advocatexxx

I have found it impossible to complete this mission successfully. The objective is "to kill as many enemy soldiers and disappear". In Veteran mode, the most I'm able to shoot from the water tower area are 4-5 before being discovered. Flanking the enemy proves useless as the mission seems to regard any movement away from the water tower as extraction, and when it does, the mission still ends in failure. If there is a minimum number of soldiers that I need to kill it should be defined in the objectives, shouldn't it? Has anyone had any luck with this mission? Cheers

You know, it just happened in Crysis too. Blue screen of death. After restarting Windows, it identified the problem as RAM-related. I ordered a pair of 1gb Corsair XMS2, one of which was faulty out of the box. I wouldn't be surprised if the single 1GB module I did install had a few faulty sectors too. That's what you get for paying double over Kingston ValuRam. Let me order another pair. Hopefully that will remedy the issue. If not, I'll post again :-) Cheers

Hey guys, I've posted in the GENERAL forum a few days ago. As you may know, with the Christmas just around the corner (and with me having 10-days off work, finally), I've decided to buy a nice, $2,000 gaming rig and try Armed Assault, having been a devoted fan of Op. Flashpoint/Resistance some years back. Sadly, over the past two hours, as I've tried to customize keyboard controls, and as I engaged in the first mission, ArmA has crashed to desktop at least a dozen times. It had happened in 1.06 as well as in 1.08 (after upgrading). For what it's worth, everything works fine (while it works). The only thing I can notice is that sound sounds pretty rough. The conversation the grunts are having in the HMMWVs in the first mission is razzy. In any case, Crysis has been working flawlessly (for what it's worth), so I'm unsure whether this is ArmA-specific, or my system-specific error. I'm running WinXP Home 32-bit, on nVidia GeForce 8800GTS (640MB RAM) and Intel Core 2 DUo with 1GB DDR 800 RAM. If anyone can offer some pointers as to how to fix this, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

Guys, I've finally managed to shun my professional life (at least for the duration of the holidays), and have decided to build a gaming rig and install this ArmA puppy and reminisce my days of Flashpoint. For those of you who have played this game for some time now, what kind of performance can I expect from the following rig? 3Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo (1333Mhz FSB) 2GB DDR2 800 RAM GeForce 8800GTS (640MB DDR3 RAM) Win XP Now, I'm well aware of the minimum as well as the recommended system requirements listed by Bohemia. However, knowing how Flashpoint performed, we all know the real specs are always higher than the recommended ones. Thanks a bunch and I look forward to spending many, many hours hiding in the bushes, waiting for the right time to strike a passing squad of enemy combatants. Cheers!

I haven't checked this site in a while, nor the forums, but it appears as though there is no update regarding the release of this title, am I correct? I can't sort through 179 pages of this thread, but what is the status of this game? The month of June is almost over, so has the H1 release been bumped up to H2 of 2006? Let's hope AA and Game2 won't turn into a S.T.A.L.K.E.R, 5 years in the making and still postponing. Cheers guys.

upon comparing the dates of our registration on this forum, i'm not so sure i really fit the profile of a "newbie", but thanks for your kind thoughts.

well, it looks like armored vehicles still kick up dust-storms when driving on asphalt surface... and soldier animations and movement dynamics seems unchanged. this doesn't sound like a whole new game, merely the good old flashpoint we all love with a facelift in the graphics department.

that's exactly right. actually, pine trees have much softer wood, making them easier to break. and given that their profile is tall and slim, their roots are also fairly small, because pines usually grow in dense forests, and thus their roots generally adapt. oak is a whole different story. oak wood is considerably denser, and very hard. their profile is also very wide. hell i don't think an abrams could uproot an adult 30 yr. old oak if it tried. but anyway, this is going off topic. the only reason i raised this issue is out of BIS's announcement that forests will no longer be treated as single impassable units, but instead be made up of individual trees. i just hope (as someone pointed out), that a group of abrams won't be able to just roll through a forests full of tall pines and oaks and just uproot them without any effort.

uh, no. armored vehicles certainly don't knock large trees down by ramming into them at full speed. that's a good recipe to give every member of your tank crew a serious head concussion and damage your vehicle. large trees are usually uprooted slowly. you would line your vehicle with one side of tracks approaching the tree, and climb onto it, ultimately uprooting it with the sheer mass of your vehicle. don't forget. armored vehicles aren't passenger cars. they are not equipped with bucket seats or airbags.

that would add a ton of options to the game. uprooted trees could be treated as rocks, or other types of obstacle-class objects which a car would have to go around, but an armored vehicle could cross, despite a slower speed. i have no issues with bushes or small trees, yet uprooting the giant pines should remain impossible. besides, tanks (or any other vehicles) have no place in dense forests anyway. so if treating a large forest as a single unit makes the game perform better, then i see no reason why they're focusing so much effort onto this.

