Wolfrug

Hello Cleverbot. Hello human. How are you? I am incapable of human feelings, therefore how I am is out of the question. Good point. Thank you. I dunno. xD Seems pretty self-aware to me! Regards, Wolfrug

FFS, it's not the bloody global warming that's the problem, it's our messed up fossil-fuel/growth based economy. Living green isn't just about saving the rain forests or preventing the melting of the ice caps or whatever: it's about cutting down on our consumption (fossil fuels and everything else, since everything consumes fossil fuels). New more effective wind turbine technology is an unallayed positive, stop bringing up your OWN alarmist bullshit on a thread that's about alternative energy. :mad: Regards, Wolfrug

I suggest you use enableSimulation instead :) That apparently has a real effect on CPU cycles (as in, an AI with enableSimulation false takes none). Regards, Wolfrug

Christ, did you listen to that first interview? "France is for the French". Yeah, um, as much as one might enjoy the pushing of buttons and breaking of social taboos and commenting on video game violence, I don't think supporting a game made by a bunch of obvious assholes like that is something to gun for. I liked the fact that in Postal 2 you could actually play through the whole game without ever firing a bullet (or so I've been told) - this is, as mentioned, the whole "comment on video game violence" thing which I think is quite cute. But...um. Yeah. That's when I assumed the makers might just be juvenile, rather than big ol' adult <insert expletive here>. Pass. Regards, Wolfrug

You know you could just use the CodePad script for ArmA that I made (based on Blanco's for OFP) some time ago, right? Supports multiple codepads, with their own codes (that can be added as 'known' and displayed on a piece of paper), and can allow any kind of script to be run either when adding the right code or the wrong. Also includes sounds. Not to hijack anyone's thread. So sorry for that. Regards, Wolfrug

I used to have pretty abysmal performance on my old rig; then I upgraded everything but my GPU (a 8600 GT 256 MB - yeah, I know) - NO noticeable improvement. But once I upped my GPU to a 8800 GT, everything is running much smoother. So despite what people say about CPU and RamDisks and whatnot, my suggestion is to look at your graphics card. Is it at least on the level of a 8800? Preferably better? If so, and it still runs like crap (even on low settings), there might be something else wrong with it. (mind, I'm not exactly getting 40+ FPS here, but compared to my previous 10-15, I ain't complaining!) Regards, Wolfrug

I'm assuming OFP:CWC and Resistance at least as being canon - Armstrong hails from there, after all, and what more it all took place on some islands far away from central government and was orchestrated by a mad renegade general. So I think it's pretty safe to say OFP is/was canon, although those events aren't really mentioned. ArmA being canon or not I'm really not sure...Armstrong supposedly died in the attack on Dolores (?), but then he's alive again in Arma 2 (although sure, it could have been different Armstrongs). But that's really the only issue of contention: no other characters that I know of have carried on from ArmA to Arma 2, so it's really a moot point. I think it's safe to say it's canon (aside potentially from the Armstrong thing); although how ArmA's storyline ended is anyone's guess (RACS bad guys, SLA good guys, what?). Red Harvest clearly didn't end in a nuclear apocalypse, so EW is a "what if" scenario, not official canon. Arrowhead has Chernarussian UN troops, which suggests that Red Harvest did not end with Lopotev gaining power. The other fine details: if Lopotev survived or not, if enough evidence was collected, etc etc. we probably can't know. But as mentioned, Arrowhead's Chernarussian UN troops suggest heavily that Chernarus is independent and mostly free of the Chedaki. Op: Arrowhead really only had like two endings, didn't it: either you saved the hostages or you didn't? Not sure what the difference between the two was, but whatever the case, it clearly didn't turn out all that well since in PMC the country is a bit of a shithole. As to which ending will be canon from PMC - well, that's something that only Arma 3 can tell at this point, I think :) But overall I don't think there's any problem in following an official canon in the Armaverse, although it's naturally filled with giant gaping holes (where you can plug in your own mission ideas and alternative what-if scenarios!). Regards, Wolfrug

