apex_predator

It seems the moderators here were overreacting or --at the least-- not understanding the scope of this particular problem, and the fact that it is community wide and affects more than a single clan. I have seen the same black screen of death on three separate servers today and can only assume from the tone of the original post that there have been more. Further, I don't see what is particularly "chest thumping" about the simple act of informing the community --ya know, this thing that we've been building for a decade-- that an honest group is getting blamed for the unethical acts of an individual. Please don't shut down this thread. Were I a mod, I would sticky it. Here's what happens: the server becomes highly unstable and laggy. Lots of dropped connection, orange and red broken chains, warping, piss-poor performance. After a few minutes the screen goes black and text to the effect of "Bend over and take it bitches. You've been hacked by Team Deadly and aaa..." blah blah blah user kiddie hacker bs. There's a cute little ASCII penis in it too. And then the server crashes. Now, I don't know any of the players involved. I'm just a long time player, long time community member. But having read the (now locked) threads I'm inclined to believe that this ISN'T the work of the clans which the BSOD blames. If this is happening to your server I would encourage you to talk to Team Deadly about sharing ban lists in the interest of ridding the community of this nuisance. See, sharing *information* in order to *improve* the experience is what this community has been about for a decade. Bitching at people for trying to clear their good name and take positive steps toward clearing up a *community* problem is more than counter-productive. It's just plain dumb.

I play Evolution because it has what I want: large scale cooperative battles with good weapons selection and quasi realistic scenarios. I freely admit that I am not a competitive person, I don't care about "beating the other guy" or "winning" or points or score. I care about completing objectives. Deathmatch is repetitive and pointless to me. I don't care if I get "pwnz0red" or "pwn" someone else. It doesn't affect my masculinity or self esteem in the slightest. Can it be fun? Sure, in a Unreal Tournament setting a fragfest can be a blast, but I play military games in order to relive some of the cooler aspects of my military service. To me that means hopping on comms with my buddies and assaulting objectives in coordinated fashion --hopefully with lots of explosions and HOOAH, high-speed gear. And that's what Evolution gives me. Does it have some flaws? Sure. But I think it is a great template for future COOP missions and raised the bar high for COOP mission makers like myself right out of the gate.

I did a realism update to HAWK's C-130 for OFP that I am considering porting over to ArmA when I get the time, though I frankly would rather have the C-17 since it is much more common these days, so I have kind of been waiting for the modtools to be released in hopes that someone has a C-17 model waiting in the wings. But, if nothing is out in a few months then I'm sure I'll have to find a way to get the C-130 in here.

I agree that there are specific things all over the game that lack realism, I also acknowledge that there needs to be a balance between realism and gameplay (though I'd argue for tipping the scale heavily in favor of realism). My biggest gripe in the realism of the game, though, has little to do with the underlying specifics of individual units. Those can and will be modded and adjusted. My biggest gripe is with mission design. Most missions --especially the stock BIS ones-- are just horribly unrealistic. They are the digital equivalent of Rambo II. A single soldier is never going to be sent out to destroy an entire convoy. A squad leader is never going to issue a FRAGO with "Kill 'em all!" anywhere in it. So I would urge responsible mission design that emphasizes realism and also works to mitigate the limitations of certain hardware until realistic replacements are available. If the KA-50 is overarmored design missions that put it at a disadvantage if you use it; start it out in a predamaged state or use radio calls to AA battery assets to mitigate it. But please, please, no more missions where two man teams take on an entire armored company. Realistic mission design goes a long way toward balancing the scales even when unit design has unrealistic features built in.

Sorry for being so combative yesterday. Between quitting smoking and having more than half a load on I really shouldn't have been interacting with decent people Think I'll go back the scripting forum where I don't feel compelled to get into phallus measuring contests. Again, I sincerely appreciate your service Havoc. Sorry for busting your chops. Airborne All The Way Let's Go Follow Me

Seriously, this is what you have to bitch about? Seriously?

