uncle reiben

Same here... been sifting through various forums and google trying to figure out how to convert to Chernarus but most of it is beyond me :( So I'm just hoping D4 will have a Chernarus version... was a great map to run around on, and fighting all the Russian gear was more colorful :D.

I have had this problem for a while... I only noticed the super sensitive mouse side effect till today when my double-click failed to work in the editor... this led me here... I too use Track IR 5, but it wasn't running when I noticed the problem come back... but I did notice the Camera's IR LED's were on despite the software being off. So I tried restarting and closing the software but no fixy. Finally I checked the task manager and found two instances of TIR5 running in the background despite the software being off. after killing the two bugged TrackIR5.exe instances, I reloaded ArmA II and the problem was fixed... for the first time not requiring a reboot (and this explains why rebooting helped) So I believe the problem is linked to to extra instances of TIR running in the background when you launch ArmA. so... to avoid this problem (I think... as of now) make sure you don't have any failed shutdowns of TrackIR running in the background before you launch ArmA... it doesn't matter if TIR is on or off... as long as it's running properly. This precaution has fixed the issue for me. Cheers.

the 1.53 download seems to be missing the NWD_ExtraBallistics.pbo which came with the 1.52 download... was this intentional? Dunno if I should remove that file or not...

Just noticed this myself...

I believe this has been addressed in some iteration before in this thread but I'd like to add my observation as well to see if it helps to illustrate the problem. Also I'd just like to get my licks in to push for a betterment of the situation I come from a predominantly flight sim background and I love the new helicopter flight modeling in comparison to OFP. However, there is one thing that caught me as peculiar right off when I tried to land using the roll axis and after playing with it in 3rd person view I figured out it affects the pitch axis too, but is less noticable. The Pitch/Roll Axis of the Mi-17 and UH-60 (only things I've played with in the demo) are a bit jacked up... it appears that the helicopters attempt to roll around a position 2m or so above their rotors. it actually pitches and rolls around where the camera is centered if you use the Command View. what results is the fuselage does a pendulum sort of motion sliding left and right as it rolls, and a similar but less noticable effect along the pitch axis This is most notable when trying to land. In real life or in a bona fide Flight Simulator, a helicopter rolls and pitches about its center of gravity (more or less). As some of you probably know it accomplishes maneuvering by tilting the main rotor system accordingly, which vectors the thrust at a different angle and subsequently pitches or rolls the fuselage. to simplify it I drew it out. Here's a well made, third party SH-60 by Aerosoft in MSFS2004 at a 45 Degree right bank: Now here's the UH-60 in Armed Assault in a 45 degree left bank: Note the pendulum effect as the ArmA UH-60 "slides" as it rolls to 45 degrees and leaves it's initial positioning. Using Commander View from the front or rear and applying only left or right stick in a hover and it becomes obvious that the aircraft "Swings" along the center of the screen. Although it can be ignored and conquered with practice, lowering the Pivot Point of the Pitch and Roll Axes would: 1) Be proper, and improve the flight model accuracy 2) Make it easier for everyone--casual flyers and flight sim junkies alike. The rest of the flight modeling leads me to believe this might have been an oversight. It only makes things more difficult for all. It's a simplified model to begin with, so that everyone can pick it up easily, so why add an unreaslistic factor which makes things more difficult? Look at it this way... when you're trying to land on a specific point every movement is countered by the fact that you're "kicking" the aircraft in the opposite direction of your intended flight path... if you're only trying to make very minute adjustments this is a big problem. You could eventually get used to it of course, but why should you have to? Helicopters and Flight sims have always been an imperfect marriage. if you fly a Chopper in Microsoft Flight Simulator at 100% realism settings you're actually not getting a very accurate representation of flying a helicopter. Fact is, your body's equilibrium (ability to sense orientation relative to gravity's pull) peripheral vision, depth perception et al are very important in piloting a Helicopter, none of them can be simulated in a computer game. So games like Armed Assault and OFP simplify them some so everyone can have the ability to get the hang of it... which is great, and why I don't criticize what they give us too harshly... but I believe the issue I've explained (rather lengthily) above just makes it harder on all of us and should be considered. Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse but I'd just really like to see that changed

although a great thing it would be I doubt the level of realism you describe would become a part of ArmA. Helicopters unlike fixed wing aircraft don't like to fly... They require constant inputs from the pilot just to maintain straight and level flight on a set track. in a non-flight simulator game genre this could become frustrating to casual or non-flyers (I personally would love it) Modeling them properly in a game requires a lot time on the developers side and a lot of processor power from the client to calculate all of the factors. While modern systems could easily handle it, in a game like ArmA which revolves around the Infantry aspect, putting too much into the flight aspect is a waste. As much as I like to think of OFP/ArmA as a combined arms Sim it's really just the closest thing to an Infantry Sim with vehicles and stuff to play with on the side. Flying in combined arms games like this is great for Flight Sim enthusiasts... even if things aren't modeled to the same level of fidelity and realism the environment itself and the interaction with ground units gives us a better feeling of flying with the purpose of using our skills to support people and help them achieve a team goal. That being said I don't lament the fact that flight modeling doesn't meet simulator complexity. But I totally agree in that I'd like to see some level of difficulty which naturally prevents every n00b and their uncle from becoming the doombringer from the skies.

