JoeDamage

Hi, What influence does BIS's affiliation/ownership of VBS have over the kind of content and technology included in Arma. I understand that they are essentially developed as separate entities... but does BIS's military/commercial client base have any influnce on the Arma content.... for instance... would BIS be prevented from including politically sensitive content in the game if one of it's customers objected? And of course, to what degree does BIS take it upon itself to prevent this kind of potential conflict of interest when it chooses its content? On a related note, is BIS legally prevented from using brand names of weapons systems, as opposed to military designations, which I assume cannot be trademarks? In the past the weapons systems in Arma have all been pretty clearly real world, including their military designations. My question really serves to answer whether all the content for Arma, going forward, is going to be deliberately abstracted to avoid conflicts of interest with clients and the possible legal consquences of using brand names. I would imagine using designations should still be possible? Regards Joedamage

Zulu Alpha rescues a L/Cpl from the clutches of the insurgents...

Squad name - Zulu Alpha Timezone/location - Johannesburg/South Africa Squad gamemode preference (eg coop or pvp) - Coop, TvT Contact email - joedamage@arma.co.za Website address - http://www.arma.co.za

Hi, Perhaps someone can help me here. I am running Arma2NET 2.2, with Arma2NETMySQLPlugin.dll (compiled against Arma2NET 2.2). I have created a mission, using MSO4.4. I have enabled only the persistantDB module, and when I start it, I get the following message in the Arma2NETMySQLPlugin log: It is clear to me that the connection to the database is being made successfully. The mission information is even correctly entered in the missions table, however, when the mission id (I'm assuming 'tmid' is the mission id) is returned, it is consistently null. I am using the database schema as supplied by MSO4.4, although I've also tried the one that comes with the standalone persistantDB package. I doubt that the problem lies with the schema. I saw that there was a discussion earlier in this thread about a similar problem, where the issue was related to the specifics of the array structure returned by the MySQL plugin, and the recommendation was to use Arma2NET 1.11.1, which I have also tried, without success. The plot thickens, when I try testing using the mission supplied with the persistantDB package (Co30_ACE_KH_PDB_Batfields_2_13.Chernarus.pbo). Everytime I load the mission, I get the various messages saying that the mission entry has been created etc. Then the mission starts. When I look in the logs for the Arma2NETMySQLPlugin I see the following: I realise the second issue is probably unrelated to the first. Does anyone have any ideas?

Not sure where to put this... this thread seemed appropriate... it might seem like a small thing, but it would be nice if all the doors of all the enterable buildings were closed by default... its a bit odd that the entire population of Zargabad leaves their doors open all day and night... and it makes it more interesting from a simulation point of view to have them closed....

^^ word

Pretty much... when I started the thread, I thought it was still an option.

Well, let me explain then. The issue has nothing to do with it being a Windows game vs a Linux server, because the two are essentially different pieces of software. The Windows server is not the same as the Windows game itself... it may share some components, in the same way as the Linux server uses those components, but they're still 'server' vs 'client'. In that sense, there is no need to completely re-engineer the entire 'Windows Game' to create a Linux server. The Linux server, is a port of the Windows server. If you mean that everything is written for Windows, then the server is clumsily ported to Linux, and that for this reason I shouldn't expect a Linux server, then remember that BIS has made the commitment to fully support the Linux server... so any other discussion is pretty moot. The failure of BIS to meet their committment means that many communities (including the one I admin for) have to reconsider whether using the Linux server is a good idea given that it will always be released weeks later, and at this stage, in a broken form. (Hence this thread) "Secondly, there are probably more manpower available/ needed to develop the actual simulator for Windows than servers for both Windows and Nix together." Arma would be a pretty dodgy singleplayer game, at best, without the server, so the server is critical to it's success. Therefore the man-power needs to be there to make sure the server software is written properly. Its not really an option. The reason why this comment is irrelevent, is that as a business, BIS should know how to allot it's resources... nobody jumped a Linux server on them.. its been around for years.. when they decided to make the changes they did in the latest releases, they should have been able to foresee that porting it to Linux would be an issue. We're talking months of knowing this, not days. If the Linux server was part of their planning process, and not just something they hoped would compile at the end of the changes, then there wouldn't be this issue. I realise that BIS can't just "magic up expert manpower", but to allow BIS to make commitments based on which we spend money, and then have them fail to follow through means that as customers we're not holding companies accountable... and non-acountable companies can ride roughshod over their customers... and I'm sure nobody wants that. Putting a bit of pressure on them to get it right is how they know we care.

That is besides the point.. as in, not really relevant to the discussion. Client and server software are two different kettle of fish. As has been pointed out many times... BIS say they are committed to supporting a Linux server and Linux servers are cheaper to run and there are many already in existence.. (although my guess is the number is dropping every day). Also not really the issue. Did you read that thread? Its still not working. I know from personal experience.. every release I've run so far has been thoroughly unstable in one way or another. So lets not try to pretend its working.

It is a fact, that even after much pleading from our side, BIS has still not posted a sticky thread, something that comes from an official representative, that they can update every time there is a new development on the Linux server. (So we assume there isn't any progress or they're embarrassed about it) It is also a fact, that nowhere does BIS state that the Linux server is anything other than a first class citizen in their range of products. They have repeatedly stated that Linux is fully supported. At this stage of the game, it is simply sickening that they don't have a properly working Linux server, that they can't post more regular updates and that they insist on setting their dogs on anyone who mentions it. There have been repeated attempts at getting through to them, both here in the forums, via PM, via contact form on the site and directly to certain role-players in Skype. Only after a dramatic moment a week or so back, did the CEO eventually come out and say something. He had to be pried from whatever he was doing to respond to his customers. And since then there has been absolute silence again. No updates, nothing. For BIS to show us, that they're seriously going to continue to support the Linux server, they're going to need to up their game a bit... hire more people... get some feedback going...whatever... and stop kicking their loyal fans in the teeth everytime one mentions that they're angry. At this stage, BIS is defensive and angry at their fans for calling them on it, and I predict that the way this is going to end, is with them dropping the Linux server altogether. Its simply not worth the trouble.. otherwise they'd have taken their community seriously, and dealt with the situation cordially. I've come to the conclusion, that despite all their promises, they're not actually going to keep them. I would suggest you all go looking for Windows servers instead. If past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour, then the Linux server will always be behind, and it will always be the bastard, unloved child of Arma. :icon_sad:

Did you notice this part: "but I am not aware of any important server CRASH fix." And its been crashing quite frequently.. so that means its not working yet.

I appreciate you responding. Of course you can pull the Linux server. Nobody disputes this. But I think you'll be doing yourself a disservice, but thats for you to decide. Either way, clarity about whats going on is ALL we're asking for. Just a note, Steam updated much of our community members' version to 1.62, despite the fact that they had not had automatic update enabled. So we switched to 1.62 in the hope it would be up and running quickly. ---------- Post added at 06:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ---------- Maruk, I hope you're satisfied with the way this guy talks to your customers.

Without communities paying for their own servers there would be NO multiplayer servers whatsoever... and without multiplayer... Arma is pretty much a non-starter. Without Arma's amazing community, Arma wouldn't even feature on the games radar. Its not about 'everything BIS gives us' (which we pay for), its also about the community.

I didn't realise this had gotten personal.