Jump to content

General Barron

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by General Barron

  1. Quote[/b] ]I've done some measurements, and I found that there is also lift. Please look at the following graphs.

    Well, that's too bad. I guess it makes things a bit more complicated, unless we can figure out how the lift is defined.

    For my part, I fleshed out my script from before, although it is based on the shell/bullet flight model (so it doesn't include the lift that bombs use). I'll post it here; it isn't really in a usable form, though somebody might do something with it (I guess you could turn it into an FCS for a tank or artillery).

    At the moment, it has constants hard coded into it for the drag and initial velocity of the projectile. Of course, you would eventually want to read these from the config.

    Also note: this script was written for VBS2. The convertToASL function doesn't exist in Arma, so some other way of finding terrain height would need to be used.

    <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

    //work-in-progress ccip / fcs script

    //by General Barron

    //Note, this script only takes terrain into account.

    //It does NOT account for objects or buildings on the terrain!

    #define DELTA_T1     0.2    //sleep step used in script (between impact point calculations)

    #define DELTA_T2     0.5    //time step used in trajectory simulations

    #define G_CONST      9.81   //acceleration due to gravity

    #define AIRFRICTION -0.0005 //air friction constant for the ammo being computed by the CCIP

    #define INIT_VEL     0      //initial velocity of the ammo being computed by the CCIP

    //#define DEBUG             //uncomment for visual debuggging

    while {true} do


    //position of ammo, if it were fired right now (same as firing vehicle)

    _Px = (getposASL vehicle player) select 0;

    _Py = (getposASL vehicle player) select 1;

    _Pz = (getposASL vehicle player) select 2;

    //base velocity of ammo, if it were fired right now (same as firing vehicle)

    _Vx = (velocity vehicle player) select 0;

    _Vy = (velocity vehicle player) select 1;

    _Vz = (velocity vehicle player) select 2;

    _Vmag = sqrt (_Vx^2 + _Vy^2 + _Vz^2);

    //add in initial velocity of ammo due to being fired

    _Vx = _Vx + (_Vx/_Vmag)*INIT_VEL;

    _Vy = _Vy + (_Vy/_Vmag)*INIT_VEL;

    _Vz = _Vz + (_Vz/_Vmag)*INIT_VEL;

    //simulate ammo trajectory until it impacts the ground

    while {_Pz > (convertToASL [_Px, _Py, 0]) select 2} do


    //adjust ammo velocity for air friction and gravity (the only forces working on the ammo)

    _Vmag = sqrt (_Vx^2 + _Vy^2 + _Vz^2);

    _Vx = _Vx + DELTA_T2*(_Vmag*_Vx*AIRFRICTION);

    _Vy = _Vy + DELTA_T2*(_Vmag*_Vy*AIRFRICTION);

    _Vz = _Vz + DELTA_T2*(_Vmag*_Vz*AIRFRICTION-G_CONST); //factor in gravity here

    //adjust ammo position using time step and new velocity

    _Px = _Px + _Vx*DELTA_T2;

    _Py = _Py + _Vy*DELTA_T2;

    _Pz = _Pz + _Vz*DELTA_T2;

    #ifdef DEBUG

    //visual debugging

    _cone = "vbs2_cone_no_geom" createVehicle [0,0,0];

    _cone setposASL [_Px, _Py, _Pz];

    _cone spawn {sleep DELTA_T1; deleteVehicle _this};



    //we now have the impact position if we were to fire the ammo right now: [_Px, _Py, 0]

    //todo: do something with this...

    #ifdef DEBUG

    //visual debugging

    _arrow = "vbs2_visual_arrow_red" createVehicle [0,0,0];

    _arrow setpos [_Px, _Py, 0];

    _arrow spawn {sleep DELTA_T1; deleteVehicle _this};


    //wait a bit before recalculating the impact point

    sleep DELTA_T1;


  2. Quote[/b] ]General Barron, much obliged for the input. You've got kind of the right idea, in that I don't need to calculate the actual trajectory. All I need to do is calculate the horizontal distance traveled, and animate the sight based upon that amount.

    I think you've misunderstood me. What I'm saying is that to calculate the horizontal distance traveled, you SHOULD calculate the actual trajectory.

    You should plot it out, step by step / point by point, until the trajectory hits the ground. Then you know the impact point. I don't think this can be calculated any other way. Not when you add air friction and a non-flat terrain into account. Vektorboson (who is much better at math) seems to be backing me up on this one.

    If it were a simple calculation, why didn't WWII era planes have CCIPs of some sort? A simple calculation can be done mechanically, like with a slide ruler. But for the CCIP, I'd guess you need a computer to do it, because so many calculations need to be done so quickly.


    The script that I posted does just that. It is a loop that plots the trajectory of the bomb, if you were to release it at this very moment. This is very simple to calculate because there are only two forces acting on the bomb: gravity and air friction. Gravity is always pulling the bomb down, while airfriction (in Arma) is always pushing the opposite direction of where the bomb is traveling.