Sorry about that, boys n' girls. The old lady's a bit unreliable from time to time. She always comes back though! Regards, Wolfrug

A tiny request if I may be so bold: is there any chance someone could send me/upload for download/point me to a DL location for just the campaign/SP missions from CWR2? I managed to install the mod but then I deleted the actual installation file before I realized I hadn't unzipped the campaign/scenarios. >_< Now I don't particularly feel like downloading the whole shebang again just for the campaign/missions. Thanks! Regards, Wolfrug

Right, so, all we need then is a design document, team, and talent for... The Arma Community-Made Beginner's Campaign, or, the Arma Community ABC! It would work on three levels: 1) It would teach new players from the ground up how to access and implement basic infantry, advanced infantry, basic squad leading and advanced squad leading skills, as well as missions involving lone wolf stealth, recon and sabotage. Then it would move on to ground vehicles (with a focus on MBTs, but with a smattering of IFVs and trucks/other cars), first as a basic tanker and then as a tank platoon commander. Finally, the same would be done for air, covering air transport and close air support in helicopters, and then perhaps a few missions (at most) as a fighter pilot (since this is not a very big part of the Arma experience). It might also at some point showcase some of BIS' own modules, for instance the UAV module, the Ambient Combat module, and the High Command module. 2) WHILE teaching the player all of the above, the campaign would also introduce the player to the Armaverse, beginning with Armstrong, Gastovksi and the Cold War Crisis, moving on to Sahrani and the RACS & SLA, and finally covering Chernarus and Takistan + BAF/PMC. This could be done in notes, through recurring characters (like Armstrong), and general background information to the missions, making sure that the new player is fully aware of all they need to be aware of with regards to the Armaverse that BIS has built. If this is not strictly possible, then the missions should at least take place in the Armaverse and reflect on and work in parallell to the official missions. 3) Follow the tenets of good mission design, meaning each mission could be opened up in the editor and learnt from. Each script would contain ample comments, a unified system for description.exts, stringtable.csvs, sound and music folders etc. would be used, every mission would contain a readme with credits and instructions for how each part in it was achieved and so on. In that sense, the campaign would also serve as an introduction to the mission editor (and an accompanying beginner's guide to mission editing could be released with the campaign), as each mission would provide a more and more complicated template from which to build on. It would use Combined Operations, with BAF/PMC as optionals, and span perhaps 40 missions (although many of them would be fairly short, especially the initial introductory ones). Optimal would be if it could be fully voice acted, and super-optimal would be if it could also be played in co-op with 2-4 players (but this might be a bit too much to ask). The idea would be that each new player could be given this campaign, which would lead the player carefully through the complexity of the Arma engine (and history), and spit out veteran players on the other side eager for more challenge and fun. ...yeah, so...um. That's not a tall order at all, is it? :D Regards, Wolfrug

Good and well-argued thread here, OP. Something that bears thinking of. As someone already mentioned, OFP actually did this pretty well. It kind of eased the player into the role of a soldier, from the first missions that were actually "basic training", to the assault on Everon that was over with almost no input from the player, and from there on getting more and more difficult over time (ending up with the "meant to be failed" Montignac mission(s)). The mission where Armstrong was promoted Lieutenant and got control over his own squad also had a little tutorial for how to order your units in and out of vehicles and whatnot - all "in game". Likewise there were "tutorial" missions in-game for how to drive your tank and fly your helicopter/plane: these also went from easier to harder (you started in an M60, and then upgraded to an M1A1). I can only surmise the reason BIS hasn't followed this paradigm in their later games is lack of time. ArmA was a quick job, the campaign even more so, and as others have mentioned Arma 2 and OA just sort of thrust the player directly into combat with no warning. A larger set of more linear training missions would have been awesome - but very, very time consuming and probably quite expensive from the POV of voice acting, animations and so forth. Did anyone actually bother to do the "training" on the Khe San in the beginning of Red Harvest for instance? Especially the completely impossible and quite useless skeet shooting? The tutorial missions were good, but they were kind of disjointed and, well...the time between learning X and actually having to do X in the game world can be quite long... All in favour then of reintroducing some kind of gentler learning curve with more time spent teaching and leading the player by the hand into the crushingly complex world of Arma? Good :) Regards, Wolfrug

