Evil_Echo

I have code for clearing trees and other unclassed objects in my nuke code. It'd work fine on short-range blasts like det-cord as well - perhaps better. The cord itself could be done in a similar manner to fastdrop ropes ( flexible chain of elements - just make them explosive ). Shower scenes are not needed, you use an action to go in, your soldier disappears inside, comes out later. I've seen vehicles hung up on rocks and driven into water, or hung up in tight spots with no way to drive out. Besides, there is still a chance of a mobility kill leaving a tank laying around that's worth fixing up. ( In longer, but fake time ). Share same feelings as CG about mines. ACE did a really good job in making their M16A1 hard to find - lost track where I put one more than once, found it later the hard way. :o If someone did a good job with laying down a mine field I'd be tempted to call in a plow and not worry about exact locations, the other areas would be swept and cleared post mission anyway.

Part of the joy of MP and JIP. You'd have to set those task objectives as part of your JIT handling. One way would be to look at the BIS MP module, it includes the ability to process commands after a player joins.

Had thoughts of Quake-II and booming voice saying "Impressive..." :D But to your question, a trigger would work as long as you used a global variable to act as a locking mechanism. You could also use a FSM for this.

+1 for det cord. It could be used in a number of situations. Mine plows - Maybe in a few places they could be useful. Recovery vehicles - I guess so, but actual repairs take a long time. Vehicle transporters - Yes. Even as a prop they'd look good. NBC vehicles - that assumes someone will design a proper nuclear battlefield. So far all I've seen are nukes being used for end-game scenes. It'd be hard to make such a mission ( mostly on the players ), but doable if the time and effort was there. Goodies to breach walls and do small-scale demolition - Oh yeah.

More US vs THEM bullshit... Pufu: Did you ever notice that list of people you mentioned have also released a non-trivial amount of software? Not willing to include myself, but the others are some heavy hitters. Does that not count for something? What have you done recently? I frequently don't agree with CarlGustaffa. But I would never show contempt of the huge amount of effort he has spent on his version of Domination and the contributions he's made in helping others on BIF. To further clarify my stand... I don't care either way if BIS decides to offer protection measures as long as protects all aspects of the game fairly. However, if you think some classes of development are better than others, make you elite, worthy of special protection and other blessings - I disagree based both on merit and the repercussions such status would have on the community. RKSL has my respect and admiration both for his work and his well-made arguments in support of his viewpoints. He I will gladly debate with. Those that twist the facts or are insulting others - we don't need that kind of troll-like mentality here. Stop now.

I said the same thing many pages back in this thread. And it was ignored because many here are more interested in a bar-room brawl than solving whatever real problems exist. Moderators: Please lock this thread, it's become a waste of disk space and time.

A noob needs more help than the expert in finding those syntax errors, so tools like squint will help a lot. It's not perfect, neither is lint or splint in the C program world. But life is far better with all those tools around.

Perhaps in your mind they are different, I'm not you. We can all agree that the facts support some models having been stolen. Some here believe extra measures need to take to protect 3rd-party work. My opinion (and it's opinion) is that unless such measures are fairly and equally applied to all components of a PBO, the result will be Balkanization of the developers. That would be just as bad as what is happening now with no protection measures.

If you want to protect just one aspect, p3d files, then most people would say you are treating them as special. All I asked for was equal protection for all development efforts.

Scripts are not in the same class? Tell ya what, remove ACE and ACEX_SM and play a few missions with ACEX only - see how well that works out. Yank out the RKSL support mods and try to fly that beautiful Eurofighter without them. About those cost figures. You want to pay for the technical reference books I've bought to ensure my coding for various weapon systems are accurate? $80-120 a pop, Bucko. And the degrees in computer science and physics did not come cheap either. I've dished out a lot of cash along the way just to hand out code for free, not to mention my time documenting and providing technical support. Would you prefer I charge the going rate for that level of work? It's $115/hr. Let's come up with a real way to protect models, scripts, etc. from theft... All addons would be released in a new archive format - call it PBO2. This format is both digitally signed and encrypted using a public/private key technology. Everything is managed by BIS only, no external authority would be allowed to distribute these files - similar to Apple's app store. Developers would have to upload their work to BIS and after approval BIS would rebundle it into the new format. The PBO2 would only contain the contact information needed to get the addon. The real data stays with BIS. To use this, ArmA would open a secure connection to a BIS server to get the keys to verify/unlock the PBO2 file and then use it to initiate a download of addon data into memory only. Of course you'd need internet access to run any ArmA session, but Blizzard has already gone that direction with Starcraft 2, so you have precedent. If that seems extreme, that's the price to truly hinder theft. Anything less is a bad joke that'll barely slow the bad people down. Naturally the proposed method will have it's costs. Oh well...

+1 for the simpler look. I like.

