Richey79

Still working fine for me. Just double-checked with beta and no mods running. Is it crashing when you issue the order, or are the menus screwed up or something?

People expect an Operation FlashPoint game to have certain characteristics (that Cold War Crisis and Resistance had). People expect a Battlefield game to have certain characteristics (a la BF2 & 2142). People don't (or shouldn't) expect a Battlefield: Bad Company game to have the same characteristics as BF2 & 2142. It clearly signals that the conquest mode will be very different from BF2's, that there'll be fewer players, that the weapons will be less deadly, that there'll be smaller maps and that there'll be less focus on vehicle-combat. DICE have used this tactic since Battlefield:Modern Combat, to indicate that it wasn't in the pure, unadulterated style of a Battlefield game. They could have just made Modern Combat and called it Battlefield2, even though it was a different game (think GRIN and Graw 2 PC vs console versions). Instead, they want to make sure the central game of the franchise remains unsullied and that they clearly indicate to customers what they're getting. Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising sounds like it was a sequel to Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis and Operation Flashpoint: Resistance. CM seem to go out of their way to allow people to get this impression - for example still encouraging some magazines to call this 'Operation Flashpoint 3' in previews.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a perfect example of steering clear of the problems CM have generated for themselves. Bad Company was developed as a 'brand-within-a-brand' to differentiate it from the Battlefield series. Hopefully, we'll see a clear evolution from BF2 when Battlefield 3 is released. Too many people just presumed that DICE would be producing a sequel to BF2, even though they could see that BC1 was a very different type of game on consoles. That was their fault, not DICE's misrepresentation. It would be similar to CM calling these games FlashPoint: Fire Team Engagements: Red River. A bit unwieldy, but then so's Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam.

A high quality extra. Will I be sad enough to put it up on my wall to help me navigate? -Probably not, since I know the maps by heart already. Cheers, Bis.

I may be wrong, but I got the strong impression from CM's answers as to why no SDK that they use a professional suite of development tools that they buy a license for from other companies, rather than make their own. I'd presume Bis use the same kind of thing on top of Oxygen to produce their stuff, but at least they can provide the Arma customer-base with a set of perfectly usable tools. Criticism of the DR editor? I just couldn't get it to do what I wanted as soon as I started to do anything more ambitious than place some units and way-points. Much as it would be interesting to learn LUA scripting, I simply don't have the time to dedicate to something that would be of little use to me. I know it's widely used and Bis' system isn't, but with a little research, you can get Bis' editor to do most of the things you want relatively quickly.

Big improvement for me: performance is pretty similar to what I was seeing with A2 1.07. I can push up my VD by at least 1,500 and my object detail two settings, and still get better performance than previous builds. Strobing and problems with HDR are much, much less noticable - seems to me the different way of handling memory helps CrossFire users a lot. Campaign is actually playable now without being a chore, well done BIS :icon_eek:. As well as my specs below, it's worth noting I've switched my page file off. Encountered one crash when lots of addons running. Seems to take noticably longer to load mission briefings than before - this was the point at which it crashed (probably related to lack of page file).

Thanks for the guide, Betsalel. Long time since I used Yoma's. Looking forward to seeing some OA features on the AAW stuff.

To be honest, I found it pathetic that CM didn't even bother to make a pretence of using proper copy protection on DR. This was pretty insulting to those who actually purchased it on PC. As though they didn't even want to spend the small amount on providing paying customers with the protection of a key for online multiplayer. Heck, really as though they were just admitting there wasn't any working multiplayer. 'We don't think the version of the product on this platform is worth anything, so we'll protect it accordingly.' (Clearly this post is not of the opinion that Ubisoft therefore believe their games for the PC platform are priceless and that the customer deserves only the best protection from piracy)

The inclusion of shotguns for the grenadier class adds to this expectation. For these to be any use (presuming buckshot ammunition is available for them), CM will have to turn down the accuracy of AI riflemen even further, or else turn up the Dragon Rising 'god shield'.

