madrussian

You shouldn't need to move any files or have any of them in more than one place. Should go like this: 1. Start with clean OFP Resistance 1.96 install, with nothing additional in the addon folders. 2. Copy in the @WGL5 and @COC folders into the main Flashpoint directory. Â (Or run the installers if available which will create the folders.) 3. Create a shortcut pointing to: flashpointresistance.exe -mod=@wgl5;@coc This should work... Probably want to reread the readme for both mods, just in case either conflicts with anything I'm saying. Â Check specifically if either mod has any requirements for other addons. Â I installed them so long ago I don't recall. I doubt it, but it's possible COC UA does not need any other addons, but the example missions do? Â (if so, likely other COC addons?) If that still doesn't work, you may need to go get the editor103 addon. Â Lots of addons need this one but don't mention it, because it's become more or less a standard thing that people tend forget about. Good luck.

Just wondering, what do you set their accuracy to? I tried 0.0 for all and it still seems way too high as compared to good ole OFP... Â (Haven't had much chance to experiment with this though yet...)

IMO, standard "snipe-bang-dead-yawn" game modes grow boring on about the second respawn. Â Unfortunately that's all that most games offer. Â There just aren't that many coop games out there, and it just makes sense that people are going to take advantage when coop is actually available. Â Heck, coop is one of the main reasons I play this game. Â (btw- Thanks Frederf for the "s-b-d-y" term... it fits! ) What a good part of the coop debate really comes down to imo is fear of death. Â The problem with the standard "snipe-bang-dead-yawn" game modes is, there are no reprocussions when you die. Â No matter the objectives, the game quickly becomes a stat-contest. Â To me (and many others) that's not a bit interesting. [Now, I should take a moment here and recognise the fact that Evolution and some other coops do have unlimited respawn... but the majority don't.] As far as the fighting AI vs fighting human players debate goes, both have their advantages, but there's something important to note here. In a majority of situations, human players don't make very immersive enemies. Â Think about it in terms of mission design... Â Human players can't/won't role-play the majority of necessary roles. Â Case in point: They won't post guard duty in "safe" mode, pretending to not be aware that they are about to be in a fire-fight. Â Human beings just WON'T do that! IMO, an ideal mission, whether coop or versus, has to have AIs, and the ratio should really be about 90% AI to 10% human. So I suppose to me, the game mode per say isn't the most important thing. Â The level of immersion is. Â Coop simply offers a higher level of immersion on so many levels. To each his own though.

Cool... just went and checked the SLX thread again and sounds like he quashed all those ctd bugs that were there when it came out. Â Got to try again now. Â Please tell me you are totally just kidding here. If there's anything in ArmA I'd like to see replaced, it's those god-awful voices. Â Bad enough in the radio, even worse when they actually say that stuff in-game. Â

Tried SLX a while back and was impressed... Does ayone know if he ever added dynamic speech to SLX for OFP? The more I think about it probably not, as he specifically designed it to work hand it hand with ECP (which would handle all the dynamic speech). So hopefully Solus will add an ECP style dynamic speech component to SLX for ArmA! Â (To me, OFP/ArmA is kinda stale without ECP style dynamic speech. )

I'd like to try this mod but I can't get it working. Â Just to get some clarrification here... I've never really given a thought as to which version has which copy protection. Can someone clue me in? Â Please don't spam me if this is all wrong, but here are the versions of ArmA (I think) I know about: ------------------------------------------------- Version: Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Copy protection: Czech/German retail - ? Czech/German download - ? 505 European retail - ? 505 European download - ? Atari US retail - ? Atari US download - ? ------------------------------------------------- Thanks! fyi- I have 505 European retail