this seems to be one of the many new features in arma, especially given the fact that forests will now be made up of individual trees, which (as per a recent interview with the BIS) will allow the player to uproot them. OFP has often been praised for its well thought-out mix of fun, arcade play elements and realism, and it's obvious that ArmA aims to perfect that mix even more. however, i have always felt that uprooting trees in OFP was far from realistic to begin with. especially given the fact that one needs to only touch a tree with an armored vehicle (regardless of the speed you were going) to uproot it. trees, even those with thin trunks (think 30cm in diameter) have strong and widespread roots. and for a light vehicle, such as the BMP to simply uproot it without any effort whatsoever is far from realistic. so why do i bring this up? because OFP is what it is (a great game) not only for its main features (realistic combat, one-shot-and-you're dead principles, etc.), but also because of all the little things. in the end it's the little things that add up to make a great game, and it's those little things we love. and as such, a player shouldn't be able to uproot a 50-meter tall pine tree regardless of what vehicle he's driving, or how fast is going. and when it comes to smaller trees, it should take a bit more effort than simply "touching" it. if anyone here has seen an armored vehicle uprooting a tree, you know that the tree is usually approached slowly, and literally "climbed" with the weight of the vehicle until the tree breaks. in this respect, i have actually appreciated the fact that those tall pine trees in OFP (the ones treated as a single forest unit) were unbreakable. neither a BMP or a 60-ton abrams is going to uproot something standing 50 meters tall with a trunk of 1-meter in diameter. who knows, maybe updating this feature would require significant revisions to AI path-finding. but i can't help and think that a tank platoon rolling down a hill, and clearing a forest as it moves would be an element unbefitting of the physics and realism that we've all come to expect.

lol some of you really need to find new hobbies. visiting this forum obsessively, and exagerrating every little mundane detail that you happen to see in these beta-screenshots is quite apalling from my view. "i'm not gonna play this stupid game if that option i saw in that unofficially released screenshot makes it to the final game" heh. you guys should listen to yourselves. why don't you calm down, find new and interesting things to do with your spare time, and simply wait until the game is released. then play it, and finally, form your opinion of it. i'm starting to realize that this is the very reason publishers like to keep game features to themselves until it's released. these "groupie" crowds are impossible to satisfy

most people also seem to have some, rather distorted ideas about what steam is and how it works. "most people" also voted to re-elect president bush, but that obviously didn't turn out to be such a good choice either. whoever refers to steam as a "piece of shit, system-hogging spyware" needs to upgrade their computer (128MB or RAM just doesn't cut it anymore, bob).

a true flashpoint player doesn't need no stinkin' manual to play! steam doesn't control anyone. if anything, it may track when you play a game and how long in duration. it should also be noted that one is not required to disclose their sex or age (or any other personal details for that matter) when creating a steam account, so the only information this hypothetical "steam tracker" would provide is the time you launch the game, and how long in time you play it. that kind of data is quite useless in the marketing world when you can't even narrow down your audience by simple factors such as age. steam wasn't exactly released for the sole purpose of making software available through the internet. people have had the ability to purchase software online and download it for years now. steam was, in big part, an intitiative taken up to resolve the issues of software updates. in essence, it's nothing more than your windows automatic updater, which occasionally checks for new versions and downloads them, to keep your software up-to-date. this is especially important since the original half-life engine, and games which ran off it (counter strike, day of defeat, etc.) were constantly barraged with hacks and cheats, and valve tried to keep-up by offering new patches and fixes. this often proved to be an exhausting task for gamers, who had to manually check and download updates for their software. that's certainly part of their business strategy. and so what? it's only beneficial if you ask me. why waste resources on a pointless manual? when you know that for a game like half-life, no one will really read it. the only information there is just FAQ, troubleshooting and the warranty notice. why waste resources on imprinting a disc, on packaging, on distribution, on retail space. all of this costs money, and ultimately, has to be included within the product's price. by offering us the option of downloading it, they're paving way for more affordable software. as for these 50Kb/sec download limits they seem to experience when downloading updates from steam, i have yet to experience such slow speeds. my downstream usually averages at around 600-800Kb/sec. i'm not vouching for steam, but i'm certainly trying to clear up some of these flawed notions that many of you preach. in a few years fiber-optic lines will replace DSL and Cable (my friend's neighborhood is already wired with fiberoptic lines, and he gets T3-equivalent speeds for the same price that my Cable costs). steam doesn't force you to download software updates if you're playing a singleplayer game, and these "clock cycles" someone mentioned, lol, where do you get this stuff? you dont' honestly think that if you somehow played the game without steam, your FPS rate will double, do you? steam is nothing more than a way of keeping a game that's known to be popular in multiplayer up-to-date, taking full advantage of the broadband. and if you're stuck on a 56K line or ISDN, then you lack bandwidth to play the game online, let alone download the updates.

yeah. that's because this isn't your mundane joe six-pack "jump-in and frag 'em" flight shooter. it's an infantry simulator, where air vehicles serve a purpose no other than to add an atmospheric impact to the overall scope of the game. again, not a flight sim... if you can play as an individual soldier, make decisions that affect your squad, etc. then it's most likely not a game like IL-2, Lock-On or Falcon 4. There is a whole other Universe for fans like you, and let me tell ya, it's not on Flashpoint forums.