invisibull

Hi all, I'm just getting my feet wet again after a pretty long layoff. I'm loving the new 3D editor but I'm finding that if I want to preview in multiplayer, that my desired difficulty settings revert back to "regular" no matter what i do. Anyway to stop this from happening? Thx

Sorry if this has been covered. I'd like to limit the number of revives while using the basic medical system. I have the revive module set to "1," but it seems to allow for continuous revives as long as there's epinephrine available, which i definitely don't want. Could someone walk me through a solution to this if possible? Here are the relevant settings: Set Medic Class: All playables are set to regular medic Revive Settings: Enable revive - Players and AI Max revive time - 120 Max revive lives - 1 Medical Settings: Medical level - Basic Medic - Basic Prevent instant death - No Also, do respawn settings in the description.ext factor into this? Thx.

Serjames, thanks for your quick response. I use the bcombat script and I've noticed that I get an awful lot of lag during a firefight unless i remove certain PBO's related to ai behavior and ballistics. As my experimentation is in a very preliminary stage, I don't know for sure which ones exactly are causing the issue, but I do know that after removing about 5, lag is no longer an issue during firefights.

Hi all. I've just started using the latest version of ACE 3 on my server and have noticed that if i remove any PBO's from the add-on folder (ace_advanced_ballistics.pbo for instance), none of my friends can join unless they too remove the exact same PBO's. Is there a way around this via whitelisting or PBO checking? If so, could someone please give me a step by step on how to accomplish this? Thanks. Thanks also to all the ACE devs for really taking realism to a new level. Invisibull

There's a fatigue module available in the editor that can be placed on the map and adjusted to your taste.

It seems like you fell into the very trap of uncritically accepting casualty figures that the BBC/NY Times analysis cautioned against. If you read the U.N. report closely you'll notice that even the report itself contains the following important caveat about the veracity of its data: And if that isn't reason enough to proceed with caution, the fact that nowhere in that estimation are we told what methodology was employed to differentiate between dead civilians and dead combatants, (particularly in light of the NY Times study quoted above) should serve to give us additional pause. Given that civilian deaths are such an important part of Hamas's propaganda efforts, i think it's pretty clear that these numbers are next to meaningless at this juncture. And while they certainly make for sensational headlines, they are all but worthless as objective data. And no, i certainly don't agree that the U.N. is a neutral organization. Blithely assuming objectivity in such a politically motivated organization makes no sense to me at all. If you'd actually go back and read what the BBC and NY Times have to say about the casualty figures in Gaza, and then factor in the U.N.'s reservations about its own data, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that it will be some time, if ever, before we have a valid understanding of who and how many died during this latest extremely unfortunate flare up in the Gaza Strip.

Something interesting regarding the "numbers game" being played with casualty figures in Gaza: Please find the quoted BBC article here. I think that we should be very careful before accepting any numbers, especially since it does seem that Hamas's most powerful weapon is the number of dead civilians it can claim. I don't say this in any attempt to marginalize civilian deaths, but only to offer additional context to the numbers we see splashed across headlines every day.

When you feel that your land is being stolen out from under you, there's no "feasible" way of negotiating around that perceived theft. MR, i do understand your point, and it's a point that I've been thinking about for decades. The fact that the partition plan offered an almost indefensible and non-contiguous state to both parties does, at first blush, seem to be rather problematic. But after doing quite a bit of reading on the topic, I've reached the conclusion that short of a completely apolitical, disinterested world power (Fairy Tale) stepping in and refereeing, we were never going to avoid the ensuing violence. When you have two parties so absolutely positive that they are right, and no one else with enough power or will steps up to sort them out, violence will necessarily follow. I think there's a certain amount of determinism to this. The U.N. has proven to be mostly useless, the U.S. is far too invested in Israel to be of any help, and no other party of adequate heft and purpose seems to care enough to get seriously involved. That my friend is the stuff that perpetual conflict is made of. Here's hoping I'm wrong. Salam and Shalom

The plan wasn't the problem at all. The problem was that Arabs were never going to accept a Jewish state and the Jews weren't going to accept NOT having one. The partition plan (RES. 181) was an attempt to address an already intractable situation, but as it was never actually implemented, we really can't blame it for anything except as perhaps a symbolic final straw for the Arabs. The violence had been raging since long before a U.N. even existed, and has increased proportionally with the increase in Jewish population. Notice how the Jews responded to the 1939 White Paper which put a quota on their immigration. With a great deal of violence toward the British. No, this one was going to end badly no matter what anyone did or didn't do about it.

Hi Sudden, terrorist units are appearing on my server with no uniforms. ---------- Post added at 11:55 ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 ---------- I should add that they are fine when i run them in the editor.

Thanks for this update, Eric.

Referring back to the video i posted above- -if you listen at about :28 it's pretty clear that the extremely close incoming rounds barely compete even with the soldier's slightly raised voices. After listening to this a few times, I'm inclined to believe that the sonic cracks in JSRS 2.2 are now considerably louder than irl.

Here's another in Afghanistan with Americans taking extremely close rifle fire.

Here's what a bullet fired from an AK-47 sounds like as it flies by a recording device.

That new bikey works. Thanks for the update, sudden.