Tankbuster

I played this for a couple of hours today. Couple of points; Players joining during nighttime reported it was broad day light. We found an MH-6 we had used earlier. 1 player reported it look burnt out, another said it looked fine. He jumped into it and when it took off, the first player said the helo seemed to repair itself. Other than that, really great. Nice showcase for ArmA

Karrillion, Operation Crossfire; is that your work? I'd like to report a couple of bugs to the author. Tanky

Operation Crossfire 1.2 I'm going to see if I can get hold of a thread about it as I have a few things to say.

Fair point. I'd be fibbing if I said buying this new PC wasn't primarily because of Armed Assault, but nevertheless, that new machine a couple of patches and good mission or two has transformed it from the unutterable crap I played in November.

I have. See my thread in troubleshooting for some help.

LOL. I'm not sure -nosplash is strictly necessary in this instance!

Ikon board's fantastic search turned up nothing, so I'll ask here. How do I go about using the 1.05 beta dedicated server? I have a 1.05 euro patched version, fully installed (from DVD, not just copied files from another install) that has been also patched to 1.05 beta. The machine its running on is a Athlon 3200+ with 2 gig of RAM and a 7600gs graphics card (probably not relevent here). If I run the server executable in the beta directory (I use a desktop shortcut which calls the config file, also in the beta dir), I get a windows popup error; no entry ".profilePathDefault". If I ok that dialogue, the server does start. What's causing this and is it serious? I tried copying the exe from the beta dir to the main system dir and running that, but it generated even worse errors (can't remember excatly what) and bombed out. Any help'd be appreciated,. Tanky -Paul-

Aha!! I created a batch file called startbetapatchserver.bat with this in it. START "" /D"%CD%" /B "%CD%\beta\ArmA_Server.exe" -mod=beta -nosplash -config=server.cfg That worked a treat. Fantastic. Thank you very much.

I'm pretty sure it is a Gamespy problem. SWAT4 and Flashpoint all use Gamespy and they have similar problems for me.

I couldn't have put it better. I like you am hoping that we can nuture this bird so that she is a little less prone to hissy fits, uses less of our valuable resources and looks as good close up as she did across the smokey dance floor. She does after all, have a smashing older sister.

*puts hand up*

Personally, I'd save a little more. I think 2 gig of RAM is a good starting point for Armed Assault.

to really fix the AI, you have to connect a human brain to your computer I'm sorry to report AI pilots are indeed still complete nobbers. In 1.02 and now 1.04, I've watched an AI pilot scorn a nice open forest clearing and land in the trees. Also, during straight and level flight, the nose of the aircraft bobs up and down constantly, just like the early versions.

Early indications are quite good. The game looks more finished. It installs quicker, switches between map and view are nearly instantaneous. Overall FPS performance is better. I was a vocal critic of 1.02. I'm pleased to say much has improved. I've not yet tested to see if the AI helo pilots are not the complete nobbers they were in 1.02, but when I do, I'll report back.

I think that's the dreaded "no data received for 10 seconds" message. I note the red square bottom right.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Those of us that have the Czech and German version are now seeing what BIS showed to the worlds' game publishers last year. We are paying beta testers. Nothing more, nothing less. Publishers are businessmen. They are not, first and foremost, game players. They can look at a product with clear vision, unlike us I think. They don't care about the community, they don't care about the history, they don't even care about the gameplay. Is it a simulator or a game? Or even a training aid? They don't care. They want to know if they invest in this game, will they take more money in than they paid out. Lots of them have looked at the product and walked away not because it's full of bugs and unfinished, but because they think it won't make them any money. But let's be honest, the writing was on the wall even before Armed Assault broke cover. OFP took four years and has gone through half a dozen versions before it became the game it should have been on day one. As usual, the same band of diehard AA advocate will crawl out of the woodwork saying the game runs fine on their Pentium 2 with 128 meg of memory and one or two more will tell us that no game is complete when it goes gold these days. And that is meant to assuage our complaints? Some will complain this is one of many threads all on the same subject. I wonder if they've stopped to ask themselves why there are so many threads deriding the game and so few applauding it? Are the malcontents simply noisier that the contents? I doubt it. At the risk of making a sweeping statement; not only is this game far from perfect, it's far from publishable content. There are SO many problems. If I was a publisher -and I'm not, so I can only speculate- I wouldn't have taken this game on board. As many of the advocates of AA say, it will be better in the 505 version. Well, I hope so, but I am half expecting to wait until 2010 before this game reaches it's potential. I bet Codemasters are laughing like drains right now. I also bet 505 are having sleepless nights.

