S!fkaIaC

But it is said since OFP that it would make sense :cool: I will fire up ArmA 2, start editor, lift Chechnarus island virtually on one corner and have a look if all lakes will loose their water :D

Oh, this is not very well supported in ArmA. 1.) Only few buildings can be accessed 2.) to few animations to move in buildings 3.) clipping into/through walls/doors Rather stick to Rainbow Six and similar.

Start mission editor, select Sahrani, place each for each playable side around a town of your choice playable infantry units with weaponry of your choice, save it into a .pbo and ... play :D If you want to slaughter AI bots, it requires of course some more effort...

But it is easy to reproduce, hence I can not understand why it is since OFP not fixed in a good way. Regarding passengers: I guess it is for the gameplay, the way I usually go with a truck full with infantry would not leave much more then scrambled meat when I arrive. A visual sign and a sound warning that the last stroke or bump exceeded the limit of suspension and structure would be nice. And both vehicle and passengers should receive damage.

to make ArmA 2 a tunnel-ego-shooter with a 2 km2 mission map, endless ammo, 30 shoot kills......well, I also did not got the point???

BIS failed in OFP and ArmA 1 to implement a flexible formation managment (in terms of position). LaKing managed to overcome some limitations in his KICTI http://r2.d250.hu/laking/ofpfiles/kicti/ In KICTI it was possible to select some more formations and, here comes the dream, the space between the units in the same formation. If that could be changed by the help of an slider + a value field for direct input in meter - a dream! In KICTI you could also align the orientation of the formation once, and then freezing it. Not like in ArmA, you turn as commander around to quickly check whats behind and the complete squad, realigns and is getting killed by the enemy. An option to align the squad relative to the compass direction OR a selected enemy OR any point in the landscape would be VERY helpful.

Common conclusion is...leave it as it is in ArmA 1?

Hugh? How that if it is such a c***? I confirm, ACE is in some aspects as ArmA 1.0. The stamina system is simply not working - better turn it off. But despite that, ACE is dividing the hard core gamers from the gamers - here you are right. The simple reason why so many people playing ACE is that this is what they looking for - more "realism" whatever everyone is understanding under realism. But for me it looks like that a huge portion of the community - more specific, a huge portion of the MilSim-freaks - are united, not divided - under the umbrella of ACE. They decided to live with those many bugs. But if you ask me if I would choose ACE for kind of league - better not.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1276183&postcount=157 I am positively surprised that we got another patch for ArmA 1. Ignoring the reasons why it takes so long I would be nice if we got those fixes earlier. But as Maruk suggested - resources are limited. I can understand both positions - Maruk's and Roccos: - On one hand, betas are for public testing, not mean for "serious" gaming and absolutely required to find bugs - on the other hand, long awaited fixes and changes taking that long to arrive, that a significant bunch of server admins grabbing the newest patch to get bugs solved /features working and hence splitting the community A solution that serves both demands, betas for public testing and fast sequences of betas and "finals" ? - I really do not know except: I remember A LOT of tiny oddities and bugs which were solved/changed by the community by delivering changes/complete addon packs to get it right. It might be a good idea to find a regular process to test/verify the changes and implement them with their permission. Again, thank you for the patch, and as usual for a demanding customer: where is the next patch ?

I am positively surprised that we got another patch for ArmA 1. Ignoring the reasons why it takes so long I would be nice if we got those fixes earlier. But as Maruk suggested - resources are limited. I can understand both positions - Maruk's and Roccos: - On one hand, betas are for public testing, not mean for "serious" gaming :D and absolutely required to find bugs - on the other hand, long awaited fixes and changes taking that long to arrive, that a significant bunch of server admins grabbing the newest patch to get bugs solved /features working and hence splitting the community A solution that serves both demands, betas for public testing and fast sequences of betas and "finals" ? - I really do not know except: I remember A LOT of tiny oddities and bugs which were solved/changed by the community by delivering changes/complete addon packs to get it right. It might be a good idea to find a regular process to test/verify the changes and implement them with their permission. Again, thank you for the patch, and as usual for a demanding customer: where is the next patch ? :D :D :D ACE is not dividing, they fixed a lot and gave me something I expected in vanilla ArmA1. But this is what I like in the BIS approach: if you do not like it - change it-

Since the observed effect is usually classified, it might be better to stick to the phenomena, we can find it in every school book ;) The effect (how does the weapon system detect ) is still unknown, but one can try to rebuild the addon somehow as it works in principle.

