lev

Mine has zoom on a 1:1 ratio with real life z axis position. I did not do any tweaking, just ran trackIR and then A3 and enabled trackIR in A3 controls. Pretty sure I am on the default trackIR profile as well.

BIS doesn't usually do this but since they've gotten a lot more popular lately, perhaps they would like to offer preorder bonuses to reward old timer Arma players and entice new ones to commit? Some cool ideas for potential preorder bonuses: Steel Case Map of Limnos Postcards from pre-war-torn Limnos Arma themed lensatic compass (maybe replica of in-game version) Arma themed survival knife (not sure if this would be allowed but for a mature rated game, I don't think its too far fetched?) Arma themed safety goggles + earplugs Arma themed medkit Arma themed balaclava etc Post your ideas.

Wouldn't conditions satisfy what you are looking for? This exists in Java as well: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/locks/Condition.html Semaphores also do the trick if you prefer those: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Semaphore.html

Hey guys, I've developed a strange problem recently. I'm not sure which version of the beta patch it might have first affected but I just noticed it today. When I load the game with no beta patch or mods, ACR gets loaded correctly and the icon appears at the bottom of the main menu screen. However, if I insert the beta patch mod line, it seems to cause the ACR dlc not to get loaded? Lev

Thanks a lot that worked! Didn't think I had to do that because with all the previous dlc's they auto-loaded the dlcs. Think they will fix that anytime soon?

I can tell by the description of your own flying style that you are either new or bad at flying helos in Arma2. Arma2's helo model, while not perfect, is a lot more realistic than the games you mentioned and it requires more practice to get used to and to be good at. Here's a mission that you can use to help practice your own flying as well as providing examples of what good flying looks like and what you can do if you are an accomplished pilot: http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=12752&highlight=MH-6%2BTRAINING

I was wondering if there is a reason for keeping this in the game and if Arma3 might do away with it. What I mean is the factions being limited to BLUFOR, REDFOR, INDEPENDENT, and CIVILIAN factions. It seems to me that it would be better to allow mission makers to specify the number of factions they want to be made available which would open up the possibility for more complex scenarios and possibly new gameplay elements (TvTvTvTv... as an example). Is there perhaps some sort of engine limitation that requires the number of factions to be limited in this fashion? If not I think removing the limitation would benefit the game and community since there wouldn't be any loss of functionality if mission makers wanted only the default factions but would also allow mission makers to include more if they wanted to. In terms of development, I don't think it would require too much work to change?

I was wondering if and how Arma3 will tackle the problem of grass blocking the player's vision. I mean specifically in the case of where the player is prone in a field of grass. When not sighted in, the slight transparency of the grass allows the player to see some motion and detail of other units (very little but some), but as soon as the player sights in, the grass detail immediately makes it impossible to see anything. This is particularly annoying in engagements where the enemy is clearly in front of the player but because of the weird positioning of the player's head, going prone effectively blinds the player and puts him at a disadvantage instead of achieving the desired effect of giving the player a better firing position. Perhaps a partial solution would be to "lower" the height of the grass or raise the player's viewpoint so that grass doesn't completely block the player's vision when prone. This could also be changed in a way such that players can be made more aware of whether they are "hidden" (sinking into the ground from far viewing distances) or if they are completely exposed by having "tall" grass that is similar to the way grass functions now in that it is high enough to block the player's vision but that is because the player is partially concealed. "Low" grass would behave as previously mentioned allowing the player to clearly see and engage targets in front of them. Something more complicated would be importing the lowering and raising of the POV functionality for rising and ducking into cover. Thus in high grass the player can still elevate himself slightly to gain better vision instead of lying down in blinding grass. Is this something BIS will address in ARMA3? EDIT: Perhaps I wasn't too clear with my explanation. Yes my primary concern is being prone and having grass totally concealing your vision while you are completely exposed. I'm not so much bothered by the fact that you can't see and can be seen as that is a perfectly realistic scenario. My main concern is that with the grass height in its current state, you SHOULD be able to see rather than not. To the posters claiming tall grass blocking vision is realistic. I totally agree with your sentiment except the scenario I am outlining is not dealing with tall grass, but rather with short grass. I have no complaints with regards to situations where hiding in a wheat field or any other tall foliage, you can't not see anything. I've uploaded some screen shots to help clarify the issue I am talking about. The scenario presented includes two soldiers facing each other at about 50m distance apart. One soldier is prone and the other is standing. I created this scenario at the following location if anyone wants to check for themselves or with different graphical settings: 036-103 Prone observing standing target. Unzoomed. Prone observing standing target. Zoomed. Prone observing standing target. Sighted in with ACOG. Standing observing prone target. Unzoomed. Standing observing prone target. Zoomed. Standing observing prone target. Sighted in with ACOG. Notice the following issues: From the prone position, you can clearly see there is some sort of opacity/transparency effect on the grass. This is most noticeable from the unzoomed to the zoomed view where the detail on the target and background objects are blocked by the grass where they were previously more visible. In the sighted in view, everything which was visible is now obscured by grass. Hence what I mean by needing to raise the POV (head position) of the player so that they don't seem to sink into the grass. From the standing position, you will notice that zooming in increases the opacity/transparency of the grass so that details of target and objects in the background become more clear. I think this is acceptable since increasing magnification will generally make details more visible and the current implementation seems to simulate this well enough. However, the issue still stands that the prone observer should be able to see the standing target and not have details obscured as they zoom in or sight in. You could argue that yes the prone player's weapon is underneath the grass line thus its realistic that the player can't see anything when sighted in, but in a real life situation you could elevate the rifle and body slightly so that you can see. Granted when implementing this elevation feature, some care will have to be taken so that the player isn't elevating unrealistically high from the prone position.

