Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

An Fiach

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    832

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by An Fiach

  2. Posted

    No one has problems but me with scopes and the new "pressure" effect? Hmm interesting. Maybe you all dont play with PPEffects on?

    So the Kestrel and Earplugs have to be used through classnames, and are not in any ammobox yes?

    I don't know about pressure effect but I did test and the top and left edge of the screen flashes white when you fire the tac50 while looking througgh tthe scope

    ---------- Post added at 06:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 AM ----------

    badger;1515532']Someone' date=' help...

    How can I disable these groups markers (tracking markers)??

    Not only for myself, but [b']for everyone who plays on this mission, or on my server?[/b]

    Sometimes (often) they are hampered!

    First, what mission are you playing, second do you mean the diamond hud markers that you can see in easy and normal mode?

  3. Posted

    I had a bit of the same issue on the 10th SFG server. Mk48, 900 rounds of ammo, huffing and puffing just walking.. I couldn't keep up with my team. Every 1:30min we had to rest for 1 minute just so I could walk. Got a bit frustrating.

    I really don't mind the limits as much as the recovery time. The recovery time of an in shape person is not that long.

    Edit: This was last week, so sorry if it changed since then.

    900 rounds is very heavy, trust me you don't go far very fast

  4. Posted

    I just thought, has anyone here played Delta Force Black Hawk Down?

    It had a cave system, you place a cave section in the ground and it would cut away the layer of ground (or make it transparent and allow you to fall through), it worked great for caves but wouldn't that same method work for craters? That way you could have lowered craters without needing proper "dynamic" terrain.

    You could simply have crater objects placed where an explosion was which cut away the ground and provided a new base, this is kind of hard to explain, but I think you get what I mean.

    Completely different engine.

  8. Posted

    *choke*

    Lack of documentation?

    I know there are still some gaps - but there is more documentation out for ACE2 than there was for ACE1 on the BI wiki. Enough data that we got yelled at for "abusing" their wiki ( status still pending ).

    I'm writing as fast as I can and still have a life. And at some point I may have to write it all over again if we move to a different site and different format.

    Not that anyone will bother to read it. But the information is out there if anyone cares to look.

    I meant on some features, not over all mate, sorry if I confused.

  9. Posted

    My apologies pal, My reply could have no doubt been worded differently. Your points are clear and true enough. Forgive my irrational comment, though it was truly not directed at you personally but to anyone in general who refuses to ackowledge that females do in fact see combat whether by accident or not.

    But to restate my earlier opinion, A BIS female soldier model complete with sound, regardless of what faction would allow folks to include various versions of retextured models without increasing the filesize too much. It really has nothing to do with roles, policy, ethics or morals but just convenience to those who would like to expand the variety in game to include scenarios outside of direct combat.

    I appologise to you as well, after the name calling and such I have seen earlier in the thread, I took an immediate defensive stance to your statement.

  12. Posted

    but isn't that what you're doing by arguing against their inclusion? women are in service, they do participate in combat and some nations have dedicated combat roles for women. they belong in the game as much as medical apcs and convoy trucks. both of which figure heavily into the gameplay as support vehicles. would it be unrealistic to have support vehicles that are randomly populated by either male or female characters? would it be wrong? the answer is no to either.

    so yeah, if you can understand why some of us think that maybe some sexism(perhaps unconscious) is at play here. the staunch no women rule doesn't make much sense. the facts simply say that if there are convoys and support vehicles operating in this game, there should be women soldiers. i also don't understand the arguments claiming this would generate too much controversy. as it is, players are able to kill any female characters they want. in one section of the game there is even very overt hints of [use your imagination] committed prior to player intervention.

    women soldiers is something i think a lot of us would like to see in operation arrowhead. with the emphasis on local interaction i wouldn't mind a fun side mission ala character switch in the original ofp(or scenario mission) where you play as a driver who is en route to a bombing site with civilian casualties and gets ambushed on the way.

    No, that isn't what I am doing. I want to see them in factions that have them in combat roles, and female civilians having full animations. I would want to see US females limited in what equipment and vehicles they should properly be limited to for the sake of realism. Examples given of US women in combat are a bit dishonest because they ignore the fact that women are not supposed to be in combat. Being in Iraq and Afghanistan where there is an insurgency and no front lines makes it possible for females to see combat while serving in their assigned roles but this is not because they are intentionally sent to fight. In the case of the few that have been it is a failure on the part of their leadership by violating Army policy, either out of sheer stupidity or for political reasons.

    If we want to get into real life examples I can tell you that I do have issues with females being in the military but that stems from a multitude of issues that really have no bearing on this discussion and I have to concede that there may be other factors involved that have shaped my opinions beyond the practical matters and having to do with differences between MOS. DO NOT however, mistake this for a lack of respect for those that serve, be they male or female. Their signing the dotted line warrants immediate respect from me. Please note also my opinions extend only to the US because I have no understanding of how other militaries treat the subject.

    For my stances to change the US must first eliminate the separate but equal policies. Females aren't required to meet the same standard as males, standards that have been set for grim and practical reasons. Gender fairness has no place on the battlefield, you either make the grade or you do not. This is fine if you are doing clerical work, it is not fine when you are outside the wire. My reasons have nothing to do with questioning the bravery or dedication of females serving in the military, males do not have a monopoly on those things and I've seen plenty of them fall short. The problem is, they don't want to change it, because that would mean far fewer women in the military and that isn't 'fair'. I'd be satisfied if they made the standards MOS dependent, then the females wishing to be in combat units wouldn't feel the need to prove themselves any more than males do and the males wouldn't feel the need to question their ability to do the job.

    This doesn't even address the issues of sex, privacy and personal hygiene that can cripple a combat unit and create security issues. The only practical way to address those issues would be to create female only combat units and that would have a morale crushing effect on the males due to the way women are glorified in the media and would cause additional problems because of the way the American public views women. The way the public reacts when a female is injured or killed in combat is extremely negative toward the military in general and those soldiers are treated as if they were something special above everyone else. Much the same way Pat Tillman was treated in the media which has generated a great deal of resentment, particularly amongst the Rangers, as they ask why is this guy such a hero for passing up on a big contract with a sports team when so many others leave behind wives and children, was their sacrifice any less meaningful, their loss any less profound?

    In response to your statements about support vehicles and convoys, they really do not factor into this game much at all, the majority of missions out there that have these vehicles only have them in the base and do not really require anyone to use them. They are a matter of convenience and have little to do with reality with the exception that they sit at the base. Not really fun gameplay, even the engineer class is pretty much pointless and is quite inaccurately used as mechanics. There is no one in game building revetments and deploying fences. It's all about combat.

  13. Posted

    Im lazy and asking for a complete one :) Maybe with weapons included that are not listed in the Wiki

    here's a start http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1510636&postcount=1653

    ---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 PM ----------

    i have installed the six updater, but it cant update the @ACE folder.

    I open the updater select 2 and hit enter. than i get the message:

    WARNING: Folder already exist but seems incompatible. Not instaling.

    i havent changed anything to the folder or its content. my version is 182. does someone have any ideas?

    delete the folder

  22. Posted

    This OpF legacy lives on in ArmA 2. The game looks better than many others out there, and has features you can't get elsewhere. TheOpF way also includes releasing buggy games way too early, having a terrible single player experience and almost no multiplayer support. From the very first to the very last, BIS games will rely on the quality of its community modders and mission makers to make them a success.

×