Yoma

thanks :-)

Addonsync does not create profiles at all (there is not 1 line of code in the tool to write a profile) It might be that if you launch Arma2 with no profile selected, that Arma2 (or one of the newer beta's of A2 or A2OA) creates a profile called System.

•Bug #11783: Checking availability of new OA beta's was bugged... •Bug #12111: Use Password Option •Bug #12789: Download button didn't disable immediately after clicking it. •Feature #5996: no need for long mod path for MyDocuments/Arma2 since beta 60000 •Feature #12376: Expansion folder is not selectable •Bug #12156: There is a 51 folder limit in download tab The fix for the folderlimit *might* introduce some funkyness... ---------- Post added at 07:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 AM ---------- There have been multiple discussions about this. Everyone is free to set up whatever repository they want to. Allowing too much keys introduces security risks.

Normally you should be able to put the modstring in the textbox under the modsets panel in "launch game" (without "" in the string). When the beta folder is in the modstring the tool should autoselect the OA exe in the beta folder (if the nonbeta exe is selected in settings) If you add an "addons" subfolder with a single bogus textfile in beta/expansion you should be able to select all folders to load the beta correctly. In the Add modset form you should be able to select an external modfolder (this way you can browse to your Arma2 folder Thanks for posting this info, it may help some people. Unfortunately i don't have the steamversion so i can't really test how it reacts.

could we skype about this? I can get it to work under ubuntu 32 bit but its totally untested under 64 bit. Does it start?

Duplicate of duplicate of duplicate of duplicate of duplicate of duplicate thread. BIS have confirmed to be working on a sync solution... Why bother discussing it any more? You're asking them for something they allready know from the OFP days and that they confirm to be working on. In the meanwhile enjoy one of the tools to get your addons or do some manual work. It's not rocketscience... Pointless thread.

You say that like it's some kind of drug... Anyway: first time run will take quite some time calculating checksums. After this first time the checksums are cached so it will work *a lot* quicker...

Hi Walker Even today hills do have certain tactical advantages. Hills slow people down, and slower moving people are easier to shoot. So getting in a position where you have overwatch yet are not skylined can be an advantage. I'm no big tactician, but hills often have multiple "layers" multiple "crests" if you like. If you can lure the enemy into scaling a hill where your team is on the second crest i do feel you sometimes have an advantage. (you can quickly fall back, where the enemy can only slowly mount the slope) But yes, cresting the hill, laying put and just fireing without any tought out cover might not be the best idea there is. Having an overview can and will help you and your teammates. The first step to shooting someone, is seeing them. Being caught out in the open on a hillside is however a quick means to get yourself killed indeed. Also against tanks being on a hill might just mean that you're out of reach for the main gun, if the hill's height surpasses the max inclination of said gun. It may also be easier to hit softer armour (top?) of a tank. Certain weapons (nadelaunchers etc) might also be in a better position uphill facing downwards then vice versa.

Or if you really like Arma2: make some detailed maps the size of BF2 maps, with missions that restrict the number of entities to BF2 number of entities. Then enjoy Arma2 like you would BF2. I'm with Wisper.

Of course they did, so? I'm just trying to say that *a lot* of ammo (of all kinds) was pumped into that place. Anyway, you don't need to believe what i'm saying, but the scientist's comparison may not be too far off... The bigger issue is of course that it's very bad for the US's credibility as a moral knight that "wants to liberate the world" and then cause more people to actually die then the guy you are fighting in the process of liberation. Not only by fighting, but also by putting a nation in a state of war for 7 years. The big problem this has is that powers shift and nations will be held accountable when that happens. It's a silly comparison, but do you think anyone would have talked about the massacres of Jews if that crazy Hitler bloke would have actually won? Thing is the winner makes the law, but the winner of today might not be the winner of tomorrow. It's in the interest of America as a nation to (as far as possible) create at least a slightly credible story for their actions. Not using DU would make them far more credible and less vulnerable to later repercussions.

"The actual acute and chronic toxicity of DU is also a point of medical controversy. Multiple studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.[4] A 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[9] The World Health Organization states that no consistent risk of reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects have been reported in humans.[10][11] However, the objectivity of this report has been called into question.[12] " I don't think DU is actually used in normal bullets, (i hope not), but it's surely used in bigger types of ammo. There is a difference between "killing an active combattant" and "killing an active combattant and comprimising entire generations that will live on the spot where we killed him". I know it's a really bad thought and i really hope it will never happen, but i do wonder what the American public opinion (and the WHO's) about DU would be if it was recovered from warzones and exploded in Washington DC.

No but at least 1700 tons of depleted uranium has a good chance though... Of course this is an estimation of the total amount of DU used in the second gulf war, but i would seriously doubt it would be a lesser amount. Also Falluja as far as i know was pretty hellish so probably some parts of the city have swallowed at least a couple of tons of DU. DU is great because it kills, but it's usage has allways been contested by biologists and cancer specialists. (A lot of people are worried for the soldiers too...) It is however a great way to recycle and dump your own nuclear waste, if you aren't troubled by worldly stuff like morals... I don't know if it would be worse then Hiroshima, but by comparison the Little Boy bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima contained 64,1 kg of 86% enriched uranium. I'm pretty sure a geigercounter would go pretty wild in some areas of Falluja. I've actually seen reports after the first gulf war where scientists where measuring next to a t72 and then pretty much ran away from it :-) For those that want to read up on depleted uranium and why it's not a very decent to shoot 1700 tons of it into a country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium Actually they may have given some crazy folks exactly what they need for a dirty bomb. Now THAT would be cynical...