Another thing which I'm really hoping for is more fluid and consistent AI Handling of choppers I like to use choppers in many of my missions, being able to set them up to do exactly what I want consistently would make me a happy Reibie. I was able to pull off a lot with the old Mission Editor but forcing AI to do precise maneuvers was always a chore... and when you finally get it sometimes it only works for a few missions and breaks... oh so saddening

Are the attitude restrictions are still in effect for rotary winged aircraft in ArmA? I think that was one of the biggest turn offs. preventing pitch and roll past certain angles really hinder versatility of the Helicopter flight model itself. The fixed wing flight model from OFP was atrocious... of course like anything you could get used to it, but the simplified modeling actually made fixed wing flight significantly more difficult in most cases. 3rd party addon makers and their tweaks to their own models help in some cases, but OFP for the most part was quite unfriendly to fixed wing aircraft. The environment itself, specifically the view distance restrictions made flying fast moving jets quite hard because you had little time to prepare for targets and terrain. another thing was how the collider model worked on flying vehicles... at 150Km/H or whatever if you're touching the ground you start sustaining damage regardless of weather or not you had wheels. and Helicopters can't even move on the ground... Heli's like the UH-60 series with wheeled landing gear can surface taxi and perform rolling take-offs and landings (up to 20kts on a runway to aid in heavy takeoffs and such) by tilting their rotors forward (forward stick) and adding enough collective to begin moving forward but not enough to start lifting off. Hopefully some of these things have changed in ArmA... Of course ArmA isn't a flight sim, so not much can be reasonably expected, but the more fidelity they add the more appreciative I'd be

an opinion if I may. the echo effects to gunshots aren't a good balance for a video game like this which takes place in a wide variety of environments but only allows one firing effect. they sound good on their own but there's a significant pause between the initial report and the echo effect, which makes the overall effect seem very artificial. I would suggest that the best balance because of the way sound is modeled in OFP that you should leave small-arms sound effects to the initial report wherever possible. As it stands right now the after-sound seems a little out of place. Also is there an updated Weapons/Ammunition Classname reference? or at least an amendment to the 2.0 one saying which no longer applies? I've two or three blanks in the weapon crates made in 2.0 and wanna know what classnames no longer apply in 2.5 As always a great job by TB and his crew. Your contributions to OFP for no personal gain are much appreciated

Ah yes... the BIS Forum Motto

out of curiosity was that issue with animations for 3rd party (non FFUR) addons ever addressed? the ones where on some crew/gunner positions of addons the player was sunken low and rotated 90 degrees left (i.e. the Mk 19 and M240B models of CBT HMMWVs) You replied to my original inquiry about half-way through this thread but I couldn't determine if it was something you were willing/able to fix.

awesome... thx for the info. would the choice be restricted based on server settings or can clients change it independently?

noticed a crosshair in the videos which were fixed in the center of the screen... is this set in stone or will the point of aim be "floating" like in OFP? I hope like hell we get the floating system back, it was the best feature of OFP that gave it the more of a realistic feel and the function of it forced more realistic gameplay. that poll on ofp.info is up to like 8300 votes with like 79% in favor of the floating system... so im sure a lot would agree. did a search on this topic to see past discussions but couldn't find much.

two things I've noticed (besides the manl/auto-end thing I mentioned before) when I call for fire from a Paladin platoon they get on line, raise their guns and then the leader starts driving around as they start to fire and he fires as he drives around aimlessly... it's odd... never happened in 1.0 another thing was my initial test of conventional Tomahawks online with one other player, an error "-Maglist...something something" appeared and the conventional warhead Tomahawks didn't appear on the Assets List to either of us... anyone else experience these?

right mate... thats why I said leave the default units as are with 6 individual grenades, not replace them, and add the vest to the Magazines list so it can be manually added via the mission editor at the editors discretion... this way they wont change anything about the game as it is right now. It just gives the rest of us the option.