Sorry, from your original post I inferred that you were saying that you flew Blackhawks. Certainly, take a look at any of the FM55 series. Or the Ranger Training Handbook (section 6-22 react to air attack), or the SMCT. Or really any other training manual that addresses individual actions on reacting to air attack. Only if the aircraft does not notice the unit are you supposed to take cover. As soon as the enemy aircraft fixes your position the job of the individual soldier is to saturate the airspace above one's position with small arms fire, forcing the enemy aircraft to fly through a wall of lead. You seem to be sufferring under the delusion that I am talking about the current conflict, I am not. I am merely addressing the fact that you asserted that U.S. Army soldiers are taught NOT to engage aircraft with small arms. Now, things may have changed at Ft. Benning since I went through there, but I am certain that soldiers are still taught how and when to engage rotary and fixed wing aircraft with small arms fire, and how to do so effectively. I thank you and commend you on your service. My record: 2nd Infantry Div, Camp Casy Korea - 1994-95 4th Battalion 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division 1995-1998 Aco 1-303rd Armor, 1-61 Infantry Brigade 1998-1999 Dco 782nd, 82nd Airborne Division, 1999-2001 Medically retired 2001.

That simply isn't true. If it were my former 1st Sergeant would be in a box in Arlington instead of sitting at home with his kids. Ballistic glass was installed on every HMMWV I ever drove. Was it the same grade ballistic glass that is currently available in the uparmor kit? No. But it was ballistic glass nonetheless.

Oh, I'm sorry did I compare the two? I don't believe I did. My post was solely aimed at the poster who claimed to be a Blackhawk pilot and further claimed that the U.S. Army instructs soldiers not to engage attacking aircraft with small arms.

To clarify, I was pointing out that I was referencing the stock HMMWV as having ballistic glass that could stop 7.62mm, not that the HMMWV's in ArmA were the stock, non-uparmored versions. If you are asking how I know what I know about HMMWV's the answer is eight years in the U.S. Army.

Yes, the U.S. Army for one. Every soldier is not only taught to fire at both fixed and rotary wing aircraft, but is taught how to do so effectively, and tested on their ability to do so. Really? what unit were you assigned to? Certainly you were taught at Ft. Rucker about how the majority of helicopter losses in Korea and Vietnam were due to small arms? Certainly you were made aware at The Aviation Center of how effective massed small arms fire can be, especially against rotary wing aircraft? Certainly during JRTC or NTC rotations your unit participated in exercises that exposed your aircraft to notional small arms fire, no? Again, I wonder what FM's your unit was using to train with, since all the FM's in my library give highly detailed instructions on how to engage attacking rotary and fixed wing aircraft.

I have parachuted out of Hueys, Blackhawks, and Chinooks. Both HALO and static line insertions from CH and MH 47's are common. I dislike the helo pilot ejection option, but it will be modded out at some future point.

All humvees in the U.S. Army inventory have ballistic glass in the windshield. This can stop 5.56mm projectiles pretty well, and can stop 7.62 at a distance. Depending on configuration the door glass (if present) is also ballistic glass. These are the stock HMMWV's, not the fully uparmored models. The uparmored HMMWV's offer better protection. To give an example, a HMMWV from my unit took six rounds from an RPK right across the windshield during Operation Just Cause and none penatrated.

I have ten groups of twelve BLUFOR that I want to load trucks that pull up and trip the trigger. In this SP mission the player is not the group leader but merely assigned. I want the trigger to give the command to load the cargo area of the vehicles but I do not want to teleport there as happens with moveincargo. I actually want the animation of 120 guys filing out to the trucks and loading up. Am I just not seeing this command on the Biki?

Yes, my hypothesis at this point is that in hover (or near hover) the pivot point is near (or nearer) the rotor hub. But at increasing speeds the pivot point is calculated to "slide" to the rear, eventually ending up near the camera. Elongating the arc in this fashion would accomplish (in theory) the real life effect of severly decreased input from the pedals that does in fact occur in real life with increased speed. What interests me most is that the rotation axis seems to be tied to the camera; that is if I rotate the camera under or over the helo the rotation axis seems to shift. Could I be wrong? Sure I could. It could be an optical illusion. But the yaw feels off and I am unable to replicate real-life manuevers in both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, and after reading Maruk's post on having the roll axis above the rotor cone it started me poking. All I wanted to do was start a discussion. I like the suggestion of the multiplayer chase camera and I'll test that. Yes I am quitting smoking, and that may largley explain my confrontational attitude. *Edit* I should also not that, just from my personal experience, the roll axis in a helo does shift to "above" the rotor cone at higher speeds in certain aircraft. I also understand that behavior is hard to model. For instance at speeds below a certain threshold (I can't give knots, I was never looking at instruments) a roll feels as if one is in a barrel, at higher speeds it feels as if one is on the end of a Yo-Yo. The cetrifugal force in a roll becomes much greater at higher speeds. I have no reason to believe this same behavior doesn't occur with the tail rotor. That said, I have ridden with pilots who kicked it sideways on the same course coming in at what had to be 60-80 knots and use the fuselage like an airbrake, and I just can't do that in ArmA.

