hoot

From the mountpoint of the device or the ArmA directory - where is that player/player.profile located? Does the installscript build a proper directory for it? Because we simply don't have any and it doesn't look like it is doing so. The script is removing some files like the helpfiles (chm), binaries (exe) and some dynamic link libs (dll). It is then building the tolower binary, setting some restrictions and is then saying: "ArmA server was installed " *lol* We just thrown the files from our vm to the linux fs. I wonder how the rest of you is starting the servers. It sounds like just one stumbled over the profile-thingy and the rest is starting a not well configured server by using no profile and leave anything the way it is. I mean i want to have the useless grass disabled due to performance issues with some clients, but without a user-config this setting is hard to make, so: where the heck are those profiles. With the Windows server, one can load a specfic profile that defines the settings for mp sessions for all clients. I know one can override the grass setting in a mission files, so the grass setting is just an example, but it raises also the next question whether or not, a missionsetting overrides a serversetting from which it effectively should inherit from

We are currently testing on Edgy and SuSE-whatever. Can anyone give me a hint how-to assign a user respectively a profile to the server? In OFP you had two configs. An ofp.cfg or so, and a config in the user directory of OFP. In ArmA it is the same, one config is located in the ArmA root and a second one in the \documents and settings\use\blablabla. My question ist not how to start the binary or the deamon or whatever with an user of the system, but how to load a specific profile? Does the option -user support paths or what? Either im just blind to find the information somewhere else, or it is simply missing. The profiles in OFP (even for the linuxservers) was good to have, because one could choose different quality-settings for the server, so i guess it will work for ArmA as well. May this question be not too ridiculous to get answered Edit: K, in ArmA both configs are located in \documents...\user\..\... and not in the ArmA directory were the game is located in. Hmmmm...any ideas?

You mean the fedora-core 7, by typing 'fc7' right? A style like [distri] [kernel] -> [working/crash] in such a list would be fine

Any chance to have a list of working distris in the first post, dear mods? I know it may depends on customisation whether or not it crashes, but a neat list would be appreciated since i don't want to follow pros and cons of whichever-OS-has-stolen-from-the-one-and-only-UNIX, too

Well it seems, that this is an ArmA trailer pal, and not a ArmA: QG Trailer. But i may be wrong

Petergames/Morphicon have released a 'trailer' for the ArmA: Queen's Gambit Expansion Pack (dunno whether or not it was already posted). Well it cannot mess with the videos we have seen from some members of this very community, but anyhow, it is the first one. Maybe someone, 505 or BIS, will later redo a more striking trailer to advertise ArmA: QG. Guess it's Morphicon's first video they have done for ArmA, so maybe their skills in making such trailers will increase a little over time, although, it is not that bad overall.

WB Placebo. One of the good news these days here

We already had such a discussion when ArmA was announced. And again, I don't think it will increase the realism. It will increase the strange realism just for those, who like watching others die with the most weird dislocations. Ragdoll demands additional equations what of course will increase the overall costs regarding calculations by the engine. Imagine 64 Players on a Battlefield2 match with ragdoll and then imagine 600 avatars (AI and players) on a match in ArmA2 utilizing ragdoll. I think there are pretty much other things to calculate. Of course you can make use of multicores since ArmA2 seems to implement distributed calculations, but i hope BIS will follow their own ideal: 'War is not funny!' And ragdoll imho just appeals to the lowest instincts of a human being - nothing more. If your game has no attracting base frame and nothing spectacular within, implement ragdoll to get the 'wooooooohaaaaaas' and 'wows'. That's the modern style of making games: Leave out substance and replace the missing space with eyecandy. Ragdoll fits to games like the BF series and Max Payne imho, but not to simulators that want to portray the way war is - just not funny. And to be honest, i wouldn't even have time to watch that freaky movements in a good combat situation in ArmA. So why implement it?

It is confirmed by Rubbergenius, comm manager at the Codies, that this teaser is actually a rendered movie, just using ingame-models. So it is simply nothing more than an appetizer by now

Yep, i thought it would be a typical german quirk to moan about everything, but these forums told me the damn truth about it

Yep, i thought it would be a typical german quirk to moan about everything, but these forums told me the damn truth about it

Dunno whether or not it was sarcasm pal, but they actually do work on both games afaik and as far as our research can tell. That's the most irritating thing with ArmA for us and maybe for some other folks around.

Dunno whether or not it was sarcasm pal, but they actually do work on both games afaik and as far as our research can tell. That's the most irritating thing with ArmA for us and maybe for some other folks around.

