General Barron

-------------UPDATED BY GARCIA TO V1.2b (MP COMPATIBLE)------------- See 3rd post below for more information ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Core Addon (v1.0) + demo missions + editor documentation [3.12 mb] Mirror #1 filefront.com Mirror #2 Stealth-net Mirror #3 ofp.info Mirror #4 ofp.info v1.2 update [694 kb] Mirror #1 ofp.info Mirror #2 ofp.info Optional Kegetys Fwatch [350 kb] Mirror #1 ofp.info Mirror #2 ofp.info Optional English sound addon [6.92 mb] Mirror #1 (allows you to actually hear shouted orders) ofp.info Mirror #2 ofp.info (IMPORTANT NOTE FOR EDITORS: please see the end of this post) WHAT IS IT? The HS Command System is the first modification (to my knowledge) to alter one of the fundamental aspects of OFP: the means by which you command a squad. The system is a complete reworking and improvement of the command system seen in my mission Realistic Combat Patrol. From the readme: The HS system eliminates OFP's default squad control system and replaces it with a more realistic system, based on my training as a US Marine. It is suited for commanding infantry groups ranging from 4-man fireteams to 38-man platoons, and for conflicts ranging from the early 20th century to the present day. Gone is the highly unrealistic and powerful "birds eye view". Gone is the standard, precise, computer "point and click" interface. Gone are the personal inter-squad radios. In their place you are left with military hand signals and your own voice to command your men. If your men can't see or hear you, then they can't follow your orders. Of course, the enemy can hear you too. Sound tough? Too bad. Commands are issued via either the radio menu (0-0-x) or a clickable dialog (with optional Fwatch enhancement). Also included is a method of using your squad radio where you actually have to be near the radio operator. Everything is easily customizable by the mission editor to suit the needs of his particular mission. Optional sound addons allow you to actually hear shouted orders, although they aren't required for play. At the present time, only American English is available, but in the future I hope to add other languages such as Russian, German, UK English, etc. INCLUDED DEMO MISSIONS You heard it right: I've actually included REAL DEMO MISSIONS! HS TUTORIAL This mission introduces you to the new command system. You should play it first to get familiar with the controls. Spanish and Russian translations included. RAID ON HOUDAN A mission reminiscent of the original OFP demo mission, only a lot better! No other addons required. RCP RESCRIPTED This is a re-release of my original Realistic Combat Patrol mission, reworked to use the new system. SUPPORTED LANGUAGES English, German, Swedish, Finnish, Danish, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian. PICS This is a scripted mod, not a bunch of 3d models, but here are some pics none-the-less: Rangers silently passing handsignals. A squad rallies around their leader after taking an objective. During rallies, check your squad's status with this dialog. The command dialog (with optional Fwatch enhancement). TO MAKE MISSIONS USING THE ADDON First of all, READ THE INCLUDED EDITOR'S README! It should tell you everything you need to know. Second, unfortunately I let something slip into the template mission that I shouldn't have, which will cause errors when you try to use it. All you need to do is open up "hs_init.sqs", and DELETE this entire line: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">hs_pth = "" There should be a line above it that says hs_pth = "\GENB_HS_core\"; that is the correct line to have. Sorry for the confusion!

Hello all, I don't know if you have ever used fixed-wing aircraft in your missions. But if you have, you may have noticed that there is no way to make the plane "stay at" a specific location. Instead, once the plane completes its waypoint/domove/player order, it will just keep flying straight forever. What this script does is it makes an aircraft fly in a stable, circular holding pattern. This can make it surprisingly easy for the player to command fixed-wing aircraft, without being in one himself. Normally this requires an endless number of "fall back into formation" orders or similar, but this script lets the player put them into holding, until airsupport is required. One quick note is that if you turn up the time accel, the aircraft will most likely break its holding pattern. In normal time accel, the aircraft also has a slight chance of breaking its pattern eventually. Try out the demo mission and let me know what you think. Download link

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 Â Â 0.2 Â Â //sleep step used in script (between impact point calculations) #define DELTA_T2 Â Â 0.5 Â Â //time step used in trajectory simulations #define G_CONST Â Â Â 9.81 Â //acceleration due to gravity #define AIRFRICTION -0.0005 //air friction constant for the ammo being computed by the CCIP #define INIT_VEL Â Â 0 Â Â Â //initial velocity of the ammo being computed by the CCIP //#define DEBUG Â Â Â Â Â Â //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}; #endif }; //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}; #endif //wait a bit before recalculating the impact point sleep DELTA_T1; };

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)); Â Where: _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.

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.

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 _bombPos //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).

Note that the damageResistance entry only tells the AI whether or not to fire at a vehicle. It doesn't actually resist or reduce damage in any way. It is just a flag for the AI, telling them whether to fire at a vehicle with a given weapon (so they don't fire rifles at tanks, for example).

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.

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.

I think this is a useful discussion to have, so I made some diagrams. First, let's remember The Captains quote here: 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.

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?

+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.

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.

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? 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? 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.

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.

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: 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. edit 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!

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!

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. 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. 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. 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.

+1 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.

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: <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.

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";

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.

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

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. 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.

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.