RSF TheCapulet

Which extraction tool should I use? I've tried PboView and cPbo, and both throw errors. PboView: "It seems that it isn't ArmA pbo", and cPbo: "Extract of one or more files failed".

Is there a way I can edit the missions in the ace_missions.pbo and aceX_missions.pbo? I can't figure out how to extract them, and there's only like 6 missions in the compressed store file.

Just played skybreakers for a few mins. One thing that would deffinately make the mission much better is a tailhook script. Even coming in for a landing at 130 knots, I still couldn't get the plane slowed down enough to stay safely on the deck. Any slower and the av8 just falls out of the sky. Overall, the mission seems well scripted and well built, but I'm not the biggest fan, simply due to the limitations of the engine. At 1000m, even at 10k view distance, I can't see anything aside from the green boxes when I tab lock. Which means that I have no idea if I had good effect on target. No wingman to confirm a hit, no sf FAC on the ground waiting, etc. It's just tab-lock, drop bomb, hope it hits and move on.

Well, probably because this would take 6 or less lines of code and a new sound or two, while a full vehicle hitpoint system would be a major feature, likely taking months to plan, create, and test.

Go play Halo, and stop flaming feature request threads. More realism in a SIMULATOR is never a bad thing. I agree with the post and wouldn't be a real difficult achievement. A bit of scripting/bug testing and it's done.

On even very strict servers, such as HS's who just recently switched to V2 signatures and apparently only allows a single random german mod, it's been a month or more since I've connected and managed to get a game or two off without being accosted by a hacker. I do like battleye, but the fact of the matter is that it 'still' isn't doing it's job, despite how convenient it may be. Punkbuster on the other hand has a history of being a pain in the ass sometimes (Though I've never once had a problem with it), but it DOES get shit done. If you need proof, just point your browser to pbbans.com, punksbusted.com, AON.com, etc. You'll see hundreds of thousands of global GUID bans, keeping the pricks out of our games. And that is precisely what I want in an AC program.

I think the best possible thing that having a modern physics engine will give A3 is blended animations, and this is a selling point of the PhysX SDK. The entire issue that most people have with A3 animations will be solved by that one thing alone. Blended animations means that an animated character can move from one animation to the other with overlap, or even do two or more animations at once. For instance, walking/running while switching a weapon. In A2, the entire skeletal model was forced into the current animation playing, and couldn't do anything else. Kiss that kind of crap goodbye. We won't miss it.

For menu UI, I think they should deff take pointers from the PR team. And I would love to see a full featured rose system for commanding. In current A2 games, I almost always avoid giving orders, just simply because it is a huge pain in t he ass.

Since this thread's already been answered by a dev, I don't feel bad for commenting on your uninformed post. The hogs in that video were getting their 'lives took', due to over-population, disease, and crop destruction. Hogs like those in the video cost their government and land owners hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars a year. The only other solution would be for YOU to donate all of your money, time, and effort into catching, vaccinating, feeding and releasing these pigs in a more suitable environment. Your point means nothing unless you're willing to do something about it, or for that matter, think about what you're typing before it's posted on the internet for the world to see.

You missed a link then: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/28/nvidia_geforce_3way_sli_radeon_trifire_review/ In this review, even in situations where the Nvidia GPUs were given specific situations where they weren't vRam bottlenecked, they consistently failed to outperform the competition, even when the competition was using higher settings. And in that competition, it was basically against three 6950's, since the 6990 uses the same clocks as the 6950 and forces the third 6970 down to it's clock range. The GPU performance war is ever changing. But there's no use in denying that ATI has Nvidia firmly trounced this generation. Is that a bad thing for Nvidia users? Not at all, because it means that next generation, Nvidia will step up it's effort to beat the competition. And that's awesome for everyone involved.