    So all you have to do is apply those two forces, over and over again, to your imaginary bomb, until it hits the ground. Then you know where the bomb would impact (almost exactly), if you were to release it right now. Repeat every frame, or as quickly as Arma can handle the calculations.


    Btw, for bullets and shells, Arma handles air friction as follows:

    <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

    _Vx = _Vx + (DELTAT*(_V*_Vx*_airFriction));

    _Vy = _Vy + (DELTAT*(_V*_Vy*_airFriction));

    _Vz = _Vz + (DELTAT*(_V*_Vz*_airFriction));


    _Vx/y/z = velocity in each direction (x / y / z)

    _V = total velocity (magnitude of velocity vector)

    DELTAT = time between simulation steps

    _airFriction = airFriction value from CfgAmmo

    So, every simulation step, the above formula is applied to the velocity, giving you a new velocity modified by air friction. In addition, the velocity is also modified by gravity in the downward (Z) direction using the standard 9.8 m/s/s value.

    This applies to bullets and shells. I haven't tested to see if it applies to bombs or missiles. They might use a different method to simulate air resistance, or they might use the same formula but use sideAirFriction instead of airFriction from the config.

  3. Some USMC publications to look up:

    FMFM 1-2, Marine Troop Leader's Guide

    FMFM 6-4, Marine Rifle Company/Platoon

    <a href="http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCWP%203-11.2%20Marine%20Rifle%20Squad.pdf" target="_blank">

    FMFM 6-5, Marine Rifle Squad</a>

    FM 21-75, Combat Training of the Individual Soldier and Patrolling

    OH 6-6, Marine Rifle Squad, Nov 83

    You should also look for publications from the "Marine Corps Institute" (MCI). They take a number of larger publications and boil them down into a smaller, easy-to-read course on a specific topic.

    There's a bajillion of them out there, covering everything from explosives to reverse osmosis water purifiers. Terms you want to look for are "rifle squad/platoon", "infantry", and "warfare", I assume these are the kind of operations you are asking about (as opposed to checkpoint, security, convoy, maintenance, classroom, or other types of military operations).

    Marines can download them for free from the MCI website, but you might be able to find them somewhere on Google or a file sharing service.

  4. I don't think it is possible to calculate the trajectory in a single line when you factor drag into it. Maybe with some very advanced calculus, but I asked something similar on a math forum and was unable to get an answer.

    So, rather than try to calculate a trajectory in one equation, why not just simulate it?

    So, every loop, you simulate the bomb's trajectory until it hits the ground. Then you know the impact point, and you animate your sight. Repeat continuously.

    To do this, you should only need the plane's velocity and position. You then run a loop, where each step you apply gravity and airfriction from a given delta T, to update the bomb's virtual position. Then check if this new position is in the ground or not.

    Something roughly like this:

    <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

    while {bombsight is on} do


    #define DELTA_T 0.1 //time step used in trajectory calculations

    #define GRAVITY 9.8 //acceleration due to gravity

    _bombPos = getposASL plane;

    _bombVel = velocity plane;

    //simulate bomb trajectory

    while {_bombPos select 2 > *ground altitude at that point*} do


    //adjust bomb velocity for gravity

    _bombVel set [2, (_bombVel select 2)-GRAVITY*DELTA_T];

    //adjust bomb velocity for air friction

    //(need to look up calculation for this)

    //adjust bomb position using time step and new velocity

    _bombPos = _bombPos PLUS (_bombVel TIMES DELTA_T); //matrix operations need to be done here


    //we now have the impact position if we were to release the bomb right now


    //somehow animate sight

    ...do something...

    //wait a bit before recalculating the sight

    sleep 0.1;


    As for positioning the sight itself, you could just use T_D's world to screen pos function, now that you have the world pos where the bomb will impact.

    So, say you feed that pos into his function, and you get a result of X=.75, y=0.2. You now just animate your sight or dialog or whatever so that the reticle is at that position on the screen.

    It shouldn't matter what your pitch or bank or yaw is, assuming that T_D's function takes all of this into account.

    Alternatively, you could just position an object or particle or waypoint in the 3d world at the impact position itself. No need to bother with 2d screen calculations, as the graphics engine takes care of that for you (obviously, you'd want this to only be local to the player in MP).

  5. I like it. BIS makes a compelling argument, assuming what they say is true / the whole story. Why should someone roll over and take #$@ if they have a legal contract that is being violated?

    And the fundamental premise is sound: it is a bit of a lie to bill something as the "next generation of" a game, if you aren't retaining ANYTHING from the old game, except the name.

    It isn't against the law to lie though, so it would come down to the contract to see if there is anything legally wrong here.

  6. I have seen people with 350 kills in some hours.

    Btw I'd like to point out how absurdly unrealistic this statement is.

