ARMA 2: OA beta build 78967

[NoRailgunner 0]

Imho there are too many little steps where the player is throwing the grenade* - better if he makes only one step (to get a safe standing) before throwing handgrenades. More steps are only needed if the player like to throw grenades far away (like a run-up). Perhaps its possible to combine it with throwing distance+arm animation?

*seems that he can't stop/abort this throwing grenade animation?

[metalcraze 290]

amazing to see how many prefer realism over game play and usability

Realism is not opposite to gameplay. In fact realism is gameplay. Just not of the arcade shooter kind so many people think is the only kind of gameplay that should exist.

[.kju 3245]

Can someone explain where the complaints about AT launcher are coming from?

From what I can tell, they have not been changed at all since 1.57.

While personally I am not against longer Javelin preparation time, it seems not

what BI was asking for here (feedback on their anim changes for 1.58 RC and later).

In my view the auto lock of the infantry launchers plus their very fast acquiring time

is far more of an issue, rather to introduce new frustration with long non interrupt-able animations.

---

Here is some hard data on anim stance speedup - overall its 20% less time.

Details:

Stand to lay down and back:

###

1.57.76815

["AnimChanged",13.914,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovppnemstpsraswrfldnon"]]

["AnimDone",15.608,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpercmstpsraswrfldnon_amovppnemstpsraswrfldnon"]]

Duration: 1.694 s

["AnimChanged",15.778,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpercmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

["AnimDone",17.791,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovppnemstpsraswrfldnon_amovpercmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

Duration: 2.013 s

1.58 RC + 78967 beta

["AnimChanged",8.05,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovppnemstpsraswrfldnon"]]

["AnimDone",9.393,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpercmstpsraswrfldnon_amovppnemstpsraswrfldnon"]]

Duration: 1.343 s - 79%

["AnimChanged",10.683,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpercmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

["AnimDone",12.273,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovppnemstpsraswrfldnon_amovpercmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

Duration: 1.590 s - 79%

---

Crouch to lay down and back:

###

1.57.76815

["AnimChanged",26.967,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovppnemstpsraswrfldnon"]]

["AnimDone",28.647,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpknlmstpsraswrfldnon_amovppnemstpsraswrfldnon"]]

Duration: 1.680 s

["AnimChanged",28.685,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpknlmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

["AnimDone",30.369,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovppnemstpsraswrfldnon_amovpknlmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

Duration: 1.684 s

1.58 RC + 78967 beta

["AnimChanged",22.223,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovppnemstpsraswrfldnon"]]

["AnimDone",23.569,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpknlmstpsraswrfldnon_amovppnemstpsraswrfldnon"]]

Duration: 1.346 s - 80%

["AnimChanged",23.875,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpknlmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

["AnimDone",25.21,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovppnemstpsraswrfldnon_amovpknlmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

Duration: 1.335 s - 79%

---

Crouch to stand and back:

###

1.57.76815

["AnimChanged",54.256,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpercmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

["AnimDone",55.131,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpknlmstpsraswrfldnon_amovpercmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

Duration: 0.875 s

["AnimChanged",55.743,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpknlmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

["AnimDone",56.6,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpercmstpsraswrfldnon_amovpknlmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

Duration: 0.857 s

1.58 RC + 78967 beta

["AnimChanged",27.803,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpercmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

["AnimDone",28.433,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpknlmstpsraswrfldnon_amovpercmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

Duration: 0.630 s - 72%

["AnimChanged",29.063,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpknlmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

["AnimDone",29.757,[b 1-1-A:1 (test),"amovpercmstpsraswrfldnon_amovpknlmstpsraswrfldnon"]]

Duration: 0.694 s - 81%

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------

@ metalcraze

Realism is a key part of the series, yet realism by itself is not meaningful.

No one wants to replicate total realism. One always has to make compromises

between effort, technical limits, priorities, the complex audience and the business interests.

As said several times by various people: it is up to BI to find and decide about that compromise.

[kevaskous 10]

Realism is not opposite to gameplay. In fact realism is gameplay. Just not of the arcade shooter kind so many people think is the only kind of gameplay that should exist.