Dunno. Maybe they got a shock when watching those BI-Screens

Dunno. Maybe they got a shock when watching those BI-Screens

Did anyone noticed the recently released Teaser for the Codies OFP2? Guess it's rendered. However, interesting to see both OFP2 on the market in 2008 - perhaps

Did anyone noticed the recently released Teaser for the Codies OFP2? Guess it's rendered. However, interesting to see both OFP2 on the market in 2008 - perhaps

That's great news BI. Well, then in 2008 i want to immerse into that announced deformable terrain and do some fun with with those destructable buildings. I do really expect some proper nextgen folks

That's great news BI. Well, then in 2008 i want to immerse into that announced deformable terrain and do some fun with with those destructable buildings. I do really expect some proper nextgen folks

Shaders pumping the textures, k, that's not that hard to understand and imo 'trivial' shadercoding nowadays. Anyhow, what i ask myself is, how deep can you go by scripting ArmA, to manipulate such an engine-setting like the fact, that there are only approx. 10 decals shown, before they start to disappear with every new hit right in the sequence they were painted to the objects? If i understand the post from paragraphic correctly, then it is possible to paint decals on every object with a script?! Are those decals then 'faked ones' or real 'engine-side decals'? How do you decide whether you have hit an object 'house', or just a wooden part on it? Do you have access to the object's hierarchy to make such an decision or are you just categorising the objects into concrete, wood and glass? What about the predictable impact on performance in MP, in the meaning of sync etc. I find it very interesting if one would have access to such things via the scriptingengine. More intel on this would be appreciated!

Just BTW; that picture, more than any other, highlights painfully sharply how bad the "crouch-walk" animation is. Ouch! It always reminds me of this: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bjgZ5yyxUcY You take a picture to tell how bad an animation is? Well that is somehow spectacular. Would you pls show me a more proper one in a game then? But please pal, no stills. I'd like to compare them in motion. The only thing i would moan of, and that of course is ridiculous already, is the fact that they dont stick theirs knees together when crouching, to hold legs steady. But your analogy to the Superstore Cossack, who is definitely funny, is pure cynicism and without any value. Besides, afaik they had mil instructors from the czech army or whatever so maybe their training is just a little different to yours, my colonel.

Balschoiw hit the bull's-eye.

Well what i miss is the MOG The idea to init civs with black faces is just great, to have them fighting on OPFOR, too. Nice man and really useful regarding my needs.

Gazmen what you want is simply an all-in-one device suitable for every purpose, and i find it somehow bloodcurdling to bring everything into a game, every single variable you have mentioned. BIS called ArmA the ultimate combat simulator because ArmA simulates not only a single branch like all those games or sims do you have mentioned. Blaming BIS for making the ultimate arcade game and calling Novalogic's Armored Fist an 'Tanksimulation' in the same breath, looks very funny, really. I was serving as a german Panzermann for some years pal and whatever Armored Fist wanted to be, it is an arcade game and not a sim, but that is just imho. Well..uhm...get SteelBeasts and see what a tanksim is. You are also mixing some things up. The simulators that you have posted here are specialized in one single branch for their own, everyone incorporates land or air. ArmA on the other hand combines land, air and sea. Know what i want to say? Your expectations are far too high, you want an Earthsimulator but it's just a game and if you compare this to other products present on the market, you would probably see, that ArmA is the ultimate combat simulator, because it is combining almost every arm. So calling it arcade is just bitching for me, because you seem to have forgotten all the parts and things that ArmA is actually simulating. What you did is an unfair comparison in my eyes and i don't mean the bugs, they are there, sad but true, but that's another story. I mean all the neat abbreviations you have highlighted. BIS never told anyone that ArmA is the ultimate helosim, the ultimate flightsim, the ultimate tanksim, or the ultimate chain-of-command sim. They have printed 'the ultimate combat simulator' on the box and that's it: A combatsimulator that is not only illustrating one arm, but as many as possible. A whole crackling engagement. Every clear-thinking gamer should know, that you have to cut back at some things you probably would find in more specialized simulators. Again, ArmA is simulating wars and conflicts, not only seen through the eyes of glorious pilots, with the smell of aftershave around them, but also seen through the eyes of the usual grunt and others, dying on the ground. Fortunately, everybody got his own opinion and attitude. So this is mine. Btw, marketing means to exaggerate things

A nice and subtle side blow for not getting credited at all within Zaphods maps, although the obvious similarity to the Battlefield1985 scripts from OFP, with all its spin-offs, would demand to do so. Understandable post, especially for those, who have sampled the whole evolution of the flashpoint scripts until version 1.81++, that is still played. But beside that little impoliteness, the Berzerk mapdesign is quite good and will definitely become the standard in ArmA C&Hs. Good to have such maps instead of playing those BIS C&Hs, dunno who decided to let the player spawn airborne, as ArmA introduced vulnerability of paratroopers. It's really frustating to get shot when dangling with the chute, having no chance to spray some rounds to the ground, what of course could get a bit too arcadish. Spawning as infantry on the ground was the right decision Zaphod. I second Celery's suggestions. Nice ideas mate, except for items 5, 10 and 11 imho. I disagree here, especially for the last item. The bigger the area of a flagpole gets, the more folks can probably hide behind garbage cans waiting for the defending troops to shoot them once they are on the hunt for that guy, who caused the position/flag to turn yellow or blue. Okay on the other hand, the smaller the areas the more camping with the defender's faction. But however, the mapstyle is called C&H, so conquer and hold, and hold implies to camp