polar bear

Forget about "Arma 3". Just fix all the bugs in Arma 2 and OA.

Adrian I think they are suggesting you could do what I'm doing with civilians, only you could attach the code to your Officer: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=104689 You could use that method to generate a new officer at a marker on the map. You could put whatever you like in the "killed" script really, so you could set up all kinds of repercussions. In my script I am creating enemies when a civilian is killed for a different reason--I want to model people getting angry and joining the insurgency when civilians die. But you could create as many enemy, friendly, or neutral units of as many different types for any purpose in a killed script attached to your officer, including creating a new officer, reinforcing his guards, etc. You'll have to make sure that your win/lose conditions are capable of detecting ANY officer since technically it'd be a different unit. Assuming getting ANY officer out the door is a win then you should be good with that. Now since I'm new at this maybe take my advice with a grain of salt...

Hello all, this is one of my first attempts to write an Arma 2 script. I am trying to create a "counter insurgency" script which mimics the real world effect of killing civilians causing the insurgency to grow. Specifically every time you kill a civilian I want to spawn an enemy insurgent fireteam elsewhere on the map. I have all sorts of ideas of how to make this fancy later on but for now I'm making small steps just trying to prove I can create units and such before I move on to bigger things. I have run into a roadblock. I have this in a civilian's init block: this addEventHandler [ "killed", { _this exec "CI_civiliankilled.sqs" } ] And I have this in CI_civiliankilled.sqs: grp1 = CreateGroup East; unit1 = grp1 createUnit [ "Ins_Worker2", getMarkerPos "CI_SPAWN", [], 0, "none" ]; And of course I have created the CI_SPAWN marker on the map. So the funny thing is this WORKS if I spawn myself as an EAST player: The east insurgent appears when I kill the civilian. However if I kill the exact same civilian as a WEST player nothing happens. Similarly if I edit the script to create a US marine then it works if I am a west player, but not if I'm east. Obviously this is just the opposite of what I am hoping to achieve! Any ideas? As I'm new at this it's more than possible that I'm making some bonehead mistake but I have searched through examples and tried variations and I can't figure this out.

Ah kylania it works!!! Thanks for explaining it, it was frustrating me for many hours and here all I had to do was drop another unit on the map. Obviously in a real game there would be.. it's only in my test scenario that I only had me and the civvy! I learned something thank you. I will package it all up as an SQF and try and make it proper once I get the basics down point taken.

What's the advantage of using this ambient civilians feature over dropping them on the map and giving them something to do?

I am trying to create a mission where Takistan is populated by a finite number of AI units, the goal is basically to clear the island. Many towns are pre-populated with some AI units with GUARD waypoints, and there are some that patrol randomly around the island. At the moment I am using a "search and destroy" waypoint for the patrol script with a radius set big enough to cover most of the island but I am thinking of switching to "urban patrol script". In any case I have a question: Does the AI have any pre-programmed behavior when it runs out of fuel? I am guessing no. Therefore will I have to arrange for the AI units to refuel and re-arm periodically? The AI will have both ground vehicles (tanks and jeeps) and helicopters set to patrol the whole island this way. Thoughts on the best way to handle this? Thanks for all your help I am new to Arma.

Signature checking and cheat detection only goes so far. The admins need to have enough information about what's going to to ban cheaters. Ideally there would be some sort of event log associated with Arma that would reveal key events and associated them with players?

It doesn't appear that way. I created a sniper team, sniper and spotter, and made the PoP of the leader 50%. Then I previewed a few times and I noticed that the spotter is always there, while the sniper is only there half the time. So the PoP of the leader applies to the leader only whereas I was hoping to have the entire sniper team or nothing.

Hi BI people! I have recently bought Arma2/AO and I am enjoying it very much. I have been practicing a lot in the armory because I'm a complete n00b, and that's fun in and of itself. One suggestion: Please don't reset the map after I successfully complete a challenge, like a fitness run, or a race, or an attack or whatever. Sometimes I want to look around a little after! Or in the case of a stay alive or whatever it's sometimes fun to keep trying even after I got the points. Of course continue to reset the map when a new challenge arises that would normally clear the map, and maybe make this a configurable option in case there are some people out there who like the way it is now. One other idea--I'd like to be able to pick the type of challenge I play. For example, right now I am trying to practice with the helicopter so I don't can fly without killing my team mates in multiplayer. I'd like to play the taxi challenge over and over until I get good. Other times I'm in the mood for one of the attack challenges as infantry. Any way you could create a UI that allowed me to pick one to play? I don't even care if I got the points for it when I pick it, it's just fun. Thanks for creating such a great game! Cheers, Polar Bear

