JoeyNickel

Exactly. Me today. The patch 1.05 didn't fix anything that was bothering me before, but continues bothering me with new bugs. To mention the points that really drive me nuts: - game used to be stable with 1.04, yet it crashes, even my dedicated server, after one to three hours of gameplay. Being fed up with Arma2 a while ago, I only played Warfare BE in various versions against AI on my dedicated, because everything else is no longer fun. Yet even this is no fun anymore. Found the enemy HQ today after about four (yes, indeed, four) hours playing. Fired a few rounds from my tank, nothing happend, I escaped tank and was hiding while ordering other tanks to my location. Told them to attack the HQ. NEGATIVE. Got in a tank and shot about ten rounds....... nothing happened. Took a look at my dedicated: "Arma2 has found a problem and must be shut down". Thanks! - people are discussing about hiding in the grass over distance, even hiding from AI, but my AI still can see beyond hills, forests, buildings..... - all around the troops is so very unrealistic: pilot seat in choppers so high I can hardly see outside the window, no NV system, no effective countermeasures (even in tanks), damage system is horrible, driving / flying vehicles, weapon ranges / damages - AI does what it wants, non-tracked vehicles get stuck even at railroads, little stones and tracked vehicles jump in the air like a rubber-ball when hitting rocks, so I spend half of the time driving to the site of the accident trying to flip them - choppers and AI = joke. Wrong: AI is a joke - no battlefield management - even my own AI in high command should report any troops so that I could coordinate troops. They do, partly, but only after pressing CTRL+SPACE. before I continue to list it all........ - the "single threaded" scripting. That's what I call it. AI never seems to do anything before it's finished talking. Driving a tank close to a enemy tank so that we could throw stones at each other, trying to tell my gunner to attack that tank. My commander has already seen the tank and reports it "enemy tank at 123456", during that time I cannot do anything, I have to wait until that message is finished and then tell the gunner to attack it "attack enemy tank at 123456". After that he eventually might target it. Even worse: I told gunner to fire a round being the driver, the round missed, and being nervous I click the mouse five times to fire again. The next round is ready after the first click, but instead of firing at once, it keeps telling me "CANNOT FIRE" nine more times before firing, and then........... fires while enemy is hiding behind a building. Sorry, Arma2 is reminding me pretty much of the good old Silent Hunter series, which were massively scripted and even after the 9th patch they didn't fix the most annoying problems. Ubisoft is on the list of publishers and developers, I will never buy a game from anymore - welcome to the club Bohemia :) Sorry for this long post, last day with Arma2, last day in this forum. Anyway, happy new year and don't forget: there's life beyond the screen your facing right now ;)

To make it short: no other Arma for me. I'm really fed up.

It's been a while I tried playing around with the editor, but as far as I found out, the only way to move infantry in a chopper was using the "movein xxx" command. The animations are missing and the infantry get's "beamed" in the chopper, but it was the only thing that worked for me. Dunno if that has been fixed in the meanwhile.

1.05 crashes after about one hour playing, while 1.04 could run forever.

Hey Crowe, yesterday at the War we had the same problem, but even after turning the parachutes off we had some problems with disconnects. The map was more stable, for sure, but it still crashed at some people's computers. Guess it's for sure got something to do with the chutes, but also believe it's a general map problem.

Hi, I created a template for the editor to be used in your own missions or campaings. I built a complete Marines HQ, therefor I converted the village of Balota to a housing area, converting the old landing field, added tons of barbed wire, road blocks, road signs, patrolling guards, added lights, tried (!!! *g*) to simulate some life........... ah heck, check out yourself :) Here's a screenshot of the editor to give you some overview over the changes. Feel free to edit the "mission" yourself to your liking. I guess it's a good start for your own missions or campaigns or even as a basis for some movies ;) Here's the download link: http://www.soulreflections.de/downloads/USMarinesHQ.Chernarus.rar Greetings, Joey PS: you'll need Mapfacts editor upgrade, who I thank quite a lot for the amazing work. Link to the thread: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=78184

Not in every case you will have to keep the helicopter parallel to the ground in order to have the heli climb. It also depends on various other settings, like blade shifting to mention one and probably the most important. It's not that the rotor blades are fixed.