Glad to hear you're making progress on this. Sorry about the gargantuan post here, but (just reread all this) apparently I’ve got a lot to say! I've spent a considerable amount of time contemplating about how the ECP guys accomplished everything they did with their dynamic speech.  So hopefully I can give you an idea or two… First of all, good call on using alternate samples as opposed to the default things the BIS guys say.  It will be way more immersive that way and also users will be able to include their own preferred samples.  (I’m actually hoping to eventually replace the silly BIS speech, which is quite unrealistic imo) Do you really only intend to only implement the dynamic speech with respect to the player/his side, etc?  Given OFP/ArmA’s ability to swap out players for AI ad hoc, and ArmA’s new selectPlayer command, seems like it would be more versatile to have no requirements specific to the player per say. Rather, the way ECP worked, you could “register" the desired units, on a case-by-case basis.  This way, if you need a specific unit to not say anything for one reason or another (i.e. a prisoner), you could simply just not register him. To register a unit, you just call the registration script in his init line.  Then that script adds him to all the right global arrays, launches additional necessary scripts, etc. It’s important to have a single registration script for units of all sides, that way you’re idea of mass activation via a trigger makes sense.  Again, this is how ECP did things.  A single trigger could get everyone (on all sides) registered, and it might look like this: 50000 X 50000 (the whole map), Anybody, Once, When present, Activation=â€[this] call registerSpeech†So using this method, you can register in mass, but you can also get any new units registered (individually) as well. imo, it might be better to keep the dynamic speech and the “searchmode†as separate systems.  That way everyone can use the dynamic speech if desired, even if they don’t need the “searchmode†for their purposes. First of all, for the dynamic speech, I see two distinct types, and to really go all out, I think we need both: Ambient – General things that units say based on their current behaviour (randomly selected from the associated sample pool.) Event Driven – Specific things that units say based on specific events that occur.  (i.e. yelling “Armor!†to identify a newly detected tank, “Incoming!†the moment a tank fires, “Grenade!†when they see one fly.)  These are also selected randomly from a specific sample pool. As far as the Ambient speech goes, probably you’re best bet here is to monitor the unit’s behaviour.  The nice thing about behaviour is, it changes automatically based on the situation and all you have to do is monitor it.  For example, if the units are in idle mode (“SAFEâ€) and they get ambushed, they will automatically go into combat mode.  If they kill all of the enemy, after some period of time they will revert to “SAFE†mode. So, while they are in “SAFE†mode, use the idle samples.  Same idea for “AWARE†and “COMBAT†modes.  Perhaps units in “CARELESS†mode shouldn’t say anything?  [i think the only way they end up in “CARELESS†mode is if you put them there... and they never leave that mode under any circumstances unless you tell them.  Note that you can force a higher level of behaviour (for as long as desired via setBehaviour), but that’s the speech you want anyway at that point.] Best part about this method is, it’s all automatic with no complex knowsabout matrix comparisons required.  Plus all that knowsabout stuff has the potential to get processor-heavy, especially as you increase the number of units, depending on the frequency of your loops. I do think knowsabout has its place though… For example, you probably would need to use knowsabout for any new “searchmode†stuff.  Also, one thing to consider- there are already a few “searchmode†type scripts out there, such as grouplink2 and the upcoming DAC for ArmA.  I’ve no doubt you could put together another good one, but just the speech pack project may be a whopper as-is! As far as the Event Driven speech goes, eventhandlers are the way to go. Trapping the “firedâ€, “hitâ€, and to a lesser degree “killed†events was one of the vital mechanisms that made ECP DSAI tick.  All their Event Driven speech relied on eventhandlers.  Not sure if you were able to check out ECP for OFP yet, but they really did nail all this stuff.  Playing with their DSAI pack for all this time has allowed me to start thinking in terms of just how exactly to bring this concept to ArmA.  For instance, what all sample pools are required for a given side?  Here’s a starter list: Ambient Pools: Safe Aware Combat Event Driven Pools: New Armor Identified Grenade Inbound Near Miss Taking Heavy Fire Retreat Suspicion Hit Killed (different than hit?) Then there’s the little touches that ECP captured, like units will only talk if there’s someone to talk to (i.e. they won’t talk to themselves ). As far as nearby misses goes, off the top of my head, the only way I can think of to detect them would be to trap all fired events (from all units), and then follow them to their destination…then check the impacts distance from each unit that has been registered.  This would need to be highly optimized or it would likely get processor heavy.  [Note there is a set of supression scripts that I'm assuming must already do this, but I haven't had time to check them out yet.] You mentioned suspicion… not sure how much you know about knowsabout (hahaha pardon the pun ), but here’s my understanding on the way it works: Bob approaches an enemy unit Ted.  Although in-game Ted has not visibly detected Bob yet, his knowsabout level with respect to Bob rises.  If Bob withdraws, eventually Ted’s knownsabout level to Bob will slowly drop to zero.  However, if Bob continues to approach Ted, Ted’s knownsabout level to Bob eventually passes some threshold, and then suddenly Ted will become “aware†of Bob ingame, and takes evasive action.  (I’m sure someone has documented the knowsabout threshold for ArmA somewhere.)  Be aware that some people are reporting that there is an issue with knowsabout in ArmA, where the level does not gradually drop off like it did in OFP. OK, having said all that, perhaps for suspicion, you could check and see if a unit’s knowsabout to another has surpassed a REDUCED threshold.  Then kick them off into suspicion mode (which will most likely need to suspend the behaviour-based-ambient-speech functionlity).  If they find anybody, your script will need to detect that and stop saying the suspicious remarks (and reenable the behaviour-based-ambient-speech functionlity, so that the "COMBAT" samples will kick in automatically). I'm fairly sure that some of the group-link type scripts others have created have already implemented "reduced-knowsabout-value" based searching.  Maybe all you'd need to do is monitor these existing scripts with the dynamic speech stuff, simply tracking who's in "searchmode" and who's not, and setting your speech-modes appropriately. I'd love to help in a more hands way... I've no doubt I could make all this happen given enough time (I'm thinking a considerable amount here).  Unfortunately though, I'm getting hammered by RL atm (including 2 weddings in 2 weekends back-to-back)  Anyhow, there's my brain dump on how I'd get started... hope some of this is helpful in your endeavor.  I’ll keep an eye out for this one indeed! (Also, if you'd like me to elaborate on any of this, I'll be more than happy to... good luck.)