Of course not. When reading on-line reviews of anything, it's good practice to discount the best 10% and worst 10%. That becomes harder for something like Dragon Rising/ Red River, since a majority of posters seem to either love or hate it. Personally, I don't think that automatically makes the 'professional' magazine reviews the correct judgement, just because they were generally middle of the road. If the reviewers spent only, say, 10 hours playing Dragon Rising that would explain why they had a very different 'final' printed judgement to paying customers who wanted a bit more mileage out of their game than that.

Not compatible with OA vanilla since WICT 1.8 released. Works with beta 71418 ftp://downloads.bistudio.com/arma2.com/update/beta/ARMA2_OA_Build_72418.zip Feed, and Regard Him Not Beta 0.21 (updated 8/8/10) (MediaFire Mirror) Armaholic mirror: - Feed, and Regard Him Not (@) Beta 0.21 A very mini- single player campaign for Combined Operations. Story You are one of six officers who have been chosen to receive medals for your service in Takistan. A convoy stands ready to escort you to the UN base where the award ceremony is due to take place. An easy journey is anticipated, since Army Intelligence are convinced we are now in full control of the central region of Takistan. To impress this success upon the international media, the convoy will travel with an escort of only light vehicles and a couple of relatively lightly-armed air assets. Serious Motivation After playing around with ArmaIIholic's first release of WICT, http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=103360 I wanted to use it in a more sophisticated mission, mixing the scripted with the dynamic. I like the atmosphere of tension it creates - you never know from where you will be attacked, and even if it is to some extent randomised, the behaviour of the enemy units (and friendly if you want) is entirely credible. I wanted to create a scripted mission that had more of an 'on-rails' feeling than we are used to in Arma 2, with pletny of dialogue (probably gets annoying :p). I also wanted the player to be part of a convoy and under the command of AI units. This led to much frustration. The AI's driving seems to be acceptable now, and not break the immersion too much. Features -Use of playmove animations. -Mortars, both at your command and hostile. -Scripted SP action for those who don't always want to be a SpecOps Captain bossing everyone about . -Your weapon choice is limited. You can't choose to have thermal optics and be a 21st century Future Soldier TM (unless you're a cold-hearted bandito who doesn't mind killing an AI fire-team leader at the mission start # hint, hint #). -Dynamically spawned WICT OPFOR at controlled times during the missions. -UAV module (if you succeeded in defending the convoy in the first mission). -GITA module: so you won't know where every house will be positioned. -Custom music track. -Some silliness and humour. -Save points. So you don't have to sit in the convoy doing nothing more than once ;). Possible Issues It's my first proper release, and nobody else has tested it. It relies on a good few triggers and is a beta. That should give an indication of what to expect! I'd be grateful to hear any issues reported in this thread, and I'll try to fix them after I've had a couple of days of fresh air and sanity. There shouldn't be any show-stopping bugs. I predict the following issues are most likely: -The transition between missions one and two. The friendly AI should keep the same weapons they had and should be alive or dead as they finished the first mission. I say should... . -At times, the convoy moves painfully slowly. This can't be helped; at least they stay on the road (and only shunt each other once or twice...). Use the '+' button and be glad that autosave is implemented. Required Addons ArmaIIholic's World In Conflict Tool (WICT): http://www.agapije.in.rs/data/downloadarma/WICT.zip Armaholic mirror: World In Conflict Tool Put the @Wict folder in your Arma 2 folder, then add the line -mod=@WICT to your Combined Operations desktop shortcut. Recommended Addons Operation Arrowbent by loosebruce: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=102480 Music choices for the two missions were made with the presumption this is installed, so they may turn out to be relevant OA tracks, or they may not. Vielen Dank...

