MK1

Great stuff! Congratulations on the first public beta! EDIT: The first thing I noticed was that there's a strange clogging sound where ever you run. I think it's the sound of walking on wood or on some asphalt road but now you hear it even on the grass..

so you are actually making such guns? (here's hoping..)

are you guys planning to add any casemates or naval/105mm guns to the map or as separate objects?

Those images look great! Can't wait to start working on some airborne missions. Damn, I wish you'd have a release coming shortly.. Have you thought about implementing the flooded fields behind Utah somehow? I'm sure they could be done in one way or another. Even if you can't actually drown anyone there it would be nice to have some kind of watery areas.

Agreed. I'd definitely like to see those houses changed into barns and other central european buildings.

Yeah, yeah.. Once I get there.

Wow, that sounds great! I'll PM you the details.

Hi, I've recently started converting my old OFP maps to Arma along with some new ones I've planned to make. However, I'm stuck with a bunch of questions even after going through the tutorials and looking at the BI sample stuff. Creating maps for Arma seems to require a lot more knowledge than working with OFP even before the actual work begins so I'd appreciate some tips and answers. Firstly, I've downloaded all my map data as DEMs (GeoTIFFs). The first problem is with Wilbur. I can get a map with a lot of detail loaded from 3DEM without problems but a medium sized map with a bunch of small islands simply appears empty. Why? However, if I select an even smaller portion, ie one single island around 256x256 pixels it imports perfectly. The second problem is with the satellite textures. I know people suggest one to use Google Earth, but how can I get a 2048x2048 texture out from it when you can only save an area the area size of your screen? Another thing I'd like to know is how does one determine the correct height of the sat texture? I mean, you could always take a texture from higher but then it gets all blurred if you scale it to 2048 pixels. Would it be possible to skip this process and simply apply the textures by hand? My final question is how does one measure the size of a map in comparison with the Arma cell sizes? I've got a 6000x6000 area of San Francisco of which I'm using a portion. How do I know which map size does it correspond to so that the proportions are maintained? I know that's a lot of questions but I really haven't found a proper answer for these issues from other topics. From my experience with OFP I know that creating the rest of the island isn't much of a task other than of patience, but not being able to even get started is really frustrating. Any help would be highly appreciated!

The reason for asking, in fact, is that I'm working on Pacific maps/islands myself and right now the islands feel rather empty without any units..

[sarcazm] Of course, they also fought in Normandy ...[/sarcazm] As much as poles or russians.. Â Yeah yeah, I know. It was aimed more towards the updated Vilas units I guess.

Can I make a wish? Marines and Japanese troops!

Well, PM sent, but I'd still like to continue discussing these topics here as they might prove useful for others too..

Aside from one which was released only as a beta I didn't finish them because of the OFP engine limitations. The beta was East Cotentin peninsula/Normandy, containing only a very detailed town at that time. The rest were different islands and atolls from the Pacific war.

I don't know so much about the damange values or models, but I just noticed that to destroy a Panther tank you needed more than 9 bazooka rockets after the tank had driven over two mines. I can't say I'd know what it requires in real life, but isn't that a bit too much?

looking great! any chance for pacific/usmc troops as well?

By what standards?

And here's a similar one from the other side: http://hotair.com/archive....nalists

Oh dear me.. "South Ossetia's Kokoity said the United States and Europe were responsible for the "genocide" in his nation. "Georgia did not act on its own - most European countries, and the United States, are to blame for the genocide against the South Ossetian people," Kokoity said." http://en.rian.ru/world/20080814/116036401.html I wonder what he plans to achieve with that comment.

I think Nazis are related to WWII. You're already forgetting your own lines. You just keep coming up with your own theories. Wishful? There's nothing wishful in it. Just check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia I've no views on the Yugoslavia matter as I've not studied it at all. Real, as in the source of hostilities when the conflict originally started years ago. Yet you think I'm wishing something and this time I am: that you would answer my question and not go around it for the 10th time. Why do you find it so difficult to image such a hypothetical situation? Sure, but you're the worst kind of person to have a discussion with since you are so strongly biased in your views that even well known facts won't change your mind. You simply want to believe your truths. Sorry to prove you wrong, but I do follow both eastern and western media. I'm not towards west. I condemn the Georgian attack, but also the Russian assault. Our difference is that you think it was legitimate. I'm not gonna argue over a definition of a word here.

You just don't listen, do you? This is a morden day conflict, not WWII. The plane attacked a position on Georgian side. Just check this clip again if you don't belive it. Both sides have, like I already said. It was a UN-based mission. They had their reasons. Yea yea.. when ever peacekeepers are attacked on any peacekeeping mission the peacekeeping country should and has the right to storm the aggressor's country in full affect. Luckily this only happens in your visions. Yes, in this battle it was Georgia, but you need to look at the history on the long run to make any conclusions who's the real aggressor here. I'm not rewriting anything at all, just proving you wrong with facts you don't want to believe. Since you seem to know better than all the world's political analysts what Russia really wants I assume you could tell me what is it that they fear so much in this western world. There's nothing absurd in a hypothetical question. How come it's so difficult for you to answer? Let's say the shelled them by accident or because they want to stage a setting that makes it look like Georgia did it and later on it is revealed who actually did it. Your ability to not answer the question shows that you indeed are very much biased towards Russia and it makes this discussion rather pointless. There are reasons for that which you can find if you go through the history books. Yes there is indeed. They could have retreated their troops and let the UN handle the rest. All in all, Russia is as wrong as Georgia in what they did. The last I looked SO is Georgian territory.