Thanks for this great extension to DSAI, CameronMcDonald. Â This one (and ECP in general) have keep me coming back to good ole OFP. Â Some day maybe ArmA will catch up. Â Got a question... Does anyone know of any other DSAI speech packs in other languages? I currently know of only one other... A few months ago I stumbled upon a set of Vietmanamese samples that some lad had assembled for DSAI. Sure sounded like he had a lot of quality samples put together. Â Since then, I've gotten more into Vietman missions but for the life of me I can't seem to locate it now. Â Anyone know where to find that DSAI sound bank or any others?!? (With the current ECP setup it's sooooo easy to swap them out... Â Thanks again Cam! )

Well said, but you've gotta admit Evolution does have a lot of variety all packed up in that one mission! However, as much as I like Evolution the main problem I see currently is afaik you can't lose it. Â So you either keep playing till you win or till you get bored. Â Now, I fully expect we'll see some "losable" variations of Evolution eventually... I for one am partial to limited respawn. Â (Not necessarily just one life though) Anyhow, as you say there are plenty of missions out there... Â

I too love the DAC and at one point spent considerable time dissecting Silola's code to see how everything worked... Fascinating stuff! Sickboy, Haven't tried you system out yet (intend to dive in over the w/e) but based on everything I've read, sounds like you've got a real winner here!  Here's a few initial requests: First off, if you are able to add in the bases/stations idea (which sounds very cool), might it be a good idea to keep the original method of reduction as an option.  May still be useful for various things. Appears someone already mentioned implementing the ability too add pre-existing groups to the system via a command on the fly (as opposed to system generated units).  What would really steal the show would be the ability to break the groups back out on command. So really talking about two new commands here.  For the moment, let’s call them addGroup and removeGroup.  (Just pulled these names off the top of my head.) As an example, say you've got several AI zones, each with some number of generated enemy groups, all running the various AI enhancement scripts.  Suppose based on some dynamic event in the mission, you would like for one or more of these groups to leave their zone on a temporary hiatus and go perform some specific activity (requiring full control over them).  In this case you’d call removeGroup, which would remove them the system.  Then you could send them away to perform the said task, and afterwards if desired reincorporate them into the system via addGroup. Now, based on my experimentation to do this in the DAC code (due to reduction and other factors), I realize it's likely something of a tall order.  But hopefully not impossible… Not to mention a way to expand the possibilities for mission makers many-fold!  Having said all that, if you like the removeGroup idea and wish to implement it, my guess is putting it in now would be far easier than later (due to all the many additional ai layers/other stuff you intend to add). Anyhow, good luck with future versions.  I haven't a doubt I'm in for a real treat here. Â