That's an understandable objection. Here ya go: http://www.goldfalcon.org/armayaw2.wmv In that view it seems to me that the pivot poit is at (or very near) the chase camera. To me it is also interesting that if one rotates the camera to above or below the aircraft the pivot point seems to move with the camera. I can post a video of that too.

Maybe I'm misusing the command or just bungling the script. assignascargo and orderGetIn are group commands, no? So I should be able to issue the following to the group leaders and have it work, right? <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> ldr1 assignAsCargo fvt [ldr1] orderGetIn true ldr2 assignAsCargo fvt1 [ldr2] orderGetIn true ldr3 assignAsCargo fvt2 [ldr3] orderGetIn true ldr4 assignAsCargo fvt3 [ldr4] orderGetIn true ldr5 assignAsCargo fvt4 [ldr5] orderGetIn true ldr6 assignAsCargo fvt5 [ldr6] orderGetIn true ldr7 assignAsCargo fvt6 [ldr7] orderGetIn true ldr8 assignAsCargo fvt7 [ldr8] orderGetIn true ldr9 assignAsCargo fvt8 [ldr9] orderGetIn true ldr10 assignAsCargo fvt9 [ldr10] orderGetIn true ldr11 assignAsCargo fvt10 [ldr11] orderGetIn true The script executes, but no order to load is given. What am I messing up?

You can create parachutes from inside the mission editor as (if I remember right) an "empty" "vehicle". The best way to do this for a bunch of chutes is to place one, name it, the copy and paste it (CTRL+C then CTRL+V), this will save you haveing to name them individually as the names will numerically autoincrement with each paste. To add your guys to the chutes at the "greenlight" trigger you'll want to add something like the following in a script that is called by the trigger: unitname moveindriver chutename replace "unitname" and "chutename" with your specific unitnames and chutenames and your units will teleport out of the aircraft and into the spot where you placed the chutes (so be sure to place them at the DZ).

Move on over to the proper forum (ArmA mission editing and scripting) and I'll post a snippet of what you need. Here's the link: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=64244

You can create the parachutes as vehicles and have a trigger set to move your units into them at the drop point via "moveincargo". Be advised though that parachute handling in ArmA is seriously screwy. Oscillation under the canopy is insane. *Edit* Sorry that's "moveindriver" not "moveincargo"

Ahh, thanks, I tried that but it did nothing. Now that I know that's the right way I'll check my syntax for typos. Thanks again!

Sorry, YouTube didn't like the underscore in the filename This is the example, notice that in the last portion the entire body of the helo deviates from a fixed point on the ground (the conical mountain on the beach). If the camera and helo were rotating on the yaw axis around a fixed point at or near the rotor hub then the helo would continue to fly on the same course, thus keeping alligned (or nearly so) with the nose of the aircraft when it passes through center during oscillation, which it clearly does not. http://www.goldfalcon.org/armayaw.wmv I'm no military chopper pilot, but I have ridden in, parachuted out of, slung load stuff to, and seen enough of 'em manuevering in action, to know that this is not how one handles, and to my eyes it appears that it is due to an incorrect point of rotation on the yaw axis. *Edit* I'm gonna pull out the snarky bit and blame it on nicotine withdrawals. I consider the hatchet buried at this point.

It'll be available in a few minutes at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgNrQqGYroo Note that in near hover the point of rotation seems to be nearer the center of the rotor cone and the camera rotates with the helo. At speed the point of rotation is the camera, as if the body of the helo is attached to the camera by a rod. Regardless if I am right or not about where the point of rotation is or how it is calculated, the helo is clearly not rotating on a central point that runs through the rotor hub.

I give what I get and don't recall asking for your opinion MadDog, but if you obviously well-bred gentlemen will kindly pull in your (mysteriously) hyperactive attack responses I'll post a video of what I'm talking about.

Now, I'm not precisely sure what misbegotten idea tumbled out of your malformed head and made you believe that you could talk to me with the same degree of respect that you give your weekly lap dance date; but I'd strongly suggest that you slap a civil friggin' tone in your mouth before you address me again.