@Baff, I think it's just that we both have different views of how the business world operates. I'm not a video game journalist, and I presume you're not, either. I think the word 'conspiracy' gets in the way of any kind of rational discussion (yes, my mistake for being anal about the semantics of the word). I agree with much of what you said, but I prefer to read posts on a forum after release rather than 'professional' reviews, as they're more indicative of whether I'll like a game. Studies have shown that most gamers go on word of mouth and trying games at friends' houses. I would hazard a guess that reviews have most impact on those people who preorder. It's mostly big titles that care about preorders, as games like Bis' have a 'long tail'. A beautiful 'render'. Don't know why they're even called renders when CM do them, as they're clearly works of art and have nothing to do with even 2D resources that might be used in a game. A 'target painting?' I would not have been annoyed had this been shown as a target render for Operation Arrowhead: the view distance is representative of what you get in game, those assets are all in game, you can easily place those assets in game in the editor and get 60fps. For CM's game, on the other hand... . The image suggests this will be a seamless map which you'll be able to traverse without impediment or loading screen (which sounds less and less as though it will be the case). Four helicopters, presumably loaded with at least 6 people in each. Let's presume that CM have done a sterling job and upped the entity-limit to 80. (6x4) + 4 = 28. A full 52 entities for them to fight. Get your monster-closets and de-spawn scripts ready, level designers! Does this render look like a game in which you will only be in control of a single fireteam of three men that will only have co-op MP (and probably tether)? In fact, this render looks like a game with limitless possibilities. "You believe that people look at target renders and expect their game experience to be like that?" Take a look at the responses to the images over on the CM forums; the posters who say 'Great in-game shots!' :386:

Found something interesting that other users may be interested to know... People trying out my campaing using OA 1.52 vanilla patch found that it didn't work at all: vehicles going endlessly in circles, units who were supposed to be halted in an animation moving a significant distance before switching to animation etc. So, I looked for how to fix this problem, since everything was working fine with WICT 1.8 and beta 71418. Go in editor and look at my mission: not working. Save it under another name: it's working! WTF? -Then I realised that I hadn't copied the WICT usersettings folder across to the mission folder, so WICT didn't have any active flags and wasn't trying to tell any units where to go. Realisation: If you use a version of OA before the latest betas, WICT is likely to really screw with any scripted action you have in a mission, even if the script is in 'quit' mode and has not activated yet. If you use the latest betas, you can mix the scripted and dynamic with ease. Which begs a question of whether this is a bug or intended feature. I'm presuming a bug - I'd certainly like to see this functionality in future versions of WICT. I think it's a good thing that WICT takes over all available units once turned on, although in an ideal world, there would be the option to tell it to exclude certain units (again, feel free to tell me that this option already exists in WICT). I would ask whether A2H is using a vanilla or beta patch, but I don't think you have OA installed? I'm guessing that it is not intended for WICT to override commands scripted in the mission editor before it has initialised?

Cheers for the comments on this problem (kind of a show stopper!). Missed yours the first time around Kk. There's no ACE compatibility, and probably won't be. I think the problem will be that I permanently use the latest beta and haven't tested under the vanilla OA patch: I'll test and update in a bit. 'SUVs explode at base riddled with bullet holes'. I made it so that if one SUV or one of the two drivers becomes immovable, they'll both become destroyed. Sounds kind of daft, but the reasoning behind this is that once one of the SUVs or drivers goes down, WICT activates and you're on your own in a dash to the edge of Imarat pursued by lots of enemy units. If either SUV were drivable, it's an easy trip if you just hop in it and race to the end of the mission - makes a mockery of the thing. So, that's probably what's happening to the SUVs. However, I now have to find the cause. Cheers for letting me know rather than just saying 'sod this' and ignoring the mission. Edit: Yup, that's the problem. Notice the soldiers doing push ups spread around as if they're completely random? They should be in three neat lines. Bis must have altered something with the latest betas. I'll see how much work would be involved to move stuff into a logical order for an alternative version and change the first post to reflect the problem. For now, if you want to try the missions, I'm using beta 71418 ftp://downloads.bistudio.com/arma2.com/update/beta/ARMA2_OA_Build_72418.zip ---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 AM ---------- I found the root of the problem when using the campaign, WICT 1.8 and OA vanilla 1.52 together. Everything's fine in the editor until I add my WICT Usersettings folder. Then, all my AI units throw a wobbler and won't do what they should. This despite the fact that WICT isn't even turned on at that stage in the mission! I think this problem is related to the latest version of WICT: the AI units are trying to 'think for themselves' and their movements are being motivated by where they think the WICT flags are, rather than my waypoints and instructions. It's possible I'll find another way to ensure the WICT scripts are fully quitted, but I'm not going to put too much time into this, because the missions will work fine with WICT once Bis release their next 'proper' patch, and everyone still has a way they can use this mission if they want. Cheers,

