Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

POTS

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    370

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by POTS

  2. Posted

    @POTS:

    Don't be so rude...

    @Baff1:

    I'm very sorry but what you are writing is nothing else than false assumptions.

    BIS developers/pr-Guys/etc. clearly said that Dual-Core will be/is MINIMUM!!!

    Thats because "new/old-polished" AI needs at least ONE CORE ALONE in Arma2.

    No chance for Single-Core i would assume.

    As for consoles, well you can't really compare that....

    But what are you talking about the processor? Thats really rubbish...

    Xbox360 has triple-core each 3.2GHZ plus each core can handle 2 threads simultaneously (similar like in current core I7 or old P4-HT).

    Graphics-processor is also top-notch compared to recent PC graphic-cards, so on my first-look i don't think hardware performance on Xbox360 will be a issue.

    On top of that, no-one really knows when the console versions will be out or on which consoles they will be ported/developed for anyway..... who knows maybe they wait for current Xbox's successor, which is AFAIK already announced for End of 2009....

    Sorry for being rude. Didn't mean to come off so strong. I was just so stunned by all the false things. Thought I was reading a book about breathing in space.

  3. Posted

    The game will all be runnning on a single core anyway. I wouldn't worry about it.

    It isn't going to be maxxing your CPU out either.

    If ArmA 2 is going to be console compatable it will actually be using far less CPU power than you currently have.

    Unless you are running a server. In which case go for the highest core clock speed you can afford. You will need as many core's as you want to run servers on your box.

    Your CPU clock speed (single core) will define how many players you can fit into your server with how many AI's.

    .

    I run a 32 man ETQW server on my quad core 2.4 ghz at the same time as I run a client version too. It doesn't complain.

    I have no experience of running more than 6 players on ArmA so I couldn't help you guesstimate what power you might need for what player counts

    Spend the money on your GFX card adding more CPU won't make any difference. A newerr GFX card might gain you a few more FPS.

    This should be a hardware scale down from ArmA not a bigger system hog.

    To give you some idea, an Xbox CPU ranks at 1.4 ghz on the Pentium IV scale.

    That is the CPU power that ArmA 2 is being designed to work with.

    I think it is unlikely that you will be able to detect any performance difference at all by upgrading your CPU. Your CPU is double what's needed already.

    Did you just pull all of that out of your ***?

  4. Posted

    Come on POTS... smile_o.gif

    You don't seriously think ArmA enviroment has anywhere near the definition of real life terrain. Or that ArmA accurately models invidual soldier's fear of death, fatigue, stress, injuries etc. Or that the weapons systems and weapon effects are 100% accurate on tanks, attack aircraft etc. Or that real life gun shot wounds are almost always instantly fatal, and that a medic can heal a crippled guy in a matter of seconds... That's completely ridiculous, ask anyone. Even Walker or BIS wink_o.gif

    Even if we assumed ArmA didn't have thousands of overly abstract, incorrect and inaccurate variables and mechanics... There's no way you will ever get a game to play like real life combat unless it's so high-tech that the subjects actually believe they could die.

    It's a combat simulator, not an infantry simulator. Or an aircraft simulator for that matter. It is designed so the military may carry out a mission before they actualy do it. You can only do these things in ofp and ArmA. No other game is capable of this. If the military had a problem with the realism I'm sure they would cancel buisness.

  5. Posted

    Q9550 or even the new Core i7 920 (OC up to 4 GHZ).

    Suma (lead developer Arma2) once stated something like this:

    "Dual-Core 3 GHZ will be little faster than 2.4GHZ Quadcore, but in situations where many AI/Players are, the Quadcore could be faster".

    So the best is then to go with 3GHZ Quadcore, lol.

    Having a older Q6600 between 3.2 and 3.5GHZ OC on demand, i'm actually sure my CPU is enough (as example).

    But then he can take a E8600 to 4.0ghz+ being even faster then quadcore. And with the way BIS talks about quadcores, seems they are more for ArmA servers while dual cores are better for the clients. The server will take the most load when there are lots of ai and players in multiplayer.

  6. Posted

    Oh certainly the OFP/ArmA series can be seen as close to be simulators, but as long as most soldiers/armed people just go prone in the middle of a street instead of trying to take even the lightest of the covers, you just can't say
    Quote[/b] ]The outcome from a battle would be very close if it were carried out in real life.

    Because it is wrong every AI in ArmA/OFP goes prone in a middle of a street while in real situations even totally untrained armed average joes will take as much cover as they can when a firefight is occuring, that's just called survival instinct and every human without a death wish has it in his guts.

    Can you please read my whole post and quote my whole post? I hate it when people don't read my entire post then assume this. I SAID ASSUMING THEY WERE ALL HUMAN PLAYERS. WHICH IS WHAT THE MILITARY USES!