[Character Limit]

PhysX is an entire physics API. PhysX itself is the base standard for it, which runs the non-'eyecandy' stuff that you're talking about. Stuff like destruction calculations, vehicles, hit mapping, animations, ragdoll calculations, etc. PhysX APEX on the other hand is a subsection of PhysX that deals specifically with the eycandy. It handles things like cloth physics calculations, 100,000+ particle effects, volumetric FX, and debris clutter. Realistically, without APEX stuff turned on, Nvidia and ATI users will have identical experiences. It will all work the same, no matter what. With APEX capabilities on though, Nvidia users will have much better graphics due to the fancy effects that APEX enables that I explained above. Gameplay will remain the same, but it will look even better. ---- I'm not really all that upset by this. I have the capabilities to continue to use my ATI cards while still taking advantage of GPU calculated PhysX. But that still doesn't change the fact that like someone said above, most ATI users won't go near the 'jerry-rigged' way of getting it to work like I have. ATI recently overtook Nvidia in the discrete GPU marketshare, which indicates that despite the fact that Nvidia relies so heavily on PhysX and CUDA as sellingpoints for it's cards, consumers are definitely more interested in $:performance and efficiency than over advertised anti-consumer 'features' that alienate over half of a PC games potential user base. Make no mistake; PhysX will drastically improve the Arma engine, even without the fancy effects. But it's still going to piss a lot of people off anyways, when there are comparable inter-compatable solutions out or coming out in the near future that could have been used instead.

PhysX is awesome in nearly every aspect. It's an awesome achievement for the guys who made it. It's a free, full featured CPU/GPU Physics SDK. And in an alternate world, it would be an awesome addition to the industry and market. What people really should be banging about is that it's not only used as a selling point, but also (And much more effectively) as market extortion. Nvidia gives developers money, top level support, and bucketloads of Nvidia cards to put in dev machines, as long as they include certain specific instruction sets and run their middleware. Then when the games that could potentially be freakin awesome come out, we're getting a message from nvidia reading, "Buy our Cards or your game is going to suck". Mafia 2 is a prime example (Granted it sucked anyways, but that's another story). This sucks for everyone, not just ATI users. Not because you get to play the game with higher frames than we do because of proprietary middleware, but because as long as the industry is divided on physics, it will never advance in that aspect. I have a 9800GT that works perfectly with the hacked drivers to get it working along side my crossfired ATI cards. So really the only thing bad I get out of the deal is a higher power bill (I leave it out because of this). But idealistically, I want nothing to do with PhysX, just simply because of what it stands for. There are so many comparable alternatives, it just makes no sense to use it, outside of selling out.

I don't think any of that is really dependent on PhysX calculated vehicle control, and dependent instead on developer effort. I imagine if it means enough to the developers to actually include that level of detail, then it will be included.

So you've quoted (1) blogger, who was angry because his biased and combative article wasn't published on a real technology portal. And you've quoted another (1) unverified random forum poster on anandtech, who fails to show the results in any real meaningful way. And who also uses base SSE, the earliest SSE instruction set from 1999, instead of SSE4 or SSE5 for his comparisons. Then you quote the physX info site, making an SDK 3.0 announcement, which doesn't address the instruction set issue at all. So what are you actually trying to say there? You've posted three videos. One is particle based fluid physics. This would present no meaningful addition to a military simulator. Then you posted a particle based smoke demo, which agreeably looks very nice. But realistically, was possible on base DX10 hardware in 2006/2007, along with the fluid simulations above. Then a resistance cloth demo? Havok and bullet both have had that capability for quite some time now. And tearing cloth simulation? Entirely up to the developer, and again, absolutely no meaningful addition to a military simulator. And why exactly are you so combative? What's the issue here? Nvidia purchased PhysX purely with the intention on making the GPU graphics industry more and more proprietary. No matter which way you look at it, it IS anti consumer behavior, and translates into poor experiences for PC gamers who are already being bombarded with one shitty console port after another. PhysX itself is a fantastic technology. And before Nvidia bought Aigea, I was a huge fan of their work and what they were doing for the industry. But the fact of the matter is that PhysX CAN be ported to OpenCL. PhysX boosting Nvidia GPUs CAN be used in tandem with ATI GPUs, and actually are curtousy of a community hack via Guru3d.com's forums. And PhysX CAN run on ATI hardware, and currently would be, had Nvidia not threatened the developers working on a solution with a hefty lawsuit. And it absolutely could run better on CPU hardware, if it wasn't purposely being hobbled. Ignorance and lies aren't the opponents of PhysX. PC gamers who want a non-proprietary, inter-compatable gameplay experience in the games they play are the real opponents. PhysX is holding the industry back significantly in that regard.