I'd like to see the smoke trails on the grenade launchers go... simply because they don't leave trails in real life (M203s don't at least, never fired a GP25 or know anything about the round, assume they're similar) They're propelled just like a bullet with a small amount of propellant (small relative to the size of the projectile) and fly slow enough (250 Feet Per Second) to see them with the naked eye. They leave no visible smoke trail. in the old FFUR thread I noticed HEDP vests/belts were supposed to make a comeback but I guess you changed your mind TB Is it possible to add them to the FFUR Magazines list so they can be used in user-made missions by those who want them? that way those who feel they hurt gameplay can keep the 6 40mms in the default units but we can add Vests if we want in the editor I like the 203, s'why I nag about it so much, hopefully I'll re-qual on it soon and be able to carry real ones again

Multiplayer... I have a GL on the map named "ServerChk" but still get an error message on spawn and a lot of the effects like switches and hangar doors are out of sync for clients... What am I messing up with?

didn't see it yet so it may just be me the AUTO-END option doesnt seem to work for me... it's on by default and I cant turn it off so all my fire missions end after one barrage. when I click on AUTO-END on the Fire Mission menu the Fuzing Menu pops up and any selection made affects the fuze settings. Tried it with the Paladin, M101's and M252's so far... is it working with you guys?

I think I understand what's being said, however I don't know how to go about it. Can anyone help me figure that one out? like what lines from what files need to be copied? Not quite ready to say goodbye to Combat's HMMWV's just yet

Don't recall seeing it mentioned so far so I'll say it to be safe. animations for Mounted guns is still weird. if you use CBT HMMWV's for example you'll notice on the TOW HMMWV or 240B that the player avatar is rotated 90 degrees left and sunk down a bit. Also the ZU-23 that came with BAS's Tonal OPFOR pack is affected. it seems like perhaps FFUR is suppressing 3rd party addons custom animations? Seems fine if a default animation is used. Take a lookey. aside from the MP grey briefing screen I think this is one of the biggest bugs present. No CTD's as of yet and I havent run into any other bugs that cause any big gameplay issues. Also FFUR seems to be performing much better. Great Job overall TB and crew P.S. did you change your mind about adding M203 and GP25 Vests again? (Yeah, I'm still on that crusade) We were looking forward to their return. I'm aware that some people don't like the idea because of OFP's frag effects in urban areas, but if not added to default soldiers at least adding them to the Magazine List for mission makers to choose from would be awesome. after all buildings only make up a small part of OFP's terrain and not all of us like to play in the streets Again, thank's for all the effort, revitalizing OFP for us doesn't go unappreciated.

Doesn't take a military expert to know you have a physical advantage by ditching your ruck if possible. if you have to have it, you have to have it. if not, you leave it behind or with a vehicle. most of the time you'll wanna drop it, you're a hell of a lot more versitile without it, not to mention your profile is larger and gives you away. most of the time when contact is probable you'll be carrying as little as possible to accomplish the mission, which usually excludes a ruck. Patrol pack maybe for most OFP-esque missions no-ruck would probably be most realistic.

no man. not playing to check every bug, but to see how the 1000-2000m breaks mission ! here you go, a list of them: "Camping" - CWC campaign : A bmp-2 that standing about 1700 m away from you shoots you when yo go with bergfho to get the truck "Huting" Â - Your tanks are engagin the AT positions and causing mayham through the battlefield {that was kind a nice thought, but still} The mission that is after "The Pass" - you squad tank "Tiger" is being wiped out by the tanks from patrovice, when they shouldn't ! {the mission where you have to blow bmp & t-72 so your tanks can siguys as them and enter patrovice} thats just a few, the only thing im asking is to fix that 1000-2000m bug ! Â Â all you gotta do is lower your view distance in your video settings. doesn't look as good since nowadays I can play at about 2000m meters view distance, but in CWC and Resistance Missions I don't get shot at by units at 1800 meters...

theres a couple variations of 40mm vests This one has 24 pouches for grenades Combat loadouts vary for purpose and service. We carry 18 in a vest for most cases... to include peace time security at state-side bases. I think I've read a combat load for the Marines is like 36. for a realistic scenario 12 would be kinda short for a Grenadier. realistically speaking 18-24 would be good... but if you care more about play balance then that's up for dispute.

Thanks for your replies TB, can't wait

aside from the CTDs which are obviously being taken care of FFUR 2006 is the best version of the pack yet IMHO. I've but two requests I respectfully present... A classname reference to include non-bis classnames used in the pack to assist in mission editing (is there one out there?) while most classnames are BIS defaults there are some that arent and it's hard to figure them out on my own and again I want to advocate the return of the 40mm M433 HEDP Vest... the M203 is such an important platform in an infantry squad in an OFP environment and not everyone designs missions and plays OFP in such a manner that a justifies a restriction of 6 grenades for "Gameplay purposes" the friends I've been playing OFP for years with also miss the vest since when we play it's often the same mission for hours. its lousy when you only have 6 grenades at most with 4 magazines. in comparison AF Security Forces personnel carry 7 Magazines (210 Rounds) and an HEDP Vest of 18 Grenades when posted with M203s, 6 being less than half a combat loadout. The HEDP Vest isn't as necessary as a classname reference for FFUR, but I threw it in there since I don't crawl out of my hole and post here very often. Thanks,