XM-8 skin quality for Combined Ops users

[metalcraze 290]

Wait what? BIS downgraded original ArmA2 content to find another way to force people into buying their cheapass PMC crap? Am I getting this right? I can't believe this!

Edit: checked in the editor. It's true. Way to go BIS.

Edited December 1, 2010 by metalcraze

[ray243 11]

And is it just me or the SUV got changed to the lite one?

[metalcraze 290]

The SUV is fine, even the PMC one. Only the minigun one has low-res textures.

[ray243 11]

Ahh, then it must be the LOD for me. I hate how long the LOD takes to change.

[Black0ps 0]

ya this is bull, I paid for the XM8 content already and now they have taken it away pretty much . Its not like this is going to ruin the game for me, its the principle of it, they shouldnt take away something thats already mine and try and resell it to me. Hopefully BIS just forgot to change classname or something and this will be fixed in the next patch..

[CarlGustaffa 4]

they shouldnt take away something thats already mine and try and resell it to me.

You mean like Microsoft does? They keep selling me the same calculator. Sure it gets new functions, but the graphics sucks more and more since Win98 (their last OS with a good looking interface).

However, I value more what I can do with the calculator than how it looks.

But, I guess somebody is only in it for the graphics and couldn't care less about functionality...

[mr burns 131]

You mean like Microsoft does? They keep selling me the same calculator. Sure it gets new functions, but the graphics sucks more and more since Win98 (their last OS with a good looking interface).

the thing is, if you stick with XP and M$ releases Win7, suddenly your Calculator goes all blurry ... you aren´t like wtf? :D

[CarlGustaffa 4]

If I could choose between one that looked nice and one that could do sqrt(4)-2 correctly (yeah, I know it's a fp rounding error and where it manifests from), personally I would go with the latter. :)

[Black0ps 0]

But, I guess somebody is only in it for the graphics and couldn't care less about functionality...

... ya because you can definitly infer that from what I said.. not. There is no new function to the XM8 so thats not even a good analogy , all they did was make it low resolution. I didnt know it was a crime to like how my gun looks while playing a video game that boasts about good graphics.

[metalcraze 290]

If I could choose between one that looked nice and one that could do sqrt(4)-2 correctly (yeah, I know it's a fp rounding error and where it manifests from), personally I would go with the latter. :)

So tell me which great functions did they add to textures which are exactly the same in their DLC?

Please BIS I want my M16s with ACOGs blurry and ugly just make them incompatible with NVGs and sell me exactly the same unchanged textures that are already in my game folder for $10.

And then make my T90 ugly and blurry so it will have thermal vision and sell textures I paid for back to me for $10

Great and adequate idea, don't you find?

Why don't we still pay for patches? Preposterous! I mean it's all about the functionality. Considering that alternative scopes still don't work on some XM-8s.

Edited December 4, 2010 by metalcraze

[CarlGustaffa 4]

1) No magical NVGs built in. That stuff is extremely important to me.

2) Adjustable sight, important due lack of built in BDC on the reticle.

Those two makes the gun usable. Until now I have avoided them, as I'm similarly forced to avoid M16s.

I don't have blurry ACOGs incl on BAF weapons. I have blurry SUSATs (and other reticles specific to BAF). Remember, these are addons to OA, not Arma2. XM8 was never part of OA. For all we know, maybe all that is needed is texture selections allowing us to use Arma2 textures on the XM8s, but it haven't been documented yet? I know I read something about selections in the changelog, but I'm not sure atm to what it applied.

What alternative scopes? It doesn't work because it doesn't have them!

Stop being so negative. You remind me of, well, me :D Errrr... :p

[metalcraze 290]

XM8s are not PMC specific.

If BIS wants to sell DLC - then let them sell DLC, I never buy DLC anyway because I don't pay for less content than better and free mods have to offer (not mentioning real addons that offer much more in comparison to even 5 DLCs) so that's fine - just don't cut out content I already own.

The functionality wasn't added by PMC mind you. It was added by 1.56 patch. That's good but I'd rather see them doing that to all AA2 weapons like Defunkt's mod already does.

It isn't about just textures. It's about BIS cutting out content that was already paid for to sell it back. If you'll let it slide now other weapons or even units from AA2 will be nerfed so they could resell it while not applying any effort. Once a developer goes the lazy, DLC way there's no turning back.

Again it isn't like I complain about SOM not having voice-overs like it did in AA2 anymore, I don't care that much about them cutting civilian functionality in OA. Because they don't go as far as selling that back to me.