Sickboy; Oh I have read them all, and posted in many. I've not seen the BIS got screwed by CM angle before though. Care to expand on that. BIS clearly have made same mistakes again. They've even managed to ressurect some OFP early version bugs that had been squashed by the time it got to 1.96. Don't get me wrong, I'm not BIS bashing just for the sake of it. There is nothing I'd like more than to see AA become a million seller , but, and this is the point of my OP, I'm beginning to see why there were problems securing a publisher.

What really galls me is that OFP was in a poor state when it first came out and even now, in 1.96 is a little flakey in places. Five years later on, BIS seemed to have learned nothing. Eastern Europe has been the public beta test of some software that is as bad now as OFP was in it's early days. That seems to be to be an insult to us, the user base. As a product, Armed Assault is shockingly unreliable. If that had been a productivity application, the team would have probably been fired.

Can the same AI fly a helicopter with out nodding the nose up and down and then land it in a forest clearing without crashing into trees? It's not 'nice one BIS'. You can have as many nice touches like them using satchel charges on you as you like, but while the AI are so badly flawed in so many BASIC areas, this game is not good enough.

Was the game released in an acceptable state? No.

I've waited a long time before posting my thoughts here. I was expecting to get flamed to a crispy crisp. Thanks to reddog and others for backing me up. I'd like to say that AA isn't all bad, but I'm afraid largely it is. Join In Progress, big new map and improved visuals are all massive improvements. The rest, frankly, is shit.

Fasad, Thanks for that. I'll sort it and report back. While you're here, can I just say what a nice job you've done with this island, it's not overdone like tonal or starlight, it's how BIS should have done the original maps. Also, it's a credit to you and your work that you are here answering my stupid questions! I salute you.

No it didn't meet my expectations, though it met with my fears. It's clunky, full of bugs and unplayable in some aspects. Look at the bug list on the biki. It's huge! Version 1.00 was a disgrace, 1.02 is only slightly better. The AI is poor. Either they own you while you lie in the grass from a kilometer away, or they stand around nonchalantly while you pop their team mates in the head. Rubbish. Netcode? Can't say, as I don't fully understand these things. It runs passably on my Athlon 3200+ with 2 gig of RAM and a 7600 GS graphics card using medium graphics. It has to be said, medium graphics in AA look way better than OFP on high. The jacked up draw distance is great. Other stuff, the new map is nice, much better than the OFP ones. There isn't enough different units in the game, I don't expect to wait 18 months and 3 expansion pack before the game is complete. It's too slow overall. Switching between eyesight and map should be instantaneous. The interface is familiar, but awkward. There's a couple of bugs in there too. I get all manner of glitches. After playing for a while, some building textures seem ultra low quality; while driving my M1 in the armoured fist game, I cannot hear the main gun firing, nor can I hear enemy shells hitting the hull. The AI pilots are useless. I mean really bad. I rarely fly myself in OFP but in AA, even I'm better than these klutzs. I don't play AA currently. It frustrates me and I regret spending money buying the German version and spending time and effort patching it to 1.02 and English.

I'm writing a MP mission that starts aboard a ship, but the West infantry squad I add in never seems to start exactly where I place them in the editor, they always start way off in mid air outside the hull and fall into the water. What am I doing wrong, please?

I've got the deck height sorted fine because there's a blackhawk and an AH-1 on the deck. So how does setpos work to give x and y coords?