Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Hovis

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    69

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Hovis

  1. Posted

    @Hovis. The RACS stuff is simply not built or tested for ACE. There is no deliberate aim to NOT make them work in ACE. The reason for the quote in the readme is addon makers otherwise get inundated with questions like 'Will you make this ACE compatible'.

    Having said this, in my experience there's never been any obvious problems when I have used the units with ACE. The vehicles maybe don't fit so well due to the major config differences, but they do mainly work. Suck it and see is the advice I would give.

    That's fair enough. The way it's worded in the Read Me makes it sound like it's a serious issue. If it's just configs that won't matter at all in the grand scheme of things (Fingers crossed).

    Thanks :)

  2. Posted

    Okay I'm going to have to brave the flames and ask, as I'm trying to road test this gear for my clan.

    Are there any known conflicts with ACE on this mod that mean that the units are unsuitable to be used as OpFor?

    I am aware that armour and ballistics and such like will be different, configurations will be out of whack and so on, that's okay, that's something that occurs with any mod that isn't ACE built.

    What I'm wondering though is does the really big shouty block capitals message in the Read Me mean that there is some sort of certain fail in an ACE combination, or is it just the case that the RACS mods are self contained and differently configured in the way that pretty much any other modded unit is before it is ACE-configured? The Read Me implies that both mods together is some sort of killswitch, but if it is just a case of two separate mods that have any relation to each other than that might well be workable.

    Fundamentally it's not my intent to put the RACS units in the mission to be played, I want to use them as OpFor, so any difference in ballistics or controls won't be an issue. As we're infantry based too this means that the armour system that ACE uses won't be an issue, as I doubt we'd use much armour.

  6. Posted · Edited by Hovis

    Am trying to use Six Updater for the standalone OA, does that work? If not then that's okay, at least it answers the next two problems. :D

    At the moment I'm getting a problem which is that none of the mirrors seems to respond. Then sometimes I get an rsync error about a Cygheap and a Cygwin .dll file that makes no sense to me at all.

    I've used the settings to make sure it's looking in the right place and it appears that it is set up for OA Standalone in the config.

    Pretty baffled to be honest.

    Also here's a dancing banana. :yay:

    EDITED TO ADD:

    Nevermind, fixed it. I was using Bitdefender as my anti-virus and it was causing issues.

  8. Posted

    So here's my situation:

    I have Arma 2 from a disk install bought way back when. It sits on my hard drive, loads of mods, loads of different shortcuts to launch them (as in I don't run them all all the time), ACE updated on it via AddonSync and basically all the trappings of a much loved and abused Arma install.

    Operation Arrowhead comes out and I figure I'd move the whole operation to Steam, so I've bought the Combined pack thing, with OA and Arma 2. Fresh start and all that.

    I've tried the batch file mentioned above to run Arma 2 and Arrowhead together and it works. But what I'm not sure about is how to run additional mods to Arrowhead or Arma 2 through that. Also do I need both Arma 2 and Arrowhead installed independently on Steam? Also do I place modfolders in Arrowheads folder or Arma 2 on Steam?

    Past that, is it safe to presume that things like AddonSync and SIX Updater will work in exactly the same way with a Steam install as they do with a normal one?

    So many questions, so few cookies, but those I have go to those who can help. Cheers. :yay:

  10. Posted

    Well it is true that the SCAR is canceled but uh... do you expect that a game developer removes the SCARs from the game a couple of days before release just because in RL they have been canceled? No offense but I guess you don't know much about game development at all.

    Besides that, like said already the game plays in the future and not in 2010 and no one knows what will be used then.

    I personally don't like the SCARs in the hand of every regular soldier but hey that can be changed after all.

    And no, BIS won't change that anymore. ;)

    I don't expect them to change the guns. I never expected them to change the guns either. I just think it's funny (more in an ironic sense than a LOL sense) that in the same week the game comes out most of the weapons featured in it get canned.

    Like you say though it's not like they can't all be changed anyway. Could start dishing out Stormtrooper Blaster Rifles to everybody if I could find where I left the .pbo for them. :)

  11. Posted

    Why did the U.S. recall the SCAR-L?

    Recalled because of the logistical nightmare of running a small number of a weapon that requires different parts to the M4s and M16s and stuff that are the standard 5.56mm weapons. Why they didn't pick the weapon up in the first place, well apparently it was deemed to not be enough of an upgrade, so in short while it's meant to be better than the M4 etc, it's not better enough to be worth buying in.

  13. Posted

    So I fired up Arrowhead for the first time today, had a bit of a go with it and saw most of the US soldiers toting the SCAR-L rifle. The very recently cancelled and recalled SCAR-L rifle. D'oh. Shame they didn't warn BIS in time to give the troops M16s instead. :o

    Still nice to have a change in game even if the actual US military is probably going to be using M16 variants for the next century. :)

  14. Posted

    a RPG destroy an abrams ... yes it esay to destroy mrap with RPG but with ied and mine it's really hard to KILL soldier in the "living space" of the mrap because it's a sort of cell

    This.