Edited December 4, 2010 by metalcraze

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Afaik they are PMC specific, as they are not included in OA (only A2). The functionality (defined methods for non NVG scopes and adjustable sights) is not 1.56 patch, but OA first release. It was known from day one that A2 content would not be updated to OA features. So when new (old A2) content is being released as part of a DLC with those features, that content is unique to that DLC. Hopefully XM8s got the selections needed so we can map them with A2 textures if we want, on a mission basis and on a per user basis (does he have PMC full, then use that texture, does he have Arma2, then use that, if not use the PMC lite texture). I'm still hoping that is the case, but I haven't tried yet.

I don't use Defunkt's mod, as I have to stay addon free (content wise anyways). I obviously wouldn't mind BIS including that as a patch, but for me OA is a new game which happen to be very compatible with A2 content. And given the DLC nature of the XM8s appearing incomplete to those that doesn't pay up, I would never base anything around that particular weapon family, but I have no problem adding them as long as valid options are given to everyone without the DLC.

I do realize though that there are some sensitive nerves being stepped on in this issue though. But for me the DLC nerve is pressing elsewhere. I do understand that a company needs to make money to keep updating, and keep everyone busy instead of just the coders. Although I don't support the DLCs (with everything being encrypted I can't use it the way I want), I can't think of a better way to keep cash flowing either.

[xxbbcc 6]

but for me OA is a new game which happen to be very compatible with A2 content. And given the DLC nature of the XM8s appearing incomplete to those that doesn't pay up, I would never base anything around that particular weapon family, but I have no problem adding them as long as valid options are given to everyone without the DLC.

In my opinion that's a very dangerous position - as I see it, the only reason OA was released as a new game was to provide the ability to have its own serial without BIS having to revamp a bunch of things. I can live with that. With that said, however, I do not and will not treat A2 and A2:OA as separate games and I will forcefully push back on BIS trying to position them as such. As far as I'm concerned, there's only one A2 game, all other things are simply added content to it.

When BIS announced that A2 content will not receive the feature updates of A2:OA, I thought of that as very unwelcome act on their part. They clearly treat Arma as a developer tool (much like Visual Studio from Microsoft), yet there's no unified content across the various games. I could accept this between A1 and A2, since there were major changes. It is, however, utterly unacceptable between A2 and A2:OA, since there's hardly any difference between the two.

Plus, I already stated numerous times that I'd be willing to pay to have that unified content from OFP, A1, A2, A2:OA-BAF and A2:OA-PMC in A2:OA. I really don't want to have 6-7 "different" games when it's really the same and all features should be available on all objects regardless when that object was released. (For example, backpacks for units, etc.)

I have no problem with BIS releasing paid DLCs but if it means ever more content that's more and more incompatible with the rest of the game, it will not do. I simply want to be able to use all units and objects on all islands exactly the same way. All units (US, UK, Russian, civilan, etc. should be able to fight, carry a backpack, etc. Same for weapon behavior, etc.)

[Ulanthorn 10]

In my opinion that's a very dangerous position - as I see it, the only reason OA was released as a new game was to provide the ability to have its own serial without BIS having to revamp a bunch of things. I can live with that. With that said, however, I do not and will not treat A2 and A2:OA as separate games and I will forcefully push back on BIS trying to position them as such. As far as I'm concerned, there's only one A2 game, all other things are simply added content to it.

When BIS announced that A2 content will not receive the feature updates of A2:OA, I thought of that as very unwelcome act on their part. They clearly treat Arma as a developer tool (much like Visual Studio from Microsoft), yet there's no unified content across the various games. I could accept this between A1 and A2, since there were major changes. It is, however, utterly unacceptable between A2 and A2:OA, since there's hardly any difference between the two.

Plus, I already stated numerous times that I'd be willing to pay to have that unified content from OFP, A1, A2, A2:OA-BAF and A2:OA-PMC in A2:OA. I really don't want to have 6-7 "different" games when it's really the same and all features should be available on all objects regardless when that object was released. (For example, backpacks for units, etc.)

I have no problem with BIS releasing paid DLCs but if it means ever more content that's more and more incompatible with the rest of the game, it will not do. I simply want to be able to use all units and objects on all islands exactly the same way. All units (US, UK, Russian, civilan, etc. should be able to fight, carry a backpack, etc. Same for weapon behavior, etc.)

