windies

isServer should work irregardless of dedicated or client host, at least that's how it was explained to me. I don't have 2 client's to actually be able to test that though so I could only test in a local dedicated server environment. As for calling the script, are you calling it with "30 setFog[0.7,0.02,50]" ? If so then that's wrong, simply call it with [[start density, end density], decay, altitude, time to run]. For instance if I wanted the fog to start with a density of .25 and progress to .75 density I would simply do nul = [[.25,.75], .012, 25, 60] execVM "setFog.sqf"; either in a trigger activation or init.sqf or even a unit's init and that would start the fog with a density at .25 and keep changing it across all the clients and the server until it hits .75 density where it will stay and the script should terminate.

"Technocratic zealots; evangelicals of geekery. Characterized by irrational advocacy of a particular OS, console, company, or franchise. Most commonly used to de-legitimize contrary opinions in gaming forums." Sorry but if you fit the definition then you are what you are. Would you get offended if I call you A man if you're A man or A woman if you're A woman? It's simply a word linked to a definition and if you find insult in the word than you what you really find is insult in the definition. Maybe you need to take an introspective look at yourself to find out why it so aptly applies and why you are insulted in the first place.

Considering the source, I took Fixmoaner to be a badge of honor

I kind of like running around as a mule-packed ghillie-suited 1337 sNiPeR dude! Only if it fits the mission though. I always try to fit my missions with the right firepower/technology that matches what I want to simulate as far as time period and supply as well as difficulty for the most part. I dislike respawns now though after getting used to it for quite some time, it's much more rewarding to live to the end of a mission or die trying than it is to just expect to keep playing over and over and over again like some endless meat grinder. As for why I think you see less missions in ArmA 3, I think it has a part to do with the community somewhat dwindling and lacking motivation as well as newer people running into a roadblock when it comes to doing things to get a mission done and not having good resources or documentation to educate themselves. It turns it from a hobby that you like to do into a time consuming job that gets frustrating when you run into situations of lack of documentation or not even lack of documentation but very vague examples of how to do things. Also the fact that the good information is spread so far around the internet that again, it turns content making or mission making into a very time consuming endeavor. It's also a thankless job most of the time which can destroy your motivation as well in part.

Way to promote less personal attacks.... :rolleyes:

well if they are global variables, you would just use for instance _newowner = ownerside; and _newowner would contain whatever the global variable ownerside contains. as for calling the script, [] is simply the array to hold your arguments passed into the script, for example _index1 = this select 0; _index2 = this select 1; _index3 = this select 2; So if you have no defineable variables in your script you could just do nul = execVM "sitechange.sqf"; What exactly do you want to do with your script? For instance if you wanted to include those 3 global variables in your script, depending on what you want to do you could simply assign them to local variables like you did with _newowner .

It's not about performance per se, it's about stability and growth, although it can affect performance given enough objects and data being needed to store in the process's addressing space. Eventually, even now since they have to use file mapping to get around the limitation and it does work though it's a crutch, they will absolutely have to go 64 bit, look at Eagle Dynamics and DCS as an example. What I'm worried about is the fact that they're notorious for waiting until problems basically slap them in the face before addressing them, and we can already see ArmA 3 easily pushing the process working set addressing space. Don't mistake pushing for 64 bit as some performance "super fix", it's moer about BI's willingness to adopt the future tech and fix their engine as well as future proofing it, which I mean hell just look at the issue's we are having now. 64 bit apps will be as common as 32 bit apps are now and BI will still be trying to "buck the tiger".

File mapped objects reside in virtual memory which means they reside in page, not in actual physical RAM. It also means that you cannot control where they end up because that is controlled by the Windows Memory Manager. Of course I've already proven this in the large address aware thread towards the very beginning of it, yet you seem to think that file mapped space = 64 bit addressing and it does not in any way. At this point I truly have to think you're being willfully ignorant or obtuse simply to create more smoke and mirrors. It was a great crutch when you guys implemented it, but it's far from a solution to the bigger problem. ---------- Post added at 00:42 ---------- Previous post was at 00:39 ---------- Documentation on Windows File Mapping is available, simply google it. It's not a way to store file outside of a process's addressing space but rather a way to store a file object between 2 processes without having to load both files separately into memory, basically a file view that they both can share. They try to use it as a stopgap to a higher addressing limit, but it has it's flaws and it's faults, chiefly being that the majority of it will still reside in page and whatever the process itself has to work with is still limited, I.E. if the process needs 3-4gb within the 32b addressing limit, it doesn't matter if you have 10gb reserved in file mapping for all your data, it's a hard limitation that you can't surpass. It really doesn't even have anything specific to do with the RV engine, except that they are utilizing it.

