TechnoTerrorist303

The ability to load heightmap, texture mask and sat image directly into the editor then place objects using the ingame standard 3d editor. It would be even better if there was some sort of gui allowing the user to define which ground texture went on which colour in the mask instead of messing about with config files. Currently the whole process for building an island/map is far more complicated than it needs to be. Why mess around with Visitor and Bulldozer when it could go straight from the "raw materials" directly into the game?

None of this post is necessarily true... Especially the bit about Arma 2 working better under 64bit os. It would make sense to have a 64bit .exe for Arma3 in this day and age I mean come on, even Half Life 2 has a 64bit mode.

Apologies if this has been requested already but... I would love to have the ability to load heightmap, satellite image and texture mask directly into the 3d editor and have all the terrain objects available to place combined with a GUI for writing the island config files.

Until you can show people an animation and not a one frame screenshot which actually shows nothing but a static body you're just making yourself look really really dumb. It seems that you're determined to follow this course however so let's assume they have in fact implemented ragdoll failphysics, how do you think they will have overcome the issue of having to synchronise said ragdolls across the 100 or more clients that could be connected to a server?

I have a single still picture of an aeroplane in the air, that is obviously conclusive proof that it was going at OMGWTFBAZILLION knots.

I'm hoping not, that would be very very silly since the A2 campaign requires the arma 2 maps and units.

Dude seriously, what the fuck are you smoking and can I have some?

EPIC FACEPALM Ok... You are asking BIS to rewrite Arma2 so that it can handle LUA, this isn't exactly going to make them focus more on gameplay is it? "Stable with good error recovery if you know how to do it."... Wat... This can be said for SQF/SQS "most elegant data structures" makes no sense. "Good documentation and community support" says the person posting in one of the most active and helpful communities I have ever been a member of. "is very easy to embed, hooks com C, C++, C#, easy" irrelevant really, Arma2 calls SQF and SQS very easily... why do you need the rest of the points here? Why is history in gaming relevant? "Fast running" don't be stupid. A scripting system only really runs as fast as the engine running the scripts. Since BIS have the most experience with the system they already support then I don't really think this is a good argument. "Consistent and not overly verbose syntax" ok, maybe you prefer the syntax of LUA to SQF... so what? Basically implementation of another scripting system would be a complete waste of time, money, resources, energy and effort. SQF/SQS would still need to remain supported to allow legacy support for missions, mods and everything else. Pointless. I bet you want ragdoll too...

How can LUA "do more" than the language which is already capable of doing everything that Arma2 can?

The crowds outside the White House make me laugh, "USA USA USA USA" it's like "YEEEEEHAAAAAA We killed an arab!".

I want to know where this Al-Qaeda nuke is that they supposedly hid in Europe to cover this exact eventuality. I hope it's in Brussels.