In addition: some units from ArmA got updated with OA features in a patch (FLIR for AH-1Z came with 1.54) others still do not. (still no FLIR and Flares for UH-1Y and MV-22 and no FLIR and range input for T-90)

All of this has ben added in config changes by mods, so it would be only a few code lines for BIS to make it MP standard for all.

Right now and its a simple fact. More and more missions use a wild mix of ArmA², OA, BAF and PMC will come soon.

The very different state of units make gemaplay a bit weird...like T-72 being the better MBT compared to T-90 or Russian and USMC weapons all feature magic night vision devices but complete lack of TI on all russian vehicles while some USMC units got upgraded with OA feature with or fter release giving an ambiguous impression.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Ulanthorn

[nkenny 1051]

[sarcasm]Inconsistent development/feature support from BIS? Youre surely kidding. [/sarcasm]

PMC package represented a golden opportunity to (for example) standardize the USMC weapons with OA features. Yes it may have meant releasing them with the basic 1.56 patch and equipping the PMC forces with a sensible weapon system-- it would have been one step closer to permitting proper cross game support.

Perhaps future DLCs could do this?

-k

[metalcraze 290]

Afaik they are PMC specific, as they are not included in OA (only A2).

They are not PMC specific for me because I already have them in AA2.

So when new (old A2) content is being released as part of a DLC with those features, that content is unique to that DLC.

I don't own PMC DLC but I have those features added via 1.56 patch. However I do own hi-res textures of XM8 and I don't have them anymore after 1.56 patch. Where is the DLC part in any of this?

What you are saying is that when they take the content they have sold to me and try to sell it again I should pay up?

but for me OA is a new game which happen to be very compatible with A2 content.

3 new factions, 2 new islands, a bunch of new weapons and a couple of new features = enough to call it a new game for you? Jeez.

And given the DLC nature of the XM8s appearing incomplete to those that doesn't pay up

But I paid for them. In fact I unpacked PMC lite weapons pbo and checked textures in TexView. They are absolutely identical to those in AA2 which I legally own, only resized to a much lower res.

I do understand that a company needs to make money to keep updating, and keep everyone busy instead of just the coders. Although I don't support the DLCs (with everything being encrypted I can't use it the way I want), I can't think of a better way to keep cash flowing either.

Of course. But is it a better way to treat customers?

Edited December 7, 2010 by metalcraze

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I couldn't care less if they added the new XM8s as new classes, I wouldn't use the old ones anyway because they are so outdated.

Factions: US Army, ACR, Germans, Takistani Army, Takistani Militia, Takistani Locals, and UNO =/= 3 factions, but 7.

Islands: Takistan, Zargabad, and Desert =/= 2 (which is what A2 had btw), but 3.

Features: A couple of new features? Backpacks, new lighting system incl SSAO, island ambient lighting, lasers, flashlights, packable CSWs, improved voices and radio system, thermal imaging, NVG limitation, working stereo, much better sound engine overall ++++++ and the list goes on...

A new game? Considering the couple of added features and the fact it had a new manual and package - yeah I think so. Or do you consider Arma2 just an expansion of Arma1 as well? ;) Content wise, yeah I'd say OA is pretty much a new game. For me at least.

So use them in AA2 then. I'm sure BIS won't mind ;)

If you're able to unpack them, why not make a weapon replacement config addon that requires OA/PMC lite and A2 to be present to use them? It's not hurting BIS if you do (my guess of course, could be wrong), but they probably can't make a version that is supposed to work with standalone OA if they start reference in stuff from A2.

If this is considered not harmful, I expect to see such addons show up eventually. It's only a config that requires you to have A2 available, so if you have A2, you'll get the A2 textures and the updated OA functionality. But from my fairly limited knowledge about how addons work, I also see why this wasn't done by default (I don't think it can be done - you either have A2 or you don't - and you can't reference a texture based on conditionals - and BIS had to make sure it worked for those who don't).

[xxbbcc 6]

They could've made that decision in the installer - if the user has A2, install that custom config, otherwise install the new config.

A new game? Considering the couple of added features and the fact it had a new manual and package - yeah I think so. Or do you consider Arma2 just an expansion of Arma1 as well? Content wise, yeah I'd say OA is pretty much a new game.

Hell, no! (This is just to reiterate my disagreement stated earlier - I'm not trying to bash your opinion.)

I'm not saying I wouldn't have paid for it the price I did - it is a lot of content after all, it must've taken quite an effort (good, too), but OA is by no definition of the phrase a "new game". It's nothing but an expansion with a serial number.

I haven't even started A2 since I got A2:OA - there's absolutely no reason to do so.