  7. Posted

    ArmA is a combat simulator. The outcome from a battle would be very close if it were carried out in real life. Assuming every player is human. Thats why Militaries use it, to carry out a simulation of the mission they will do.

    rofl.gif

    You are so wrong that I cannot decide if you are being serious or just fucking with me,

    I'm not wrong. Just look at the facts. Many militaries use this game to carry out a simulation of the mission before they actualy do it. Of coarse i'm speaking of VBS2, but they literaly are the same engine/physics/graphics/controls/ballistics. You need to know this before you go on.

  10. Posted

    I have a script thats supposed to except the Unit as an argument and put him on an island for a while then send him back. Basicaly he respawns onto the island and just shoots at the shooting range tell he can come back in. I have it so his gun is refreshed and everything as well. It won't work at all, i don't know why. Could somebody take a look at it? It's called by an eventhandler.

    <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

    _UNIT = _this;

    _GUNS = weapons _UNIT;

    _AMMO = magazines _UNIT;

    _GUNCOUNT = count _GUNS;

    _AMMOCOUNT = count _AMMO;

    sleep 15;

    removeAllWeapons _UNIT;

    _c = 0;

    while {_c <= _GUNCOUNT} do {_UNIT addWeapon (_GUNS select _c);_c = _c + 1;};

    _c = 0;

    while {_c <= _AMMOCOUNT} do {_UNIT addMagazine (_AMMO select _c);_c = _c + 1;};

    _UNIT setPos getMarkerPos "BASE";

    exit;

  11. Posted

    Hi Baff1

    Debt is not a longterm working Business Model

    So your explanation is that Woolworth's took out a loan they could not afford, that if they had been able to afford it they would not be having their shops foreclosed?

    Hmm.

    Wooolworths have been in trouble for about 8 years

    By the way they have been in trouble for about 8 years if you follow the business press. They took out the loans to try to restructure their business model but never got round to it. They should have halved their number of stores and and refocused. Instead they squandered the loans on supporting a failed business model.

    They have gone out of business. So according to you they are still a success?

    I think you may wish to slightly revise that assessment. I think at the end they have a sensible management that realised their business model will not function in a recession.

    Quality versus Stack it high sell it cheap

    Both quality and stack it high sell it cheap are good core business models that still thrive; but Wooolworths forgot that and became neither.

    They were stuck between quality retail and the one pound/dollar/euro shops; a sort of expensive pound shop or tatty quality shop. A kind of wish washy not realy there unfocussed business model. That Woolworth's began as a 6 penny nee pound shop I admit, but they decided to go upscale in their business model and lost their core business as a result. Marks and Spencer's went through the same but decided to aim for the quality market, people still buy quality; other than that they buy cheap as you pointed out with regard to Tata which is why pound shops who still run the original Woolworth's core business model still survive.

    Dieing Gracefully is not the same as surviving

    It is the middle that is worst hit in a recession. As I pointed out Woolworth's are predominantly lower middle. The management was good enough to get out before they went bankrupt rather than have the receivers called in. They controlled their own ending and maximised their returns to the end.

    In essence as a company they died gracefully.

    Big Three Versus Toyota

    Now on the matter of Ford, GM, Chrysler and Toyota.

    What is wrong with the big three? b]

    For that past 8 years Ford, GM, Chrysler have been losing money on every car they sell. They have been trying reorganise for about 16 years. Their real problems are:

    FAILURE OF STRATEGIC VISSION. They have no vision of the future, they think it is the same as now.

    1) Too many dealerships it needs to be reduced by 2/3 and has no future in a market where increasingly people buy products over the Internet. But stupid contracts they signed means they are stuck with them unless they go bust.

    2) Too many competitors at least one probably two of them should go to the wall.

    3) Failure to plan for the future, Petrol engines are dead all you have now are the zombie corpses of an out of date technology. They have few diesel cars. No Electric or hybrid cars. No hydrogen fuel cell cars (the real future for cars)

    4) Their lack of quality is legendary who want a second hand Ford, GM or Chrysler?

    5) They are too big and heavy and fuel inefficient.

    6) Their staff agreements promote inefficiency and do not even pay as well as their rivals who as a consequence take all their good staff.

    7) Their plant is ancient.

    8) An overly complex supply chain.

    I could go on the list is truly amazing. I wrote a reasearch assessment of the market back in the 1990s. Those are just some of the problems I and the rest of my colleagues pointed out then and they still have not been resolved over 10 years later. I should point out that Ford at least solved some of its worst problems regarding models.

    This year all three would be bankrupt if they did not have government loans.

    Why Toyota has a future

    Toyota on the other hand has not made a loss in 70 years this year is their first operating loss. And they have sufficient capital to absorb it and go on.