Chalk up another vote for the collapse/tiered squad control idea. Just make sure the AI can use it independantly too! Â Also need to make sure you can freely mix human players with AI at any position in the tier AND be able to swap them out freely w/o issue. Â (i.e. System musn't break when using selectPlayer.) Should also point out it's important to keep the current group member system while adding in command of the subgroups. Â So you could have a mix of the normal units in your group you control plus seperately the new subgroups. Â That way the colonel can command the grunts remotely while keeping his personal protection force! Here's another thought for all this... I'm not sure the commander of a given subgroup should be able to select and command an individual unit in that subgroup. Â Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having subgroups? Â My initial thoughts on this are that the menu to command the selected subgroup should be far more general than the current squad control menu. Perhaps though, it should be possible to establish fine control over a given subgroup, temporarily taking control away from the groupleader? Â Thinking that might turn into a real mess. Yeah, probably better to stay with more general command of subgroups... You give the subgroup a general order and let the squad leaders sort out how to get it done!

Hmmmm... sounds like maybe I found an anim bug then? Â plaintiff1, I wonder what we are doing differently? Not in front of my ArmA at the moment, but here's how I've set up my controls. I use ASDF for standard movement: 'A' = left 'S' = back 'D' = forward (jog) 'F' = right Then I use: 'Shift' = turbo 'E' = move slow So holding just 'D' jogs... and then if I hold 'Shift' as well (while 'D' is held) sprinting is initiated. With that run-down on my control setup, here's the problem: If I start in stopped standing position, I hold 'Shift', then hold 'D', he sprints, as expected. Â However, it is immediate with no animation transition routine from stopped to sprint. Â If I start in stopped crouched position, it gets even worse. Â He goes directly from stopped crouched to full bore standing sprint with no animation transition routine what-so-ever. Â If someone would be so kind as to repeat this issue, I'll gladly get it submitted as a bug. Â (Sounds like "forward jog" + "turbo" = sprint may be the key here.)

Here's the biggie for me, acceleration: There is currently NO transition from stopped to full blown sprint. This is the one area of the game that currently blatently defies the laws of physics/realism, etc. Â Momentum is completely ignored here! What I'm talking about here is that, from a standing or crouched position, not moving at all... Â press the sprint key and you are at full speed instantaneously. Â It's really quite annoying to have someone dead to rights in your sights (who isn't moving at all), and then whammo, there they go full bore! Â Heck, as of 1.05, from a still crouch, they don't even have so stand up to get to full bore sprint. Â I am hoping that this is just a missing animation issue, and it will be resolved. Â Can anyone confirm this one way or the other? (btw- Although stopped to sprint transition is currently broken, stopped to jog transition does seem ok.) Speed: IMO, the jog is good, but sprinting is too fast as is, as compared to real life (with all that gear on). Â However, I ran a prelim sprint test vs. OFP, and at least they are the same in this respect. Â (btw - I did prelim test on jog too, and it appears the same as ofp as well.) What would be nice here is to only be able to sprint for short periods of time, til you get winded. Â Should probably depend on your load too. Reload while moving: I personally like the way things are currently, where you have to stop to reload. Â I think the amin interruptions will make most people happy in this area. Â Perhaps reload could be allowed while walking only. Â Haven't quite made my mind up on this one yet. Anim Interruptions: Can't wait for the patch... think we all agree here! Â

Just getting started, eh? Say your unit is named loon and your marker is named mark1. Try this: loon domove getMarkerPos "mark1" If for some reason you want to get at the x,y,z coodinates of your marker, do this: coords = getMarkerPos "mark1" At this point your variable coords is an array containing [x,y,z]. Â To get at these values, do this: x = coords select 0 y = coords select 1 z = coords select 2 Good luck in your endeavor.

Oh please god never that! Â It would feel/look like playing an MORRPG! Identification is fine, provided it can be toggled, but we should at the very least have to put the mouse on them.

Can't wait to try this out... been waiting long time! Congrats! Â

Respecting everyone's opinions and all, I have to agree with a lot of folks here. Â Current flight model very well may be OK... but it's tough to tell right now because the flight controls are so screwy. I don't know, maybe a big part of what's wrong has to do with how the camera reacts... the whole pendulum thing and how when you turn you can't completely see where you're going right away. Maybe more rudder authority will help, maybe not. One thing I can guarantee you though, currently you can make helos do things in the game that are IMPOSSIBLE in real life. Â If you don't believe me, just move your joystick side to side quickly and watch that sucker swing away!!! Â Not sure what it will take exactly to fix things, but it's just... screwy right now. So screwy I'd rather not "learn" it atm. EDIT: Should clarify I am talking helos here, fixed wings seems fine to me. Â Also using 1.5, etc.

