Gremlin

I have the same problem with LOD shifts. I went from a NIVIDA 285 to a NIVIDA 680. I changed to a SSD.

I couldn't do this IRL. Maybe I missed something in Map and Compass training. Some missions have the objectives marked with a yellow caret. Personal waypoints can be set and show as a green caret (Left SHIFT click on the map).

Sakai, your post is not helpful to the solution. The server gets corrupted by cheats.

This occasionally happens on our server. The server has to be restarted and the message will not show.

I already fixed it for myself. I admin a lot on the ArmA II Free server and see a lot of kicks due to the languagecore.pbo missing. I have been playing this series since 2001 and always put the extra effort out. There are a lot of gamers that will not research this for a variety of reasons. I am just looking for a real solution.

This request is in a way attached to the Beta patches, as it will result in the next formal patch. Our Squad has a dedicated server running ArmA II (not Combined Ops) used as a recruiting tool. The last formal patch did not include the update to 1.11. Those that have the disk copy, and have upgraded to ArmA II CO ,get the languagecore.pbo error and are unable to connect. This makes it difficult to have them join, along with their friends (as potential buyers). The Beta changes have been superb and I appreciate BIS's efforts. I will continue gaming ArmA II CO but I hope we can still bring others in with ArmA II Free/Demo. The next formal patch needs to fix the ArmA II languagecore.pbo error.

Could it be a "port" isssue as ArmA II uses the same fixed port? The second game should have in command line something like, "-port=2350" (no quotes). The port number used does not matter. So the numbers could be 2351, 2352, 2353...

I get the same issue and have to Shift Num- "flush"

BasileyOne, you must be intellectually challenged. Your comments are rambling gibberish.

BasileyOne, I used to think that way; when I was five years old.

The ArmA II Free is an excellent recruiting tool. We run an ArmA II Free/ArmA II server in addition to our Combined Operations server. Although we have our griefers, we have gained regular players that purchased the full game. It just requires the admin to do more monitoring, but I think the payoff is worth it. Most of the griefers are short on attention span. They don't stick around long and move onto the next demo. NeuroFunker is correct in that there are fewer griefers when people purchase the game.

Single player does this effectively.

I enjoy Chernarus the most. The only complaint I have is that they never fixed the physics of the rocks and the vehicles flip/fly in the air when the rocks are bumped. Totally unrealistic. :raisebrow:

I guess I will never understand why someone would join a multiplayer game and will not communicate with others on the server, acting as though they are playing single player. I have been stationed in the military, outside my country, and realize that I have to adapt. I understand some people are reluctant to talk in a foreign language as they don't want to make a verbal mistake, but they know how to type in the language being used on the server and fail to do so. If needed, I go on the "translate" page and to the "pronunciation" websites. I don't mind making a mistake as I enjoy gaming with others around the world. Sometimes gamers speak your language and then they put you on ignore, maybe because of age. I can tell as I can read their pings and know they are close. Hey, we are all in this to have fun together! This is just a pet peeve of the multiplayer mode.

Don't tanks have "speed governors"? I think the uphill is appropriate, but the down-hill is unrealistic. The "WEEEEEeeeeeee" factor is just unreal (although the comment is lol).

Yes, I used to think that way; when I was five years old.

Please vote on the tickets specified in post #84, posted by PvPscene, to encourage any desired change/or no change on each issue. Comments in the forums don't count on the CIT scorecard. CIT states, "Question: How does BIS prioritize bugfixes/features? (What are the design procedures for picking what to fix or what to include) Answer: Internally, we usually have a lot of obvious or critical issues to fix or implement. Between those, selecting order or priorities mostly depends on available resources and also individual preference or interest. The CIT is often looked at, and we use Votes as good indication of how important a particular fix is for our users."

It gives a choice to the player at whether you play hard-core or casual. I have been gaming the series since OFP and as I get older, I have less time for the assembly, squad SOP instructions, and the patrol order. I believe those that want the hardcore will only game on the hardcore servers and those that don't, will do so on the casual servers. I promise, I will not play on your server if I don't like your gaming selection options, so no harm done as I would disconnect. I don't believe that imposing any player preferences benefits anyone when a choice can be made as in this matter. Why should "effectivecommander" bother anyone, not on my selected server, if I am not gaming with them?

I posted a compromise on the CIT. https://dev-heaven.net/issues/27915

I am retired military and have done my "time." I have no problem with WGL or ACE for those that want that style. It is just not my mode of gaming. I enjoy vanilla OA type of gaming but don't want to play the COD, MW, et al., channeled shoot-em up style games. Also, I am also not into the "yes sir" and "no sir" stuff just because someone purchased/runs a server. WGL and ACE exists for those that want the hardcore gaming experience, as it should be.

I am not "making" things up and I will not flame. I am out of here on this. I apoligize if my comments offended you.

PVPscene: It took BIS about a year to fix my CIT on the commander being able to order a switch between AP and HE (which I consider a major vehicle commander problem). This was caused by a change in options during the ArmA II upgrade to Operation Arrowhead to allow for "Smoke". ArmA 3 will be out when these proposed problems may be resolved. Meanwhile..."Smoke 'em if you got 'em."

This is why I have always commanded vehicles from the driver position. I wouldn't mind commanding from the commander position if there weren't vehicle command limitations/AI issues that haven't been resolved. AI drivers are idiots. BI has decided, with one of the recent beta patches, that commanding AI action must be from the commander position, before fixing these limitations. IRL this would work as there are trained humans driving the vehicle and/or manning/loading the gun. With the new Beta patch, the human loses control of his AI due to some purist claim that this isn't like IRL. What I find as ironic is the purist tells me I can switch vehicle positions to overcome the game limitations (just like IRL, huh?). This is why I didn't game with the WGL and the ACE mod, as I just want to have fun.

I don't mind the change to the Commander position issuing all vehicle orders, but I have always used the driver position to command the tank as I hate the constant commander verbal prattle (i.e., foward, fast, slow, turn left, turn right). I woudn't mind so much if this communication was just reduced sound (rather than full vocal orders which would be needed outside the vehicle) as these are internal vehicle radio commands. No matter, AI vehicle path finding is still poor and needs to be improved closer to IRL. Also needed is the fix to destroy MGs, like KORDS. One would assume that a well placed HE round would take out the gunner manning the gun position rather than the vehicle gunner shooting multiple SABOT/AP rounds trying to disable a gun.

The End User License Agreement (EULA) Section 2 states, "you may not network the Program or otherwise install it or use it on more than one computer at a time, except if expressly authorized in the applicable documentation...".