desertjedi

Having major troubles getting this mod to work. I've tried it with a ded. server as well as hosted. I've tried all the example missions, human_AI, spawn, playground, the actual example mission and nothing seems to work. The "missions" state, do this and watch or wait a few seconds and then watch what happens. Well nothing happens. As I've said, I tried it this dedicated and hosted. I have @GL3 running on the server and client. The only think I noticed at all was that when I ran dedicated, the teleport function worked but hosted it did not work. So far, that's the only thing I've seen with this mod. I tried uncommenting some of the variables (setting them to True) in GL3_settings.sqf but it didn't help. The mod sounds fantastic and I'd really like to see it working. Can anyone offer any help?

I seem to have found a problem with Dom. West AI v3.52 (regular not ACE). I called for an "ammo drop". It parachuted down just fine but the bunch of ammo crates ended up levitating about 2 and a half feet above the ground. They did work fine even though they were in the air.

I looked up at a big white cloud and zoomed and I got 286 fps. That's with a GTX 260 with everything on Very High except Terrain Detail and AA (both high). So 300 fps would definitely be possible with a better video card. If you're banging up against your refresh rate in frames then vsync must not be off regardless of what you're doing. I was told that the same problem exists in Arma for Nvidia (plus some other older games) and that the only solution was to use nHancer - and it worked. The bad thing about vsync is when it supposedly halfs your frame rate if your frames drop below your refresh rate. Don't know much about that as I never have vsync on.

I've cached a few MP missions while online and I found where they are. I never see them in my list of missions to choose from whenever I start an MP server. I even moved them to the MPMissions folder (I can move them back if that was dumb). Shouldn't I be able to use these downloaded missions and if not what exactly do they do? Did a search on cache in these forums (and others) but found nothing.

Make sure you give HIFIFX a shot - it's worth it for you to check out

Keep in mind Doom that it's often possible to do your own editing to missions to make them a bit friendlier for smaller groups. Simple stuff like beefing up loadouts, adding ammocrates, filling vehicle cargoes (with weapons/ammo), reducing the number of AI enemies, tweaking objectives, etc. I've been doing that for some time now. I've found that if you're serious about Arma, those are good skills to pick up.

Xeno, any chance we'll see a non-ACE, non-dedicated-server Domination?

Oops! DOH!!! I didn't notice any complaining here.

It's great to listen to you guys discussing the intricacies of Domination. It's definitely a fantastic mission. Kudos to you for trying to maintain some sort of "tactical protocol" while playing on public servers...PHEW! When you say you don't take AI into the field, I'm assuming you have enough players on the server to compensate for that...? Why not just turn that off? That's what I've done in all the big "super-missions" that I play. I find it to be very goofy. When Xeno had that big 2-story bunker at base I was able to simply lean out the open door and wax all the Opfor. Their CQB skills are pretty pathetic. Which can be illustrated (on a side note) when I found myself prone with an enemy standing right over me. He missed me at point blank range maybe because he couldn't point his AR that far down so I lifted my SAW and unloaded in his crotch. Â

Damn! Who woulda thought? j/k

Thanks Walker, this works fantastically! My AI mates would alway lag behind me, get lost, and I'd often end up being killed simply because I was way out in front. Awesome!

Is it close to full? Do you have a fixed swap file or do you let Windows manage it? Your rig should have no problem running Arma.

Is your hard drive full??

This happens so rare for me that I thought it was my imagination or something. I do have to say that the AA soldiers are pretty responsive to air threats. It's rare that they don't/can't fire if they have a missile.