Conspiracy: 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy CM agree to give exclusive preview to, say 'XBox Magazine'. Are 'XBox Magazine' going to want to make it sound interesting and exciting? Are 'XBox Magazine' going to jeopardise future exclusives from CM (this includes reviewing it fairly honestly, but on that special scale where 7.5/10 = totally unremarkable and 9/10 = pretty good)? CM get what they want, 'XBox Magazine' get what they want. Nothing has overtly been said about 'we'll pay you off if you give us at least 8/10'. CM pay for juicy ad campaign in 'XBox Magazine' in the run-up to release. 'XBox Magazine' is going to look unfavourably at a reviewer who gets fed up with what is in the business' interest and decides to give a brutally honest review of one of CM's games. So... 'conspiracy' as in tacit agreement to mislead people's perceptions to an extent, not conspiracy as in . The frustrating and unfair element comes when indies then can't fight on a level playing field. But then they have the advantage of needing to recoup less revenue before they get into profit and can take more risks (only sometimes, though - it's easier to gamble with other people's money). ...and occasionally publishers develop more pronounced megalomaniac tendencies, and do try to manipulate journalists to achieve nefarious results (http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/54122/Aussie-Editor-Canned-Over-Red-Dead-Redemption-Review).

Kane & Lynch - Jeff Gerstmann? Tell the truth against the big budget boys: get ready to clear your desk.

Have a look at the comments on the bottom of any article announcing OFPDRRR. I give you but a small selection: "Why has everyone forgotten what an absolute load of nonsense Dragon Rising was? LOL!" EscoBlades, "wont be getting this, no pvp, its a disgrace they are still using the operation flashpoint name" allygray69, "Its OK codemasters you can keep it. Played dragon rising at a friends house and it was complete junk." Kleptomaniac "the first one was completely shit." LOLshock94, (Ah, LOLshock94, sweet prince, you know the value of concision :b:) The sheer volume of these comments makes it clear that most of the people with these opinions have not even played Arma/2. It's not really the quality of the first game that's the issue, as much as CM's lies and total lack of support for it that are remembered. Take a look at the dedicated servers request thread on CM's forums and see how they held off from saying that there wouldn't be any until the precise point at which nobody could return the game. Word of mouth and reputation are kings. Metacritic is just a number.

No. As we know, Bis made a map based on Afghanistan, but didn't want to stir up a shitstorm by calling it by its irl name. CM decide to make a map based in an Afghanistan-type country, but didn't want to stir up a... . Well, perhaps we should be charitable and hope that they have carefully gathered resources to actually make it look like Tajikistan. They seem far too lazy for that though, and why would the console-crew who are their audience be interested that it looks subtly like the culture/topography of one rather than another far-off country they've never heard of? Do I believe Lentil & Co. had heard of Tajikistan before OA was announced... ? Maybe. I suppose Kiska is not the best known island in the world. But it did prove that they are also keen to go the 'real-life setting, not real-life name' route. Kiska was an imaginative and suitable setting... wonder what happened to that remake that was being produced for A2? I hate the way they're trying to be coy about the contemporary warfare setting, saying that it would be insensitive to enable the player to fight as Taliban, however they have advertised excitedly that it will be possible to have your limbs blown off to reveal the muscle and bone underneath ...Nice. F'in hypocrisy, in my book.

