eihort

Betcha it's this....

On my 5.1 system setting it to a 2.1 seemed to fix the issue. Whether or not I had the unused on-board sound activated in BIOS (Asus p5nsli) had no effect. Lame I have to disable my surround sound. >:(

One of the things I have yet to see anyone mention is the inherent network security that must go into a public release. A military customer operating the software on closed computer networks in controlled conditions doesn't worry about someone deciding to hack the game causing all sorts of mayhem. Just think about all the work that would have to go into securing everything involving the AAR module? IL2 hackers are *known* to abuse the function of their AAR recording options to achieve "God's eye views" of the game while it's in progress. I'll just leave the some of the pains ArmA has gone through involving this with "nuff said." No doubt in my mind USMC and other entities have said "That's nice, but can we have this too?" and backed it up with a contract to get it done. They're not there to fund the R&D for BIA/S to implement the features they paid for, just to have them turn around and make even more money off of it releasing it to the public in ArmA. I'd be rather pissed if I asked a friend to make me a nice birdhouse, and I fund him the money to figure out how to give my feathered friends SatTV, just to have him turn around and start selling that to others with out asking me or setting up some sort of way for me to get paid back. I'd be really pissed especially if I gave him access to this invention I made to shrink sat dishes to something that'll fit on a birdhouse. BIS isn't the only company to do this. Games like Steel Beasts and Dangerous Waters (Tanks and Navies) have had their development companies become overly preoccupied with military contracts. Even when they're using only slightly modifed off-the-retail-shelf software like Combat Edge in the UK with their F-16 pit sim experience running Falcon 4.0, they still find it MUCH more profitable to just work with militaries. Let's face the facts: would you rather spend all that time and money developing something that "might" be a retail sucess? Or rather get a known amount of money upfront to make something from a customer you know won't default on you, and will most likely return for repeat business? It does hurt though that a lot of us would *love* to have some of those fancy nifty toys to use. I'm really in love with the real-time deployment of units, both enemy and friendly. I think it would be awsome to have more "RPG Game" style elements like "gamemasters" working against a team of players. Tools more in line with what you get in NWN than an FPS game. You wouldn't have to sit there, pouring over scripting and other things to make Coop MP missions, taking days to produce a viable mission. You could literally do it on the fly with nothing more than "A combined arms force takes a town from a group of well armed opponents with only light vehicle support" idea in your head. I'll just cross my fingers and hope for the best and see what makes the jump to ArmA2.

Okay. I got it to work. Once. The only correlation I have right now with how I got it to work the first time is that I loaded a single player game, *saved it*, and then went into the multiplayer area. I loaded one multiplayer server of Evo Blue, fooled around, worked fine, and then quit the server. I tried to join another server and it crashed to desktop. I speculate that it might have something to do with the scene being rendered in the background because after I saved the game, I got another scene besides the small island fly over, and it worked. Anyone else have any thoughts?

Any other ideas?

Sent four packets, got four packets with an average of 20ms. Hulk mad! Grrrr!