    Even Medal of Honor winners and similar never go above about 80 kills in real life. I wonder if ANY soldier in history has ever had 350 kills in one battle.

    Is this Arma or Battlefield you are talking about?

    Please don't imply that the OP wants something "arcadey", when you are using such an arcadey reference as an example of "good" or "realistic" Arma gameplay.

  7. As for unit density.

    If you do the math on a warfare be version on the xr server.

    20v20 with every one 12 ai units = 480 units

    Plus all the RACS in all towns.

    That makes a hell of a lot of units.

    I have seen people with 350 kills in some hours.

    So the map cant be that empty as the OP states.

    I think this is a useful discussion to have, so I made some diagrams.

    First, let's remember The Captains quote here:

    Quote[/b] ]The old soviet style doctrine for a mechanized infantry company in the attack called for a frontage of about 800m.

    Now, let's say such a company consists of 4 vehicles and 40 dismounts (this might not be exactly correct, but it should be close). I placed such a company in a formation 800m wide and 100m deep. See below.

    A soviet mech company


    Wider view


    3D view


    Now, you said that in a Warfare there were 480 units in total. That is roughly equal to each side having 5 of the above companies, which is roughly equivalent to a battalion. I placed this many units in battle lines across the island. See below.

    5 companies vs 5 companies


    Now that we have something solid to work with, let's discuss it.

    My opinion is that the above battle lines look decent. However, here are the problems:

    -There are no rear area personnel in the diagram. They are all on the battle lines.

    -There aren't any spare personnel to mount an attack. They are all on the battle line or in reserve.

    -Because of this, it would be very difficult for the battalions to control the entire island at one time, which is the objective in Warfare. They would be stretched way too thin.

    -Actual warfare / Arma missions tend to NOT organize themselves into coherent positions like the ones shown. Warfare forces you to hold towns, not to organize a coherent battle front. So, in practice, those units would be scattered all over the map.

    My gut feeling is that 500 units total would make for a realistic sized battle, if only half of south Sahrani was used. You should be able to scale that number down accordingly. If you had 1/4 of South Sahrani, you would need about 250 units; or 125 units for 1/8 the island.

    1/8 of the island is about Paraiso plus surrounding area; or one grid square. So, about 6 squads vs 6 squads (plus support vehicles) in one grid square. Below is a rough example of what that would look like.

    Realistic (?) unit density around one town


    I leave it up to the reader to decide if this is close to most Arma missions.

    Also note these numbers are all for "open" areas. Large cities (say, population 100,000+, maybe half the size of South Sahrani) would require much higher unit density to make for a realistic fight.

  8. Quote[/b] ]Well, deregulation for one. mortgage brokers are regulated by the goverment and as such the goverment did a bad job at regulating.

    Question: What is/should be the objective of government regulations in the mortgage market? What are some examples of where the government did a "bad job" and failed to meet that objective?

    I often hear the cry "not enough regulation", but as banking is perhaps one of the most heavily regulated industries, I wonder how this can be true.

    And, last time I checked, the purpose of regulation wasn't to prevent normal market cycles. Rather, it was to prevent fraud and other criminal acts.


    Now, lets go back to the last recession, at the turn of the century. It was kicked off by the bursting of the tech bubble, at the end of Clinton's presidency.

    How was that recession different from this one?

    Take a look at this list of US recessions. It looks to me like we have a recession just about every 10 years. Again, would someone please explain to me how this one is somehow different from all the others?

  9. +1

    I'd love to see Close Combat style battles in Arma!

    Unfortunately, from the types of comments on this thread, I don't think most Arma players would actually enjoy that. They might sneer and insult your intelligence or attention span for suggesting such a thing. Then they will go on to play "Warfare", which is as realistic as spaceships and laser guns (that's not to say it isn't fun).

    Smaller terrain isn't really the solution, though, IMO. The answer is to restrict the battle to a specific section of the terrain using some kind of artificial barrier or game mechanic. This needs to be available within the editor, so any mission maker can do this.

    Next, I'd love to see missions need to focus on a simple tactical problem. I'd love to see a mission where the whole mission is to envelope a single enemy position. You could play the mission a number of times from all different points of view. Once you are the base of fire. Next you are the assault element. Next you are the security element. Most Arma players don't even know what these terms mean, even though they cry "realism" every time Arma is constructively criticized.

    Most of the MP missions I've played are these epic, absurd quests, where you've got one squad that must single-handedly tromp across the entire island, destroying various objectives. This is absolutely ridiculous, and totally unrealistic.

    People should play Close Combat to see what real battles should be like.

    Oh, but I guess this thread is "pointless". How dare we suggest improvements to mission design, instead of new models or hotkeys.

  10. Wow, I must say, I get the impression that people here are very defensive and/or closed minded. I think Peter_Bullet makes some good points, but it seems to me like he is all but being castrated, and I'm not even sure why.