I read the basics on your website. Â Sounds interesting... going to try it tonight! This really has a lot of potential. Â I especially like the (future) idea of the "destructible infrastructure for the economy". Also, the unbound AI really just makes sense when you think about it... Good call. Â Wondering however, original CTI had the bounded AI to ensure that only so many unit would be present at any given time (based on 9 groups/side, and the old fixed group size of 12), resulting in a "capped" maximum of units... and thus reducing lag. With the new unbounded AI, have you included any other methods/measures to keep an unlimited amount of units to be present, all at once (thus inducing lag)? Again, overall I really like the idea of the unbounded AI, as among other things, you can have independant garrisons, which original CTI was sorely missing. Another question. Â From the sound of things, the HQ is currently on the mainland. Â How hard do you think it would be to add the option to have the HQ out on a ship or island? Â I'm assuming that would facilitate the need to actually "ship" certain goods to the harbors? Â IMO, this would rule. Â Anyhow, sounds promising so far!

Did anyone else see the part about being able to play the campaign in multiplayer?!? It's just 1 vs 1 hotseat on a single computer, but at least that's something, considering how long this series has been out. I certainly hope they mean two human players + a bunch of AI factions. The other thing I seem to recall seeing was something about numerous multiplayer maps. Â Hopefully there's at least one with a (very) low number of territories. Â That way you can actually finish the 1 vs 1 hotseat game with your buddy. Imagine playing the regular game map with all gazillion territories in multiplayer ... you'd never finish!

I really like your idea Balschoiw. While examining the possibility of adding such an extensive feature to the game, I think it makes sense to closely examine similar work that's been done in the past (for OFP). In this case, what you're suggesting sounds alot like the Dynamic Speech from ECP (for OFP), which for me anyway, had the biggest impact immersion-wise of any addon, hands down. Â Wondering... If the ECP team is already working on an ArmA version (and I have no idea if they are), maybe joining forces is the way to go? Â If you end up doing this from scratch, ECP is really a great reference on how to get it done right. Â The speech was certainly situation sensitive. Â i.e. Someone would yell "Armor!" when they identified a new tank. Â Someone else might repeat this just to make sure everyone heard... Â They would yell "Grenade!" when grenades were thrown... "Incoming" when an enemy shell was inbound... plus they had plenty of specific sounds and things to say while in "Safe" and "Aware" modes. Â The best part was all the voice acting was very good (sounded just like men in battle), and none of it was overdone. Â (i.e. they weren't yelling things out either too frequently or infrequently, it was all believable.) One thing that you mentioned that ECP did not have was the panic mode stuff. Â That would really be a tremendous addition I think... Great idea! Â I'll add this request - Speech for when a unit undergoes a near miss (like frantic cussing or screaming, genuine fear required here). As you mentioned, it would be really nice to (eventually) have four of five speech banks to choose from. Â Here are the ones I can think of that would get a lot of use: -English -Russian -German (for Nazi Germany, etc) -Vietnamese (I seem to recall seeing a website where someone had created his own VC sound bank for ECP, maybe he would lend... anyone recall where to find this?) -Spanish? (Note - ECP was packaged with English and Russian only) Perhaps most importantly, I feel it's very important to include the ability to apply any of them to any side, in any combination. Â That way any future addons (not to mention scenerios) are covered. And I'm not sure it's really necessary to wait for any additional official sounds from BIS for other sides. Â Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but weren't all the ECP dynamic speech sounds created by the mod team? Â What I can envision is someone (maybe me, who knows) posting a request for dynamic speech sounds for the various behaviour categories (in different languages). Â Then maybe voting on which ones sound the best (most real-life-like). Â I betcha we could crank out a huge bank of high-quality samples in short order. Â Anyhow, I've really been waiting a long time for this... Glad to see you are enthusiastic about bringing this critical aspect of realism to ArmA. Hopefully I've given you some ideas to chew on. Good luck! Â

Despite the new World Economy, I can definitely see relations between two or more major nuclear powers going sour at some point in the future. Â Not incredibly likely, but it could happen. The result, of course, would be a massive economic meltdown and essentially another Cold War era. Â And then the associated proxy wars as each of the juggernauts attempt to establish dominance over the other, and impose their ideology across the globe. Like in the Cold War past, these proxy conflicts would be fought by lesser nations, supplied, funded, and armed by the big dogs. Â There may be direct combat involvement of one major player or the other, but never both at once. Â As in the previous Cold War, after all nuclear war remains unthinkable. Now, who would the players be in such a scenario? Â Someone more informed in that area would certainly know better than I. Â If I had to guess, I hate to admit it, but I would definitely include my own country, the USA (based on the recent and distant past). Edit: Of course it is in the best interest of all fellow human beings to never again see such a thing come to pass. Â Let peace and freedom reign! (Best to resolve our aggressive underpinnings through media - movies and well, games like our wonderful ArmA). Cheers.

