zOMGREI

This is true, but there's nothing stopping them from implementing a better animation on the character model. Different methods for the same effect, nothing impossible though. The only animation is a very small bit of inertia at the beginning and end of each jump. The problem is the gap in the middle. The implementation isn't even realistic. What we have now is the equivalent of controlling a person that suddenly contracts severe Parkinson's disease when exhausted, then loses it when rested. It's just completely unnatural. Granted, my example was exaggerated as well, but at least it felt organic. It's bizarre that almost every other animation in the game (with a few exceptions) feels and looks human, but this one feels (and looks, especially to someone paying attention to this in third person) completely robotic. The animation itself is fine on a small scale, but it seems like they just resized it for exhaustion/injury and overdid the speed to the point where the animation can't keep up, so it skips frames.

He didn't say he was having issues getting into tactical view, he was having issues once inside tactical view.

Alternatively you can go to Power Options in the control panel and change the profile to "Always On", but if you use the battery on a regular basis this isn't exactly practical. I've never seen a laptop with no option to disable speedstep in the BIOS, especially for a desktop replacement like what you have. It may not have been where you thought it was, unless you went through every menu.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm asking for, or you're just trying to bait here. You seem to be under the impression that I'm asking for there to be no difference between hurt/exhausted and looking through a scope, and being healthy/calm. That's not what I'm asking for, nor is it what I expect. What I expect is one or two frames of animation in between positions when hurt or exhausted. Enough to give some sort of illusion of motion rather than what's implemented now. What's in now messes my with my focus (especially when close to the monitor), since there's not really any animation involved, and the view doesn't change enough for what I'm focusing on in the initial scope picture to be completely gone in the next frame of animation. I can't even imagine trying to use any sort of stereoscopic 3D feature with this the way it is either, and that would be horrible for anyone. Myself (and others I'm sure) plan to run this in 3D once it's optimized better, so bad animations like these could quickly and easily cause some serious motion sickness in almost anyone. Call of Duty 4 had a good example of how to make the scope unusable without resorting to a jerky semi-random mess. It wasn't random by any stretch of the imagination, but human movement in this regard generally isn't either. It was, however, a fast, sweeping animation that made the scope unusable for several seconds until you were able to hold your breath again. Also, for the record, the animation isn't much better when kneeling either, it's slightly more tolerable, but at that point the animation is still dropping frames enough to make it feel jerky and not organic at all.

There will be some performance loss with a 5400 RPM drive, I had to upgrade from a 7200 RPM drive to a 10K drive to get rid of some of the hitching I was getting. That said, it sounds like this is some of your issue (since alt-tabbing back into the game causes it to reload everything in the area), but the slowdown due to particles and forests sounds like the video card. Check your drivers, since performance was improved some for nvidia cards with drivers released after ArmA 2. Also, I would try running with shadows on Very High, if you're not already. IIRC, all shadow settings below Very High are shunted off to the CPU for rendering, which is really slow.

And he didn't use it simultaneously. Additionally, as I stated earlier, there's still the question of whether or not these EULAs in their current form are even legally enforceable. As it stands right now, no, they are not legally binding contracts by the current letter of the law. This has not been challenged in court to date, so this is, as I stated earlier, a gray area. Currently, in order for the EULA to be a legally binding contract, it would have to be presented to the consumer prior to their purchase. You cannot return open software in most (if not all) places in the US for a refund, so if the consumer declines to accept the EULA, they are effectively screwed. Obviously, trying to present the EULA prior to a purchase in a physical store isn't realistic, but I believe the first step would have to be offering some sort of return program through the publisher for people that decline the EULA to get a refund. This would not address all issues, since the way the EULA is presented electronically right now isn't technically legal either. Finally, again, the practice of limiting non-commercial users to a single install is also still of contested legality as well, but with no precedent to draw on it's not possible to really offer much insight on this. At any rate, this is getting OT, and still doesn't change the fact that SecuROM and it's ilk aren't effective at all and deters customers more than it does pirates.

Headbob and PP doesn't change the extreme twitching as a result of being injured or exhausted, therefore it doesn't address the issue. The transition needs to be smooth, similar to the wobble you get when you're rested compared to instantly moving from one position to another as much as twice a second.

I honestly don't understand how BIS hasn't implemented a rcon at this point. I just started running a private dedicated server, and I find it extremely aggravating that: A) I have to be in-game to do any admining (thank god I don't run a giant pub server). B) I have to take down and restart the server to enact ANY sort of settings change, minor or major. C) The current console doesn't even log chat or any other server events other than the most very basic stuff. and D)The only way to directly monitor performance is to be in-game with #monitor running. I just really fail to understand why even a basic UI would be so difficult to develop, it's very obtuse at the moment, especially when a bug hits the server and you have absolutely no feedback. Example: My game crashed while I was admin (no warning, no error, nothing) and a copy of me was stuck in the server. Friend couldn't log in as admin in game to boot me out. Character was also unresponsive, and unable to be killed. Due to the lack of rcon, I was unable to kick this "ghost" serverside, and additionally had no clue as to why this ghost was being retained in the server. I ended up having to restart it ~15-20 minutes into a coop mission just to fix it. The monitor and logs reveal such a tiny amount of data that I was unable to figure out why this happened.