    For some reason, BIS's mission design seems to be a bit of a "sacred cow". If anyone dares to suggest it could be done better, they get told to play another game, or else to "do it themselves". It's funny that suggested changes to the animations in-game don't have the same backlash, even though there is nothing stopping anyone from replacing Arma's anims.

    Yes, it is great that Arma has a mission editor and can be modded. But did anyone ever stop to think, hey, maybe some people don't want to edit missions, for whatever reason? Shouldn't a game come with kick-ass levels, in addition to kick-ass models and gameplay mechanics?

    For many players, the official SP and/or MP levels of a game are all they will play. So, if those missions are crap, the community loses a lot of players, and also a lot of potential modders/mission makers.

    Of all the things to make suggestions on, I'd think that mission design should be the #1 issue ANYONE should be concerned about. A game with terrible level design will not do well. Most people are players, not modders. They want a game to come complete, including good levels. They shouldn't have to rely on 3rd party websites to find "good" levels.

    I come at this from the perspective of both a player and a mission maker. Feel free to flame me too, but I think there are some really good points here. Sacred cows be damned.

    I'd also like to point out, I think missions with higher unit-per-area density are actually more realistic. Most ofp/arma missions I've played are terribly unrealistic, because there are too few units in too large of an area.

  11. Quote[/b] ]Since when is education a state issue?

    Until Bush's "no child left behind" act made it a federal one. Colleges are established and funded at a state level. k-12 education is done at a mixture of state and local level.

    Good god, is this really what's happened to us as a country? Are you really telling me you didn't know it was traditionally a state issue? Is there anything that you think is a state issue?

    Quote[/b] ]You think it is fair (for example) for children in Kansas to only learn about creationism and the history of the world in terms of the Bible?


    I guess I am unclear as how far you want state's rights and how far you want federal government. Perhaps you can outline it, and don't reference the Constitution (as there are different interpretations and will get us no where).  

    I'm not sure how to put this...

    Look at things numerically. If you are voting in a pool of 100 voters, how much does your vote count in the election? Now, what if you are voting in a pool of 100 million voters? Your vote just got 1 million times less important.

    I don't know if you've ever lived outside the US, but one thing I noticed from doing so is that we are a really, really big country. We have some 300 million people. Most other countries seem to be a tenth that size. That means voters have 10 times more say in their government in those other countries.

    Now, the concerns you express are basically along the lines of "what if the other states don't do it right". To me, that sounds very controlling. You don' want to let other states have their say in issues that you wouldn't agree with, even though you aren't living in those states. If that is truly how you feel, then you must also realize that the reverse will be true. There will be times (say, 8 years under Bush) where what YOU want will be ignored, and instead what those OTHER states want YOU to do will become law. It swings both ways.

    By reducing the size of elections, you mathematically increase the power of each voter within them. If I'm voting in a pool of 100, I have a lot more of a chance to swing enough people to my side of the vote. And the guy I'm voting for has a lot more reason to make sure he accurately represents my interests, because I'm holding a larger stake in hiring / firing him.

    This is why I believe that we should do as much governing as possible at the county level. Only issues that can't be solved at that level should then be solved at the state level. Then, only issues that can't be solved at the state level, should move to the federal level.

    By "solved", I don't mean "decided to YOUR liking". I mean, "decided to the liking of those voters". Have you ever heard the phrase, "live and let live"? You may not like how someone else raises their kid, but it is their kid, after all. Of course, as long as they aren't abusing the kid.

    To prevent government abuse, we need to have specific limitations on government; which can't be broken, even if voters want to. We have the Bill of Rights for the federal government. States have something similar.

    Hey, and one last thing that's cool about the separation of powers: if you don't like how things are run where you live, you can move somewhere else that is more suited to your philosophy. If all we had was a national government, then you'd have to move to another country, which has immigration barriers and so on. But if governments were at a state level, you'd be able to stay in America, but just move to another state. And, unlike a country, the states can't stop you from moving in or out of them. Now, imagine the same thing, but on a county level. Or a city level. Wouldn't it be cool if your Republican friends could live under their government, and you under yours, and yet you can still be within driving distance of each other? A guy can dream.

    If you want to know specifically what I think should be state, and what should be national level policy, I'd look at the constitution. Article I, Section 8 seems pretty clear to me. So does the 10th Amendment. The federal government is supposed to have a very specific, limited set of powers. Everything else is reserved for the States or the People.

    Now, I'll ask you a similar question: do you believe there should be any limit on the Federal Government's powers? If so, what should that be? What should the power of the States be?

    Quote[/b] ]

    And I find your


    which is why I'm trying to show people how to prevent it

    line equally telling, as your way is the only way to do it.

    Wouldn't it be awesome to live in a world, where instead of just name-calling each other ("Bush is evil", "The rich are evil", blah blah blah), we actually discussed facts and ideas?

