ShrubMiK

>I can't run a dedicated server from my machine without running out of memory and I have a hefty machine with 6gb ram. As I believe somebody else already said somewhere...then you must be doing something badly wrong. It's perfectly possible to run dedicated server and client on a 4GB machine.

Why is that idiotic?

>It wasn't common at all to bury their R272 bunkers, especially at Pointe du Hoc, simply because none of the casemates there contained the real 155mm guns, instead they contained decoys. I think you're wrong there...seems to be a bit of an urban myth grown up about it. I've read several sources that said that the guns had been removed from their emplacements, but the Rangers scouted inland a bit after securing the site, found them, and destroyed them. Hmmm...Wikipedia says something similar, with the added twist that I don't think I've come across before that it was in fact known the guns had been moved but that only the officers were told. Also came across this picture, which gives a great idea of what the bocage was like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....Hoe.jpg

I find it rather ironic that everybody here is agonising over whether it's going to be US Army or USMC...when what I would really like, just for a change, is a game which doesn't feature US forces at all. I know it's hard to believe, but there are one or two other countries in the world with sizeable and capable modern military forces

I think the idea of having a quick formula to arrive at vehicle damage points from the real life data is fine...you can always tweak the values a bit more later, but the important thing si to get the vehicles all more or less right in relation to one another rather than spending a lot of time trying to get them all exactly right. A thought though - it would perhaps be better to base the formula on average* armour thickness rather than maximum. All tanks had thicker frontal armour than side or rear. Some tanks though had very much thicker frontal armour than side or rear (e.g Panther), whilst others had less of a difference (e.g. Tiger 1). Basing the formula on the maximum armour thickness unfairly favours the former over the latter. * A true average cannot be computed of course. But data is available for turret front, turret side, turret rear, hull front, hull side, hull rear for all WW2 tanks. Add them up and divide by 6 would seem a reasonable approximation.

Be a little careful with rate of fire calculations...you have to also ask how long the theoretical maximum rate of fire can be sustained. Loaders get tired. Â Once ready rounds are fired, more rounds have to be retrieved from storage. That sort of thing. CBFASI, it's all in the presentation. It is possible, as many have done, to point out problems and areas for improvement without coming across as playing the "I am a modelling god and you are not fit to lick my boots" card. Be especially careful of claiming to speak for everybody else when it comes to what is considered acceptable. Me, I'm downloading now. Expect to hear my complaints re. the relative strengths of units shortly

I know I'll get flamed for this But CBFASI, perhaps you might think about devoting the same attention to in-depth knowledge, exhaustive research, and accuracy in your typing, spelling, and grammar, that you demand of others in their endeavours? A bit of politeness might not go amiss either

Excellent news, good work guys

Why would anybody post script details to the forums unless they intended other people to use them? It's polite to give credit where it is due, but I don't see why you should have to seek explicit permission to use them yourself. If you are talking about scripts you found by looking in the mods/missions themselves, that might be different matter.

Why even debate this? If you prefer OFP, play OFP. RocketScience != It

Interesting...I run with xfire on all the time, and we used to use it for the convenient voice comms a lot too prior to the current patch. Never noticed a significant drop in FPS as a result, maybe I should test again.

I have to say I find myself wondering why so many people get so steamed up about missing swastikas? This discussion has been done to death so many times in different game forums it has become tedious. It's either: a) ridiculous attention to historical fidelity, in a game that is never going to have anywhere near 100% realism; b) some sort of anti-censorship principled stand; c) an unhealthy interest in the symbol itself and what it stands for* * UPDATE before Enigma jumps on me Yes I know it's an old symbol. I wandered around a temple in Malaysia last year that was liberally festooned with the things. If you decide to include that sort of temple in Normandy in 1944 perhaps we can have a separate discussion on realistic portrayal of such temples

One thing I never managed to figure out yet: how do you get a dedicated server to run with non-default values for the mission settings? I was never that bothered before, because things like fast day/night cycle were not really that important or useful. But the bonuses for the AI team are!

That is going to be very interesting

>If you are at high speed, especially with the SU aircraft, you need to practice this to discover how far ahead of the plane the bombs hit when you release, which can be very far. Maybe I'm being unecessarily pedantic but that doesn't quite seem to make sense! Do you mean either: a) How far ahead of the target you must release the bombs in order to hit it (which would be a logn way with normal bombs, not so far with retarded bombs) b) How far behind the aircraft the bombs are when they hit the ground (which would be not very far with normal bombs, much further with retarded bombs)

Is Dunsfold airfield there? Didn't have a big role in WW2 (emergency landing field only I think), but: a) I have nostalgia for it because I worked on Harrier and Eurofighter there a while back. b) Many people are familiar with it nowadays because it is where Top Gear is filmed.

If you want to run a server and play on it yourself, you can utilise an extra core by running a dedicated server, instead of starting the server within the normal game. If you want to join an online MP server, you're already effectively utilising a second core...but in this case the second core is on another computer, a long way away

Nothing to do with Vista per se. What are your hardware specs? I'm sure you don't really believe the only determining factor in how powerful a PC is precisely when it was bought Or you might go look in the other thread somewhere (troubleshooting forum?) that discusess hardware requirements, and what frame rates people are getting with various systems.