Well this is pretty much exactly what I have been saying? I'm not sure why you are so confused especially since I added "POV (head position)" so that you wouldn't be. I have never endorsed separating the player's POV from the head/eyes so not sure why you would make these kinds of assumptions for a milsim. The reasons I say "seem to sink into the grass" is because 1) when changing the level of zoom (position of the head/POV NOT moving), the details visible to the player change making it appear as if the grass is now higher or the player "has sunk into the grass" and 2) The scenario was setup so that the differences were visible from the prone and standing position; if I had stepped back a few more meters it would appear to the prone player that he "has sunk into the grass" and is concealed (default unzoomed POV will show only grass, no standing player) while he is still visible to the standing player. Thus it often "seems" as if the player has sunk into the grass while he in fact has not. Not sure how I can make this any more clear to you if you still do not understand. Currently the prone model has the position of the elbows and rifle relaxed (bent at only a slight angle) but if you wanted to elevate the position it would be possible by tensing up the elbows a little more. Realistically you can only raise the rifle so far when prone which is why I mentioned "some care will have to be taken so that the player isn't elevating unrealistically high from the prone position". And as you have mentioned, the animation has the head being lowered down to the rifle instead of the rifle being raised up which I believe might solve some of the issue but will still suffer from the grass detail making it harder to clearly see standing targets that are plainly visible when unzoomed (I mean come on, do you not notice that the horizon is plainly visible in the first image but not in the following ones? Not to mention the extra foliage you can see in the background that becomes concealed once you zoom in.).

I don't think I was very clear so I've updated my first post to try to better explain what I was talking about. Reposted here: EDIT: Perhaps I wasn't too clear with my explanation. Yes my primary concern is being prone and having grass totally concealing your vision while you are completely exposed. I'm not so much bothered by the fact that you can't see and can be seen as that is a perfectly realistic scenario. My main concern is that with the grass height in its current state, you SHOULD be able to see rather than not. To the posters claiming tall grass blocking vision is realistic. I totally agree with your sentiment except the scenario I am outlining is not dealing with tall grass, but rather with short grass. I have no complaints with regards to situations where hiding in a wheat field or any other tall foliage, you can't not see anything. I've uploaded some screen shots to help clarify the issue I am talking about. The scenario presented includes two soldiers facing each other at about 50m distance apart. One soldier is prone and the other is standing. I created this scenario at the following location if anyone wants to check for themselves or with different graphical settings: 036-103 Prone observing standing target. Unzoomed. Prone observing standing target. Zoomed. Prone observing standing target. Sighted in with ACOG. Standing observing prone target. Unzoomed. Standing observing prone target. Zoomed. Standing observing prone target. Sighted in with ACOG. Notice the following issues: From the prone position, you can clearly see there is some sort of opacity/transparency effect on the grass. This is most noticeable from the unzoomed to the zoomed view where the detail on the target and background objects are blocked by the grass where they were previously more visible. In the sighted in view, everything which was visible is now obscured by grass. Hence what I mean by needing to raise the POV (head position) of the player so that they don't seem to sink into the grass. From the standing position, you will notice that zooming in increases the opacity/transparency of the grass so that details of target and objects in the background become more clear. I think this is acceptable since increasing magnification will generally make details more visible and the current implementation seems to simulate this well enough. However, the issue still stands that the prone observer should be able to see the standing target and not have details obscured as they zoom in or sight in. You could argue that yes the prone player's weapon is underneath the grass line thus its realistic that the player can't see anything when sighted in, but in a real life situation you could elevate the rifle and body slightly so that you can see. Granted when implementing this elevation feature, some care will have to be taken so that the player isn't elevating unrealistically high from the prone position.