Were exactly were you called: ? Seems like you read and infer too much personal hostility into posts that half the time aren't even addressed to you.

I've seen it happen since the beginning of the alpha TBH. It wasn't a common occurrence but it was also not super rare.

That's the biggest confirmation we need, whether BI intends on fixing engine limitations, or constantly trying to work and optimize around them. ---------- Post added at 18:18 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ---------- Who's calling out their manhood though? I see, once in awhile a disparaging and insulting comment, but most of the time I simply see people fed up with the same bullshit and saying that what we really need is a concrete answer and solution from BI on issue's. I'm sorry if pointing out their flaws is somehow insulting, but if that seriously insults you then you need to grow some thicker skin because otherwise you will never learn from your mistakes, and that seems to be what's happening. Don't mistake blunt honesty in critical feedback to be some veiled personal insult.

probably an i5 or i7, something that overclocks to the 4-4.5ghz range easily.

I think he meant imba or OP.

If you could get your programs memory footprint under 4gb without streaming 2gb+ of data from the file mapping API, I probably would. Instead you're closer to 7-8gb in any given scenario. That's not going to happen though, and quit acting like it's 64 bit or nothing, you can still have 32 bit binaries for backwards compatibility if you absolutely needed it and you could even still utilize the streaming that you built with 64 bit binaries while still giving more direct access to memory.

Yeah but a good portion of us know that CryEngine for instance wouldn't suit the scope and scale of what they want for ArmA, but that doesn't mean that because for instance Chris Roberts is having problems while in development, it's somehow OK for BI to have been having problems for the past 6+ years. That's how he ends up making it sound. It's a hot topic, it really needs to be addressed by saying either yay or nay to trying to get better multicore/parallel threading in ArmA 3 or if they're just gonna keep trying to find ways to optimize the current code and if they're going to try opening up the memory limits and constraints by either coding 64 bit binaries or at the very least loosening the limits on physical memory so that those with 4gb+ of memory on a 64 bit system can actually use closer to that. The fact it's not being addressed after so long kind of gives you the answer that BI doesn't really intend to do much other than what they can do in the interim to fix the issue, kind of like how soldier protection is an interim solution to soldier protection rather than what everyone wants. It's not satisfactory though, not after suffering from the issue's for this long and with how big of a problem they are in ArmA 3, especially if BI continues their plans of supporting ArmA 3 as a platform, it needs to actually be a stable and well performing platform. ---------- Post added at 16:28 ---------- Previous post was at 16:27 ---------- There are plenty of engines that do everything better and much more efficient than RV, the only thing RV has going for it is size/scale and AI and even that is done poorly with the performance issue's of both size and scale of terrains as well as the performance drain of the AI. What good is a giant island if it's unplayable and what good are 100 placed AI if they drop performance to unplayable levels? RV's supposed strength's, are actually it's greatest weaknesses. It's not a bad engine, but it's an old and unkept engine that has lots of problems even doing what it's supposed to do, and more and more it seems like the developers don't really care that it can't.

It's a bug in the game period. Once they go prone they're stuck.

Pretty much agree with Corvinus on all his points. It's like we're heading towards a class based faction based system. Seriously, why did we drop working on the AI to focus on "Soldier Protection" when we flat out know beforehand that there are pretty big limitations in place to make implementing it in a realistic, authentic not to mention fun way, pretty much impossible?

AI combat routines play a big role in FPS as well. I had around 50 AI in a little test mission I was doing and it ran pretty good, but as soon as combat started the FPS dropped like a rock from around 45 fps in single player down to around 4-7 fps and it was basically a slideshow.