    I have been trying to present evidence to support my claims that we can't afford our government . I have pointed out a lot of numbers that support my argument, and nobody, including yourself, has bothered to respond to those arguments.

    Instead, people tend to "dumb down" the argument, into really, really simple sentences like "Bush caused this mess". If you say something like that, you should have a reason you believe it. You should have some kind of evidence to support such a claim, and you should put it up for discussion.

    Discussing facts actually leads to solutions. Discussing personalities is a waste of time.

  12. I'm secretly hoping it all does come crashing around our ears, that we all do go into a Depression to make the Great Depression look like a picnic, that 200 million (including myself) go unemployed...

    Btw this is a pretty damn sick thing to hope for. How can you claim to care about people, when you are "secretly" hoping for massive misery and death? I wouldn't wish this kind of thing on anyone, which is why I'm trying to show people how to prevent it.

    I seriously hope you are kidding, because, if not, I'm afraid I'd have to call your character into question, to put it lightly.

  13. Quote[/b] ]This is a situation that was allowed by the bush administration, it's easy to screw things up, but a lot harder to fix them.

    Please, give me the specifics. What specifically did the Bush administration do, and how exactly did that cause the current situation?

    And, while your at it, can you explain to me how this situation is different from a normal market cycle? That actually brings me to my second point:

    Quote[/b] ]Oh come on. Drastic measures are needed since situation requires.


    if you think that you can get out of this mess without any sort of payment you're foolish.

    Really? Tell me how this situation is not just a part of the business cycle.

    What is so special about this recession, that somehow the business cycle no longer applies?

    You sound like one of the people who were talking about the "new economy" in the late 90's. Like it or not, there are boom and bust cycles in all industrialized economies. The government can't stop the bust, because the bust is caused by the boom. But no politician gets elected by saying they are going to put the brakes on during boom times. The government does the exact opposite. They hit the gas, all the time, which causes bigger booms, and then bigger busts.

    Right now we are fighting the inevitable. Housing prices must go down because we more houses then we need. We expanded too fast, and now we are coming back down to how things really should be. The fact is, we aren't as rich as we hoped. Obama and the government is trying to sell you a lie.


    Quote[/b] ]

    You'll never get enough outrage on a national level to affect any kind of meaningful change. The political organism is constructed just for that reason.

    Again, this is why we should support states rights. You know, like the country was originally supposed to be: with a small federal government when compared to the state governments.

    Take a look at Obama's "stimulus". How much stuff in there should be a state issue, not a federal one? Since when is education a federal issue? Wake up people. The federal government can only have power if it takes that power away from the states. Every dollar the federal government spends is a dollar taken from the pocket of the states and the people. So we don't get "more" education by making it a federal issue, we just get less control over it. Tell Obama to stick to the constitution, and give us back our rights!

  14. Nordic social states don't seem to have a problem with it...and they run a surplus (generally)

    Fine. I'd LOVE to see the democrats proposing a balanced budget that might turn into a surplus.

    Better yet, let's just pass a law FORCING congress to do just that. My state has such a law (of course, it took a citizen's initiative, the legislature would never do such a thing). If we don't force the hand of congress, they will never balance the budget. It is more politically beneficial for them to put everything on credit. After all, they aren't running for re-election 10-20 years from now, when all their programs are actually paid for.

    Does anyone else find it completely unethical and undemocratic for us to spend the money of future taxpayers? I mean, my nephews are too young to vote, yet we are literally giving them a bill for our current spending. Honestly, I find this to be selfish and morally disgusting. It is taxation without representation. This should be illegal.

    Obama was saying he would have a balanced budget ("pay as you go") when he was campaigning. To be honest, I almost voted for him on that basis. Even though I wouldn't agree on what that budget should contain, I'd prefer that over deficits.

    Good thing I didn't vote for him, because his actions are showing that he is worse than Bush.

    Obama lied!

  15. Quote[/b] ]

    Thought you might find this article interesting. Pretty much sums it all up for me  link

    Yup, that article pretty well sums it up. +1. If more people read that, they would be pretty scared about what is going on too.

    Quote[/b] ]

    On the question what to do about Mark to Market?

    Answer it is not a political issue, we do not legislate accounting, does the market really want accounting to be legislated by 600 plus politicians?

    Uh... I'm sorry, I really don't think this is true. Ever heard of the SEC?

    I could be wrong on this, but I thought that publicly traded companies were regulated by the SEC, and they had to adhere to specific accounting rules. Hence the scandal when we have companies like Enron that are "cooking the books". If they were allowed to use whatever accounting rules they wanted, then there wouldn't have been any legal issues with Enron.

    Quote[/b] ]Isn't it time for the goverment to act to help the people and not just pat the big companies backs like the goverment did under GB?

    You are aware that it was a Democrat controlled congress that passed all the Bush bailouts, right? I wonder, do you assign any blame to them? After all, the president can't actually enact legislation. So ultimately it was CONGRESS that passed the bailouts. A congress controlled by democrats.