Does TrackIR make it harder to aim? It seems to me that involuntary head movements add extra difficulty to lining up a shot properly--head movements move the screen, and your job in aiming is to line up your cross hair on a particular pixel, which is now a moving pixel. I'm asking because I otherwise find the TrackIR fascinating. Unfortunately Arma2 is the only game I play that supports it, so it's a big cash outlay for one game. I worry I'd stump up the cash and then find an issue with it. Wish I could try it somewhere sometime before buying! It's a fascinating idea.

Hi all, I am pretty new to Arma2/OA, I've been playing the game for maybe 2-3 weeks now and it's been a lot of fun. Obviously I've noticed that Arma2/OA is a lot more demanding than a lot of other FPS type games out there and that the sorts of frame rate that I can get for a game like CS:S or BC2 is just not going to be possible in Arma2 due to it being a simulator and such. However I do have some control over the frame rate that I get. I can turn down the resolution and the settings and hold a rate of 60 or so, or I can play at the maximum resolution of my flat screen and get only about 30. I know in a lot of other games having a higher frame rate is a tactical advantage, your movements are recorded sooner, your display is more up to date, etc., and a big enough difference can be a significant advantage. Is that also true in Arma2? It's different gameplay, a lot less about surprise and reaction time and a lot more about observing and tactics. Still, there are cases where you see the enemy the same time they see you and presumably a lower ping and a higher frame rate translates into an advantage in Arma2 the same way as any game. So long story short here is my question: What do you consider a good or acceptable frame rate for multi-player Arma2? Especially player-v-player. Would you rather play 60fps with a lower resolution, or 30fps with a higher resolution? Is it a bigger advantage to have more pixels? Or more frames? Cheers Polar Bear

Hi all, Much of the text in Arma2/AO shows up crystal clear, but some elements are very blurry and hard to read. One example is the multiplayer screen, I can barely make out the words, sometimes I just have to guess. Things like challenges in the Armory are also hard to read, but most other elements are fine. I have tried turning up all the video options to their maximum, anti-aliasing, textures, everything on their highest settings. It doesn't help. It's something else. I have a Core i7 930 OC'd to about 3.2ghz with a Sapphire/ATI 5850 card and 6g of system memory displaying to a 1920x1200 LCD @60hz, Windows 7 pro 64bit. Any thoughts? The game plays well enough on "low" to "normal" settings at my max 1920x1200 resolution but I simply cannot read the text! I have tried deleting the game and re-installing via Steam but no luck I still get the same hard to read text. I ---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ---------- Here is a sample of the problem, notice how the rules text is virtually unreadable but the names in the pool are very clear.

Thanks, it's great to hear that. I hope I didn't come across as too negative, I totally understand that in the security space you're in a constant arms race with the bad guys and I really appreciate the work you've put into BE.

Well in the short term obviously I appreciate that you're responding to some issue out there and I trust the current solution is the best fix in the short term. I do very much appreciate the work you do to keep the game fair and playable--there's nothing worse than having your game ruined by a cheater! So I appreciate that you may have had to do this, and that it's saving us all from grief. In the long term if BE must always run as admin from now on it probably would make sense to separate it out from the game so that users do not have to undermine the security of their system. The BE code is trustworthy, I don't mind running it with admin rights. The game as a whole is a bit scarier. Even though you say that mod writers can only execute commands provided by the game engine I simply find it hard to believe there isn't an exploit in there somewhere. Plainly userland applications have the ability to manipulate the game in diverse ways and proving that every one of those alternatives is safe is a pretty tall order. On the other hand, BE itself could be audited for security flaws much more easily as it's much more controlled. Administrator privileges are a severe thing to have to grant, and if it's required, it make sense to limit it to the smallest unit of code that really needs to have it.

Is it possible to run just BattleEye with admin privileges? I feel uncomfortable giving a game that is so easily moddable admin privileges on my computer. I would feel much more comfortable restricting admin privileges to just BattleEye itself which presumably is not subject to user community mods. Why should I trust server admins to publish mods that do not contain viruses and malware and other harmful things? Maybe I do not understand something here but it would seem sensible to grant only the minimum necessary admin privileges and I can't see why the game itself needs to be admin, just BattleEye.