I will eat my hat if gameplay is -anything- like that in the actual game. The timing of the responses by the protagonist, the player just happening to look in the right direction at the right time, the huge areas jumping back and forth...yeaaaah. No. Good try though. Art direction looks AMAZING though. Regards, Wolfrug

Good thoughts! But perhaps better left to scripting than in-game default AI. Basically, it's possible (and maybe even easy) to script in, but would be nigh-impossible to script out. A module might be a good middle ground. The problem with this is that it becomes too complicated, in game terms, to "simulate". Maybe during WW2 a stolen Tiger tank suddenly appearing would have led to immediate reprisals - but then what if the people inside the tank would be waving and obviously wearing Allied uniforms? You can't simulate this in Arma (unless you add a lot of extra scripts for it). You'd also phone it in first, wouldn't you: "I'm coming and I've got a stolen tank! Don't shoot me!" -> imagine the absurd amount of extra work needed, just when thinking of voice overs, to get that to work. Also you'd have to be able to make the AI do this automatically when taking over a tank. That's just one aspect of it. The other is the "suddenly appears" one. This already exists to a small extent for night missions in Arma - if you drive around in an "enemy" car during the night, the enemy is often VERY slow at realizing you're not one of them. But during the day, the logic of this would be quite difficult. You climb into a disabled enemy BMP, in front of your whole squad. Except the AT soldier, who is looking the other way. And then when he looks back, is he supposed to go "OH SHIT ENEMY! KILL IT!", even though all of his friends are just standing around not doing anything, and even though he's fully aware that tank was disabled earlier. This is very human behaviour - practically impossible to simulate for the AI. And then there's tons of mission-specific stuff. The Resistance steals a bunch of T-80's, because that's the PLAN: yet if you forget to do a whole lot of extra scripting, you'll be killed by your own men when you roll into town after successfully completing your mission. Two T-80's are shooting at one another: how can they know which is which? A human conundrum, but not really an AI one, if you understand what I mean. The AI solution is to shoot -both-, the human solution is probably to shoot -neither-. Or; you steal a tank, and try to use it to infiltrate enemy territory, but that's ridiculous, since they all know that tank doesn't belong here, and isn't responding to calls anyway. Or maybe they don't! That's up to the mission designer tho, imho, not the AI. What I think should be done is just to make the "unknown enemy" thing a little more streamlined, so that you can for instance fool the enemy in daytime at least for a little while and at a very long distance, as long as you're not shooting or anything; this already works during night (sometimes too well), but making it work at least for a bit during the day would be quite awesome as well. Long ranty post. TL;DR is: It'd be really great if the AI would simulate real humans and their faults and foibles to a T, but that just doesn't seem too likely. Regards, Wolfrug

This is an absolutely excellent example of storytelling in Arma 2, and heartily recommended. I won't spoil anything much, but be prepared for something quite different, and quite heart-pumpingly exciting. I suggest you allow yourself to be immersed as far as you can - it's not that hard either :D Great job as always, Undeceived! Regards, Wolfrug

I don't think your join date is embarrassing :D As to adding more simulator-like aspects to stuff like this - well, I think of that in the same way as I think of adding a more complex flight model. I haven't got a joystick or pedals or any of that stuff, and I'm unlikely to get Take On Helicopters because I'm just not a pilot-sim enthusiast. But I've always been able to fly in OFP/ArmA/Arma 2. Having to learn all the parts of shooting a gun or driving a vehicle is a) time-consuming, b) does not fit into the simulation model of the RV engine (how would it be implemented? Keyboard shortcuts? action menu?), c) might not be fAIr, and d) takes a ton of time to develop. However, if there's some practicable gameplay applications aside from just "it's realistic!", I could totally be in on that. Like for instance having an active and a passive radar system that'd somehow be player/AI activated and could impact on how soon or how easily a, say, SAM site is discovered from the air - that could be totally useable. But yes. Not just for the sake of it. Regards, Wolfrug