:D Ok, I'll stay on topic now, promise.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/05/19/quadgpu_performance_review_nvidia_vs_amd http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/28/nvidia_geforce_3way_sli_radeon_trifire_review/ http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/03/21/amd_radeon_hd_6990_video_card_followup_review/6 http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/03/24/asus_geforce_gtx_590_video_card_review/9 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-3-way-scaling,2865.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6990-antilles-crossfire,2878.html If you need any more, just let me know. There are half a dozen other reputable tech sites that have posted the same results.

x86 is a baseline 32-bit instruction set. And it's evolution was the x64 instruction set. x87's evolution is the SSE, SSE2, SSE3, and SSE4 instruction sets. x64 requires more memory than the x86 instruction set, to address the extra bits in each cycle. Not only that, x86 still sees widespread use for nearly every entire industry rather than just the gaming industry. So backwards compatibility is a must. SSE variants have no such limitation, and the only reason NOT to use SSE instruction sets is for backwards compatibility. Considering that Nvidia is in absolutely zero danger of anyone using their PhysX API on a 15 year old or older processor, using x87 only points to ONE THING. IE: your snarky one liner argument holds no weight.

Or rather, the educated and the fanboys. Nvidia has had some awesome video performance in the last 6 years. But it's been proven time and time again that this generation, the highest performing ATI cards are indeed faster than the highest performing Nvidia cards, while still being cheaper. This is also why ATI recently took over the discrete maret share majority.

http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-features/50554-does-physx-diminish-cpu-performance Nvidia hobbles CPU physX performance by forcing CPU physX through the x87 instruction set. In case you weren't aware, x87 is from nineteen eighty nine. 1989!!! So yeah... I'd say forcing a 22 year old instruction set on CPU physX is a bit crippling... Off Topic: Mafia 2's hardware excelerated physX actually ran marginally well on medium for ATI users, if they went in and deleted the ApexCloth file. APEX is a lightweight subset of PhysX, that again... is purposely being used to boost the image of green team GPUs, despite the fact that CPUs can run the calculations just fine if it were calling on SSE4 instructions. ---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ---------- This is absolutely true, but not on the scale that Nvidia makes most believe. Proof? http://www.havok.com/index.php?page=showcase&hl=en_US Look at any of those videos, and after watching, remind yourself that every bit of that was CPU calculated physics.

"Physical Simulation & Improved Animations – Take advantage of PhysX™ supported vehicle simulation, in-game interactions and the revamped animation system." Best news I've heard in a very long time! I can't wait for 2012!

Not what I meant. I am talking more along the lines about knowing that the mod is in a very nearly completed state 'without' a bunch of new vehicles. Being disappointed because it doesn't have those things yet is kind of missing the entire point of PR. They are looking for more devs to help with the texture and modeling work, but the real priority is finishing the gameplay features and letting people play it.

Thread Derailer! :P I thought about posting the issues I had on CIT, but at this point, it's been a while since I tried, and I honestly can't be arsed to go through it again. Should I see any more bugs, I'll be sure to update them on there. ---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 AM ---------- When they say "It Feels like PR", they don't mean it feels like PR because of the swank vehicles or crisper textures, nor the guns and units. I'm sure there's plenty of new content to come, but honestly... I just want to play the game. That's what's most important to me. If I had to wait another 12 months for them to finish the details for half a dozen new vehicles, I'd be pissed.

When I was playing the ACE mod with 'just' Arma 2, sans OA, for some reason the ATVs were drastically better in every way. Better textures, sounds, and all. I wish I could switch it back to that now. The vanilla sounds are just 'meh'. They're not incorrect... But they just don't pop like the rest of the JSRS sounds do. So they really do sound out of place, comparably.

Zues AI ftw. And what servers have you been playing? lol. I don't think I've ever come across a clan server with that level of self entitled idiots running the place. As far as American CTI servers, hopefully teamdeadly's server will be back up at some point. Lag is actually really bad for MP snipers. While sniping in nearly any MP server, every sniper is deathly afraid of taking the first shot, simply because he knows shit will hit the fan. When I snipe on CTI MP, what I'd love to do is ambush enemies who are coming to the next town in their path, and snipe them all quickly. But as soon as that first shot rings out, they start running. And as soon as they start running, you've lost your chance to make any more shots, and you either die or hide until they're gone. There's absolutely no chance of hitting anyone once they're on the move.