I want one of those Apologies if this has already been asked and/or answered... Will there be missions with the beta, or is it just up to us to create our own simple missions so we can have a look at, admire, play with, and evaluate various bits of kit? I'm thinking even just a basic Warfare port would be a good way to set up a server with lots of things happening, and all the units available to try out on demand.

There are quite a lot of sites with armour data and gun penetration data around...some of them are very dubious, with limited data, and no notes on where they got the data from. Sometimes they say they have "calculated", but don't say how. This one struck as looking a more comprehensive, scientific and trustworthy than the rest I've seen: http://gva.freeweb.hu/index.html Oh, note that it doesn't seem to list turret and hull armour together for a given vehicle...you need to toggle between them using a not-very-obvious button above the top of the table.

My preference would be to provide the option for overall balance in MP scenarios by providing later Allied tanks, even where in reality they arrived too late to fight. Comet is reasonably equivalent to Panther, Pershing is reasonably equivalent to Tiger I, Centurion (if you want to go that far out of historical timelines) is reasonably equivalent King Tiger. That would give the best of both worlds - if you want one-for-one balance you play with all the tanks, If you want greater historical realism you play only with those which were available in the field mid-late 1944 and accept that overall balance can only be achieved with numerical advantage. >If you're going to include the fighting in germany to this mod, ur gonna have make winter buildings That would be nice. Although strictly speaking this is "Normandy" mod so by definition covers June/July/Aug 1944 only I wouldn't say sherman was a "fail" - it had many deficiencies compared to more modern designs, but OTOH it could be mass produced and was quite reliable. And as somebody (Stalin?) once said, "quantity has a quality all of its own". Firefly was very much a compromise - it gave the Sherman a needed big improvement in anti-tank capability, but at the cost of decreasing anti-infantry/anti-AT gun capability (less effective HE ammo for the 17pdr). And it still had relatively weak armour compared to the better German tanks. And the size of the gun was difficult to fit onto a relatively small chassis, which led to compromises in the turret design, and less ammunition capacity. Comet was an improvement on Firefly, the 17pdr was scaled down a little to fit it on the chassis (which was basically an improvement of Cromwell), and it was a pretty good all round tank. As I said earlier, would be nice to have it in there as an option in the mod, but historically it didn't start to arrive in the field until end of 1944. If you are interested I can point you at a pretty good site with huge amounts of armour thickness data for all WW2 vehicles, and armour pentration at various ranges for all guns and ammunition types. Or if you want something less technical, certain published tabletop wargames rules (e.g. the Wargames Research Group ones) are good - i.e. let somebody else do all the hard research and evaluation for you But when it comes down to it I realise that it is impossible to accurately model all of the real life characteristics of these tanks and guns in ArmA. What I'm looking for is a reasonable modelling of the overall strength of the units - i.e. if 1 Panther can defeat several Shermans in most situations (i.e. not ambushed at close range), it will feel "right".

Hmm...okay, I see where you are coming from. Fair point. But I still prefer to have hills around. At least *I* can try and use the terrain intelligently even if the AI, as we all know, generally do a very good job of realistically imitating a bunch of untrained conscripts. I guess the answer is for there to be maps of various types so that everybody can play on the sort of terrain that they like most, or switch around for a bit of variety. Or big maps like Sahrani containng a variety of different terrain types.

Let me be clear - I'm not criticising the state of the models/skins, or the damage models, or anything at the moment. I realise it is (or rather, soon will be) a beta and I too would rather see something come out early which can be improved upon incrementally, rather than wait 3 years for the final perfect version which might or might not ever appear. And I certainly don't want to appear to be ungrateful to people who put in a lot of time producing goodies for me to play with, at no cost. But I also don't think it is too early to express an opinion on how I would ultimately like to see it developed. Too late to express an opinion after all the decisions have been taken and all the work done, after all. And I have to say the expressed idea that "balance" is crucial and can only be achieved by making sure that there is some sort of reasonable balance between individual units on either side is worrying me. If we end up with a mod in which a force of 10 shermans has a 50-50 chance of coming out on top against 10 panthers, it's not going to WW2, and it is not going to be ArmA, IMO. I'm not against artificially balanced games on principle - I'm a big fan of Battlefield2 for example, but what I play ArmA for is a more realistic experience which challenges me in a different way. Just my personal opinion, of course.

I wouldn't spend too much time agonising over the precise colour of the wheat if I were you. Just go with whatever looks best to you The colour people actually see will differ slightly depending on their hardware, especially the monitor, and also according to exactly how it is calibrated.

Ah...I hadn't considered that the game continues to stream data from disk during play so might well get confused if you run 2 copies of it and rename directories in between. Now I have actually taken the time to read the posted link... I don't think you should need to disconnect from the internet? You've got 2 CD keys after all so there should be no problem with duplicate CD key errors?