Here you go. The error in question. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">======================================================= Date: 10/23/07 Â Time: 14:57:04 ------------------------------------------------------- Exception code: C06D007F Â at 7C812A5B graphics: Â D3D9, Device: NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT , Driver:nv4_disp.dll 6.14.11.6371 resolution: Â 1024x768x32 Addons: Â Desert in ca\desert\, CAIntroAnims in ca\introanims\, CASounds in ca\sounds\ Â CAMiscUS in ca\miscUS\, CA_Missions_Armory1 in ca\missions\armory1.intro\ Â CAweapons3_m107 in CA\weapons3\m107\ Â CAweapons3_m16a4_acg in CA\weapons3\m16a4_acg\, CAWheeled in ca\wheeled\ Â CA_Missions in ca\missions\, CARoads in ca\roads\ Â CAWheeled3_TT650 in CA\wheeled3\tt650\, CAAir in ca\air\, CA_Anims in ca\anims\ Â CAAnimals in CA\animals\, CAUI in ca\ui\, CAWeapons in ca\weapons\ Â CAweapons3_m16a4 in CA\weapons3\m16a4\ Â CAWeapons3_ammocrates in CA\weapons3\ammocrates\, CAAir3_Su34 in CA\air3\su34\ Â CACharacters in ca\characters\, CASigns in CA\signs\, CAFonts in ca\UIFonts\ Â CAweapons3_m16a4_gl in CA\weapons3\m16a4_gl\, CAWeapons3 in CA\weapons3\ Â CAWheeled3_M1030 in CA\wheeled3\m1030\, CAAir3 in CA\air3\, CAMisc in ca\misc\ Â CAPlants in CA\plants\, CAVoice in ca\voice\, CAData in ca\ Â CALanguage in ca\language\, CAWater in CA\water\ Â CAweapons3_aks74pso in CA\weapons3\aks74pso\ Â CA_Anims_Char in ca\anims\characters\, CATracked in ca\tracked\ Â CAweapons3_ksvk in CA\weapons3\ksvk\, CAA10 in ca\a10\, Sara in ca\sara\ Â CAWheeled3 in CA\wheeled3\, CABuildings in ca\buildings\, CARocks in Ca\Rocks\ Â CAweapons3_m16a4_acg_gl in CA\weapons3\m16a4_acg_gl\ Mods: CA Distribution: 1293 Version 1.08.5163 Fault address: Â 7C812A5B 01:00011A5B C:\windows\system32\kernel32.dll file: Â Â intro world: Â Â sara Prev. code bytes: 8D 7D C4 F3 A5 5F 8D 45 B0 50 FF 15 08 15 80 7C Fault code bytes: 5E C9 C2 10 00 85 FF 0F 8E 36 93 FF FF 8B 55 FC Registers: EAX:01C5E5E8 EBX:00000000 ECX:00000000 EDX:005C2BBE ESI:01C5E6AC EDI:05F10000 CS:EIP:001B:7C812A5B SS:ESP:0023:01C5E5E4 Â EBP:01C5E638 DS:0023 Â ES:0023 Â FS:003B Â GS:0000 Flags:00000202 =======================================================

Hmm... now all of a sudden that doesn't seem to work. I've also completely deactivated my firewall and set up the router so it doesn't block any ports (was never set up that way in the first place) This is bizzare. And again, this all of a sudden just started happening. Dual Core Pent 805 D 3.2ghz 2 gig ram WinXP Dx 9.0c SoundBlaster ZS2 and other things of which I can't remember that might need to be included

I just had this hit me out of the blue and the issue seemed to be solved by going into ARMA and then starting a single player game, exiting it nicely, and then all of a sudden it liked playing multiplayer again. Go figure.

Okay, so I got this punk on my dedicated server. I use the P playerlist and there's no ID #s. I got the 1-xxx numbers though. I do the #userlist command and everything zips by so fast I can't read it. These numbers are usually like six digits in length. Don't link the uselss Biki. It says hit pageup to scroll it. I just go from standing the kneeling, never scrolling the text. So how do I get the number? The P list is useless as it doesn't have the numbers, and #userlist goes by too fast.

Woo! Thanks.

I know a lot of people have a problem with the "aim lag". I've noticed this is directly related to the size of the weapon you're trying to use. A full size M16 has this much more pronounced than say an MP5, which is as it should be.

The scope in ArmA is not calibarated to that. I've done extensive testing on the airfield with targets. The rangefinder is completely off too.

Anyone bother with the implications to multiplayer on night time bezerk maps? No one would use it because BLUFOR would be telegraphing their locations to everyone with NVGs, including the bad guys.

It would look funny, but just give them adult animations.

If you stepped on an AT mine nothing would happen. They're designed to only be triggered by extremely heavy pressures so as not to be wasted on infantry.

I meant in all the other aspects that VBS2 has over Arma like the tracers and things.

Then why didn't they do that? What's your theory?

At the heart of this software is a game. Meant for fun. As such, some allowances are made for balancing issues. One of which is body armor. Another thing to remember is that it's no so much killing you, but making you combat ineffective. Do we really need a game with soldiers rolling around in pain on the ground, screaming, and crying for a medic? For the sake of simplicity, the game simply counts you as dead.

Let's not forget the NUMEROUS warnings posted in the Beta Patch Announcement thread.