    Quote[/b] ]I don't think Obama can do worse..

    To be honest, I used to think that was true. But every day that goes by, it is proven wrong. We now have the largest deficit in history, and more spending and entitlements are coming down the pipe.

    We can't afford the Bush entitlement spending (the prescription drug plan), and he was supposedly a "conservative". Now Obama is using fear-mongering to railroad legislation through congress. I shudder to think of the kind of entitlement spending he is going to commit us to.

    So, let me see... we already can't afford the government we have, even if we raise taxes to the max. On top of this, we have a new president who wants to dramatically increase the size of government. Common sense tells me this isn't possible.

    Luckily, you don't need the facts to get elected. People only care about the short term; the "what's in it for me" factor. Obama and the greedy, selfish people who voted him in are going to bankrupt the nation.

    Please, if you philosophically believe in government entitlement programs... please show me the NUMBERS, on how it is POSSIBLE for us to have more such programs. Everyone loves to talk about what they think the government should do... but few people want to look at the reality of what it CAN do.

    From where I stand, the numbers do NOT add up. Prove me wrong.

  16. I think a recession is natural.. Its just a sick cycle that will always happen.

    So the way I see it just give it time and the economy will fix itself and of coarse Obama will get credit for it.


    If more Americans knew something--anything--about economics, they would grasp this point.

    Unfortunately, all the government plans that are supposed to "fix" the recession are actually going to cause bigger problems down the track. Just like the response to the 2001 recession worsened the current recession. Now the NEXT recession is going to be even worse than THIS one, and so on until....?

    The massive government borrowing we do now is going to cause us huge problems down the road, after Obama leaves office. But most people are too short sighted or ignorant to realize that. They just want "free" stuff, they don't stop to wonder how it all gets paid for: by our children and grandchildren.

    This is moral bankruptcy on a national scale.

  17. Cool, apparently I'm not the only American who thinks the Federal Government should actually have limits on it's powers.

    Seems that the New Hampshire state legislature introduced a resolution that would declare all unconstitutional federal laws and actions null, void and hostile!

    From the article:

    Quote[/b] ]The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step Monday by introducing a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government to completely totally void and warning that certain future acts will be viewed as a “breach of peace†with the states themselves that risks “nullifying the Constitution.â€

    <a href="http://patdollard.com/2009/02/new-hampshire-fires-first-shot-of-civil-war-resolution-immediately-voids-several-federal-l

    aws-threatens-counterstrike-against-breach-of-peace/" target="_blank">link</a>

    I love to see the States standing up to the Federal government like this. We need to have diversity in America, not one giant, one-size-fits-all federal government. Read your Constitution, people! Read your history! Realize that the Federal Government is supposed to be limited in scope! The states are supposed to have the power, because the people have more power over the states!

    Note that I do not in any way agree with the author that we should have a civil war.

    I do, however, agree that our federal government has overstepped it's bounds, and that it needs to be stopped. If everyone read the constitution, people might wake up and realize this.

  18. I'd image that:

    <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">titleParam1 = _EVAL ($STR_LOCATION + $STR_DAYTIME);

    Turns into:

    <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">titleParam1 = "$STR_LOCATION$STR_DAYTIME";

    After config processing. I'm guessing the $ gets evaluated after this step.

    Note, that there are always quotes added around $ strings anyway. So this line:

    <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">titleParam1 = $STR_DAYTIME;

    Is really the same as this line:

    <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">titleParam1 = "$STR_DAYTIME";

    My suggestion? Simply make a new string in your stringtable. Ex:

    <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">titleParam1 = "$STR_DAYTIME_AND_LOCATION";

  19. I'm just going to reinforce the point that there are too few units to properly use up the available terrain.

    If you look at real world battles, you'll notice that they involve a LOT more people in a LOT less area, then is done in Arma.

    I was just watching something on the history channel about the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was talking about I believe a battalion of soldiers who were securing Bagdad International Airport.

    Think about that for a moment: an entire battalion to secure an airport. How many battalions have you ever even seen in Arma? That's around 1000 men, inside an area perhaps the size of Rahmadi. And that is only on the Blufor side.

    So, those of you arguing it is "realistic" to have battles across such large terrain areas with less than a company of troops... you are actually quite wrong.

    Obviously you can't have that many units on the map at one time. So a realistic mission should actually restrict you to a certain area, with the pretense that outside of that area is the domain of another squad / platoon / etc.

  20. You can only modify the smoke used by ALL missiles. They all share the same particle effect. Look at classes:



    The engine is hardcoded to use these effect classes for all missiles (second one is used on manually controlled missiles like the TOW). So, you could modify these effects. If you were really clever, you might find a way to make these effects different depending on what missile was fired. I'm not good enough with particle effect configs to know if and how that is possible, though.

