maddogx

You can't really compare PCs and consoles, because consoles normally use a completely different architecture. A 300Mhz console processor isn't necessarily equivalent to a 300Mhz i386 processor. A computation cycle on a console will perform a lot more calculations specific to the consoles architecture. Since you're a programmer, I'll put it this way: (console Mhz) != (PC Mhz) Also, as for ArmA, the 1.08 changelog implies that there will be major performance improvements, among other things. By the way, please try and add a bit more punctuation when you write. I found it very hard to read your post, becuase it wasn't always clear when a sentence ended and a new one started.

That's what I thought. Those guys will stop at nothing to damage the community in any way possible. Problem is, the more you hate them, the more kicks they get out of being antisocial gits.

I'm afraid I can't reach that site because of an IP ban... I wonder why... Â Could you please quote the text you are referring to?

The server needs to have a profile for this. You must put "-profile=server" into the server's startup line. This will force the server to create a user profile called server in your My Documents folder. The simplest thing to do then, would be to deactivate 3rd person view your main player profile and then copy that profile into the server's profile folder, delete the old server profile and then rename the new one to Server.

Even if he was cheating, accusing him of it on a public forum will only cause a (probably angry) reaction from him, thus can be seen as a flamebait. You would react the same way, if I made similar accusations. Admitting to using pirated games on this forum is generally prohibited. And no, not everyone uses pirate copies. I bought my legit copy on the day ArmA was released.

May I quote you from another thread? Find the original here. And now you are accusing Matt Rochelle of cheating, strangely remembering his name from a few nights ago. Not only has Matt posted on multiple threads that he dislikes cheaters, but he also helped me create my anti-cheat script. I'm sorry, but you are an obvious troll. Reported.

I already posted it in the bugtracker a few months ago. It really isn't a serious bug though, because you don't normally notice it. I mean, who stares at the belt while firing?

Actually the texture color is perfect, because I do have very light skin. (The sun an evil monster is. Hide from it we must! ) In general the texture fits onto the head very well, mainly because I spent about 2 hours trying to get it right. I bet if BI would give us the option of slightly adjusting the head size on all 3 axes (x,y,z), we could make our heads more realistic. I guess that's a bit too RPG-ish though.

@Scatterbrain: Maybe there is a slight delay. Who knows, maybe they found a few more bugs they had to fix. We just don't know, but we can be sure the devs aren't just holding back the patch to annoy us. If you want a patch that fixes bugs and doesn't cause any new ones, it's best to wait until they think it's ok to release it. It would be great if the patch came out today though.

Mission makers listen up, over the past few days, Matt Rochelle and I have been working on a script-based anti-cheat framework for Armed Assault. Just now we completed the first successful alpha test using a known ArmA hack made by a well known group of griefers. As I said, the test was successful. People using the cheat are stripped of all weapons and moved into the ocean. This cheat protection is not limited to specific hacks - it will detect any cheat that changes config entries in Armed Assault by comparing them to the server's config. It will also detect and single out players that change their name during a match (I heard some griefers do this, so we implemented this just to be safe). Be advised though: this script obviously cannot detect sophisticated D3D hacks such as wallhacks - it is limited to config changes only. SWAF-ACF can be included into any mission with ease. No additional scripting knowledge required. You can follow it's development in this thread. At this point in time we need to test if the additional bandwidth caused by the script at the beginning of a mission has any negative impact on gameplay. Although the first tests were very promising, we haven't tested it on a server full of people yet. For this reason, we would like 20 people to participate in a small closed beta on one of our servers. The anti-cheat script will be incorporated into a fairly large coop mission, so we can test it under real life conditions. Since the actual functionality of the script has already been proven, there is no need for anyone to install any cheats for testing purposes - but feel free, if you want to see what happens if you do  . The closed beta is scheduled for Saturday, 6pm GMT.Anyone who wishes to participate, please send an IM to Matt Rochelle. He will give you the server address and password. Once the first version of SWAF-ACF is complete we will release it to the public, so that mission makers can include it in their MP missions. This should get rid of the vast majority of casual griefers. Future versions will include a voting framework and possibly some more advanced features - but that's still to be seen.

Here's my face.jpg - I actually used a photo of myself to create it, but it doesn't look much like me in-game . I guess it's because of the wrong head shape.

Actually I believe they are patching bugs and working on the modding tools at the same time. I guess they'll release them as soon as they are fully translated to english and bug-free.

Blurring the aimpoint outline is something I can understand, due to DoF, but it adjustung the dot size actually realistic? I mean is it adjustable on real modern scopes?

But that's the problem right there. The crew bails out even if the vehicle is drivable. All it takes for the crew to abandon the vehicle is for the main gun is to get damaged. The canFire command is a lot of help there.

