Inkompetent

It is the animations that controls how fast one moves, and we can't modify the animation speeds. It might be possible to do by adding several new animations to have a degrading speed once one get close to total exhaustion. I don't really know about the posibilities we have to put in new animations into the movement system.

Everything on the list but #11 has been acknowledged, is being worked on, or has already been fixed. Since ACE mainly portrays USA and Russia and their conflicts the chances for a Panzerfaust-3 to be included are very, very, very small.

I'm quite sure this has been mentioned earlier, but I'd like to see a possibility to alter values from the config on the fly in the game. Per default an object would simply contain a pointer to its own class (as I assume it does now), but if this is modified it'd get own instance of variables. My main gripe is the workarounds needed to create air-burst munitions, since with the above possible I could catch the shell with a fired EH and alter its timeToLive variable to the desired value, but I'm sure there are hundreds of other uses to this as well, be it equippable body armour altering armour values, wear&tear on weapons changing their built-in dispersion, etc.

It does, as long as the units in the single players missions have the correct init-line to have them make use of GL3.

1) You only need one instance of XEH running, and if you use ACE it should be ACE's version. Just use the .pbo to make GL3 compatible with XEH, but don't the supplied XEH .pbo file. 2) Since groups in a mission need the correct init-line to make use of GL3 missions not made for use with GL3 will not use it. You'll have to modify the mission manually by making sure to add the correct code to the init-line of all units that you want to use GL3. 3) Open the Warfare.pbo (with for example UnPbo) in your ArmA/AddOns directory, and either put the folder it in your C:\Documents and Settings\UserName\My Documents\ArmA\ProfileName\MPmissions directory and open it in the editor, or just open the mission.sqm file in a text editor and add the following to every vehicle/squad leader you want to use GL3: init="GL3_Group = group this" Pack the .pbo again, and rename it to Warfare_GL3 or something like that. There are probably much better ways to make alternative Warfare missions to have them make use of the Warfare.pbo anyway, but since I've never tried I give the clumsy but more or less working way :P

Wonderful to see a new version of GroupLink! Fantastic!

Nice post, Total! Good some solid posts crushing myths

What's that? Mission-oriented PvP?

Congratulations, BIS!

XEH 1.91 is XEH 1.90 but with some ACE additions afaik, so no addon built for using XEH 1.90 should have problems running with ACE's version of XEH

Yes, I can atm at http://stats.swec.se/server/list see there is 932 players online, so yeah... But on the PvP again: Indeed, there were some fantastic CTF maps in OFP, and I can't really see why that wouldn't work in ArmA. I do agree with Q though. Take popular maps that are made by the community and stick them into ArmA2. Even though ArmA comes with the lovely ability to download missions on the fly when connecting to a server, it doesn't hurt with a few different and good maps to start with, to give flavours of Warfare, CTF, TDM and alike.

Why does PvP have to be shoebox DM? ArmA is HORRIBLE for shoebox fighting. It isn't meant for that. If one wants it there is both CoD and BF2 that does the job 100 times better, but on the contrary would be utter crap for fighting at distance. Judging from the TvT maps running on public servers I understand if it isn't many playing it. Not a single person cooperates, communicates, or does anything logical at all for that matter. It's usually an on orgy in e-peen measuring where everyone want the biggest guns. On the contrary I just now (after the release of ACE) started playing on the TacticalGamer server, where one of the missions is a random location TvT mission on Sahrani with just one infantry squad on each team fighting over a random objective. The combat zone isn't bigger than one square kilometer, but it's perfect for that scale of infantry combat. This kind of TvT play is awesome. But if TvT has to mean "twitch-play in shoebox sized map where e-peen is more important than communication", then I'd rather not have TvT at all in ArmA.

Added to the Project Tools. Thanks for link.

800 lines of config for a single version of the vehicle? Wow. It looks fantastic though, so it seems to have been worth the struggle! Keep up the good work on it! One can't get enough VDV in the world!

This is one of the best addons I've seen in that regard. Instead of getting tons of F-16 versions lots of people works to make one version as good as possible, contributing with what parts of modelling, configing, scripting, texturing and SFX that they have knowledge of. Wish more (of course not all. Some choice of what addon to use for a specific vehicle/weapon/unit/sound is nice ) addons would hop onto this train and help making fewer and better addons, rather than a jungle of half-finished ones.

Holy guacamole! This looks really, really promising! Keep up the seemingly awesome work!

Wow! That looks incredible, Mandoble! Really, really sweet looking (and sounding! !

ace_config_men.pbo Use UnRap from Kegety's Tools pack to unbinarize the config.bin and mod away

Working on a new system for disposable launchers, in which this bug will disappear, if it hasn't already before that.

I think that at least the Russians have PG-7VL HEAT rockets as standard, instead of the old PG-7V one. The sights on the RPG-7 is configured after the PG-7V, so if you use a PG-7VL rocket you'll have to double all sighting adjustments, due to it being a heavier rocket (i.e. if you want to shoot a target 100m away, use the 200m line on the sights). If you'd use the PG-7VR (Tandem HEAT) you should always aim at the 250m mark, and never shoot at targets further than 150m away.

Special forces are selected partially thanks to their extreme physical endurance, so to me it seems only logical that they don't get tired as fast as a normal grunt. They look beyond tiredness and ache in a way most normal soldiers can't, they *are* most often in a better physical condition, and they are trained to be able to function even when exhausted and in pain. They deserve some extra stamina in ACE if nothing else

Also, everyone, do remember that the body armour and kevlar isn't included in the displayed weight. If you carry 30kg of gear that is in EXCESS of a 16kg Interceptor vest, a kevlar helmet, combat vest, BDU, boots, etc. That means it's well over 50kg of gear total. Good luck running far with that. As comparison the ideal combat weight as calculated by the USMC is roughly 30kg of gear depending on the soldier's own weight. This means that you should load yourself with about 10kg of gear in ACE to achieve that. And for you people arguing about that one has to slow down before blacking out: No, you don't. Just because most people CHOOSE to slow down but keep going when they get tired, there is nothing that says that one can't keep moving by sheer force of will, even if means starting to black out. If you want to avoid blacking out, then choose to slow down in time.

There's too much on the list to count, actually. Both new things and bugfixes are being worked on by a lot of people and the list is LONG. I don't think there are any urgent plans on Chinook replacement though. There are many things higher on the priority list than to polish something that already works. How many changes are visible or noticably different to 1.0 I'm not sure of though ^^

What missions are we talking about? Stock missions in ArmA, or custom ones? Due to for example the wound system missions will have to be designed with another approach than before, since the whole dead/alive bit isn't black and white anymore, but a shade of grey. Changing triggers from 'No BLUFOR/REDFOR' to other variants, possibly with small scripts connected to them, and more extensive use of radio messages, multiple mission outcomes and such would probably be required to make 'ACE-proof' missions. In the end I really do urge people to get and learn to use the BattleCenter. It might take some getting used to, but it is a very, very powerful tool in mission making, *and* it helps the AI perform better on a large scale by having groups trying to surround the enemy and stuff like that. For traditionalists what I wrote further up still remains true though. One will have to alter the way one designs missions a bit to adapt to the mechanics of ACE, and when that bump is overcome I sure hope it'll be more enjoyable than stock ArmA

All of them are on the to-do list. I can't say when they'll be done, but keep your eyes peeled when the next beta release comes and you might be lucky. @ 1in1class: You can always create scripts to include in your missions, either standalone ones or something in the init.sqs file in your missions, that is reusable between every mission. Will take more work to make a first working version, but it'll save you the pain of editing the init-line of every single unit in every single mission (if that is what you do at the moment).