How did I miss this news? In case anyone missed this great article before: http://kotaku.com/5427863/they-worked-on-the-game-you-played-but-didnt-get-credit Development was a revolving-door of exploited staff, as far as could be told from the outside. Lindop was chief AI designer and left, too. Remember Empire:Total War, how the one guy who was responsible for the Battle AI left before the project's end and so no one on the team fully understood the engine from the inside to be able to tweak it? So soon after the first Dragon Rising (which took seven years? to produce), I hardly think the engine will be massively overhauled. I can imagine a similar situation with this engine. Unless they just tweak the version of the EGO engine they're using for Bodycount, their second fail-FPS release and a corridor shooter. Sounds more likely. Will they even bother with a mission editor this time? If it's P2P, that is just a giving PC gamers the middle finger and then telling them they can sit on it. Oh, wait, we get Lentil and amazing renderz TM instead. Why the hell do they want to reuse their 'clone army' PLA models? - I remember that someone posted on the FPDR forums an image showing that all except for the highest LOD the USMC and PLA models were identical but recoloured. If they switch to US army, presumably some CM employee will have the job of tweaking the hue of all the USMC units 20% in Photoshop. If noone's already mentioned it, they're setting the game in Tajikistan. The thieving, lying scum. http://uk.ps3.gamespy.com/playstation-3/operation-flashpoint-3/1110877p1.html (They have, 10,000,000 times, but what-the-heck, once more is good). Wonder if the PC port will incorporate auto-aim? P.S. Anyone remember this Lulzcow?

Updated to beta 0.21. Some genius screwed up the helo extractions in the last version . Sorry for any inconvenience - everything is at least functional now, so I shouldn't be updating for a while. Without bashing Bis' AI driving (too easy to blame everything on that), I had two problems which required the less than perfect solutions I've used. 1) I needed to have the different vehicles of the convoy as seperate groups so that I could manage them independently. 2) On some of the smaller roads I wanted to send them down, there seems to be a mismatch between the map image you see in the editor, (possibly the road texture itself in game) and where the AI think the road actually is. I presume this is a similar problem to the phenomenon in Chernarus where, with one of the smaller airfields, you could place a plane on the runway in the editor, only to find it was 20 meters wide of the runway once you fired up the game. Cheer for the extra info about WICT.

I'm impressed! After changing the init.sqf of my missions to incorporate the new init features for WICT, two members of the AI group who join the player's control suddenly jumped onto a ZU-23 and mortar and began defending the flag without me telling them to do anything. Some promising new possibilities with these mechanics.

Thanks for the warning. I can imagine this will only be a problem at the end of the second mission (in the first, as soon as WICT takes over, all the scripted units cease to matter) - it's possible WICT will take control of the scripted helo evac units. I'll give it a test and see. I can always rewrite the mission so that at the end I cut WICT off and then spawn the evac helos and a scripted final OPFOR attack. The only compromise is that the final attack will develop a bit less dynamically... . It's expected and desirable that WICT will continue to evolve. Turns out it is a problem, but an easier work-around is simply to make both extraction choppers respond to radio triggers, rather than touch down automatically. I think I'll have to update the files anyway, in order to change my init.sqf with this new version. Edit: updated file to beta 0.2. - Fixed: Helicopter extraction. Both helos now land and take off on player's radio command. Chopper 2 won't take off without any other surviving officers in it, but I think that is perhaps a good thing (may be revised in the future). - Fixed: Altered WICT AIgroup numbers for both missions; aim - to present a stiff challenge but not be unsurvivable. - Fixed: init.sqf updated for proper compatibility with WICT version 1.8. - Fixed: Campaign is now called 'Feed.PBO' rather than 'Feast.PBO' (late at night, nonsensical file names can manifest themselves... .) - Known issue: Debriefings aren't functional. I need to look back at how my briefing.htmls are working.

Released a mini-campaign. Both missions feature WICT at some point: - Clicky - Not compatible with OA vanilla since WICT 1.8 released. Works with beta 71418 ftp://downloads.bistudio.com/arma2.com/update/beta/ARMA2_OA_Build_72418.zip 'Tis in beta - be warned!

Good Job, AIIH. Debug mode is a really good idea, it's much more immersive to not have the hint flashing on and off all the time, and the hints you give in the StartSettings.sqf are really handy for quick-start trouble shooting. Can't comment on tweaked group-type behaviours yet. Have to read up on different types of bases and the range of ways to control spawn rate when I'm not so tired.

Beautiful work. I especially like how you've made the trees low LODs slightly blurred out. A really efficient way of giving a realistic 'look' for those of us who prefer PP disabled. Ground-clutter's just lovely, too. I was trying to think where in the world this flora reminded me of... .