S!fkaIaC

You do not need anything else then crCTI You can play crCTI as: - pure SP alone as Squadleader under AI command against full AI CoC on the other side - pure SP alone as Sidecommander against full AI CoC on the other side - coop as Squadleader with other human squadleaders under AI commander against full AI CoC on the other side - coop as Sidecommander with other human squadleaders under AI commander against full AI CoC on the other side - Full PvP (seen only for OFP such a version that had no AI capability) - join as civilian and just watch what 2 AI teams do to each other What else would you wish?

Current version by Squeeze is a mixture of both, some GUI parts and logic from Cleanrock - who got the basic idea from Melvins MFCTI, some buildings used in current warfare.....So let's put it this way, the perfect bastard for me is Red Alert GUI (drag boxes in map view to select units and form new teams and putting waypoints that way) plus X-Cam from OFP time with the ability to change unit behaviour very detailed.

This is what whisper was worry about. It is playable for NeoArmageddon and whisper, it is not for me and S-crow. I can distinguish, if others not, bad luck. I also moved my investigations into that direction since I got reported that a rig, that was performing fine, was connected to a different DSL-provider got suddenly those issues. But again, ArmA 1 works in this matter perfect on the same rig, ArmA 2 not. And if I open a MP as SP (warfare crCTI) which is a local hosted server, I get the same issue.

When I read it, I see clearly that it is their personal impression. I personally suffer from the "receiving..." bug, I stopped playing onlne since it is not fair to the others to constantly join every few minutes. It could be a HW/SW incompatibility between my rig/my OS/my used drivers vs.ArmAII, but at the same installation ArmA I was running somehow "stable" after moths of fiddling. I will simply wait for 1.02, but if you look at http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/issues it is clear that the pure mass of bugs can not be solved within that short time.

Lame excuse. Acceptable for a startup, but after 8 years..... You lucky one you. So the majority decides if a game is playable or not, not technical facts. Just by voting :cool: We all paid the same money, so I expect to get it as perfect as for you. What you do is to jump into every troubleshooting thread mentioning that for you it works which looks meanwhile like an attempt to make their complains invalid/unbelievable.

No, he says that he even did not fixed it. Because other important things. But he suggested how to do it yourself.

Not with this engine. Not in ArmA 2. Only a few building are partly destructible - but not where you hit them. Some collapse after one tank round, some are indestructible. It was already tested by someone else. Somehow AI is not able to detect a partly blocked road. By design since it is at least since ArmA I like that.

There is no clean picture here: For some 178 or 185 or 186 beta was helping, for others not. For some a new naked OS cured the issue for some not. Maybe I should kill a black cat at full moon? I will for sure not go into a OS reinstall, to much work for a 50/50 chance. I expect from BIS a insight under which circumstances the "Receiving ..." screen is triggered to be able to do a rather analytic troubleshooting instead of executing every voodoo mentioned in the threads.

Then we do not talk about the same problem maybe

I would love to live like you in a different reality :D :D I did not blame Placebo for the game status, he is just ... the moderator. He has only little more knowledge about ArmA II then a usual noob, at least he is not showing more BIS must have given a commitment for that date (29.05.2009) earlier, else Morphi would have had no right to insist on that date. Morphi released anyway - but the 505 version will still contain that many bugs that you can call it ALPHA. Hence a delay of a few months more would not change much in the overall game condition. Go with the 1.02 to the community bugtracker and enjoy in 4-5 days.

The game wouldn´t be out of the alpha in 2 months. History proved that both OFP and ArmA I took years to be patched on a somehow acceptable level. The fact that ArmA II is like ArmA I full of tiny config bugs shows that BIS did not implemented normal testing methods in the last 8 years. I am not talking about real bugs (functional bugs) I talk about tiny bushes with the config of a concrete block etc. which are easy to find with systematic testing and config screening. @ Placebo: They way you answer is making that people get angry so that you can ban them in the end. This is NOT criticism, I just tell you a fact.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1304432&postcount=773 Hi Ohara Maybe it is a good idea to show up in the bug tracker too? People would love to see how their input is considered.

BIS? Suma? Maruk? Is that problem considered as severe by BIS? You going after it?

because saving a game (MP) might not freeze/save all actual parameters (presence of factories/your ability to buy/town status ......... ) you rather wait until Squeeze (he maintained Cleanrocks code in ArmA I in an own version) or Cleanrock himself give a statement if crCTI savegame is supported or not. Until then consider it as not supported. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73993&page=2 Stalker, you are already posted in the right thread, both Squeeze and Cleanrock are present there.

In windows it shows you just that notepad is the current defined application to open .sqf files. Nothing else.

crCTI code was not written to support MP game saving. The only workaround if you really played as SP on a local server: Hybernate the system :D

I have a 8800GTX and prior to ArmA II installation I updated to 185.85. This caused that ArmA switched to a refresh rate to 60Hz, but never returned to the normal 85Hz, manual setting was even not working anymore. Had to reboot my system to fix that. With 186.08 it was solved, despite that I suffer still from the "Receiving bug".

I am not sure, but it looks that it is easier to use DAC then ACM if you want to get a lot of control and customization over "what spawns when". Not just F5 and done. To me ACM makes only sense for game-style missions. Mainly COOP. Or maybe crCTI could utilize it to spawn random Resistance to pester both sides.

Well, it is usual that a criminal leaves the crime scene asap. :D ROFL Yes, is done in the opinion of himself, IMHO he did not even started. It is ok that he drags down Crytek. I guess BIS is paying Clive to destroy all competitors over the time. :cool: :cool: :cool: :eek:

They mention in that review fundamental design bugs. The general physic simulation is rated as "Die Physikberechnung hinkt im Großen und Ganzen den aktuellen Möglichkeiten um Jahre hinterher. " = " years behind the state of the art" and "Für eine Militärsimulation sind diese Schwächen unverzeihlich." = " for a military simulation unforgivable" Something which one can get slaughtered here if you stated the same. I have doubts that BIS can make ArmA 3 with an evolution of the current engine instead of an revolution. But Q is if they have the financial resources and the willingness to do so.

Is "attach to" the command burns used to make his "transformer" video? EDit: Nevermind, it was used: http://hx3.de/239748-beitrag10.html As you see, exactly the odd visual effects I predicted.

Ummm, I have a G15 caused trouble with DirectX9.0c, had to goto 9.26 to make ArmA2 starting at all. Will monitor that...

Those kinda setups are easy to set up in editor. And lots of fun. I only tested with 600 units so far, mainly infantry.

On one hand we have a ancient engine made by BIS suffering from more then 10 years old design ideas, but a general "game design" that fits to the "hard core simulation" fraction. On the other hand we have CM with an obviously sick view on what a "war simulator" should be. Simply ArmA 2 without bugs and design oddities, not CMs OFP1+COD4 bastard. Maybe we are lucky and CM is delivering a capable engine crippled by CM marketing orders to the devs. But maybe some community modders can heal this partly. I hope it will be like that, ArmA 2 is showing clearly that BIS needs some competition.