After PMC, I also won't buy any more DLCs until content from A2 and A2:OA are merged towards common OA features (e.g. all units can carry backpacks, all units (troops + civilians) have the same set of animations, etc.) I'm willing to pay for this but this is pretty much the only thing I'm willing to pay for at this time. Until this is done, I won't buy more DLC content - I want unified content.

[liquidpinky 11]

There is no new function to the XM8 so thats not even a good analogy , all they did was make it low resolution. I didnt know it was a crime to like how my gun looks while playing a video game that boasts about good graphics.

There is, try zeroing the old XM8.

The lower res downgrade is more of an oversight than a deliberate act by BIS to force you into buying the PMC DLC.

I hope you do kick up enough stink as get it sorted out for the non PMC A2 owners though. Maybe giving you the new versions of your XM8's as a peace offering.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Yeah and the zeroing rocks! I played all yesterday with an XM8, and other than the sound and bad textures, the gun frigging rocks in terms of efficiency. Easier to get good distance hits there than by some ACOG BDC (in my view anyway).

@xxbbcc:

Yeah ok, I guess installer could have made that call. But then there is two things to maintain when things go wrong (depending on how it was made). Have to agree with Liquidpinky; feels more like an oversight. Same as, why the hell am I able to play the DLC campaign when I didn't even pay for it? Oversight? :p

Well, I do consider it a new game :p Considering I can't really use most of the A2 content (units and vehicles). Exceptions exist only in the case of old timer missions with no scopes and NVGs. And I can't mix content either, because it will just look weird (no IR textures etc). Updating A2 units to carry backpack requires model editing of just about every model, probably not something they're gonna do without charging for it (I wouldn't). USMC+++ and campaign is not part of the OA game. Ok, we're not going to agree on this one. We're both slightly unhappy with DLCs, but for different reasons.

[Von_Lipwig 10]

How would putting a backpack on someone's back involve remodelling a lot of units? Isn't it as simple as just putting a backpack on a unit's back? This is not a sarcastic question by the way, I would really like to know because I have no idea what is involved with that; it just seems to me (with no concept of 3D modelling or game modding whatsoever) that if a game developer didn't make it as simple as 'allowbackpack=1', he did something wrong :p

To me, the xm8 lacks versatility but that's just personal, nothing against the dlc in that regard.

I do hope BIS will do something to fix that oversight so that people who already had the very same weapons (with a lck of extra config I guess) will be able to enjoy at LEAST the textures they used to have before it was ripped from their games by the DLC :p Not buying the DLC should not result in losing something, it should only result in not getting something ;)

I also hope that at some point we'll get some DLC or a patch or whatever that will bring up A2 units to OA standards, but I think this hope is in vain. I would love marines/Russians with desert camo but that's probably not to be either. This could very well work in a DLC format because they could make the NEW textures (not the old ones, mind you! :p ) in low-res for non-purchasers as well.

But I guess BIS will prefer to concentrate on DLC that has a cool-factor (ie, cool new units with cool weapons and cool vehicles, and a cool but small new map) instead of something that would really enhance the game but that would not yield such cool screenshots and cool videos with bad voice acting ;) After all, a screenshot of a scruffy guy in a T-shirt and headset and a futuristic looking weapon is probably going to bring in more customers than a screenshot of a Russian with a backpack... Sadly.

[liquidpinky 11]

How would putting a backpack on someone's back involve remodelling a lot of units? Isn't it as simple as just putting a backpack on a unit's back? This is not a sarcastic question by the way, I would really like to know because I have no idea what is involved with that; it just seems to me (with no concept of 3D modelling or game modding whatsoever) that if a game developer didn't make it as simple as 'allowbackpack=1', he did something wrong :p

Unfortunately there has to be a dummy node or some form of axis position on the model to allow for the correct placement position, A2 was created before the backpacks were implemented so all the A2 units will be missing this reference point and would need it added.

In the XM8's defence, the TWS with and without silencer is one of the best equipped weapons I have seen in ARMA 2 so far. The TWS sight has night, 2 thermal and standard optic vision modes. Far superior to any sights so far in ARMA. The non silenced version also has a laser fitted.

More variations would have been nice though, an SD Compact for example.

Admittedly I would have bought the DLC for the Kasatka alone anyway, but the XM8's are decent, the AA12 is a beast and I now have PMC units that are universal.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Because many units already carries a pre modeled backpack. And that ^^

[Von_Lipwig 10]

Thanks for the answers, I thought it would be quite simple but, again, I have no clue about model editing :)