Maximus_G

That's why i tried to call BIS attention to the problem here. They tend not to make any corrections in object models in the game, when making patches. It's up to community to mod them. But this looked like a slightly different case, which would probably involve tweaking the game inside because it couldn't be done with user mods. Now thanks to Sakura_Chan we presumably could do something with that.

Well, looks like this limitation is not there any more. I've just tried to put the pipper in the scope. Now, if i just could make it to not disappear when i click the right mouse button.

Well, i personally think it's important for the people even if they don't realize that now. I think it's obligatory to have at least basically proper sight in a shooter sim game. And it is important indeed, when you have to make 10 shots instead of 1 to hit the damn thing because your sight doesn't point where it should: it is NOT about trackir head slides, it's about barrel dancing in your left hand. It's in the video in the first post here. I've pointed it out in my second post here too. Glad to see a mod working; it's not public for some reason, but i'll pm the man who made it. Agree, these things are great.

Hmm, *.MP4 is the progressive ISO/IEC standard. You can watch it with Media Player Classic Home Cinema (it does not spoil your codec preferences, uses its own). Basically that video shows the ordinary reflector sight behavior in the game. It's quite the opposite to the real one - fixed crosshair versus moving one. Arma does model the realistic unwanted floating gun movement in hands, relative to the eye. It produces a certain angular alignment error, so if you try to aim using that crosshair, you generally make a pronounced miss even at ~100 meters, especially right after running, and even holding your breath does not eliminate the error completely. But that's the exact situation collimating sight was designed for... its maximum error is much smaller, having the linear size of scope's reflector glass (a bit of geometry here). We can't take these sights away in the game (to use the iron sights), so i find some weapons hardly usable in Arma. Maybe some different aiming technique will help, involving looking at the front part of the iron sight to estimate the error, but that's definitely unrealistic and simply not comfortable. I have my doubts about that, because i'm seeing the moving virtual crosshair in the game. It's almost the same thing we need to be in the scopes. Let's take a look at it. Move around and shoot, watch the impact points and "pipper" position. It's virtually placed (projected) somewhere far away and aligned with muzzle or sight (can't make the perfect measurement to differ). Looking from the side, the impact point is always on the line between the muzzle and pipper. That's almost the exact behavior of collimating sight! Difference: the real crosshair is projected onto the scope glass. The virtual one in the game is just the opposite - we can see it outside the glass only. IF we could see it on the glass, we would get the collimating sight.

^Up. Let me put here the proper collimating sight behavior example:

Can we have proper collimating sights in the game? They shouldn't act like that, really. Kinda sad to see that in a milsim game. Besides, the virtual crosshair in Arma more closely resembles the real relector sight behavior (being projected to infinity). So, the technology IS there. The question is - is it planned to be implemented? Or are we gonna stick to this fixed texture, hoping for a user-made addon?

Maybe you didn't ask. Anyway, amount of public info on losses has lowered drastically since around 2005, we've got not so much evidence. But there is some. Examples: http://books.google.ru/books?id=M1P6jT8_yrgC&lpg=PA99&ots=U5zY1x3zXW&pg=PA108 http://img136.yfrog.com/i/abramsefp2picjy4w.jpg/ http://img216.yfrog.com/i/getimage7.jpg/ Yep, that's true. Anyway, that's an offtopic here...

Actually, PG-7VR and PG-29V rockets share the same warhead. And there's a bunch of M1XX knocked out in Iraq with this weapon. --- My favorite vehicle in Arma is any of Mi-24 series... except the "P" model, because of its bombs having ridiculous ZERO fuze delay.

What editor can be used to edit language.pbo file? My "notepad++" shows a mess in some parts of the file. And if i change this file - does it affect my gameplay anyway? (There's an appropriate ".bisign" file, i guess it has something to do with online gameplay.) Sorry for being newb. The official Russian-language translation is much better than it was in Arma1, but it still has some annoying issues. Example is below.

Is that an eastern egg? ^) Anyway, that's a signature definitely.

I guess you wouldn't be saying that, if you remembered the official status of this conflict: pledges of the conflicting sides including Georgia of course, and role of the peacekeeping forces. Read the Dagomys agreement of year 1992 and later documents. They are not about bombshelling towns and villages. They are quite the opposite. So, in order to reclaim its territory by using artillery and tanks, Georgia first should declare invalid all the peacekeeping agreements is had signed. At least it would be the very clear warning, and it would save the lives of so many people. It would be honest too in respect to its own Georgian people -to tell the soldiers, reservists, that they're going to war. Strangely the things happened in a very different way, sneaky, unexpectedly, at night. I don't think some country has the right to brake its words by sudden attacks such as this. That's simply criminal.

This is the BEST patch for ArmA. It's not about getting bigger, it's about making better. At last RPGs are not like laserguns. And moving RPG launcher sideways is adequate. Small arms recoil effect is good. Armored vehicles now act like armored vehicles - it's not that easy now to tear them apart by smashing'em with small caliber rockets and RPGs. FFAR firing rate now looks realistic. And at last i'm hearing the sound with high dynamic range. At first i thought it was a bug, but then i realised the reason of "deafness" after firing and explosions. I'm happy to see and hear the things we were talking here about some time ago.

After some more thinking on the Evolution scenario, i guess the players wouldn't have much chance against a dumb, but well organized - coordinated force of AI-units under human command, if he would possess the control of all the AI-units simultaneously. To get over this and stick to the original Evo scenario, there have to be some constraints for the human commander. The forces attached to each town should be prohibited to leave the area surrounding it. Otherwise the commander would just lay the massive Armed Assault against poor humans and kick them out of the island.

What if a human could take a role of the single commander for the adversary AI units?

The server should be able to remember player and his stats. That's one of the basic functions allowing to build such a gameplay that inspires players to come back.