More Simulation vs Amount of vehicles?

[CameronMcDonald 146]

+1 hate.

[Meek 10]

I'd like more vehicles and more simulation. I don't see how the two cancel each other out.

Take the DCS series for example, each of the games only really focuses on one specific vehicle and has an extremely accurate simulation of it.

ArmA2 doesn't (and probably shouldn't) go that far, but it would be nice to see features such as being able to open doors of cars, shoot from windows, 6DoF, being able to duck down, being able to see through those small windows that the armoured vehicles sometimes have.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Quality of simulation for sure.

But if BIS give us the Mod Tools again, we can end up with Quantity as well.

[Innomadic 10]

Take the DCS series for example, each of the games only really focuses on one specific vehicle and has an extremely accurate simulation of it.

ArmA2 doesn't (and probably shouldn't) go that far, but it would be nice to see features such as being able to open doors of cars, shoot from windows, 6DoF, being able to duck down, being able to see through those small windows that the armoured vehicles sometimes have.

Lock On MAC has a decent array of aircraft without spoiling the simulation experience dramatically.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Lock On MAC has a decent array of aircraft without spoiling the simulation experience dramatically.

Get outta 'ere. :rolleyes: Show me infantry simulation in Lock On. I take it, you're willing to work 18 hours a day, every day for your dream (of every single item in the real world to be included in a game) to come true. Power to you!

[Innomadic 10]

Get outta 'ere. :rolleyes: Show me infantry simulation in Lock On. I take it, you're willing to work 18 hours a day, every day for your dream (of every single item in the real world to be included in a game) to come true. Power to you!

Not...quite what i was getting at, since i don't believe infantry combat is simulated in DCS either.

What i'm saying is we can have many decent models without getting into DCS obession territory without breaking the gameplay, which is what i alluded to in Lock On which has many aircraft but no where near the same simulation as in DCS.

[Daniel 0]

I think what's being said is that more authenticity would be appreciated rather than simply a wide range of units that do similar jobs. It's also recognised that the community will make a large number of quality addons, at BIS level or high in some cases.

Regardless of all that I prefer quality over quantity mehself, even 'simple' things such as variations in traction and bullet penetration can make the game something else,

That's exactly that I mean.

[SgtBigRig 10]

why on earth would or should we have to choose for just one? when other games can do both.

Ever hear of WWIIOL? they do heavy imulation and have insane amount of vehicles on the maps

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Not...quite what i was getting at, since i don't believe infantry combat is simulated in DCS either.

What i'm saying is we can have many decent models without getting into DCS obession territory without breaking the gameplay, which is what i alluded to in Lock On which has many aircraft but no where near the same simulation as in DCS.

BIS is diving into new territory - physics w/ PhysX. I'd rather we get proper damage models for the vehicles we already have, than to have more of the same - exploding planes & helos at the touch of a wingtip.

[zoog 18]

I'd rather have a more polished game with fewer units than a less polished game with a complete army x 6 factions at my disposal.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

How about more simulation, more vehciles :D

[SgtBigRig 10]

Not...quite what i was getting at, since i don't believe infantry combat is simulated in DCS either.

What i'm saying is we can have many decent models without getting into DCS obession territory without breaking the gameplay, which is what i alluded to in Lock On which has many aircraft but no where near the same simulation as in DCS.

dont bother people have a hard time mentally trying to picture a happy medium. Its the all or none mentality of the internet im afraid.

[Daniel 0]

why on earth would or should we have to choose for just one? when other games can do both.

Ever hear of WWIIOL? they do heavy imulation and have insane amount of vehicles on the maps

Yeah, and compare the graphics to Arma 3! Unfair I know, but that's the sort of cost incurred for spending all your developing time on a large number of high fidelity units. It's a balancing act.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Yeah, and compare the graphics to Arma 3! Unfair I know, but that's the sort of cost incurred for spending all your developing time on a large number of high fidelity units. It's a balancing act.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3255440/WWIIOL_Battleground_Europe_Upd.html

Quoting for emphasis. :D While we can take into account that they have worked with PhysX in VBS2, commercial application is a different beast of eye candy, coupled with functionality.

[SgtBigRig 10]

Yeah, and compare the graphics to Arma 3! Unfair I know, but that's the sort of cost incurred for spending all your developing time on a large number of high fidelity units. It's a balancing act.

even thats not an issue now. battlefield europe is about to get into DX11 territory so it will then have high sim, high unit amount variety, ect plus the looks.

I will say tho that game has had a decade or more in time to grow into such a thing.

tho the devs of ARMA have had equally the same amount of time to really refine each subject.

lol Pliskin beat me to it

[tsb247 0]

I don't see a correlation. It's possible to have both realism and plenty of vehicles. It's just a matter of how much time BI is willing to spend on the project overall.

[Innomadic 10]

BIS is diving into new territory - physics w/ PhysX. I'd rather we get proper damage models for the vehicles we already have, than to have more of the same - exploding planes & helos at the touch of a wingtip.

However they have been hard at work on this engine for a while now as i do believe TOH and A3 both share the same enhanced RV engine, so its not impossible that they have already done this and are now hard at work with the models and troubleshooting the game.

[PuFu 4600]

it is very time consuming...

[honkitonk 0]

@SgtBigRig: DX11 != HD Graphics

[Cyper 18]

Would you personally like to see:

A) Less vehicle units at release,but with more simulation level on them.

or

B) More vehicle units at the same standard as OA.

Depends what goal BI have. I don't wan't to buy a shitload of expansionpacks just to get more vehicles because it wasn't enough in the orginal game. So therefore, it depends.

[Daniel 0]

I don't see a correlation. It's possible to have both realism and plenty of vehicles. It's just a matter of how much time BI is willing to spend on the project overall.

That's exactly the topic. BIS have a finite amount of time, be it financial constraints or just a good project plan. So BIS have to decide how many vehicles to include and to what level they'll be simulated.

The question is, would you prefer BIS made a shit tonne of vehicles for variety's sake, would you rather they cut a happy medium, or would you rather they really raise the stakes and rely on the community to provide the variety?

Fair enough, the poll is missing the happy medium option, which is the most likely.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Daniel

[EricM 0]

Of course, everything is a question of balance, and I may be an heretic, but I prefer more diverse stuff rather than a few uber vehicles.

It opens more possibilities for scenarios and more wealth and variety to the gameplay, even if it might lack a bit of depth.

Arma is a battlefield simulator, not a specific system simulator. What counts is the big picture, and to fill this picture you need a lot of stuff (submarines yeah !!!)

If I want a system simulator, I think a focused "Take On Helicopter" or "Steel Beast" is more appropriate.