Helmut_AUT

Keygets is right, for me too the .exe version has changed despite the error message.

I'm getting the problem with "Patch 1.01 already installed" and I'm not using any modified files. The readme in the patch however says it can be applied to both 1.00 and 1.01b versions, so either the readme is wrong or the installer isn't working correctly.

I'd really like to know if it works at least for some people to install over the beta, or if I rather should do a reinstall.

In earlier games, Fade would always announce itself too when it activated, "legitimate copys don't fade" was it in OFP I think.

Hi, thanks for the answer. From what I read, porting islands over shouldn't actually be that difficult? Maybe we can hope to see some stuff before the tools are released, which might take a bit longer.

Seems like a good way to add a scuba mask, especially if that can be removed by script later in the mission.

Provac, the Wiki says: "all linked empty (nonAI) objects serves as terminals. Units with access gets action once they are near terminals." Sounds to me like you can use any object, which might just allow for vehicles too. You could for example use a command LAV as an UAV station, which isn't that far from reality since often UAVs are carried and deployed from special vehicles.

I would say yes. It might be me, but the Harrier seems unchanged, that is I can not get the Nozzles down for a true VTOL. The F35 and Osprey however work nicely in that you can do a true vertical takeoff, then gain speed, fly with the engines horizontal, and then land with the engines vertical again. It's all controlled trough speed automatically, so as you slow down in flight, the engines position themself correctly. Should be fun to takeoff and land on the LHD.

Some of the PP effects are really just for show and steal frames from already weaker systems. Like the "TV Monitor Grain" you get in the Abrams commander station when buttoned up. I too would appreciate any work done towards removing PP effects, since it seems the core engine improvements (AI, Editor, Campaign and so on) have been tied with a pretty overloaded graphics engine, which is a shame. In fact I'd even vote for a mod that switches the render engine back to A1 looks, but I doupt that is realistic doable.

Really good find. For people without TIR there's always the ALT key to look around too. As for fences, I thought I saw them do it in video somewhere?

Okay, I got it now: Turning off Auto Hover does not configure the plane for normal flight, this happens when you get over a certain speed. Same for the Osprey.

Nothing to add for what Balshoiw said. This is a suggestions board, being jumped for suggesting some realistic equipment addons is insane. BTW, just tested some more of the game - and I could swear that at least some rifles already have the flashlights on the 3d model. Check the camouflaged M4 with holo sight and M203 for example, what's that on it's left side of the barrel?

Amen! It seems these days every time a new game comes out, it uses some sort of rendering method that does NOT support FSAA - something so basic that is has been a standard for computer game graphics since the days of 3dfx Voodoo 5 cards. Most games eventually manage to enable FSAA again, but why oh why does it get taken out firsthand? And not being able to select post processing effects individually is just annoying. It costs frame rate and drives the shader unit requirements for the card much higher.

Walker, I've been playing this stuff since OFP - but the mission editor never allowed yourself to easily "create yourself a mission" worth replaying 4 or 5 times - and external downloads ranged from great to sucky. In Arma all I did at the end - quite happily - was playing Warfare on my own, since it worked as a kind of "mission generator" for single play. Now with Arma2 it actually sounds like script-generated random events are the order of the day even trough the SP campaign.

The reason you won't find pictures where they are used might be that it's generally hard to take pictures when it's dark (I photograph for military magazines, I should know). Would you rather walk into a house at night and search for an enemy using a NVG that restricts your FOV down to maybe 60 degrees, as in the game? Or risk the goggles shutting you blind when you step into a room with a light on? Not to mention that the NVGs I have worn were terrible blurry on objects close up. Obviously these flashlights have their tactical applications, not 300m firefights in the fields, but Arma does simulate a lot more than that. After all in Arma2 we now even have shot guns. Besides, a most curious observation which is quite regulary found when making game suggestions: Why are people against something that is OPTIONAL? How exactly will it disturb your game if BIS implements the code for some weapons to have flashlights? Will you be forced to use them?