Maybe because they pretty much levelled entire blocks of the town...

Do you have both AO and Arma2? Are both paths configured? If you don't have Arma2 but only AO, did you untick the "Arma2 is installed on this pc" box? Are you using a repository that is meant for OA? If you can't get it sorted you can always try sixupdater. However, Addonsync does work (mostly :p ) when correctly configured.

And besides that, back then there where also plenty of issues with Ai's getting stuck :P

Try setting the OA game folder equal to the Arma2 folder. ATM I can't be arsed to implement a lot of fixes for a flawed Steam release.

Yes it does.

I don't know if America (or just about anyone who needs oil quickly) will go to war with Iran within the next 1-3 years. But I'm bloody sure *some* big country is going to do it within the next 20 years. They are sitting on +- 138 billion barrels Check out this table if you want to know what countries will be in trouble unless they suck up to some really big ally. (In billions of barrels estimated reserves within the country's geographical borders) Saudi Arabia 267 (ally of USA) Canada 179 (ally of USA) Iran 138 (ally of nobody, preference to Russian Federation or China) Iraq 115 (confiscated by USA) Kuwait 104 (ally of USA) Venezuela 99 (completely not an ally of USA and allready getting blackjacked...) United Arab Emirates 98 (ally of USA) Russia 60 Libya 41 (unsure nowadays) Nigeria 36 (looking at China) Kazakhstan 30 (ally of Russian Federation) United States 21 Amazingly this list contains no less then 5 nations which get targeted in Western media. I'm a great believer in the power of randomness but one has to be very naive to believe that this is a random fact. I think it would be a great Masters topic for someone that's doing history, social economical or politics studies. Link the amount of propaganda spread in the media about a nation to it's natural resources in conjecture to a "greater" ally. This is all without judging "good" or "bad", it's just noting facts. Fact is between now and 60 years max oil, will run dry and we still don't have any really viable options for replacing it. All current technologies for replacing it somehow link back to other rare resources. You need stuff to make batteries/solar panels/windmills/blabla as well.

Well, then don't, but don't expect the community to support your "battle". The price for OA and the upgrades it brings are OK, if you don't like it, go sort stuff yourself. Don't expect devs of all kinds of addons to stretch themselves to cater to you. Have a nice day.

To everyone that wants to use AddonSync to download the new Ace beta once KH get's a mirror up: -make sure to update to version 1.0.63 -keep in mind that there still may be issues concerning AddonSync OA integration, feel free to report them as you stumble upon them. To everyone involved in making all this happen, spending hours/days/weeks of their lives tinkering with all sorts of stuff: You're all heroes. Let's do this!

Maybe that something is called VISTAX64 :D On my pc i get about 15-25% better performance in XP32 compared to VISTAX64. That said OA probably needs some optimisations and will probably never run like an average 200m max VD corridor shooter...

Allthough i don't really think an attachment system is needed, it would be nice if someone made an advanced ammocrate script. What i would personally like: -big list of all stuff with quicksearch filter (type what you want,filter get's applied, select it) -A second tab where you can do base weapon type selection, (Rifle, MG, Pistol, AT, Nades, "tools"), select main class of weapon (e.g. G36, M16,...) -after base type selection list up the variants of the weapon in question for further selection. Add checkboxes "optics", "magnifying optics","night optics" for further easy filtering... Generally: avoid users having to scroll endlessly... a minimal but in my opion welcome change could be "paging" so you can just click next if you need to...

Fixed in next version.

I actually don't really get why userconfigs are outside a mod's folder. This could cause potential issues when running multiple versions of mods in different folders. The spreading of config files themselves is totally up to the maker of the repository. In my personal opinion stuff like "you need to set your playername in a config file" is crap and should be avoided at all costs. (allthough i'm sure there are valid technical reasons for doing this) I once started looking to parse config files and add in the "diff" in the new files, but it's too much work for too little payoff.

-winxp used to be a fix for multigpu setups under Vista/Win7, i personally don't even know if it's still needed/has any use in OA -dsound used to force usage of DirectX soundsengine (instead of OpenAL engine) again I do not know if it has any use in OA If you don't have any big problems, don't enable any of them. There probably are other reasons a winxp setup performs better (again I don't know if this is still true for OA) I personally doubt Vista or 7 would be faster due to the extra abstraction layer between DirectX and hardwaredrivers which was first implemented in Vista and ported to 7. Also XP has a lower basic CPU/Memory profile then both 7 and Vista. As the OS is "doing less" more resources become available to demanding applications like Arma/OA. That said there might be other hardware/software optimisations I'm not aware of that could potentially boost performance under 7 allthough I really doubt they exist. Other then that XP is a dying platform and for various other reasons one might switch to 7(x64) I found it compelling that the system requirements on the DVD box of OA mentionned xp/Vista as minimal options and 7 as optimal, but everyone knows that's just a printed line on a cover...