    It's designed to survive IEDs and mines. It's still not a tank or IFV.

  16. Posted

    Hokay I have a problem:

    I'm making a mission in which the players begin inside an AAV7 which is at sea and heading for land. When I test the mission as a preview I can access the gear inside the vehicle no problem. When I tested the mission on a dedicated server the gear was inaccessible until the vehicle had reached land and stopped.

    So is there a way to allow a squad of players spawned inside a vehicle to access the gear screen on a dedicated server? Or can it only be done in single player testing.

    Any help much appreciated. Also here is a banana. :yay:

  17. Posted

    Should Project Reality for Arma not be renamed to Project Game? I mean with BF2 the intent of PR was clear, make the game more realistic. With Arma 2 the intent seems to be to make a simulator into more of a game. Which is actually a bloody good idea.

    Arma's level of realism doesn't really lend itself to public server PvP and there is a big niche for a game that has realism yet is also action-heavy and immediately playable.

    Trying to fudge it so that PR is part and parcel of other mods, particularly when we're talking about a mod that isn't even out yet, bodes badly. Sounds to me like the plan is for a whole new game in effect, starting with the default and going off into something that is more of a hardcore shooter and less of a hardcore milsim. Nothing wrong with that plan at all and in order to achieve that goal the last thing the developers ought to do right now is compromising.

  20. Posted

    Just wondering if somebody could do some more appropriate weapons handling animations for untrained troops.

    As it is everybody handles guns the same way, like a trained soldier, and that's great for the trained soldiers, but I think that it makes very low end irregular forces artificially dangerous, not to mention it would add the atmosphere.

    It's hard to find pictures of the exact style, or lack thereof, of weapons use I'm trying to describe, but I'm sure anybody who regularly sees news reports from third world combat zones, or at the very least has seen Blackhawk Down or Generation Kill, will be able to get the gist of what I'm talking about. Basically a guy not holding the stock against the shoulder, barely and certainly not properly using the sights, using full auto like it's cool. Kind of like the bizarre gangsta style of using a pistol for optimal noise and minimal accuracy, but for AKs.

    What I think would work is having troops listed as raw or untrained, and giving them a quite heavy accuracy penalty tied to the different animations. Potentially perhaps have the animations associated with a weapon - an AK with a modified config so that it is sloppily wielded with the accuracy penalty to match. Naturally such a mod would not have to be so over the top or debilitating as to render the enemy utterly useless, but just some minor changes, loosening up of the firing stance and so forth, ought to be enough.

    Or maybe I'm talking crazy. :P

  21. Posted

    I think it's very likely that ArmA 2 will look better than Crysis in some regards, hell if you pick the right moments the original ArmA can be a fantastic looking game. The difference though is in how alive the world feels, until ArmA can capture effects like bullets slicing through foliage, snipping off twigs, even cutting down small trees, then it won't feel as great as Crysis does. Crysis is pure Hollywood, but it works.

    ArmA 2 is going to look amazing, but as with ArmA and even OFP the real beauty of the game will be in the scale of it, watching the night sky get lit up with tracers, seeing battles unfold on the fly, all that good stuff. As far as the grunt on the ground is concerned it'll probably feel a bit more sterile than Crysis.

    Scale is the big factor though. Crysis isn't a quarter of the game ArmA is, let alone ArmA 2, so comparing the visual quality of the two is sort of like comparing the Mona Lisa to the Sistine Chapel.

  23. Posted

    Lo folks, just wondering if there's a way I could finagle this mod to use the woodland camo pattern marines instead of the desert ones? Having opened it up and had a look it seems all I need to find is what the units are called, I'm presuming it's just a three letter designation instead of 'Des' in the unit name. Anybody know what that change might be or where I might find it?

    Edited to add on further digging it looks much more complicated. Bum. sad_o.gif

  24. Posted

    I think using real enemies doesn't foster real resentment at all. I mean the thing is stuff that's not real, well, that's stuff that's not real and ArmA is not real, it hurts nobody. If I set up an ArmA mission based on war breaking out Iran and the USA it's no more going to affect the world and people's attitudes and opinions than if it was between the Insectoids and the Space Lizards.

    Edited to add, in a more on topic sense, I think what's lacking also are indigenous friendlies. In any sort of insurrection there will be lots of factions at play, really we should have guerillas of all factions.

  25. Posted

    Well my system specs aren't a problem, I play with my clan and we have a 'no man left behind' policy, which basically means we all aim to make missions playable by all so nobody is pressured to upgrade if they don't want to. With that in mind things such as heavy fighting in wooded areas are a bit of a no-no for example.

    Regarding view distance, how far does the slider scale go? I've never really attached a number to the slider, but my own view distance is 2000m. If I can cut it down and nobody notices that's grand.

×