Easy to quote just part of my post and twist it to how you want it to appear my friend. Fact is, just because it's more real, doesn't make it right, also. Being slow and not interrupt-able is just as unrealistic as fast and not interrupt-able ultimately the end result is the same.

There are so many things you cannot do, because of the old animations that is now possible, but is it the right way, both in function and realism? No I do not believe so, is it better for the fact is expands possibilities that you would actually be able to do otherwise in RL? Yes, does it over exaggerate some other things in the process? Likely, but end result is still a better end point, but definitely not perfect. As I said i prefer realism, but not when that attempt not only inhibits my ability to perform a function, but a function I would be able to perform myself, in real life.

[ffur2007slx2_5 11]

In my opinion the animation speed should be affected by units' stamina, the more energetic a unit is the faster the animation speed should be, the less energetic a unit is the slower the animation speed should be.

I know BIS wanna to balance the realism and smoothy control but it's not wise to use the same animation speed under all circumstances.

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

i agree with ffur2007

let stamina affect animation speed.

it makes sence its allready implemented while running for long distances and aiming down sights/scopes, so why not let it affect more animations.

when u play cq battles u dont need to run much but want to react fast on everything that happens around u.

in infantery based missions u maybe have to run allot and have to lay down every once in a while to keep up animation speeds.

Edited March 16, 2011 by =KCT=BlackMamba

[carlostex 38]

In my opinion the animation speed should be affected by units' stamina, the more energetic a unit is the faster the animation speed should be, the less energetic a unit is the slower the animation speed should be.

I know BIS wanna to balance the realism and smoothy control but it's not wise to use the same animation speed under all circumstances.

Good idea. Agreed. Time now to move something else. Let's say...

How about fixing AI going through walls? How about AI crashing through objects instead of going around them?

[dale0404 5]

Perhaps if you had bothered to try any of the latest betas, you would realize that they have tweaked them considerably since 1.58RC.

Perhaps if you actually try the new animations, you would be able to see for yourself whether the original speeds were "fine" or whether they have room to improve.

This kind of post is unnecessary and unhelpful. If you do not even try the new animations, you have no right to complain about them.

Maybe my post was unclear, I tried the 1.58 RC when it came out and then I decided I did not like the animations one little bit, thats when I decided to not try any of the forthcoming betas because of that issue.

Hope that clears things up. I wouldn't post what I said without the experience to got with it.

[Beagle 684]

Can someone explain where the complaints about AT launcher are coming from?

From what I can tell, they have not been changed at all since 1.57.

AT handling and performance is a annoyance since 1.5...the topic is now on top for me because it currently worked on but in the wrong direction. Thats it.

[.kju 3245]

@ dale0404

So what is the point posting in this thread if you didn't test it?

@ Beagle

What was changed in OA vs A2 (or what do you mean with 1.5)?

Unless mistaken OA even introduced delayed locking (finally) to make it less quick.

[dale0404 5]

Why have you made them faster anyway? They were fine as they were. ALL players were used to their little idiosyncrasies and nobody has had any real problems with them.

@PvPscene

That's the reason I haven't tested any other betas since the 1.58RC.

Please lets not turn this into an argument / counter-argument, lets leave it at personal opinion.

[Beagle 684]

@ dale0404

So what is the point posting in this thread if you didn't test it?

@ Beagle

What was changed in OA vs A2 (or what do you mean with 1.5)?

Unless mistaken OA even introduced delayed locking (finally) to make it less quick.

RPG and similar weapons do not lock on. the only AT launcher with a lock on time is the Javelin...the METIS is even far more arcade and still like in ArmA II. ArmA II had at least a bit of trajectory for AT grenades...you had to aim much higher at distance and round were slower, in short..it was harder to hit anything. since 1.5 there is no trajectory at all and range is neraly unlimited beyonf 1000m with no drop.

I'm actually quite good now in shooting down player controlled moving helicopters with MAAWS at long ranges up to 1500m...but it's of course pure fantasy to do stuff so.

Reloading and preparation time was always completly arcade. I noted and complained about this since The OFP demo, why should I stop now.

I do wrire the same for ten years now whenever the topic comes up.