Let the community do the job, then you'll be satisfied.

Hi, I'm trying to have group of soldiers board a vehicle (truck, heli.....). Usually I would name the vehicle (here "UH1"), create a group and name the leader (here "leader1") and have it board the vehicle in an animated way via GroupLeaders init line: gruppe1=group this; {_x assignascargo UH1} foreach units group this; {_x ordergetin "true"} foreach units group this; It doesn't work. I also tried to manually add the single members of the group via join, also not possible. The only thing that works (but looks horrible) is to use moveInCargo. My teams are beamed inside the vehicle, I can let it fly around, let it fly low at 2 meters, have it drop the cargo (other words: the team disembarks), let the copter land and turn the engine of. Works all great, except for the animation. A single soldier could walk to the helicopter via waypoint (btw.... moveTo getPos UH1 won't work as well) and then beam him in...... but a team of six guys...... that looks odd. Anybody a solution for this?

I tend to stay provocative and ask: if Arma2 is a MilSim, what's BF2 or AA? Just a "game"? Where's the difference? And if there's none - as I do think - I still see that question for ranking stuff to be legal. Not that I'd personal need it, but Arma2 also is just a "game". But okay..... as Deadfast said: the whole thing is just about having fun. That's what one can have with Arma2, indeed. Was just trying to point out that I don't see a difference between THIS game and others and that so a ranking system might be a nice addition. And..... Arma2 does not deserve the tiny word "simulation" in any way. Over.

As I quoted you were talking of artificial motivators in other games, that makes me believe there's no need for Arma2 to have such. I'm only wondering where the motivation might be, when I take a look at Bohemias "simulation" keyword, and try to find the simulation. As a simulation fan I'd expect exactly that - a simulation. And there's non. Arma2 in my eyes is just like all other games like Battlefield series, Americas Army series, and what's not out at the market. So there's my question..... what makes Arma2 so special, that there is no "need" for a ranking system? That game is nothing special, except especially bugged at the moment, especially hardware consuming and especially unrealistic. So it's me who's sorry, but I see my post related to the topic, as I do not see any difference between Arma2 and other games of the same genre - except what I mentioned above.