As mentioned earlier, go play Steel Beasts. The HEAT round that the Abrams carries in that game (I'm not sure exactly what specific type of HEAT round it is) is about as effective against infantry in 1.06 as it is in that game. The devs of Steel Beasts did their homework, extensively, and as is evidenced by this similarity, so did BIS. The initial purpose of a HEAT round is to penetrate armor. Unlike a Sabot penetrator, it is not affected by range or initial velocity. The shaped charge forms the plasma penetrator that eats through the armor killing anything soft and squishy inside. Penatrator rounds can go through lightly armored targets like BRDMs without much damage to the actual vehicle. In one side and out the other. Done it in Steel Beasts if you hit a BRDM in just the right place. Use a Heat round and the plasma penetrator kills it dead when it enters the interior. The formation of this penetrator is formed by the explosion of a shaped charge. This explosion expands in all directions, shredding the outer casing of the round, which is strong enough to survive being fired out of a cannon. It would not be as effective as a High Explosive round wrapped in a casing designed to fragment. However, it does carry enough force to pose a danger to infantry that are standing around the impact point. Considering that the round in ArmA is listed as a HE round, not a HEAT round, I agree with the decision to increase it's leathality against infantry. On the lethality of AT weapons in the game: Again, play Steel Beasts. It's a modern battlefield with some of the best AT weapons availible a few years ago. Although the RPG-7 hasn't changed all that much, the round being fired out of it has. Same with the T-72. In Steel Beasts I was lucky to survive one hit without losing something vital like a track or my primary sight. Several hits was a sure kill. The lethality of the AT weapons in this game did surprise me slightly at first, considering it was a bit of a "proxy" war I didn't think that the Russian equiped forces would have the latest stuff, but apparently they do. Tanks are not the kings of the battlefield. It has often been said that Infantry is the Queen, and as anyone who has a significant other knows, Queen trumps King everytime. Translation: Infantry in cover, prepared positions, and properly equiped are a tank's worst nightmare. There's a reason everyone practices combined arms now a days.

The reason behind BIS not implementing this sort of thing into their games has a little to do with the laws (even though I haven't searched for them at all, wouldn't surprise me if there were, especially in the EU) and a lot to do with marketing. With VBS2 on the market and the going rate for the base set $2000, the last thing they want to do is provide a "cheapy" version of the software through ArmA. The whole problem with modding as has been described earlier in the thread is simply verification of what the simulation is actually doing. So the modder author says it's accurate, but is it really? Has the modder put in hours and hours of research at a range with recorded and repeatable results? Or are they relying on user experience and doing that "feels" right? There's also the whole problem of software version unifcation once you add something external not tested by BIS themselves. Those are things that governmental agencies require in their software. They also need a whole slew of tools to evaluate their soldiers' performance during and after the simlation and a whole slew of tools to alter the simluation as it's running. Those sorts of things don't really have a place in entertainment software as it does, inherently, leave a lot of holes for hackers and other ne'er-do-wells to exploit in online play. Something a closed military run LAN doesn't worry about. Often, as is the case with Steel Beasts Pro, militaries will ask the developers to include custom content for their version, including localized vehicle and weapon sets and languages. Perhaps even specific scenarios and/or geographic locations. They will sometimes provide classified or otherwise secure information to the developers to make it as realistic as possible. Again, these items CANNOT be transfered to a retail version in any way shape or form, as it would compromise the performance of said militaries. Also, some of the elements that get included into such hi-fidelity simluations won't necessarily make a title intended for commerical release any more fun, and might even be considered a drawback by your standard civilian game player. Not to mention the extreme disparity in gaming hardware that exists on a consumer level, with low to high level rigs. When militaries are building rooms full of custom rigs, they aren't going to skimp. They're going to get hardware specifically designed to run VBS2 at max settings. Instead of having to make sure that VBS2 runs on a variety of of setups and hardware, BIS can spend time in other areas. You also don't have to develop all the single player content and missions that are included in a retail release. The "game" is never really going to be played that way when used as a training tool by a national military. I think that ArmA might actually be a version of VBS2 that BIS "dumbed down" and tailored for a commerical release. Steel Beasts Pro has done something similar by offering their high-fidelity software toned down slightly to the consumer market. The only difference is that they offer Steel Beasts Pro Personal Edition for $100 at least instead of the standard retail price point of $39.99 as ArmA did. Personally, I wish that BIS had done something similar. I'd be willing to pay more for something a lot closer to VBS2 than what ArmA is. ArmA is a combat simulation. It's all really a question of fidelity. You can ask for them to implement VBS2 content all you want, and they will probably never provide an official answer. But I'm concinved they almost assuredly will not.