforceable by the server.

All scoped weapons should have a second iron-sighted position where you aim (if only approximately) over the top of your scope. It's daft as is with the ACOG (or similarly/higher powered optics) where you can only shoot from the hip or zoomed in. This second position would also support this type of sight arrangement:

The thing I noticed is the ground textures are a bit funky when viewed from a distance but I figure that is a small price to pay compared to no-Avgani-until-mod-tools. However somebody would really need to determine exactly which parts of that A1 content are actually required. The messages that I first supposed were to do with missing content also appear when loading A2 maps (with the A1 content loaded as a mod) and as such must be the result of conflicts rather than missing files which (I presume) is the reason I got an error the first time I tried to use the Hind's rockets. @Opteryx: Is there any sort of listing of referenced content available from your source files?

Not working perfectly, that collection of files does cause some conflicts. I guess it's a question of de-pbo'ing them and identifying the actual portions required.

Well as a first attempt I just grabbed the 1.14 versions of: buildings.pbo buildings.pbo.bi.bisign ca.pbo ca.pbo.bi.bisign cti_buildings.pbo cti_buildings.pbo.bi.bisign dbe1.pbo dbe1.pbo.bi.bisign desert.pbo desert.pbo.bi.bisign desert2.pbo desert2.pbo.bi.bisign dir.txt hotfix.pbo hotfix.pbo.bi.bisign hotfix_dbe1.pbo hotfix_dbe1.pbo.bi.bisign misc.pbo misc.pbo.bi.bisign plants.pbo plants.pbo.bi.bisign roads.pbo roads.pbo.bi.bisign rocks.pbo rocks.pbo.bi.bisign sara.pbo sara.pbo.bi.bisign saralite.pbo saralite.pbo.bi.bisign signs.pbo signs.pbo.bi.bisign water.pbo water.pbo.bi.bisign And placed them in an @ARMA\addons\ mod folder. There is a little content still missing but I suspect (I'm just about to try it) the whole of Arma 1's addons folder could come over as I suspect BIS probably built everything in A2 with entirely different class names.