As far as I am aware, it is currently impossible to change the actual side of a unit under any circumstances (once the mission starts that is). Unless someone knows something I don't? Â In any event, this feature would come in really handy. Â Image a population of civs that start off on the civilian side, but join one side or the other depending on how things are going. Â (i.e. Whether East or West has killed more civs acidentally, or perhaps you could also have a sub mission where you incite a riot, etc.) Currently you could script all this but it would involve swapping the units out (delete and then replace them with a new unit on another side, probably inside buildings or vehicles), and thus would get pretty messy. A setUnitSide command would be just what the doctor ordered. Â Now I just had an idea - Has anyone ever tried to join a unit from one side into a group that belongs to another side? Â I doubt this works, but I'm going to try it tonight!

Interesting, all the scenarios mentioned involving head on conflict between two nuclear powers (save North Korea). I have no doubt of future proxy wars, but never the Mutually Assured Destruction. Â Difficult to even imagine, really. Now, a mad rouge general splitting off his forces, getting control of a nuke, and then launching an invasion on a small chain of islands? Â Ya never know.... Thank god there's guys like James Gastovski out there!

OFP/ArmA AI remains one of a kind, the king of the hill (with warts and all), and the reason can be summed up into a single statement: The AI treats the other AI just as they do the human player (or players). Look at other games: Far cry - great ai, but the experience is centered on YOU... you get more health than the enemy, plus, no friendlies! (therefore, no comparison! OFP wins) Brothers in Arms - ai seems ok, but once again the experience is centered around you. Â Again, you can take a beating, they can't. Â Here you do get a friendly squad (vs. a horde of enemy), but your ability to command you own men differs from the enemy's ability to command its men. (once again, no comparison! OFP wins) The list goes on and on, in each case with other games the experience is centered around YOU the player (and your squad if app). Indeed, OFP broke this mold (followed by ArmA). Â With this system we can freely exchange humans for AI. Â To me, that makes all the difference. Just wondering: Battlefield - Somebody fill me in on the current state? Â I haven't played since 1942. Â IIRC, at that time you could not mix ai and humans freely. Â Can you do that now? Â Not that it matters... arcade shooter with hard-coded respawning vehicles and all. EDIT I'll add this: Not I'm not saying ArmA AI is perfect, but think about it! Besides the fact BIS is cranking out fixes in all areas of the game (including ai), they've given us the ability to code our own AI at a very low level via FSM files.

Just to elaborate, ECP was (and still is) IMO anyway, the greatest addon in existance for OFP. Â It added something like 30-40 new features to the core (config lvl) of the game. Â The featues include amazing low-cpu-impact effects, ai surrender, improved helo command options, craters, the greatest blood effect ever, burning blood-curtaling screaming men bailouts, the list goes on and on and I am only scratching the surface here). The biggest one for me was the DSAI (dynamic speach). Â Units would say things per the situation at hand, so if they were at ease that might hum, grumble, or make fun of each other. Â If they were in combat and an emeny tank rolled up over the horizon, they would yell "Armor!", etc, etc. Â All with superb, believable voice acting and lots of different samples. Â (i.e. none of them cheesy even a bit). Â Later there was an excellent extension to the DSAI system (non-ecp) that added a TON of samples. Best of all with ECP - Everything they added made sense and was done with a lot of thought put into it. Â Nothing really didn't fit. Â In fact, there wasn't a single feature I didn't like (though you could turn any of these things on or off if desired ). All this plus you could easily apply the features to all ingame units with one simple trigger. Â The only downside was it wasn't compatible with full blown conversions. Anyhow, I sure hope someone is working on ECP for ArmA, and hope they get it right (like with OFP). Â Until then, this may sound bad, but ArmA is really more of a tech demo for me.