Inkompetent

Thanks for the update! Hopefully going to get to take it for a spin later today.

Good suggestion. Added it to my post.

A little correction to the above: Since SNKMAN wrote the script execution line like Remove = [group this] execVM "Remove_Unit.sqf"; you can change the first line of the script to _group = _this select 0; That way the same script will work regardless of which group it is used on. Also I think he did a little error with the selection of who to remove. If the group for example counts 4 units his script would remove the the #2 one (4 - 3 = 1. The list of units would look like [soldier1,soldier2,soldier3,soldier4]. solder2 would be the one at index=1 in that array, and not soldier3). :) Edit: A more elaborate version of the script could be: Remove_Unit.sqf _group = _this select 0; _number = _this select 1; if (_number > count units _group) exitWith {hint "Cannot remove unit. Number out of bounds."}; _unit = units _group select (_number - 1); deleteVehicle _unit; Run the above script with remove = [group this,X] execVM "Remove_Unit.sqf"; where X is the number of the unit want to remove.

Really good suggestion and thought through as well :) See my signature to make a proper-feature request since you have solution to the improvement worked out already :)

It only applies to some PBOs. Several of the PBOs are 100% clientside and doesn't do anything that'll mess with a server. There's no real list on what does cause complications and what doesn't though. The stance and speed-stuff works on other servers afaik, but I've never tried it so not 100% sure.

Ahhh.. My bad. Not using the units so didn't have a clue :)

Nothing preventing the AAW-stuff to be made ACE-compatible. Don't expect the ACE-team to include 50 terrabytes of addons just because the addons exist. Rather ask of the other addon-makers to make their stuff fully ACE-compatible. The ACE mod in its core is just the mechanics of the addon. All vehicles and weapons and stuff is just extra candy, just in the same way ACE-compatible AAW-stuff would be extra candy.

Whoooo! 60mm mortar! Been missing mortars with less than 15m kill radius so much in ArmA2! Wonderful!

A lot on your list (like running speeds) are limited by the animation system in the engine, and that animation system is a concious design choice to not separate first person and third person from eachother, but to have first person actually just being another 'camera attachment point' and allowing you to see your full character in first person. We could get CoD where you can't look down and see yourself, or we can have the awesomeness we have now. Also, ragdolls are not present because they don't WANT them to be present. Ragdolls adds A LOT of complexity to coding and a ton of extra stuff for the server to do, because if it's not the server doing the ragdoll calculations and broadcasting them to all clients (stupidly much bandwidth-use for a little pointless eye candy) then the actual physics of the body will be different on every single client. Would you want all 60 people on a server see the same dead guy fall in different ways, not being the same on any single machine? Didn't think so. As for flashlights we are getting them in OA afaik.

Well, I don't use JTD either. Just using WarFX and CBA I still occasionally get blocky smoke. No idea what the reason is.

I get blocky smoke occasionally, and I don't use GL4, so... ^^

This part shouldn't make a difference really. WarFX has CBA as a RequiredAddon, thus if CBA exists in the modline at all it WILL be loaded before WarFX regardless of their relative position in the mod line. WarFX's order relative to other particle-affecting addons on the other hand, that can be important :)

Afraid that due to the length limit of the path line in shortcuts you are either limited to an addon manager, or you'll have to start bunch addons together, like making a single "islands" folder and so on. I'm starting to suffer from the same problem.. =/

@ Defunkt Ahh, well if there are no better functions in the API than such that force so cumbersome work I understand if it's skipped. Guess I might have to learn live with the huge chat text and squad member icons and crosshairs filling half the screen, in the same way one has to suddenly learn to live with someone after ten years of living alone :P

Pretty, pretty Rangers! My favourite US unit!

You can put yourself low at Sparta and wait for the Su-25s to take off, then put two Sidewinders up their tail pipe as soon as they pass you. Worked well for me.

Oh, and an additional correction about the AT-4. The AT-4 used in ArmA and ACE is the standard HEDP version which is a better all-round weapon since it can be used against both armour and entrenched enemies (i.e. using it against prepared firing positions and buildings), while the HP (High Penetration) version is only effective against armour. IRL the HEDP version is the most common one used in for example Iraq, but it seems logical considering what they have spent most of the time there fighting. I do not know how the distribution of HEDP vs HP (or the overall availability of HP) was during the start of the war when enemy armour was to be expected.

Very, very different. First and foremost when it comes to actually destroying the tank completely there are two VAST differences between the Abrams and the T-72, aside from the astronomical difference in armour thickness and technology. The Abrams stores its ammunition in a way that makes it unlikely to get hit or ignite on a hit of the tank, and spare/reserve ammunition is stowed in the back of the turrent behind fire-proof hatches in a compartment with upwards-directed blow out-hatches. If the reserve ammunition should explode the hatches are designed to open easily and let out the force of the explosion upwards to not damage the tank or crew. The T-72 stores its ammunition under the floor in the crew compartment in a a rotary "dish" letting it have much more ammunition readily available than the Abrams, and within easy reach for the tank's auto-loader (The T-72 has a mechanical auto-loader and not a crewman loading like in the Abrams). The downside is that it is very badly protected from inside the tank, and should the ammunition explode it WILL destroy the entire the tank and blow it to smitherens, most likely with the iconic 'turret flies 30 meters into the air and lands 50 meters away'. Thus a 'destroyed' Abrams is probably looking quite whole, but is disabled/crippled, while a 'destroyed' T-72 might just as well be burning, blown out scrap metal. Yes. Using an AT-4 against the front armour of even a T-62 can be considered waste of tax-payers' money and your own life. To use it against a T-72 is even more pointless. IRL, even when shooting at the side of a T-72 (without ERA protection on it) one isn't likely to do any considerable damage with an AT-4 (you better volley-fire with an entire infantry squad with AT-4s). AT-4s work well against APCs, IFVs and AFVs. Against MBTs you better call in air support or armour of your own, unless you can get a side-shot with a RPG-29, RPG-7V with PG7VR rocket, SMAW with HEAA or carry around a Javelin.

But since there can be ringmail, scalemail, chainmail and probably even more things I've missed it doesn't hurt to be specific ;)

The hospitaller is starting to look nice!

Yes, it almost makes my eyes bleed to have to use the Normal size UI with everything being so insanely large on the screen. :D

Btw, I totally love this addon, but I also really, really hate the complete eye-rape that Normal size on the UI is. Is there any chance that MMA will be able to scale properly with UI size in the future, or doesn't the API support that any well?

Sort'a wrong actually. The tanks have HEAT rounds, and it's a vast different between HE and HEAT. HEAT stands for High-Explosive Anti-Tank - yes, but they aren't very high explosive. Unless they hit a hard surface the vast majority of the force of the warhead will ho directly into the ground and be absorbed by it resulting in very poor effect on surrounding soft targets.

/discuss on you too. If the original question is written well enough that line is superfluous. If it is not written well enough /discuss us jsut retarded. People talk if they want to ;) Aside from flaming the most stupid forum-word outside of 4chan I can say that suppressive fire definitely works. The AI will cower if you pour enough lead at them and keep their heads low. Due to how AI works they'll probably still know where you are even if you move and don't shoot, but at least they'll have a harder time firing back.

Yummy yummy in my tummy! Now I need to change pants, OS!