    Toyota has a future because it has a vision of the future:

    1) They have future models lined up including existing diesel, hybrid and electric cars already in market and hydrogen Fuel cell car about two years off.

    2) A competent well compensated staff.

    4) The latest robotic plant

    5) As to quality, Toyota's last, you have only to compare the second hand depreciation prices.

    6) Toyota is not tied to a mass of really bad out of the way dealership contracts in all the wrong places that suck up vast amounts of profits, as are the other three. Toyota actually own most of their dealerships. So their supply chain is shorter.

    7) Toyota cars are far more efficient.

    8) Toyota has a very short supply chain and owns many of its suppliers.

    So how does this apply to BIS?

    Simple BIS has a shorter supply chain than game publisher based companies, thus lower costs, every point in the supply chain must make a profit, this drives up costs, if one of the points in supply chain makes a loss, it goes out of business as does every other business in the chain, as I pointed out.

    Look at Zavvi. Woolworth's go out of business and so do they.

    Kind Regards walker

    Also to add, toyota puts there production very close to their consumers.

  16. Posted

    I initialize this and it doesn't work. Tried it in scripts, init.sqs, every possible intitializer.

    <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">"Civilian" createUnit [getMarkerPos "guy", createGroup civilian, "THISGUY=this"];

  20. Posted

    Well, any company that saves and has good credit will do just fine. Unless the local government decides to bailout and cause inflation, then there money is devalued. So BIS is very luck right now, probably has good credit and wealth because of saving and VBS2. Lets hope there government doesn't devalue there currency through inflation.

  22. Posted

    Protip: In the slot selection you choose a squad. It's just that shitty missions that many play don't use this.

    Well see, the difference between my squad idea and the ones in the game are only temporary to the mission. Mine are permanent for as long as the players want the squad. People are free to leave the squad if they don't like it anymore, but these squads could last a long time, maybe months. This gives people the opportunity to find tournaments and clans easier and lets people organize big battles with lots of teamwork rather than tomyLOVEShalo camping on the castle keep with a scoped ak-74.

  23. Posted

    Its up to the people on public servers - if they arent able communicate and organize in a proper way why should someone else or BIS do it for them? If those clueless player only want run-n-gun or somekind of rambo/shooter action they have to face their own disappointment.

    Whats wrong with clans like they are now? Frustrated players can simple tryout teamwork and play in some clans. If some of them to lazy to look around and search for good teams - no mercy for this kind of "average clueless player".

    Btw how will you or the tool judge who is qualified/expert enough, in a game thats not played because of shiny stats/medals etc? Are "experienced people" really those who have 100000000 points/kills?

    lols, i said whatever BIS decides. Preferably a combination of single player training (very difficult training btw) and online experience will give them the ability to be above squads in whatever the proposed battle group structure may be. That way you wouldn't have tomyLOVEShalo lead multiple squads.

  24. Posted

    The built in squad process would increase the ability for people to work together. Because it isn't an element they must add to the ingame graphical interface or a new model, it should be quit easy to add in compared to everything else. They probably just have to host a public utility server, then have it interface with the game so when clients get on they will see all the available squads and Battlegroups. It would work wonders for clans and tournaments to get new players. I'm apart of arma theatre of war, and being allowed to use a battlegroup tool for our side in the tournament would give us an acceleration in players joining atow. A squad/battlegroup interface would really give ArmA2 a boost in popularity, and might drasticaly increase their profits.

  25. Posted

    I had this amazing idea. People were really frustrated in ArmA because they felt all alone when they played and felt nobody on the servers cared about teamwork because nobody had a chance to know eachother. Lots of people found there own tournaments yes, but 1000's were driven away from multiplayer because it was so disorganized online.

    I propose a tool that will let you create your own squads that almost act as miniature "clans". A qualified person through some means of experience such as time in other squads, time online, or a singleplayer training system like America's Army, can form squads online using built in tools. People can then join one of these squads listed online on some view box or something. Then these squads can be organized into battlegroups, again, using a built in tool. It too will be only made by experienced people. Because ArmA is supposed to be realism, it can be built in that ranks matter for these battle groups. Like having to look up to a NCO. These battlegroups can be called platoons or companies or whatever the ArmA2 creators decide on calling them(Preferably something realistic). Then it is up to the people in the battlegroup to form their own forum out of game or TS server or something.

    What this ultimately does is bring the people in ArmA2 closer together, giving them opportunities to experience organized combat. Battlegroups may go to war with eachother, or decide on a time to battle maybe using ingame features or whatever maps they've created. Of coarse private servers and public servers are the peoples responsibility as well, but the ingame organizing system will really benefit the average clueless player.

×