I understand your opinion, and believe you're right. But to achieve that high goal there's quite some patches necessary. Neither is Arma2 realistic in 90 % of the game to call it a simulation (not you did so, but Bohemia does). Soldiers running or driving around in a battlefield doesn't make it a simulation. Teaming up - and that's probably the nature of human being - is possible only (IMHO!) playing in an organized squad. Joining a public server is more like a number of chicken running around in order to get the best picks. Real teamplay's not what I see. The campaign itself is so much loaded with bugs and slows down after a while, that there's really no motivation to play, I myself quit the campaign as I'm really fed up with loading speeds of ammo or unit lists, and not to forget the AI. The AI is mainly based all on scripts, so their abilities are very much depending on the creator of the map. A real logic, a way the AI is learning is not to be found. Forget about the SP missions, getting back to Bohemia mentioning a simulation. Let's assume people play in teams and behave like team-players, and there's no AI present (like it's played in leagues for instance). What do you have then? A simulation or another simple FPS, pretty good looking in the case you have a decent graphics board? Simulation..... that brings back the good old Jayne's simulators in my mind, about 20 years ago. The graphics was....... well...... 20 years old now ;) But if you tried to play on the highest realism level (remembering the AH 64 simulator), you couldn't even get the chopper from the ground. All the switches had a function, and you needed to know which and what to use it for. The flight model was very detailed, taking this into account like translational buoyant force or shifting rotor blades. Where's the simulation part in Arma2? Tracked vehicles have the ability to stear each track seperately (which makes it so difficulty to steer). There's not simply a forward button, you control the movement of the vehicle by controlling each track. Most ITVs have peepholes where infantry can fire through. I've never seen any gunfire coming out of a BRDM or and LAV. The usage of Javelins is a real joke. It normaly comes with two different components, the one is the tube, the launcher. The other is the control and lock-on device. You have to fit those two things together, point on a target, tell the missile to lock on that target, and choose the type of attack: frontal or top-down. It takes quite a while to be able to fire a Javelin, and never you will be able to fire it "from hip". Just pressing your right mouse button and immediately firing the missile is far away from realism. Did I oversee anything, or is the M1A1 not equipped with any secondary weapon system? Most of them have an M2 mounted, some even M240s in addition. Where are they? I need a driver, a commander and a gunner in Arma2, because the tank has a virtual automated loading system. Not really..... there's a fourth crewman, the loader. There's not GPS (no, not Global Positioning System, but Gunner Primary Sight) or GAS (Gunner Auxiliary Sight) in a M1A1? I have to wear NVGs in order to see at night? And how do I locate a target? I do not want to call the ballistic computer inside a M1A1 "fire'n'forget", but it's pretty much different than in Arma2. In Arma you have to search for a target, or your commander or driver yells it to you. Once found, you have to guess what pitch the barrel might need, and then you fire - praying it was a hit. In RL the gunner, the commander, and in some cases even the loader are able to use the ballistic computer, using a laser rangefinder which, in conjunction with a wind meter, thermal sensors and whatever compute a firing solution, you fire and it's most likely a hit. As tanks in Arma seem to have only optical sight systems (again: far away from being real), with no night vision, no image filters, no target acquisition, no digital zoom............ (to be continued) I can only call it "Arcade", concerning the usage of tanks in Arma2. All of this will be in most cases be true for other vehicles as well, at least as long they're medium to heavy armor. Getting back to infantry. Where's the adjustable zoom that most ACOGs have? Why do I pretty often have a problem to raise my weapon after running? Why are most aiming aids, at least in modern weapons, not lit? Why can't I use my Harris crouching, maybe putting it on a wall? Why can't I cook grenades? Why can't I control the force with which I throw them? Why do leaves and branches stop my bullets? Or remembering the situation yesterday, where a member of my squad was standing top of a tower of a ruin, taking me out with his sniper, and I couldn't even hit him, because some geometry wasn't modeled, but texure mapped. Taking a SMAW or an M1A1, trying to flatten the tower just increased operational costs, the tower didn't even lose a stone. The overall walking animation ain't very smooth. Turning, raising the gun, going a few steps with the gun in firing position, that all is very difficult to do, doesn't feel natural and and is done even worse than in most other arcade games. The GPS....... well...... the GPS will never show my teammates and is to be seen as a mini map like in all the other FPS games. Even not 100 % realistic, but getting close to what the GRID is developing actually, I'd rather see something like an SAI, where I point my aimpoint to a location, press a button that reports I've seen an enemy, and this information could be used by my leading team member to give me orders. Painting crosses on the map, with endless discussions via teamspeak where the enemy was ("no, that THAT tower, the one south to that, and NO, not on top but third floor") is yelling for inflatable bunkers so that the enemy will not be able to blow you away during that time ;) Oh..... and the sound. I really would like to tell whether a vehicle is behind me or not, not simply "rather left than right". To locate a vehicle (or gunfire) I have to turn around. No very good solution. I want to stop before you guys fall asleep :p ;) To make one thing clear: I like Arma2. Once I'll get a decent graphics board soon, it will also look damn' good (even that's rather a handicap in multiplayer), so I turn scenic details totally off. The SP campaign is nuts, playing Arma2 online or LAN with friends or the squad's really fun. A real adrenaline injection sometimes. But Arma2 is NOT a simulation in any way. It's an arcade game. And I always keep smiling hearing squads talk about a "realism league" or reading "realism server". In some cases I'm glad it's not real, and sometimes vice versa ;) And in my opinion Arma2 is made for squads or a group of friends who join a LAN session. A single player (not only playing Single Player Mode) is not motivated very much, and so I understand Vylker pretty much asking for medals, ranks and stuff.