No, it isn't. No, he didn't. If he attempted to bypass the copy protection, then he would be treading into dangerous waters. Installation alone is not against the law. Simultaneous usage may or may not be against the law. It is still a gray area concerning only being able to use software on only one computer (that you own) at a time. There theoretically is no limit on personal (non-commercial) use of purchased software, as long as you are the owner of the system the software is being installed on. Commercial users are bound to different standards. The invention of licensing, keys, and other artificial limitations on home computers, while it is the current standard, hasn't really been tested as far as it's legal enforceability goes. There is a reason that Microsoft's relatively recent change of limiting Windows (as well as Office now, I believe) installations to one active PC at a time is constantly under fire. This controversy exists not solely because people are cheap. Regardless, at this point most statements about the current legalities for the non-commercial user are basically conjecture. I qualify even my own statements and research under this disclaimer as well. There's very little precedent in the industry, and what does exist is typically either outdated and/or not directly related to the context. Saying something is outright illegal when it's not a case of blatant theft is alarmist and not constructive. That said, I am against the usage of SecuROM and other intrusive DRM schemes because aside from treating customers like criminals, it stops absolutely nobody. The only way most of these DRM methods would work would be if the internet had never been invented. DRM has a mild deterring effect when a physical disk is absolutely required in order to pirate the game, since this (aside from removing the ease of data transportation that the internet provides) would remove the anonymity the internet provides and would require pirating outfits to be a physical entity. This would greatly inhibit distribution and would make it much easier for authorities to track and shut down these outfits.

Have you brought up a sight or scope after running (or even worse, after being hit)? The gun instantly flashes from position to position with very little transition or motion in-between. It's awful, especially combined with the blur and HDR. I don't normally get motion sickness either. But I can tell that you came in here to troll, so this was probably a waste of time.

G36 magazines in M-series rifle = not realistic (to my knowledge). You are correct on this. (The g36 can use STANAG magazines, however, although I suspect you know this already.) MG36 beta c-mag magazine in M-series = only bothersome to someone that's nitpicking. MG36 magazines being usable in the M-series rifles isn't inherently unrealistic. Yes, IRL they wouldn't be compatible with each other. However, beta c-mag magazines do exist for the M-series guns, so it would be pointless to have two different types of these magazines for something that you couldn't possibly notice in-game. If the MG36 and M-series guns fired different ammunition, there would obviously be an issue here, but this isn't the case.

It kind of does, though. Generally a rifle isn't exposed to the elements at all (or if it is, it's for brief periods of time) on a range. Dust, sand, dirt, and all kinds of fine particles accumulate over long periods (2+ hours) of time in the field, especially in a combat situation where the operator may be prone on the ground and/or using a mound of dirt/sand/etc. to assist in aiming. This also doesn't take fouling into account, which can become more of an issue depending on rounds fired (or combined with the particulates mentioned earlier). At any rate, this looks like it may be an "agree to disagree" situation, since you really seem to be averse to the fact of environmental factors having an impact on accuracy. This is of equal importance with stress/stamina, at least imo.

The issue is that the AI does this regardless of whether or not they're in any danger. You have to essentially micromanage their current behavior state in order to get them to follow you when it's safe, or to use roads instead of simply trying to drive straight at waypoints when they're driving (separate issue, same cause). The AI should be intelligent enough to know when caution is or isn't needed. The behavior commands should exist only to force them to behave in the manner you want them to in a situation where they would otherwise be in another state. It shouldn't be a strict command that locks them into a certain behavior regardless of external stimuli. It also doesn't help the atmosphere when you run straight through a forest, and end up 1.5km away from your men because they're running cover drills in the woods. It wasn't this way in OFP or ArmA 1, which is why it's so aggravating. Just because you haven't run into a situation where this holds things up or you personally feel that this isn't an issue to you, doesn't mean it's not an issue to the rest of us. With that said, if they don't fix the micromanaging issue itself, the least they could do is tell the AI to not call out "I'm covering!" statuses when they're not under fire or not within range of enemy AI.

Even if you had the money to piss away on VBS2, you wouldn't be able to buy it. VBS sales are restricted to authorized users only, unless they've changed this in the past few years.

I've noticed this when they're set to "aware" or "danger". Basically the AI will leapfrog from cover to cover, but won't move from it's current position (even if the next bit of cover is less than 5m away) until it's being told that another unit is covering him. It's most noticeable in forests. They have pretty poor logic in this field since they'll continue to do this for kilometers on end even if there are no hostiles on the island. It wouldn't be quite as bad if they weren't so vocal about it, since this behaviour has it's uses.