Steam is particularly insidious in that even if you buy games from other online retail outlets, they might still have to be activated on steam- in that sense Steam is less a service for games and more a form of DRM (although Steam's 'DRM' has of course also been broken). I recently bought Fallout: New Vegas from D2D, and only found out as I was installing it that it needed Steam. Same thing for Dawn of War II. It's not terribly annoying as I do use Steam a lot, and you often can't beat their deals (especially around holiday times), but I can imagine it being very very annoying indeed for anyone who prefers NOT to use services like Steam. OT: Digital distribution is the way of the future. Just don't allow any one store a monopoly, and things should be going ever into a golden and happy tomorrow! Regards, Wolfrug

What's with the negativity, guys? The real-time-with-pause system (which is what it is) is the perfect mix between old-school turn-based slowness and modern too-fast-too-furious real time. It looks like it'll work perfectly for JA as well - provided they lower the accuracy on the late-game rifle toting enemies who have a tendency towards 100% hit rate even against prone-in-cover people :P The 3D engine, furthermore, allows you to actually see if you're in cover or not when crouching behind a rock, rather than making guesses based on the 2D terrain. Hopefully they'll keep the "actually shoot bullets out of the guns" mechanic the old JAs had, rather than fully replacing it with a lame-o pure %-based system (Ã la Fallout). If this thing turns out good, and turns out to be a hit, then just imagine where it might go next. WE MIGHT ACTUALLY GET A HIGH FIDELITY 3D TRUE-TO-THE-SOURCE REMAKE OF X-COM. What's not to love? Regards, Wolfrug

Well done, Ayn Rand. Why don't you go build an Objectivist paradise somewhere under the Atlantic ocean and see how well that works out :P In all seriousness, debates like these clarify the one overriding difference between the two systems currently being debated: the value of a human life. On one hand, we have the ones who think all lives are equally, intrinsically valuable, no matter if you're "hard working" or not. That's quite clearly what both vilas and -Martin- are rooting for, whereas ST_Dux and Hans Ludwig consider the individual properties of each person to be more important than humanity as a whole. To paraphrase Andrew Ryan (har har), "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?": that kind of seems to be the idea. In a sense it's funny, though. The only argument you wannabe objectivists (no, really - you guys should focus on other things than your goddamned "only hard-working people deserve a chance at life!" argument if you want to be called something else) provide when asked about things like caring for disabled people (for instance) is that such things can be taken care of by charity. You assume, somehow, that the human capacity for charity is enough to take care of an entire populace of down-and-out people? Whereas the left way of thinking assumes that no - if people are left to their own devices, they'll do exactly what you people want to do, which is leave the poor in the ditch, which means we have to do it FOR you. A humane state, an inhumane populace. Curious business. In the end, if everyone was nice to one another, we wouldn't need economical systems or government. But people aren't. I'd rather force you selfish pricks to pay some of your "hard earned" money to the state where they can keep also the roads you don't happen to be using daily in good repair, instead of living in the (frankly) medieval world you're espousing. Regards, Wolfrug

What the... I thought Brothers in Arms was all about srs bsns TRUE STORIES OF WAR HEROES bla bla drama, death, homoerotic brotherhood and so on. That....that was just weird. ._. Regards, Wolfrug

What the...people really have a problem reading the text when they don't speak the language? (Czech/Russian/Finnish/Whatever) That's bizarre. Besides, you KNOW what they're saying, just from the tone of their voice and the length of their shouts. And if you've got the little helper "clock indicator" on, you have to look down at it anyway to orient the "o'clock" properly. I...really don't understand this. Must be a monolingual/dubbing thing. I usually watch movies with subtitles on even if I don't have a problem understanding what they're saying (hell, I don't mind watching movies in my native language with subtitles on): it's just second nature. Lern 2 reed. Regards, Wolfrug