Later on you could buy a chopper, climb in and tell the pilot where to go, just like you tell your other crew members. But be warned.... that guy is a noob and has no idea to bring a chopper to hover. So if you reach the location you want to get out, tell him to disembark, which (in my opinion) makes the guy land much closer to your location. Else you will get to the borders of the map ;)

About performance issues: what I'd REALLY like to see is a better performance depending on the advance in the campaign. The first one or two missions I saved were written to HDD in no time. Loading..... same thing. Going to an ammo crate to buy some weapons...... not to mention. Yet having played for hours sticking in "Dogs of War" (and I will quit the campaing early as I'm really fed up) it takes me about 20 secs until the window for buying weapons or unit opens, and it takes about 2 mins (!!!) until the list ist filled. Transferring units to other leaders takes about 1 min until the selection list opens. Writing down the save files takes about 15 secs, loading even longer. I understand that depending on the progress made in the mission the save files get even larger. My last AutoSave is 100797 KB. Now people might say I should buy a new PC (and there are better one's on the market, for sure), but I tracked down that the QuadCore is used by a max of 33 %. That's not 2 CPUs at all. Even I start the game with -cpuCore=4. The graphics board (which is a real old one -> X1950XTX - and will be replaced soon) is used about 70 - 80 %, it doesn't even turn on the fan on normal indoor thermal conditions. I'm really wondering about this, especially as the sound is a total software solution (and I miss being able to tell whether a vehicle is behind me or not) that should use some percentage of the CPU as well. I really hope that there's some perfomance improvement done.

Hi, I've created some objects (units, buildings etc.) and would love to move them into the Intro section. How do I make this?

Thanks for that hint.

Indeed....... reading helps sometimes. Thanks for the reply, anyway.

You call that "unorthodox"? :D If I'd be in that situation, I'd call for an arty strike or have some jets flatten the area - everything that leads to success and saves own troops is just right ;)

After starting the mission "Dogs of War" ("Söldner" in German) over and over again, because it drives me nuts, I started some simple tests to help me understand the AI. Simple Scenario: OPFOR and BLUFOR units face each other at the base of UTES. Unless otherwise mentioned, I left all editor settings at default. First test, unfortunately no video because FRAPS ate it: a SMAW soldier waiting for an unarmed OPFOR soldier to get closer. SMAW detects it, changes to SMAW, waits, changes to rifle, goes prone, fires a few rounds and hits. I understand this, as the main objective for smaw is to engage hard targets, so I will not complain about changing to SMAW first. It's okay for me. Next test. Three snipers wait for a truck to arrive. I changed the settings of their abilities from lowest over medium to highest. Does that make a difference? See yourself: http://www.soulreflections.de/videos/3sniper_vs_truck_wm9.avi Remark: I cannot understand that behavior at all, the medium guy detects at first, the lowest guy fires first, the medium leaves prone position, and the specialist...... well....... he's still dreaming. AI totally crap. Next test. SMAW is waiting for a T72 to arrive. His main job. See yourself what's happening...... http://www.soulreflections.de/videos/smaw_vs_t72_wm9.avi Remark: tears are in my eyes......... Next test. As our SMAW was totally fainted by the impression of the T72, lets see if a M1A1 is brave. See yourself. http://www.soulreflections.de/videos/m1a1_vs_t72_wm9.avi Remark: OMG, I simply do not understand why the M1A1 didn't fire the cannon even sooner, and something totally not understandable: why didn't the T72 fire the cannon at all? Then I remembered the handbook, which said you should be 3:1 when engaging the enemy. Here's what happened..... http://www.soulreflections.de/videos/3m1a1_vs_t72_wm9.avi ALL the tanks fired their rounds from far distance (they might have visualized the T72) just right in that moment. Interesting: the medium guy has best reaction, but that might be because of the slight variations in distance compared to the target. Let's say they all did a good job. But WHY are they firing at once, while the single M1A1 didn't seem to find the SABOT in his backpack? Is it true that you'd better face the enemy 3:1? Sure, even 10:1 is better, but even at 1:1 my own troops should at least TRY to reach the goal as asap. How's our medium armor going? See yourself....... http://www.soulreflections.de/videos/lav_vs_bmp3_wm9.avi Not only the LAV, also the BMP3 was hesitating in destroying the enemy vehicle, the BMP3 took even too long ;) Also, read the comment in the video. At softer targets like soldiers or trucks the cannon was not used at all (ingame I realize the AI using the cannon more often, btw). And now for the final test. Helicopters. I kept building those expensive CDF helicopters, hoping they would help me to reduce the enemy presence in Mrsta, which is a tactical good position for the enemy troops. A few minutes after I sent them on their mission, my sniper reported me that the helicopter was shot down. Always. Ever. Not only that, I myself sat in a Hind, having the KI fly me to the location, hoping to kill the tanks myself. No chance, as the pilot never made it to stop the copter to hover in the air. But I was able to see the borders of the map, which had one good thing ;) Here's my test with the attack copters: http://www.soulreflections.de/videos/helis_vs_t72_wm9.avi At first I tested with the AH-1, and was impressed. That's how I would love to see it. Then I took the CDF Hind to see how this one acts. It acts like it does ingame........... at last crashing into the ground, maybe firing a few softair rounds :) Conclusion of this test: it's not only that the AI is partly totally crap, it's even that I do not understand the changing beavior or the slow reaction anytime. If I send my troops out, I want to know what happens (even if I have to plan with bugs), but it all seems to be a huge surprise. Bohemia..... please don't let us wait too long for the next patch - which hopefully addresses some of those issues.