Obviously then the Israeli Forces also deploy "very dumb youngsters": http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2083/2498627521_1e74e9f48f.jpg?v=0 Do some legwork and search Google for "Surefire M16" or a similar combo you will find quite a few images of Army guns with flashlights attached, and if we're talking about SpecOps/Law Enforcement you find even more.

Yeah, I guess all those companies selling tactical flashlights for gun mounting are just stupid, right? After all, you guys here know everthing and no one ever uses those. Just that nobody told the Marine on this picture (second one) who uses a Surefire light. http://www.spareammo.com/category/ar-15/ Wait a minute, aren't we modelling Marines in this game? What a coincidence. A bit less arrogance when commenting other people's ideas might be a good thing.

If you use it indoors, no. If you use it outdoors - might be, might not, depending on the situation. It's not as stealthy as NVGs, but - for example for guerillas and less-well equipped soldiers - it's more realistic.

Can anyone tell me if I got that right: The campaign are basically story-driven missions (as before) but now with the option to recieve random "side quests" (as it would be called in RPGs)? The SECOM and other modules in the editor seemed to imply that. Which would mean the replay value is trough the roof on this one. Oh, and if it isn't a spoiler: What happens if your teammates get hurt? In Queen's Gambit, having the leader shot would always give you a "mission failed", which was stupid since the guy was acting idiotic.

Hi Guys... I've only been playing "official" warfare missions - the 1.0 from BIS, the 1.1beta that came afterwards (with team status and respawn AI functions), and now I've ported some 1.0s to other maps. What I'm wondering - if I have a working 1.0 port of Warfare on a specific map, but want the features introduced in 1.1 beta (like the team status menu) - can I just unpack a 1.1 version, copy the mission.sqm from my 1.0 in there, and be done? Or in other words: Between the "official" warfare releases 1.1 beta and 1.0, are there any differences in the mission.sqm structure?

No one knows?

Zombie, since the AI supply trucks get orders from scripts (drive to depot, return to base...) I would have thought they will have names assigned to them upon creation. Obviously something in the Warfare Engine is keeping track of them. Otherwise, I think Supply Truck is a specific vehicle, so yeah it should be possible to just setfuel=1 for all vehicles of this class, every 15 minutes or so.

I'm not good enough at scripting, but in fact there is an option to "setfuel" which means if you know the supply truck names, you can just set their fuel back to 100% every 10 minutes or such on a timer.

Hi Guys What I wanted to do was to create a very small warfare-version for the Porto island included in Queens Gambit. I read the warfare editing guide at the official Wiki, sounded simple enough. Just move the depots, camps and markers around, rename them, finished. So I unpacked the Schmalfelden Warfare version from MattR (I think that's the Autor) since it's a small map, and very "plain" warfare without any unnecessary script additions. I renamed the folder to warfare.porto and loaded it into the editor. Then deleted all but three depots, and for the remaining depots I deleted all but one camp each (the camp named Number 1) I left the markers for those three depots (Depot Marker, FastTravel Marker and Town Center Marker), I left the 2x8 starting units, Resistance single soldier and all those other stuff intact. Also deleted starting locations, in their correct order, so that only 0 to 5 remain. Now, when I load this mission, it does not initialize the warfare code. I find myself standing on the island, but no voting menu, T Button doesn't do anything, no mobile HQ vehicle placed, no nothing. Using the same Smallfelden mission template on the Avgani map, I had more luck. I also deleted a few camps there, and a few deports, reduced starting locations - but that one initializes correctly and the AI starts building base, capping towns. I tried multiple times, but can not figure out the difference. Is there any minimum number of depots or camps required for a map to work? Is the placement of the hangar object important? Thanks for all help

Thank you, I had a look trough the file yesterday but didn't find this value. I think 1000 or even 1500 are possible, as I want the sides to start at opposing ends of the island, and then funnel them into a fight for the central two or three depots at Porto. With 8 teams a side, this should make for a highly saturated "front line".