Seems they've decided that Super Hornet is a better idea than Lightning II. "THE Royal Navy is set to save £10bn from the defence budget by dropping plans to buy the most expensive fighter aircraft ever built to fly off its new aircraft carriers. It is set to swap the £13.8bn Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project for an improved stealthier version of the Boeing F/A18 Super Hornet which currently flies off US Navy carriers. The potential move was discussed at a meeting between Liam Fox and defence chiefs last weekend to discuss cuts to be made in the ongoing Strategic Defence and Security Review. “JSF is an unbelievably expensive programme,†a senior defence source said. “It makes no sense at all in the current climate and even if we continued with it, we cannot afford the aircraft we said we would buy.†The Joint Strike Fighter, produced by Boeing’s main US rival Lockheed Martin, would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget with costs already put at £13.8bn and rising. The 138 aircraft Britain planned to buy to replace the Harrier jump jets flown by the RAF and Royal Navy were originally supposed to cost a total of £7bn. But they are currently expected to cost £100m each, making them effectively unaffordable given the dire state of both the defence budget and the nation’s finances. The JSF programme was originally designed to be enough for both new aircraft carriers and four RAF squadrons. Buying the more stealthy Super Hornet – known as the Silent Hornet - and cutting numbers to no more than 50 so there are only enough aircraft to fly off the carriers, will cut costs to less than £4bn. That would save £2bn in development costs over the next parliament and a total of around £10bn over the next ten years. The £10bn saving would be enough on its own to remove a substantial portion of the long-term cash shortages in the defence budget. The MoD has already received confirmation from Boeing that it could make the improvements to the Super Hornet that the navy needs to produce the Silent Hornet. The Silent Hornet will have a new internal weapons bay to reduce the radar signature of the aircraft and improved fuel tanks that would give it a longer range than JSF. The aircraft is already able to carry more bombs and missiles than JSF and could be produced in time for the first of the two new aircraft carriers which is due to come into service in 2015. The JSF programme has been beset by difficulties, with Lockheed announcing further delays last week and the British aircraft not expected to be delivered in time for the first carrier in 2015. Switching to the Silent Hornet would reverse 30 years of flying short take-off and vertical landing aircraft from the Royal Navy’s carriers. The version of JSF Britain planned to buy is a short take-off and vertical landing aircraft like the Harrier it was to replace. But the Silent Hornet is a conventional take-off and landing aircraft. The new aircraft carriers are being built to take either type of aircraft, so while it will require the fitting of catapults and arrester hooks, it is not a major problem or cost to switch from one to the other. A number of Royal Navy pilots are already trained to fly the Super Hornet off carriers having spent time on exchange with the US Navy. The move will be bad news for the RAF, which offered to axe its entire fleet of Tornado aircraft in the hope that this would mean it would continue to get the JSF. Now it is set to lose both its Tornados and its Harriers and not get the JSF, leaving it with a single attack aircraft, the Eurofighter, now known as the Typhoon. This would in itself provide significant cost savings in that a single attack aircraft fleet is much cheaper to maintain and run than a number of different aircraft. The JSF programme has been beset with difficulties. Britain initially joined it as a development partner and has already put £2bn into the programme. This was originally expected to cost £7bn with a further £7bn for maintenance and upgrading during the life of the aircraft. But Congress has reneged on repeated promises by US President George W Bush that Britain would receive full details of the technology on the aircraft. This will mean that some elements of the aircraft can only be maintained by US technicians increasing costs still further. The MoD refused to comment on any changes planned as part of the defence review but reiterated that Fox “has made clear that tough decisions will need to be madeâ€. "

I think you'll find that most people campaigning for a free Tibet don't give a shit about the occult or the Nazi expedition in 1938.

Seriously... What the flying fuck are you talking about?

Back on to the original topic slightly, I saw on the news (BBC news channel once again not reporting the whole story for whatever reason) that the bill for the new carriers was going up because they have to be modified to accomodate "American built fighter planes". This was of course referring to the F-35C that we are now getting instead of the F-35B but the whole report made it sound like we were completely ditching one aircraft and going with some dodgy yank alternative. I wish they'd get their facts right before going to air and write the stories properly, we've always been getting the JSF. It's a bit worrying that the beeb are getting shoddy lately, not researching or writing their reports correctly and completely missing things that happen (like riots and violent protests in mainland UK) in favour of continuing to cover a wedding days after it happened.

Truth... But BIS didn't suddenly remove support for the game and move on to the next P.O.S

Yep, that's politics. In reality if you time it right you can manouver to evade an incoming missile and use its own speed against it. Once it goes past at mk3 plus it isn't exactly going to turn round and come back at you... not unless it's a VERY clever missile with a large amount of fuel. I'm not claiming that this is easy to achieve however. Bring back the Genie AIR-2.. Epic air to air win.

That's because: AMRAAM = Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile ... Active radar homing and BVR weapons system with range of about 30 miles... Sidewinder = Short range AA missile with Infra-red homing which means you have to be in visual range of the target to lock and hit. Those aircraft using amraam can launch their missiles before the guy using a sidewinder can even get a lock.

Yeah, I just read his thing about GAA... I tried at least, my brain hurt after 10 seconds and then my eyes started bleeding. As for buying AV8s I don't think that even our government is daft enough to phase out the Harrier only to buy an Americanised version. Fail... If it was a trolling attempt then even more fail.

Eh? Daventry town council operate Raptors now? I knew that they were cracking down on the wheelie bin thing but that's ridiculous. I have to admit that I only have the information 2nd hand and my source is currently unavailable for comment as he's probably somewhere over Libya at the moment but that's how these things are...

Yeah I started the thread in response to an article I'd read... I now have regular nightmares about the monster that it is in danger of becoming.

I have it on particularly good authority that this statement is bollocks. I suspect it's more likely that the results just didn't get posted.

This Exactly

I never said it wasn't... The very fact that we're getting involved at all in anything is simply political hypocrasy but in some cases that can result in the right thing getting done.

So? Does that make intervening to stop the killing of civilians any more or less morally correct?