maddogx

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.

That's not subliminal. This is: <span style='color:#ECF2F9'>Get angry enough to make your own FSM mod... please!!</span> ... Back on topic: Many major bugs and issues have been addressed in this patch, and I'm sure they're not stopping at that. So many people are demanding patches ASAP and at the same time demand this, that and the other bug to be fixed. But it doesn't work that way. They have fixed a sh*tload of bugs in this patch and they're not gonna stop at that. There will be more patches to come. Â

Hear hear. Hamachi is ok for less latency sensitive games such as Command & Conquer, but I wouldn't use it with ArmA.

Most IT techies (such as myself) will advise you to stay away from Vista for at least another year. There are still just too many problems with that OS. Unless you seriously know what you're doing, stick to tried and true XP.

Actually they no longer get sunk, they are kicked off immediately. Too much danger of them still somehow causing havoc.

@Mr.Peanut: That will only work for player units. What if I wanted to apply it to an AI unit? I've tried scripts like this on AI but to no effect. Also, as for infinity loops, I use a workaround: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> for [{_loop=0},{_loop>=0},{_loop=_loop}] do { Â // Code }; There is no limitation on that.

Flying in 1.07b feels a lot better to me. I'm no pilot but the flight model just feels a lot more natural with the CG fixed.

We don't really know much about the server's netcode, apart from the fact that there are some gaping security holes in it, and that it can get really laggy if the server is not set up correctly. I've seen servers with only 3 or 4 people lag like hell, and then servers with 30+ people run completely smooth.

Going a bit slow over the past few days, since I've been playing around with beta 1.07 Â . I'll be getting back on the ACF as soon as my hangover dies down... last night was baaad... So now been a month and the 108 will be released soon....whats the progress MadDogX ?? As you said - 1.08 is just around the corner. I'm going to wait and see how well BIS' .bisign system works (as it has apparently been fixed in 1.08) and whether it is capable of effectively keeping cheaters and griefers out. If it does, I don't think we will really be needing SWAF-ACF. Otherwise I will most likely start by releasing the scripts first to mission creators and then to the general public. In theory I could be finished with the script by this evening, as it only needs some polishing and testing. But it will definitely need another beta test, preferrably a public test on a large scale mission such as Evolution, if I get permission to host a modified version. Once 1.08 is out, I think I will start a poll to see who really wants this anticheat tool and who doesn't.

For one, yes it would probably be too cumbersome to implement, and it would also be a lot harder to use than the current system. There is such a thing as "too much realism". Â

i'd ban him just for that if I can't pronounce your name over TS, you're out :D:D Truuu... Traaa.... Trot? ... Nope, that's not it.... ah, sod it - BANNED! Jokes aside... Hehehe, actually come to think of it, most hackers I've seen did use leet speak in their names. They must actually think it's cool. The only way to effectively get around people changing their ID would be to force them to register an online accout with their ID, like in BF2/2142, before they can play online. I personally would be all for it, but many people are against it.

You're probably right on that one. Although even a team of seven or eight experienced people could probably get a fairly large map done pretty fast (meaning within a few weeks). @Romolus: Ok, now I get ya! Â

You're probably right on that one. Although even a team of seven or eight experienced people could probably get a fairly large map done pretty fast (meaning within a few weeks). @Romolus: Ok, now I get ya! Â

As has already been partially discussed here, the feature you mentioned could be used to implement adjustable sights. But, as far as we are informed, it will not be in version 1.08 and we are not sure if BIS will ever impmement it. I believe a feature request for this already exists in the bugtracker.

This is mostly because of bad server settings and/or insufficient hardware. The best advice is to look for servers that don't have these problems and avoid the others. As far as I know, BI is improving this in the next patch.

Well, to a certain extent I agree with you, but there are different kinds of cheaters. There's the guys who just want to be better than others to fight their inferiority complexes, then there are the griefers who want to destroy the fun for other people because they are unable to form normal social bonds, some just make hacks for the money.... Most people who use cheats either have one or the other psychological disorder or they are just immature, but not all of them are trying to compensate for miniscule genitalia (although some undoubtedly are  ). There have been a few quite interesting studies about online cheaters recently. Once you realize how pitiful most of these people are, it really does make you feel kind of sorry for them. Poor guys. Â

Vote Admin can also be your worst enemy. If you've ever been on a server with a group of griefers voting themselves as admin you'll know what I mean. My BF2142 public server was actually "hijacked" once, by a clan. Whenever someone (including myself) joined the server, they would immediately vote kick him off. Luckily in BF2/2142 we have external admin tools, so I banned the lot of them. In ArmA we don't have these tools, so it can be virtually impossible to stop griefers, unless you restart the server and ban them on sight.

@Romolus: No one ever said it's simple to just throw together an island and a couple of tools. That's why it's supposed to be a collaborative project. The more people working together, the less work everyone has to do. Btw. I have tried to make an island for OFP and yes it is a lot of work. No one ever stated otherwise. I don't really understand your reaction here - it almost seems like you are personally offended by the idea.

@Romolus: No one ever said it's simple to just throw together an island and a couple of tools. That's why it's supposed to be a collaborative project. The more people working together, the less work everyone has to do. Btw. I have tried to make an island for OFP and yes it is a lot of work. No one ever stated otherwise. I don't really understand your reaction here - it almost seems like you are personally offended by the idea.

I think the idea is great, if we use the Google Earth maps only as a reference. It would be cool to see some real world locations realistically modelled into ArmA.

I think the idea is great, if we use the Google Earth maps only as a reference. It would be cool to see some real world locations realistically modelled into ArmA.

I've been working on a script collection called SWAF AntiCheat, but I've been a bit reluctant to release it, because BI claims to have properly implemented the .bisign method in 1.08. If that is true, the anti-cheat scripts shouldn't be needed I think. If that still doesn't keep the cheaters out though, I'll finish up and release the scripts.

Well the thing is, it's not just about going and putting in the adjustable scope functions and then releasing it in the next patch. If they did that, we'd immediately get five or six threads with people whining about how the scope adjustment is unrealistic and needs to be fixed... It takes some time and a lot of research to get it done properly, and my guess is they are too busy finishing up version 1.08 at the moment. With a bit of luck they will either do it themselves in the future, or they will just lay the foundation for modders.

It is possible to simulate body armor and frederf is on the right track. I played around with those config sections back in OFP, although I think they were slightly different, and it worked very well. I'm pretty sure there will be a mod out soon that will add body armor, most likely ACE will do it.

Does that mean tanks can now be modded to have automatic lead and a LRF? Â not quite, but a realistic(but inverted) GL luncher sight is possible now That's "launcher" not "luncher" mate . Â Regarding the different muzzle and view vectors, it could also possibly be extended to implement adjustable scopes in the future. Something a lot of sniper fans would enjoy. The list is totally awesome - I'm really looking forward to it.