  21. First and foremost, it should be amply evident by now that the Federal Reserve, even with dubiously legal commercial bank collusion, is wholely unable to control the financial markets and impose stability. They can for a time add brakes here and there, but the reality is that individually and collectively there is nothing that they can do to prevent any sort of freefall.

    I'm going to go a step further, and argue that the Federal Reserve actually CREATES these crisis.

    Remember, the Federal Reserve was first established in 1913, about 25 years before the great depression. It obviously could do nothing to stop or reduce that depression... has it occurred to anyone that it might have caused or lengthened that depression? And maybe it is doing the same thing again?

    What started off this current crisis? The housing bubble. Housing prices had risen far above their true value, which is the definition of a bubble. Why was there a housing bubble? Because, after September 11, the Federal Reserve wanted to prevent us from going into a recession. So, they kept interest rates artificially low. Low interest rates of course make it easier to buy a home, so everyone started buying, which drives prices up. Add speculation and government required sub-prime loans, and you've got yourself an accident waiting to happen.

    So we've got a problem created by the Government, not the free market. What's  the solution? Do the exact same thing that caused this problem.

    This is lunacy and idiocy.

    Recessions are a force of nature. They can not be avoided. By trying to stop them, our governments just push back the problem so we get an even bigger recession in the future. To save ourselves a bit of discomfort now, we cause bigger problems down the line.

    Quote[/b] ]

    Whatever happens, it shows that the whole financial system was fucked to start with. How can the whole global economy be grinding to a halt thanks to a few greedy dickheads?

    As I mentioned above, the global economy is being ruined by the Governments and central banks. These people always say they are acting in the best interest of society, but in reality they are causing bigger problems.

    Those "greedy dickheads" you are referring to... that is you, me, and every single citizen of this world. We are all guilty, because we elect these government dickheads. We elect them, because we want to think we are getting something for nothing. Case in point, is Obama's "stimulus" program.

    "1.2 trillion dollars of free stuff? I'll vote for that guy any day!" (read with an uneducated yokel voice)

    Of course, it isn't free, and we can't actually pay for it. But we are so greedy and selfish, that we want to believe the money is there. No one wants to live in a smaller house, or drive a smaller car, or save more money. We want to keep living our lives as we always have, living beyond our means, and we want the government to come in and buy us healthcare and TV's and other stuff on top of it all.

    It would be nice, but it really isn't possible. In the future, we will pay dearly for these "bailouts" and this "stimulus" plan when our currency collapses. This isn't the free market. This is the government creating a problem, and trying to blame it on the "free market".

    Think about that for a second: What would happen if every single US dollar in the world became worthless?

    That is what we are heading towards, as we try to print ourselves enough money to avoid a little bit of discomfort today.

    But hey, as long as I get my free TV, why should I care, right?

    Wake up America.

  22. Look, let me be frank with everyone here.

    The temptation is to always resort to partisan politics.

    For example, I was listening to conservative talk radio today, and heard the host bashing specific items in Obama's "stimulus" package.

    The other example is the (as I see it) knee-jerk reaction of Democrats to instantly go "well, Iraq has been expensive!", as if that justifies them spending lots of money.

    But in both cases, the larger, more important point is being missed:

    -In recent months, we have seen government spending on a scale that has never been seen before in American history.

    -In every case, up to and including Obama's bill, it has been pushed through with very little input from or transparency to the people.

    -We do not have the money we are spending. That means future generations will have to pay for our present government, in addition to their own government. (Note: my nephews are too young to vote, yet they will have to pay for the recent spending, not the generation that is benefiting from it)

    -We can no longer borrow enough money to spend, so we have started printing money.

    All of the above should scare the hell out of anyone who looks at the big picture. Instead of just arguing about this or that specific item in this or that bill, we need to be looking at the bigger picture as well. But the media and the people on this forum are not doing that. This ignorance will cause more pain and misery in the future than any current economic "crisis". Simple math proves that.

  23. Have you ever asked yourself how much does Iraq cost?

    600 billion dollars to date. That averages out to 100 billion dollars a year. Obama's deficit is (so far) 1200 billion dollars/year, so pulling out of Iraq would pay for 8.3% of it. Okay, what about the remaining 91.7%?

    However, last time I checked, there was nothing in this bill about pulling out from Iraq. You should be pressuring your senators to include such measures, to pay for that 8.3%. I'd encourage you to also worry about the remaining 91.7%.


    Now, it is very good that you are concerned about the cost of the Iraq War. If you are worried about that, then you will be even more worried when you look at reality and realize that 6 years in Iraq is just a drop in the bucket compared to the money we've been spending recently.

    Depending on who you ask, the last round of bailouts has cost us 4.5 to 7.7 trillion dollars. That is 7700 billion dollars, or nearly 13x the cost of the war in Iraq. In three months, Paulson and Bernanke spent more than twice the cost of all of WWII.