I had extensive AT trainig in my military time and really thinking you can happily switch beeween a ready to fire RPG and Rifle back and forth is plain arcade thinking...reloadign AT while running is not only arcade but pure fiction.

Whanever you have a ready to fire RPG in your hands, this one weapon is your primary weapon. the rifle is somewhere on the ground, in the hands of a teammate or strapped tight to your back and when it comes to reloading a RPG you have enough to do and can forget about doing anything with a rifle...AT weapons are enough work to do.

I dont see how speedign up to switch to AT and the stil ridicoulus fast (10 times to fast) reload make the game any less arcade.

Oh no..I did it again.

I will refuse to write about this in future..it is futile anyway,...maybe better transit to OFP 3 they seem to have pretty good weapon handling simulation ( and spider like robot animation speed like 1.58RC)

ArmA OA is tuning too much into arcade shooter.

It because of this arcade handling and other shortcoming that the plain wrong tactics have the most success in ArmA

Simple example of a typiccal situation ArmA vs. "by the book"

T-72 is approching your position, you have a heavy AT recoilesss rifle and two grenades

ArmA: OA - no problem you fire at Front turret or hull from 1000m does not really matter where you hit, reload, takles ony 3 seconds, fire second round and watch the fireball of a exploding T-72 just 10 sseconds later...by that tim2 you alrady have already switches to your your scoped rifle and stowed the AT in 2 seconds...your'e superhero

How it's suppose to be:

Youre in your position, a two men team on watch...A single T-72 comes in sight...youre lucky...its just one maybe separates from its platoon...hower...you have only a carkl Guastav and two rounds...for a hit on a moving target is muist come closer. At least 300meters. For a neutralization you need to hit it in the side or the rear...you wont attack the T-72 as long as it faces the frontal armour. You wait until the T-72 has overun your line attacking it from the rear...the tanks stops and turns it turret...now is going to be hary...the T-72 lays down MG fire into your general direction...your assistand guner is reloading the AT while you stay kneeling...10-20 seconds...ready to fire again.

You know...the proper way would have been to do this with two AT teams from two directions firing two AT in a few seconds...thats how it is written in the books...but you are a hero with shitten pants now and have done a outstanding job bringing a MBT to a halt that way is outstanding. You're fishing for your rifle now and changing position...just in case the hatch of that T-72 covered in smoke will open and someone will stumble into the open.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Beagle

[PeterBitt 10]

i reinstalled arma co completely without betas, and it was pretty surprising how much better the performance was with 1.57 :butbut:

hopefully 1.58 stable will run smooth again, i get lots of stuttering with the betas and also the scope performance is still worse than with 1.57.

[Tonci87 163]

Disable AToC

Beagle, do you use ACE? I would suggest it to you, it makes the whole AT Stuff much more realistic

[Beagle 684]

Disable AToC

Beagle, do you use ACE? I would suggest it to you, it makes the whole AT Stuff much more realistic

I usually do not use mods anymore because it screws up the game much to often... lesson learned from OFP and Falcon 4.0 etc.

This results in modding a game so far that noone with a "vanilla" install can find a game online anymore.

[ffur2007slx2_5 11]

I usually do not use mods anymore because it screws up the game much to often... lesson learned from OFP and Falcon 4.0 etc.

This results in modding a game so far that noone with a "vanilla" install can find a game online anymore.

lol, I'm the right one here who always useing "vanilla" game, I'm not keen on editing missions with addons because less people prefer to download it which is stuffed with various kinds of addons.

Unlike vanilla OFP, the units in AA2 are already enough for me.

Edited March 17, 2011 by ffur2007slx2_5

[duckmeister 10]

Maybe my post was unclear, I tried the 1.58 RC when it came out and then I decided I did not like the animations one little bit, thats when I decided to not try any of the forthcoming betas because of that issue.

Hope that clears things up. I wouldn't post what I said without the experience to got with it.

Okay, but they have significantly changed the animations in the new betas post-1.58. So, you still have no right to complain.

[dale0404 5]

Okay, but they have significantly changed the animations in the new betas post-1.58. So, you still have no right to complain.