Their reaction was overkill. They violated the sovereignty of a country and meddled with their internal affairs not to mention destroyed their infrastructure and civilian population. And all this without the jurisdiction of the UN and under Putin's orders to retaliate. That's hardly peacekeeping.

First of all, I'd appreciate if you didn't quote different people in same post without even mentioning who you're actually quoting. I'm sure you'll find me something to prove this claim. Don't be such a warmonger. There's always a peaceful resolution that can be negotiated, but it's far easier to go in guns blazing. Once again you've got nothing to prove this with. What you claim makes absolutely no sense at all. Why would a Georgian plane attack Georgian positions after which it would attack Georgian civilians on the Georgian side. WW2 is hardly qualifies as an example. It's not a modern day conflict, it's several countries in war that lasted for years. This Georgian conflict on the other hand was completely an internal affair which escalated into a war between two countries. Oh, and there's the third side also, South Ossetia. I find it hard to believe that the partisans in SO just stod there to be shot at. Who knows, maybe they even went to be the first ones to fire their guns being unsatisfied with their state of affairs and all. It's not so black and white as you see it. I wouldn't count on that. I'm sure Russia would love to get their hands on the oil line that goes through Georgia and an access to the Black Sea ports. Dude, answer the question, it's not that difficult. The question was what if, not why. I haven't misunderstod anything, I'm only trying to ask you what would you find justifiable. Haha, the is the best one yet! Now it's video games we got to blame. And what are you doing on this forum then? I don't support Georgia and I don't support Russia. They both made arses out of themselves in this conflict.

FYI, the Gulf war was authorised by the UN, but the recent Iraq war was not, and I've never said that the latter should be justified. Then the Russian counter attack is hardly a peacekeeping operation, unlike the russians claim. There are better, less hostile ways to solve such incidents as history has shown, but unfortunately it just doesn't belong to the russian way of doing things. Like I quoted earlier it's the peacekeepers mission to maintain security, not to retaliate. Ok, how about a russian attack plane firing at fleeing civilian cars and a BBC camera crew? Besides, Gori was a little more bombed than just for a single building. Just look at the pictures all over the net if you don't believe me. I won't go into the debate of what reasons each side has as I'm sure both have enough to achieve what has happened. No, it's not a militia, but I assume the aforementioned statement applies to any kind of threat. Again, where are your sources? No, wrong. You can't have a cease fire without silencing the guns of both sides. Well, there is, according to ie. wikipedia and frankly, I'd rather believe that source than you. Yes, but my question was that if SO had shelled Russian peacekeepers and Russia attacked SO, would you find it justified? Just trying to see what side are you on here..

Many times, just check the Korean war. But people are generally not that stupid as the puppet Sakashvili is. Many times? I'm not aware of that many. Could you please show me? And Korean war was over 50 years ago! This is the 21st century and we don't deal with things like this in the civilized world, especially under the mandate of the UN. Besides, this hadly was a peacekeeping mission after the hostilities started. The russian assault was not even approved by the UN, unlike the Korean war. And bombing civilian targets like houses, airfields and even the gas and oil lines.. sounds like a pure-hearted peacekeeping mission to me. Depends on the mission. The peacekeepers have rules of engagement and generally the idea is ".. not to go after and kill militia,'' but rather to ''establish and maintain peace and security.'' [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2000_Sept_11/ai_65731076] This is purely your view of the events. There is nothing which would state this as a fact. Not defend, but to observe a ceasefire. And on the complete contrary, even your ex-president Putin "..said that Russia would be compelled to retaliate." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war#cite_note-putinvows-65] That's hardly a part of the peacekeeping operations by the UN. Russia made it personal for Georgia and that's where they went wrong. But you just said this was not war for the russians.. Oh and you sill didn't answer my question wether you find it justified for russians to attack SO had they shelled the russian peacekeepers..

An invasion justifies reinforcements for the peace-keeping side. If the violence goes on and the aggressor shoots from his side of the border it's correct to move in and take him out. It's not just some bombing, it was a fullscale georgian assault. And how many times in the history of the UN has any country started a full scale war with the one of the conflicting sides because of similar actions let me ask you? How about "negotiating a peaceful resolution"? Anyone ever heard of that? And it was not an assault on the russian peacekeepers, but they died in a shelling of the area which was then followed by the assault if I remember correctly. source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/burningIssues/idUKL818726020080808 Tell me this, had Russia attacked SO if the peacekeepers died of SO shelling? I'm not trying to defend either side here, and who ever started this should be held reponsible, but clearly the russian intervention has been overkill.