    The cost of the last round of bailouts is more than the Marshall Plan, Louisiana Purchase, moonshot, S&L bailout, Korean War, New Deal, Iraq war, Vietnam war, and NASA's lifetime budget -- combined!

    You can read a short article about it here, or a longer article here.

    So, if you are truly worried about the cost of Iraq, then you should be HORRIFIED about the recent government spending. It shouldn't matter if it is a republican or a democrat administration that is doing the spending. It was wrong when the Bush administration was doing it, and it is wrong now the Obama administration is doing it. Either way, our country is being ruined, and we are forcing future generations to pay for our mistakes right now.

    So, while you and I worry about the switch to digital TV, our government is printing money and destroying our economy.

    In a way it's funny, like when you read history about Roman emperors stealing the people's rights, but they don't even know or care because they are watching the fights in the Colloseum. But I have a hard time laughing, because it is real. I'd trust my 4th grade nephew to run the country better then the clowns we have in there now, or had in there two weeks ago.


    In my state, the government is forbidden by law from having a deficit. I love that.

    When it comes to finances, The federal government is morally bankrupt, and has been for decades, as far as I'm concerned.

    It would be almost criminal for you or I to manage our finances the way the Federal Government manages it's own.

    Many Americans live their lives entirely on credit, but I think by now we should realize how dangerous of a notion that is. I don't understand how people can think it is OK for the government to live like that.

  24. Ok, good, I think it is more productive to talk about actual, real-world issues, instead of the old us vs them political diatribe. So with that spirit, I'll continue berating our country's overlords. First off, let me agree with you here:


    I've been reading the news recently, and I'm completely outraged. I've been outraged since this whole bailout BS began under Bush, and now I'm even more outraged with Obama.

    Latest figures put the cost of Obama's "stimulus" package at 1.2 TRILLION dollars (link).

    Now, some of the actual contents of this bill are, in my opinion, completely laughable, including the TV coupons. However, I don't want to argue the content of the spending. Instead, I want to take a step back, and look at the big picture. I'm afraid to say it, but I think most Americans are just too ignorant to realize what is really happening here.

    Q: Does the US have 1.2 TRILLION dollars to pay for this bill?

    A: No, of course not. We are already spending more money then we have. So the ENTIRE stimulus package will be financed by DEBT. We are putting this on a credit card. So it will be future generations who have to pay for whatever is contained within this bill. Note, those future generations don't get to vote today.

    Q: Who loans us the money to pay for the bill then?

    A: Anyone who buys treasury notes from the Federal Government. This used to be the Chinese. But guess what? As of a few months ago (under Bush), the Federal Reserve has started buying treasury notes from the Federal Treasury.

    This has never happened before. It is a huge deal, for reasons I'll get to next. Every person who talks about politics (meaning, everyone in this thread) should have or form an opinion on this issue, because it is more important than the stimulus package itself.

    Q: Where does the Federal Reserve get the money to loan us?

    A: It prints it. It creates it out of thin air.

    Now this is what I want to talk about the most:

    We are now literally printing money to pay for government spending.

    The Federal Reserve prints money and uses it to "buy" treasury bonds from the Federal Government. This is how we are now financing our deficit. The Chinese aren't subsidizing our government anymore. We are using fake money to do that now.

    Does anyone think this is a good idea? Does the thought of printing money make anyone else outraged, like it does to me?

    Or does nobody care, as long as they get to see that money themselves, or have it go to their favorite government program?

    If printing money works, then why don't we just print 1 million dollars per person, and make ourselves a nation of millionaires?

    Printing money will cause problems in the future far worse than what we face today. Just look at WWII-era Germany, or the current situation in Zimbabwe. That is what happens when the government prints money to make ends meet. People suffer and DIE. Every single dollar in this stimulus package, is going to cause more harm and misery in the future, then it will supposedly prevent today.

    Regardless of your opinion of how the money is being spent, everyone should have an opinion of where the money is coming from. But I don't hear any talk about that in the news or from Capitol Hill.

    If you are a Democrat / socialist, and you believe in the spending in this bill, then you should be DEMANDING that congress and the president finance this bill from revenue, not printing money. The democrats should be cutting government spending elsewhere, in order to finance this "stimulus". The democrats have control over everything, so there is nothing stopping them from slashing defense or anything else. They have the ability to do this, yet they choose not to.

    Nobody should stand for this. But then again, as long as the American people are ignorant of the facts, the ruling politicians of the day don't need to worry about reality. We should blame the media for not bringing the President to task about this, and we should blame ourselves for not caring enough to ask or understand the questions that children ask ("What's the national debt? Who pays for it?").

    I could have sworn Obama campaigned on the idea of "fiscal responsibility". The fiscally irresponsible Bush administration left office with a deficit of 400 billion dollars. Obama's "fiscally responsible" stimulus package is going to increase the deficit by 3 times that much in his first year. And to pay for it, he is going to literally print money.

    New president, same old garbage.