Pufu: There is nothing inconsistant in my statements. I sympathize with those that have suffered theft because I've been there myself. However I don't see the solutions currently being discussed as appropriate nor viable. GossamerS: I'd love to see turbosquid and related sites shut down for being the den of thieves that they are. But right now they are on-line and sadly we all have to deal with that. You're correct about protection cracks, something else would need to be done to reduce theft. All: Let's not start hurling insults at each other. This is definitely a touchy subject that can stir up passionate opinions - but we are all capable of double-checking our wording before hitting the post button. One thing that would help both sides. Posting more information on the BI wiki, etc. to fill in the gaps. That way the new folks can learn without resorting to tearing apart PBOs in the first place.

Certainly models have commercial worth, but to say they are the only thing that does is unbelievably arrogant. Sound samples, and code both can be stolen just a easily as models and adapted to other products that can be sold. Just because a system is written in the house language does not mean it cannot be translated and re-used for another software engine. Doing so is no different from "tracing" a model - it's theft unless the author blesses that action. Most of us are aware of models being swiped. Recently there may have been a similar situation with a popular sound mod. I've had software published and modified by a software group long after I repeatedly demanded my code be removed from their releases. Theft in any form sucks. Are coders relevant to this discussion? Yes, along with all the other developer specialities. Are those that advocate open source stupid or thieves? No, most understand copyright law and respect it. Are the model makers justified in being pissed? Yes, but they are not deserving of any status better or worse than the rest of us. BIS could help a lot in protecting 3rd-party IP, but whatever they do has to apply to everyone fairly.

CarlG has a good point. +5 to him. Can see the desire for model makers to "protect" their work. But why make them special? Is my work less valuable merely due to the fact it's based on hand-crafted scripts vs the result of some CAD system? The original question was about PBO archives, not models. Any solution should be all or nothing. Otherwise this pits one part of the developer community against another.

+1 Günter Severloh.

Yep. Canister still around due to alternate uses, besides ringing doorbells it's a good vs helicopters. Flechettes were a one-trick pony.

See no good reason to add locking in this context and plenty of bad reasons. Digital signatures are fine, they merely provide a way to enforce authenticity of the product. But locking code and the mindset that attempts to justify that are waste of time when BIS already has stated the rules for making free 3rd-party mods. If you are that worried about your awesome product, go pro via DLC. You'll need lawyers, staff to manage business affairs, and a change of attitude towards supporting your user base ( e.g. no/bad documentation and the Not my problem, you idiot. response to repeat questions will not do well ).

Good incoming FX have been a desire of many for some time. The problem can be addressed in two ways. 1. Spawn a sound effect near the impact point. Problem, it's a bit fake and range is limited so you don't get the full effect of shells screaming overhead. 2. Define a sound in the config for the shell flying. Problem, locating a sample that does not have doppler shift - otherwise it fights with the game engine's own doppler effect to make a really ugly sound.

Sorry Myke, respect is a community opinion. They like you - gotta deal with it. :butbut:

Tungsten balls or cubes. Flechettes are a totally different kind of ammo - beehive rounds. Mostly obsolete due to newer techniques like Killer Junior and Killer Senior.

Contact the devs via CIT or the local distributer in your country.

Do not think you can have scripting like that in your description.ext. Would recommend using a wrapper script that has the randomization code and referencing the wrapper in the description.

Sorry CG, when you put a Mortar Carrier in a mission where there is no significant counter-battery capability then your argument it's over-powered does not carry much weight. I'm all for big guns and big bombs, as long as both sides get to use them and any other resources effectively. Otherwise the mission is a bad joke at best. You give the other side the ability to eventually locate a gun system and fire on it, then see how well that Stryker does with it's flimsy armor when 82mm shells come raining down around it. Camp in the rear and you should still face grief - Spetsnaz specialized in air-supported attacks of large artillery. *Begin Editorial Mode* Carl, I see you as a friend even though you and I do not always agree. So please take these thoughts as advice in that light. Domination is a fatally flawed mission. To have that scale of combat and not have proper opposing combined operations turns the fighting into a boring series of "pound the town". Nerfing the weapons pool or adding extra rules cannot mask that. To justify that problem you complain endlessly about the AI. But do nothing to address the problem in that mission and criticize those who ARE trying to improve the AI's capability. Let's rethink that posture please. As for retarded players, make the mission lethal enough and retards will be weeded out in rapid fashion. Right now the mission coddles the player and the result is poor tactics and idiotic actions. Nerf the game in an attempt to extend firefights and you'll get more idiocy. Kick them in the ass for dumb moves and evolution will teach them to fight smarter and live longer. *End Editorial Mode*

Long rods are the least effective vs buildings - they just punch a hole in one side and out the other. Normally any windows would eliminate significant overpressure effects caused by the rod. The sabot itself bleeds speed off very quickly, more a hazard to ground forces nearby ( which is why you mound dirt on the rear of a trench ). Canister has a couple of uses besides anti-personal. At short range it makes a good anti-structure round since it's like a huge fist impacting a broad area. Riy4EaoR76U And to show canister being used in Iraq against a building ( skip to 3:14 )... 6Jl8FvQ6QII At longer range - HE or better yet HESH is the way to go. But against a modern steel and concrete stucture, it would take a lot of rounds to bring one down. The insides might be trashed quickly, but the frame can take a lot of damage.

Take your time Myke - all for you doing it your way.