Tha_Man

Personally, I don't see any reason to be running Windows Server 2008, especially not for Arma. I think a linux server will be (much) faster, as it consumes less RAM and CPU (when configured correctly) so there's more left for the dedicated server! In fact, you don't even need to use a GUI to run the Arma server under Linux, which is a great memory-saver. I'm running an Arma linux server myself (for some co-op missions from time to time) and once configured it runs like dream :)

Finally I've tried your version of Warfare, we had a play with it with 5 people in co-op. Overall comment: GREAT!! Â Challenging AI opposition, all seems to work quite nicely and is simply fantastic for co-op gaming. However, there were some remarks as well: - I encountered the 'headbug' for the first time (I think): not being able to look through the scope but having the gun right in front of your head (happened multiple times with multiple weapons), but the T-menu provided a fix for that. - I experienced some bugs with my loadout after respawning: the gear menu showed different gear than I had in my hand: had a M16 RCO GL while gear menu showed a standard M16, for example. Also, at one moment I had 12 M16 clips in my main ammo storage and 2 M136's (ammo) in my pistol ammo box... - Rearming tanks at town centers doesn't allways work for every position: gunner position may be rearmed, but commander MG is still empty (even when commander buys the rearm or when gunner or commander is alone in the vehicle) - the locking of newly spawned vehicles by default is great when you play with a lot of people, but we found it annoying at some times; is there a way to turn it off? One more basic question that arose was: - why are we (most of the time) fighting RACS instead of OPFOR? Are these sides randomly determined or can we only fight the Resistance? The above are not 'fatal bugs', but can be annoying. I'm not sure if they are specific to your version as well, so maybe someone can confirm/deny this? I hope you (arma.isgreat.org) or one else can comment on this, but please keep in mind: I simply love what you're doing!! Â

Thanks a lot! I hope to try it some day this week, I'll post some feedback

That sounds great! Just what I was looking for, but unfortunately the link (in your sig) is 'dead'; it has been downloaded more than 10 times according to rapidshare... do you have a new link or does anyone have a mirror, I'm dying to try this!!

The GTX260 is a very powerful GPU, IMO. Quite a bit more powerful than a 8800GTS 640, so I'm not sure where you found that your fps in FSX will decrease. You might have confused it with a 8800GTS 512 (G92 core) perhaps, but _still_ the GTX260 should be faster! The AMD 4870 should be able to perform likewise, did you try a clean Windows install when switching to it? But that aside: you will surely not lose any performance in Arma when switching to a GTX260 I believe! Although most of its performance gain is probably in growing textures and FSAA/AF operations. (but I don't believe this is what this forum is intended for...)

There are already several reviews available of the Core series (Google is your friend ), but the biggest downside of this SSD seems to be the random write speed/access time. The MTBF (mean time between failures) is at least as high as conventional disks, if not a lot higher. I wouldn't be afraid that your SSD wears out. Reads can be done very quickly (up to 140MB/s, 0.3ms access time) so that would make it perfect for a disk to play your games from (mostly read operations). Having your OS installed on it, with perhaps a swap file and temporary files to store (write!, might be less beneficial than conventional HDD's due to the higher random write access times (up to 240ms, what I've read versus ~12ms read/write for HDD's). New HDD's may for now still be the best and cheapest option, since 100MB/s read is quite normal nowadays. There is however great potential for SSD's as the prices go down and hopefully, performance goes up! I'm willing to give it a try when my budget allows me to, because as I said, SSD's can surely benefit games because of the low read access times, I'm sure Arma will benefit a lot; especially with high speed movement and high viewing distances (loads of textures to load).

Is there any news on the Special/Collector's Edition from the 505 Release? I can't seem to find it easily here, maybe the TS needs a small section for it? :P

I used these to (un)pbo. Unfortunately there is just a small problem with the demo: all pbo files are signed (by an RSA-1 key or something? see .bisign-files) and all added pbo files in the addon folder need to be signed as well, so editing or adding any content of the demo is 'not done', at least I didn't get it to work, failing on 'corrupted content detected'-errors I guess BIS learned at least one thing from the OFP demo

the only file you can edit concerning your graphical settings is Arma.cfg in your 'my documents\arma\' folder, I think. But it isn't very helpful: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">language="English"; adapter=-1; 3D_Performance=9615.000000; Resolution_W=1024; Resolution_H=768; Resolution_Bpp=32; refresh=60; FSAA=0; HDRPrecision=8; lastDeviceId=<*zipp*>; localVRAM=122679296; nonlocalVRAM=257949695; if there are any extra options to put in this file that someone knows about and that might cause a performance gain, please post it here!

I am surprised I am the only one so far who requested this kind of exclusive addon. Nobody would like that? (Is it because there is no real way to make the pbo exclusives? Because two days after the release of the special editions the specials PBOs will be available all over the internet?) of course you're not the only one who wants this, but I (and probably many people with me) don't think it is realistic to ask such an addon in a 'special edition' of the game. this would be something for a (big) patch or something, not something you give as an 'exclusive' addon while you and they know it will be spread to everyone in a few days, as you mention yourself :P I personally like the Czech SE, I hope 505 will come up with a similar package.

if you mean the 'invex_vokr' video: to me it looks like the cameraman is refocussing his camera instead of the screen going blurry since the guy playing is also out of focus for a sec there is a very nice 'overbright' effect when you look into the sun though

damn, looks great I spotted a few graphical glitches (like shadow of the soldiers not rendered when they're in the back of a truck), but since nobody is perfect, you won't hear me whine very well done video, very nice close-ups, shows a lot of detail and features, like the multiple gunner positions and stuff. The only thing left is a (or the) playable version, I guess

actually, it says P4 2.4 Ghz, that says a lot more since 'P4' is like 1.8 Ghz to 3.x Ghz I'd say it's not a bad performance, but of course one needs to see it with their own eyes to be able to judge it