Agreed. This is a good idea. Also allow this for individual soldiers, and allow the player to pre-determine "tactics" for their units that they can add quickly and easily in any mission (e.g. through the "custom" screen or similar). So, for instance, I can create a "tactic" for my AA troops that says "do not target vehicles, do not target planes, only target helicopters", or "do not fire unless squad leader gives the Fire order" and so on. This would be good. Regards, Wolfrug

Stop with the medieval woman bashing, the juvenile kitchen jokes and the rest of the bullshit you're trying to pull, guys. ._. Seriously, this is 2011 (and the game is going to be set even further in the future), not 1811. Although I think big-breasted action chicks in games is sometimes as demeaning as not including women at all, I still prefer that to the sausage fest you're proposing. What more, as the good Cameron said, there are no men or women in Arma, just bits and bytes: making the "women" bytes capable of bearing arms, shooting and having all the other animations necessary is purely a good thing: after that it's up to the mission maker to decide if they want to include them or not. The only reason I can see that BIS wouldn't include women is the same for why they wouldn't include full interiors: lack of time. Regards, Wolfrug

Seems like a nice game - reminds me of Laser Squad Nemesis (which was a lot of fun back in the day) - I always wondered why these kinds of simultaneous turn-based games never really caught on: they make so much sense! Unfortunately the visuals is exactly what puts me off. I understand it's an indie game and bla bla, but to me it just screams lazy. I don't want it to be rendered by CryEngine - graphics don't matter - but it really seems almost no effort has been put into the visual design aside from what is necessary for gameplay. Darwinia/Multiwinia suffered from the same problem, although they at least had an excuse (it was 'supposed' to look like that since it was all a virtual world - still didn't care for it in the least). Defcon is different in that the visual design purposefully distances you from the terrible acts you are committing in the war - the sound design further accentuates this by making it clear you're sitting safe in some underground bunker ordering far-off cities to be nuked. Maybe Frozen Synapse has some similar story-reason for the way it looks, but at least the website didn't give me any information about that...and yes, I know some people really like the sleek, Tron-like stuff with bright neon colours and so on. I guess I'm not one of them. Note: haven't played it, so I'm basing this off videos and screenshots. I'm sure the -gameplay- itself is brilliant, but...let's be honest. We care for more than just mechanics, don't we? Regards, Wolfrug

For the AttachTo "hack" to work though, you need to have a very high floating zone - a lot of people have entirely disabled the floating zone for one reason or another. Since it's not possible to dynamically change the floating zone in a script, the only solution would be to tell players to increase it whenever they're "attached" in that way...which is not a very good solution, especially not if you're going to be popping in and out of vehicles a lot. Also, visually, it doesn't work: when in FP looking back at a unit attached to your flatbed truck, it just looks all kinds of wrong through the window. It's all right as long as you're the attached unit/you can't see it in FP, but yeah. Still, it could probably be used for a laugh or for novelty here and there (BATTLE BUS!), or in SP missions where players can pause and adjust their settings at will :) Regards, Wolfrug

Sadly, no luck with my own testing. Using the setvariable thing, I can make anyone speak any language. Are you sure you're using it exactly as shown, copy-pasted? I think it might be case sensitive. You're saying though that the default languages DO work? How odd. Please be aware though that only ENG and RUS actually have voices for all the behaviour modes, the others are much much more limited. SPA has a few for safe and aware and combat, but only a few, whereas Arab ONLY has voices for combat and none for the others. So if you're just hearing sneezes and coughs, that might be because they're not in combat mode :) Always try the language with a group in combat (not with yourself as group leader) - that should give you the most accurate results. As to the Key thing: I've already re-made the keys once, with no dice. Either my key-making is broken, or your key-reading is broken. :-/ I suggest you simply re-key them yourselves for your servers at this point. Regards, Wolfrug