Aside from bugs, is anyone finding this mission ridiculously hard? It's a warfare type mission but the human player doesn't respawn, only has 2 AI members (who don't seem to grasp the concept of buying units), and has no access to any sort of armor besides BRDM-2's. I only managed to beat this mission by luckily disabling an enemy T90 and driving it back to a friendly town to repair. And even then its hard because the enemy is constantly pumping out heavy armor that can 1 shot kill the T90 anyway.

Ok after attempting this mission a few times here's what I have so far. The marker for Kasun shows his ingress direction. It should show up on the road somewhere but I've also had it show up off the visible map area. Figure out the path Kasun will be taking across the map and try to intercept him there. Once you intercept him, kill the driver and Kasun will get out and stand in front of you. Just walk up to him and once your character says the whole "you are arrested" speech, Kasun will start following you around. He won't get into your vehicle or anything so just drive back to point Orion and wait there at 4x speed. Eventually you will get a message telling you Kasun has been successfully apprehended.

I'm having trouble finding him at all. If I reload an autosave, the marker goes off the visible area of the map. Is that normal?

I had a similar issue yesterday with this. Are you running windows 7 and have a copy of visual studio? If so you might get the option to debug why its CTD as the game launches. When I did this yesterday I found out the arma2OA.exe was corrupted and I was able to fix the issue by reinstalling the 1.62 patch, ACR dlc which overwrote the .exe.

-borderless windows -options to remove all aid markers -remove all aid markers that BIS forgot to remove from ARMA2 including in the map screen -realistic radio system like ACRE -realistic map so no more magic markers and infinite range map sharing -digital map so we can keep all the old "magic" map features

I edited the DEVGRU v4.0 ACE mission in order to add in the RH weapons pack. I haven't tested it on every mission but the one I tried had the RH weapons available in the briefing menu. If anyone is interested in playing with it and making sure that every mission is working and if Sick gives me permission, I'd gladly hand it over or post it up somewhere for others to play.

Hi Sick, Please don't give up support for ACE. It adds too many great features to throw out. I have been following the loadout reset bug in the dev-heaven tracker and it seems that they have fixed it. It should be available in the next ACE 1.12 Update 1 patch. Lev

Interesting, I've noticed that this is actually an ACE wide problem as other missions using briefing screen loadouts suffer as well. If you play the non ACE version this problem does not occur. Lev

Hey guys, I noticed in the ACE version, many of the RH weapons are not available. So I inserted them into the weapons selection screen at the beginning. This is for players who enjoy using the various RH weapons such as the FN P90, M14 EBR, etc. I hope you don't mind the additions Sick. Oh in addition to the ones mentioned by Sick I also inserted the RH AKs pack and M40 pack. Also you will need to use RH MGS 1.0 since in the 1.2 version its missing the M60 for some reason. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6EVH5E5B Lev

Hey Sick, I've been playing the ACE version of the campaign and found a few issues/glitches with the first mission in Takistan. Sorry I can't recall the name right now but its the one where you eliminate a mountain patrol and call in CAS for the rangers. Also Sick, I manually inserted the RH weapons and their corresponding magazines into the missions as well as the GLDT SOFLAM and MX-2 so I could use them. If you want these updated description.ext's I can send them to you. The only problem is that there are repeating M4's and some other weapons that ACE has. Lev

Hey Sick, If its not too much trouble could you add the RH weapons? I really enjoy using the Mk14 and P90 on missions and a lot of campaigns/missions don't have them available. Lev

Hey, I think I noticed an issue with the ACE version of the campaign. The RH weapons do not seem to be available in the gearing up menu during briefing. Lev

Hey I was playing the non ACE version and it was an awesome campaign so far. However, I just switched to the ACE campaign and it keeps crashing me in the first mission as I approach the FOB in the seahawk. I have posted my RPT below. Can you check it for me? Lev

Hey Guys, I remember seeing 100 man coop missions on youtube a while back which was a pretty big deciding factor in whether or not I should buy ARMA2. Yet I've never been in any mp games larger than 30 people. Are there any servers doing huge coop missions or even huge TvT missions? Lev

Hey Guys, I'm up to the Razor Two mission in single player and I'm wondering how do I rearm my squad? I cant find an ammo crate or ammo truck in the Star Force FOB or the main one? Also is there a way to command a unit to rearm themselves from corpses? I also notice that when I placed an enemy's weapon in his gear, there didn't seem to be an order for him to switch from his pistol to it? Thanks Lev