Pretty much this ^

I dunno, you see it as overkill and I see it as trying to light a fire under their asses basically. Fact is that if they spent half as much time fixing issue's that need to be fixed instead of implementing half cocked idea's like the soldier protection for instance that while "nice" in a certain sense aren't honestly needed as much as AI fixed or bug fixes etc..., we would be in a much better place honestly. Before we get into the whole different departments work on different things shpeel, The same people working on Soldier Protection were working on AI fixes and documentation as well. Until we see ArmA 3 moving forwards instead of sideways, I'm going to criticize, sorry if you don't like it but deal with it. What's the alternative? Crap releases with broken half implemented and axed feature's and the same "ArmA" in ArmA 6 as we had in the original ArmA? Cause that's pretty much where we are headed and you seem pretty pleased to be heading in that direction. As for DayZ, yeah I agree, but I'm talking about before DayZ was even a thought or had any of the success it has right now. We never really saw the same quality of work being put into DayZ SA into ArmA or ArmA 2 or ArmA 3 it seems like. ---------- Post added at 04:25 ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 ---------- Yes, please ignore the part where I basically told you to shut it cause you're literally like the Jim Jones of the BI forums, consequently also proving my point that you can't give up when defeated but rather continue on in circular logic arguments.

So unless you blindly accept everything BI does, you're not "cut out" for ArmA then? Hey there's more of that logic... What are you supposed to say? Nothing. And that's something you obviously cannot do. @Coulum: It's not about holding a grudge, it's about the same shoddy work every damned release and the supposed excuses that go along with it to the point that it's now a BI staple that they're games release in terrible states and they can only hope to crawl out of them post release. ArmA 3 was supposed to be different and frankly it's no more or no less buggy than ArmA 2 or ArmA on release, which is not something to be proud of exactly and just like those iterations, there's still a lot more issue's introduced post launch while a good portion of critical issue's still remain and are never fixed. It reaches a point where enough is enough. BI made their bed, they have to lay in it. As for taking it personal, I think that you truly believe anything negative is taking something personal. I'm criticizing flaws and pointing out fact, that's all really. Instead of just sitting here and going " Oh BI I completely understand, you've had a hard road." I would rather see BI improve as a developer and actually fix their game for once rather than tossing it to their community in the hopes the community can band aid together mods to add what should honestly be in the game in a much more professional and integrated way. What you're saying, that you understand and it's OK is the opposite of that and it enables what has happened during OFP and ArmA and ArmA 2 and now ArmA 3 to keep happening in some perpetual loop. It's OK though right, I mean it's typical BI right? Yeah I really wanna advocate saying that for another 10 years :rolleyes: Consequently, look how much dev time and polish DayZ gets in comparison. I mean yeah it's pretty moot to point out who the red headed step child is at this point, but honestly you didn't even see that kind of work and attention to detail put into ArmA and ArmA 2.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about most of your logic and arguments Chortles. It's always the same, You understand so it's OK followed by some sort of half rational point about how some developer said X statement and you feel that makes everything acceptable because you base what's acceptable on your faulty circular logic.

Meh, I would hope it includes lots of "fixes" that are desperately needed and not gimmicky stuff.

10 character minimum to post, most people put like 5char or 10char to mean "my post was to short for the minimum" and to get around it.

So in other words, it's OK that they didn't tell us because we wouldn't have bought ArmA 3 if they would have, which probably would be true at least for myself until they fixed it up more. It's OK that ArmA 3 is seriously disappointing because they patch it every day, doesn't matter if the patches make it better or worse, they simply patch it every day and that makes it OK. In other words, everything is OK cause it's Bohemia Interactive apparently. Give em a pass, it's only been 12 years of the same old "wait until the next patch".... and it's OK that they bend the common accepted standards for trust, ethics and business, they're BI. That's pretty much all I hear from you is basically, They're BI, It's OK! Funny thing is, most of your points are your own personal feelings you extrapolate from things people say, like I never said they lied to us or stole our money, yet you extrapolate that from what I said, that the way they went about it was bad. If you agree the example is valid and pertinent, then you must also agree that your own conclusions based on that example are valid and pertinent as well which would mean you feel the same way, you just choose to ignore it. You say it's OK because buying a game isn't personal, it's what... business? Hate to burst your bubble, I'm treating them like a business from a mildly upset consumer's perspective and that is to provide feedback and criticism about their shortcomings and faults, there's nothing personal about it.