I see where the problem is in our discussion. We focus to much on the head wobbling (well, it is the topic of thise thread of course). My point is that settings like VD, some details settings, and maybe head wobbling influencing (sometimes significant) the ability to detect(spot) an enemy in the virtual environment. And since it is in the nature of the game that it is all about hiding/spotting/reacting first/ cover....it matters if you can enforce some settings. In my opinion it is harder to spot an enemy while running with wobbling head compared with a steady head. Hence there is an advantage. And to avoid any trouble about, you simply enforce it rigidly, and that's it. Same I would do with "enforce minimum resolution" and "minimum details" and most important "shadow". During a sunny day, a person few 100m away in the shadow of a tree is almost invisible in the black darkness (human eye+brain works like that). If one client disables shadow totally, he is getting a hige advantage. I am not dictator of this world, I was talking about "when I want it at my server" not "enforce it all over the world". But if I want to enjoy an evening in a way I like to have it, I would like to have it under control the way I like it. All others can go elsewhere. On the other hand I accept the "max VD" enforced by some missions to cut the big advantage of high end rigs. So it should be a both-way street.

Oh, so the energy for the "reflection" of a collision is not derived from parameters like "speed" and "direction" of the collision plus some data describing the "material" and its ability to absorb a part of the energy e.t.c.? It is rather a fixed amount of "energy" that just pushes out? Like the tanks on the famous bridges when sinking into the street?

First time I hear that you can get motion sick this way. With viedo goggles I could understand, you would get sick even without head wobbling. And what is the issue? If the Lobby solution is good, he can stay in the Lobby and ask the admin and all others if it is ok to turn off head wobbling or whatever he wants and then they might agree. But it is not about kindness, it is about full control. If I am kind and change something is another thing. It is not kind to use settings which give one an advantage in a mission while all others agreed to do it different.

But I do not know in which way to get a clue to tune a new type of radar receiver or transmitter. In addition the current simulation only shows units of a certain category, not just objects. Take the shilka radar as example (which is the same "vehicle scanner" generic for all other units which should have it) which is an old machine, but "vehicle scanner" works like a SuperTargetHyperMachine with following features: - friend/foe detection - can partly look behind hills - can track endless targets at full 360 degree - must have intelligent SW that can detect from the shape of an object if it is civilian or not and if a crew is onboard or not - it can detect destroyed vehicles, they disappear from screen Well, such features I could partly believe in a modern russian system, but not in a shilka, and not in the helmet of one of the doorgunner in the UH60 in ArmA 1. You understand now what I mean? It is a modern WarSim, but most of the electronic systems are simulated totally wrong. Edit: vector was faster and explained much better

That is exactly what I want: The one who pays - says! If I fire up a fun mission I would not enforce to much. If I fire up a ESL-kinda mission I want that all others which do not agree with my settings simply can not join.

In the sense that I can also enforce head wobble and clients which disable it are dropped with a related message?

Where is the issue with enforcing? If hardcore gamers want to enforce some settings at their server to enforce realistic, fair gaming, all others have the chance to use that server or not. If you for example made an excellent mission using addons like the ACE pack, the score junkies would go with client settings onto the servers making ArmA 2 looking like OFP: Res = 1024x768 No wind No grass no details ...just to collect scores or to win a clan league. Hence you have to enforce fair conditions. Else you go to a busch while having max settings thinking you are hidden, but for the low settings guy you are easy to spot.

Whatever the outcome is, it has to be server controlled or even server forced. Else kinda cheating is possible.

It is not only zoom, it is rather how close you bring that kind of sight to your eye. It is meant to be used in different distances unlike other sights. Correct way would be to make even animations to change the weapon position relative to your head.

All that needs to be guarded by BIS since we need a "normal" else each modder would parametrizing "signal strength" and "sensor sensitivity" relative to his own addons and if you put all together in one mission a BIS Mosquito might have the same radar print as a Boeing 747.

It is KISS, what I described is nothing else then one possible load sharing method at DNS.

Detecting a collision "to late" is one thing and most probably the root cause for all those fuzzy effects. the virtual mass decides on collision who flips away and how far.

You never played BMP-soccer with ArmA? Man you missed something! Flipping tanks usually caused more loss in a mission then enemy fire. Very often you found your AI tanks upside-down close to a rock like an unlucky turtle.

But conclusion is that BIS could implement a generic simulation of different radiation even with the ArmA 1 engine in a common way so that not every modder must invent its own way, right?