Your wrong, of course I have a right to complain as all others do. As long as its in a constructive manner and not being insulting etc, etc.

Why have you made them faster anyway? They were fine as they were. ALL players were used to their little idiosyncrasies and nobody has had any real problems with them.

That's the reason I haven't tested any other betas since the 1.58RC.

[andersson 285]

I dont mind BIS tweaking anims. After the first shock I have came to the conclusion that I trust that BIS will deliver once more.

I prefer "realistic" slow anims, but as they do it in BETAs no harm is done. There is room for improvement, some anims need to be faster, some slower. I guess BIS are taking the opportunity to tweak more than maybe needed to see what the community thinks + to maybe find anims that could be improved even though they worked just fine. And as we all know they are fixing anim bugs too.

So dont be too worried about these tweaks. BIS are doing their job and I believe that the end result will be better than what we had. So let us all help them by giving feedback they can use and have asked for. Tell them what specific anim are too fast or slow, maybe even tell them that what tweaked anim is good and shouldnt be changed anymore.

My point is, let us help them by being constructive and dont let the fear for change take over. If you dont like something, tell BIS what anim and by how much it should be changed. Dont just say its bad/turning into mainstream/shit/not like it was before and so on..

[whisper 0]

ALL players were used to their little idiosyncrasies and nobody has had any real problems with them.

No. The community of guys you play with often have been forced to get used to it.

Many others simply left. Animation issues since A1 are one of the prime reasons of the lack of success

BI trying to clear that is actually a good thing

doing it the way they do is perhaps not the best, but if they only have this option right now, then let's feedback it properly (ie, yes, no faster AT switch, but other anims can do with a lil acceleration), not with an epidermic "ROLLBACK!"

In fact, if people have been "used to idiosyncrasies", they can easily get used to a change

Your wrong, of course I have a right to complain as all others do. As long as its in a constructive manner and not being insulting etc, etc.

That's the reason I haven't tested any other betas since the 1.58RC.

Edited March 17, 2011 by whisper

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

I usually do not use mods anymore because it screws up the game much to often... lesson learned from OFP and Falcon 4.0 etc.

This results in modding a game so far that noone with a "vanilla" install can find a game online anymore.

The only time I play without any mods at all is during beta testing or benchmarking.

MODS can be installed and not used all the time.

You could at least try mods like ACE2 to see if it contains the level of realism you are looking for.

Ultimate Military Simulator, as its marketed, means its a great, possibly the best, military simulator. But, in the end, its a game and has to contain fun elements, while trying to maintain balance.

Fun, balance, and real life simulation can not be successfully packaged in a game without compromise. ;)

[metalcraze 290]

ACE is still better than vanilla ArmA2 at gameplay

It's just that not all people think that if it's first person and you have a gun in your hands it's all about ice-skiing around, bunnyhopping and shouting in your mic "lololo I frag ya!" while smashing your LMB away in PvP - like so many newcomers to the series since AA2 became all too accessible thanks to easier difficulty settings, who upon playing it more in-depth go here and make silly posts like the ones where they think that inability to strafe through a narrow pass with a meter long gun in your hands is a bug that lazy developers missed for some reason and so "player moves like a drunken sailor" and all that stuff - which then looks like the "community" isn't happy with something in AA2.

I didn't know there were problems with how player moves until BIS started to mess with animations which never were a problem.

The only two things this game really needs is more gameplay features and better AI. And improved AA2 content. Don't touch what already works fine.

Edited March 17, 2011 by metalcraze

[celery 8]

inability to strafe through a narrow pass with a meter long gun in your hands is a bug that lazy developers missed for some reason

It is. It doesn't matter whether you have an MP5 or AS50 in your hands, you're just as clumsy.

[whisper 0]

It is. It doesn't matter whether you have an MP5 or AS50 in your hands, you're just as clumsy.

^ This

If you try to mimick reality, do it properly

Otherwise, think gameplay 1st

[metalcraze 290]

How about switching to something shorter like a pistol?

Then you have no problems at all.

MP5 length is 22.5 cm, now try holding it in front of your eyes and strafing with it through a doorway that is not much wider than your body like in Takistani buildings

Edited March 17, 2011 by metalcraze