What if during the mission the crew disembarks for a 'briefing', then the vehicle is hit once contact had been made and the crew bails out but the vehicle isn't fully damaged. For a scipting noob this isn't as easy as you make it seem  . Well, there will always be special situations in which one or the other script logic would have to be reworked to accomodate for the situation. It's always trial and error, and "script noobs" can learn from that. As for your initial issue, the question is, if the crew shouldn't continue on their waypoint after disembarking a disabled vehicle, what else should they do? If BI were to change that part of the AI logic, there would be people complaining that AI crew don't follow their waypoints after disembarking a disabled vehicle. It's always dependent on the situation. Sometimes the AI do what you want in special situations and sometimes they don't. In the latter case, we have a powerful scripting language at our disposal to make them do what we want.

It is easily possible to check via script whether the crew has disembarked, and then give them new orders. So yeah, BI really doesn't need to worry about it.

Wow, that is a good idea. Perhaps not necessarily the freelook button, because I use that, but an extra button for adjusting sights in combination with moving the mouse would probably be very intuitive. Nice idea.

That was possibly the most horrible experience I ever had! I literally tried clicking on every word of that sentence, hoping it was a link. Shame on you for making me feel so stupid! You really had me there. Damn it would be so sweet if the patch was released tomorrow. <jedi mind trick> BI, the patch is ready to be released! Seriously! </ jedi mind trick>

Just because there isn't a moderator around, doesn't mean you can go around flaming/flame baiting. Anyone here can advise or ask you to behave. Failing to respond like an adult just shows an even greater lack of maturity.

No shit. Like with the game eh? Security announcement: Would all passengers please keep their flamebaits less obvious.

I've seen that review before. That guy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, for the most part. I image him writing the review like this: "Hmm... ok let's see here..." *starts ArmA* "Ok, let's look at the settings... advanced? Nah better leave that. Sh*t man, this game is really stuttering on my brand new GF5600. Better set it to low." *starts campaign* "WTF is this? Where do I select terrorist or counter terrorist? F*ckin autobalance! And where can I buy my weapons? Better look at the controls..." *opens control menu* "What the? There's like a thousand controls in here... no buy weapons button.... and where's jump?! Ok the controls suck..." ... "Damn I wanna get out of this f*cking jeep thing. Dude, the graphics suck like hell. I must have bin sitting here like half an hour. Ok, gameplay sucks too..." ...

When you run arma in window mode, it doesn't keep the normal size settings. You have to either change the window size settings in your config file, or manually resize the window. You can resize it by dragging the top left corner.

Hi guys, as yet another of my on-going Armed Assault scripting projects, I am working on a basic anti-cheat framework. This obviously cannot detect things like wallhacks, but it does detect if people have modified their config values. I have already successfully tested a basic alpha version of the script, and I plan to run a closed beta test on the SWAF server very soon. Confirmed features: Possible future features: Info: The detection of config changes can possibly cause a minor slowdown at the beginning of the match, as each client must exchange some data with the server. The closed beta test will show how bad this slowdown is, so I can adjust the checking process accordingly. Right now we need some suggestions/ideas: 1. How should offenders be punished? Obviously we can't kick them via script, so we need to think of something else. My current idea is to remove all their weapons and place them on a remote part of the map so they can't do any damage. A friend of mine said I should cause their games to crash with an endless loop, but I think that's a bit drastic. What do you guys think? 2. How should the voting system work? The current voting system in ArmA is useless because most people don't know how to vote. I plan to change this by making a voting dialog for punishing griefers, and including clearly visible hints when a vote is in progress. I am still at the start of writing the voting system, and I need some ideas for this: - What percentage of players should be required for a successful vote? 50%? - Should non-voters be discounted? For example: if there are 20 players on a server and only 5 of them vote, 3 for and 2 against, should the vote still be successful? - How long should the voting process last? - What delay should there be before a player can call another vote. (To avoid cheaters calling random votes to protect themselves) Please let me know what you think. Need feedback.

Not really. It is currently used to have 3D grenade launcher sights. Methods to make adjustable sights in ArmA are too cumbersome to bother with IMO. And probably would be buggy. Buggy? Â How the heck would you make it buggy? Â I mean its not hard, you make it, so when you press a button, such as scroll on mouse like in JOTR, it moves the gun up for 100m, then 200m, then 300 and so forth. I really dont see a way you can screw that up, if Novalogic can do it, then anyone can. It's not as simple as you think, because we can't actually change the scope or muzzle vector in game. We would have to resort to workarounds, thus going with a high risk of bugs, and potentially not even getting it right at all. Please people stop comparing ArmA to other games, it is and always will be apples and oranges.

A point no one has mentioned so far is that even if we were able to create huge maps that are the size of whole countries or whatever, it would still be far beyond the scope of ArmA. No one needs 1000x1000km maps, it's just ridiculous because no battle will ever be fought over that entire area. We're better off going with a maximum of about 100x100km, which is just 1% of the size but still more than enough, when you consider how big Sahrani is.