Credits! Really awesome!

What helped me as a workaround (or lets say, using some existing bugs): - have the helicopter move to a specific location - have him fly very low the last meters (flyinheigt maybe) - the last waypoint (or the landing waypoint) should be of "disembark" (if that's what they name they WP in the englisch version) With me the helicopter will land, but the crew will not get out until especially told. The copter simply lands. Thats the only way to make a helicopter ingame hold as well: tell the pilot to get out ;)

I'll test it, but I doubt that's what I seek (even it might be better than moveInCargo). The good thing assigning units to a vehicle is, that you can specify where one will have to go, and only concentrate on waypoints for this unit they really need. But hey, let's see....... thanks anways :) -edit: tested, doesn't work. with addvehicle.

Right, boolean, not string ;) Thanks for seeing my error. Unfortunately that didn't help as well. Here's a little testfile, it only works by moveInCargo. http://www.soulreflections.de/downloads/KI-Test.utes.rar

Seems right, what manberries said. I did a few different tests. In all a unit boarded a Hummer, that went to a waypoint, the unit disembarked, moved to another waypoint. All standard, no orders. First a SMAW facing a Tunguska. The soldier went prone, waited a while (for the vehicle getting in range), fired a few rounds with the M16, crouched, took the SMAW and killed the vehicle (as it didn't fire back). The same effect with a T72, only difference: the soldier was dead before he could fire the SMAW ;) Then a Javelin. Got out the Hummer, seemed to have spotted the T72 much earlier as the soldier crawled to the waypoint, faced the tank with M16, did NOT fire, crouched and fired the Javelin, destroying the tank. In all situations the tank concentrated on the Hummer, killing the driver with MG. This behaviour is quite better than simply running from spawn position a few meters to a waypoint.

Maybe one waypoint is not enough. I made the units go to that waypoint and wait, while the three tanks in that video were spawned and fired immediately, without waiting for any movement or reaching a waypoint. That's what's disturbing me, I'd understand if all AI would behave equally (even not satisfactory), but I do not see a straight line which I could follow. I'll try your hint, having a SMAW unit board a truck, disembark somewhere and see what's happing then when facing a T72 (even I must admit that in RL I'd run like hell facing a T72 front with only a SMAW in such a wide and plain terrain *g* - but AI has to follow orders, right? *g*)