I'm running an overclocked GTX 260 video card (Core Clock 575-->700) and an oc'ed E2180 (Core 2 Duo) cpu (2.0-->3.15Ghz) and felt like playing with the Video Options because I can't seem to get a feel for optimizing these options for maximum frame rate in ArmA. So I change my Shadows from Normal to Very High and test. No difference in frame rate. Then I boost anti-aliasing from Normal to High and test. No difference in frame rate. *Now wait a minute!* My first thought...am I cpu-bound??? Meaning, is my video performance being bottlenecked by my cpu? It's starting to smell like it. So I take the mission that hits my system the hardest - Ortego City Battle. It's city combat with a TON of soldiers. My lowest frame rate on that map is around 23. I bring the mission up in the editor and completely clear it. I then go to the same place in the map and my frame rate more than doubles. At another point in the map, where I got 40fps, I now get 90fps. All frame rates were captured with no soldiers in view, only scenery. I was expecting a boost but over a 100% boost? That's pretty insane. And I thought the whole problem dealt with the complexity of the scenery in ArmA cities. So now I'm wondering if I took an E8500 cpu up to 4 or 4.2Ghz I might see a major boost in my minimum frame rate. Can anyone here confirm any of this? Is anyone using a cpu clocked at 4Ghz or higher with ArmA? I now have a better appreciation for my GTX 260. I was putting the blame for the low frame rates on it. But now it does not seem to be the culprit.

If the age of your cpu is similar to your laptop's video card, I would find it hard to believe that your laptop could play any modern game at an acceptable frame rate, sorry to say. That said, the actual game after being patched to 1.14, is supposed to have MUCH better performance than the original demo. But it would still not be playable on your system.

Your video card is not powerful enough to play ArmA at an acceptable frame rate. Your cpu might add to the problem as well (for ArmA at least) depending on what type of cpu it is. Is this a laptop we're talking about?

Yeah, I was just about to post that I ran Arma on an 8800GTS 512 with about a 3-3.5k VD and it ran great. Settings on med to med-high. At one point I even ran Arma (for a very short time) on an X1950XT (256MB VRAM) with a oc'ed E2180 cpu (not that powerful) and was impressed with the frame rates with settings on Low to Med most likely. It's hard to believe that a killer card like the HD4870 (even with only 512MB VRAM) would not do well with ArmA. I'd love to see what that card would do with my E8500 running at 4.2Ghz. I'm just wondering if your cpu/platform is holding that card back. VRAM aside, the HD4870 is supposed to be on a par (or better) than my GTX 260 (old model). And my GTX 260 devours ArmA.

For anyone interested, there is another similar app called Shoot available here: http://clans.gameclubcentral.com/shoot/

You mentioned "max settings and view distance". What view distance are you actually using. I have an overclocked GTX 260 and I set my VD to about 3500.

How the hell did these companies end up in such a bizarre situation where one owns the IP and one owns the name but not the right to produce sequels??? I don't know the history. Me thinks this needs to be settled in court once and for all. Either CM can make a game using the OFP name or they can't. BI needs to press this - I can easily see a court deciding that this trademark infringement is causing monetary loss to BI. And if CM only owns the name, what are the odds of them making a game so good and so similar to OFP that much of the community switches to their "sequel"? It would seem doubtful. My worry is that both OFP 2 and ArmA 2 will be based on the same gameplay and things will get ugly. I can see it now - "WOOT! OFP2 is finally here! Oh, btw, you have to buy ArmA 2 to play it, not OFP 2." Â

Now that I recall, I had a similar problem - not with Arma per se. I thought I'd get clever and hook up the front case connectors to the mic connector on the X-Fi XtremeGamer's PCB. It worked for a little while and then never worked again.

Why not stick with Ventrilo or TS? I doubt many people use the in-game voice in MP so I don't think you'll get much feedback on this.

It's not just his Athlon X2 4200+ causing the bottleneck, it's the age of his platform. Even a basic Core 2 Duo platform would be a major improvement. I'm sure the HD4850 runs Arma very impressively but not on that platform. That's one heck of a combination. I'd think that your video card is being bandwidth-starved by your platform. You'd need a much newer platform (Phenom II X4 or at least a high-clocked Core 2 Duo) to see your GTX 280 fly.

Well it seems not all is working well. After playing Evo a bit with an airliftable MHQ, I've run into some problems. If the MHQ (ambulance) is destroyed or if you move too far away from it (abandonment), it will respawn back at the Airbase but you end up with two MHQs - when there really should only be one. If you then airlift one of the two MHQs somewhere and you then die, you end up respawning in the MHQ back at the airbase most times - not the one you airlifted. I'm presuming that this version of Evo is simply meant to have one MHQ and once you have two, you're screwed. I doubt this problem has any effect on non-MHQ cargo.