Better useage of 2 or more monitors

[Firefox88 10]

My second monitor is for monitoring teamspeak and any other windows I need open. With so many randoms hopping in our server, its hard to figure out who is talking. Not realistic but helpful!

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Myke;2202153']Well' date=' that's another topic IMHO. This would be some kind of system that does not dictate what is enabled but determines what can be enabled. So higher restrictions clientside would override lower restrictions serverside. So if clientside the crosshair is disabled but serverside enabled, client would override server in this case. I think you get the point but as said, this is another topic.[/quote']

Yup, pretty much what I've been feeling about that system.

Myke;2202153']Regarding map on second monitor' date=' i fail to see how people can be against a optional and toggleable feature. And having a second monitor isn't exactly luxury. Every graphic card that is capable of running ArmA 2/3 does have more than one connector. And a second monitor isn't that expensive either, i got my second even for free because someone in my family didn't needed it anymore.[/quote']

I'm not against the possibility of opening resources on a second monitor, including anyone containing a map function. But not the vanilla map as a freebie cheat without requiring any kind of addons. If I join a server with extendedmapinfo (view units) enabled, I'll know and quickly get the hell out of there. But server difficulty settings aren't visible to the players afaik, only their observable effects. But on my end with only a single monitor (that I use, the other one is for other things), I won't even know if other players get this kind of unfair advantage.

It's unfair because it allows you to do things you wouldn't be able to do irl. People running tripleheads also gain an advantage, but this one I don't mind at all - it's just natural. Reading a map while in a sniper scope or sprinting for cover isn't. It's just too much.

Now, why would I allow map on secondaries as addon? Because on our own server I can determine a mod to be a cheat or not, and allow it accordingly (i.e. some glass cockpit instrument that some may want to use). Again, sure, they'll have an advantage, but it's something that feels like a natural evolution from real life, rather than some arcadish thing I can't control.

Oh, NoRailgunner seems to get it, but in fewer words :D

[[frl]myke 14]

But server difficulty settings aren't visible to the players afaik,

But then, wouldn't it be better to extend available server info in the server browser? You click a server and either it shows directly what settings are on and which are off, or it has a button which shows any info that would be reliable to be seen.

Disallowing one feature because another feature is sub-par is not quite smart. Better improve the sub-par.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

It would indeed. I think I've already requested something like that a while ago, in order not to waste my time and the servers bandwidth for joining a server that doesn't suit my preferences. Server favorite and blacklist would also be very welcome in this respect :) But until we have that, I still have to say no to the map on 2nd feature, as it's still just an arcadish thing to me that doesn't in any way simulate something we could do in real life.

[virtualvikingx 19]

... But until we have that, I still have to say no to the map on 2nd feature, as it's still just an arcadish thing to me that doesn't in any way simulate something we could do in real life.

So what about real life commanders sitting inside a command-vehicle (HQ) in front of a military information system, or a PC and a paper map? Actually a module like this would bring arma MUCH closer to real life then it (in the foreseeable future) compared to f ex infantry combat.

Also @everyone: Please think about all the different play-"styles"/modes that arma offer before you are negative to this idea. Also remember all the different server/difficulty settings.

(OT: One last thing; this would go VERY good together with render to texture; ex a PC inside a HQ-vehicle.)

Edited August 7, 2012 by VirtualVikingX
typo

[Ekko 1]

I just thought about this really cool idea! You can put out this headcam monitor HQ where a commander can sit in and look trough "the eyes" of all the team leaders on the battlefield. You just put out a headcam module, then a monitor HQ, and write in the init box on a team leader something like: this mountheadcam. And this would all be done physically, and then maybe you can also have a monitor or two for a UAV!

In game monitors is the way to go!

[terox 316]

Switching from "Sniper Scope" to "Map View" as it is now, is NOT realistic. I do believe any argument on this point is flawed because:

• I cannot remember every reading a real map by wrapping it around my head and not being able to, with a swift movement of the eye, look at something else.
  
• Exactly the same argument with a scope
  

if you are in an O.P. relaying intel, you would have the map infront of you, and very likely also have a readily made set of grid coords for path intersections, crossing points etc

Turn your head, your looking at the map, turn your head back, your into the binoculars or scope.

How is this different from turning your head to the left, to look at the 2nd monitor map display?

Same as on the move, infact its normal while patrolling to regularly map read

I do however agree, the argument about sprinting is valid, this is easily remedied by having the system "Blank Out" while sprinting . This could also be used for any other foot movement other than walking, if so desired

I really do not see how having a 2nd monitor displaying the map can be construed as cheating. I see issues with server admins who set the difficulty settings too low so they show all the predicted locations of knownabout enemy units and vehicles. DO NOT PLAY WITH CADET/NEWBIE/EASY DIFFICULTY SETTINGS is the easy answer to that one. This issue is the same with or without displaying a map on a 2nd monitor. So is this really relevant to this system?

The only intel we (And by "WE" I mean Zeus missions on the Zeus server) get from the map is either the group tracking markers on friendly groups or markers placed on the map by players and this is simply to aid command and control and add to the situational awareness of players. We also run Shack Tacs Hud, is that cheating too ?

Quick summary of arguments against

1. Map shows too much info and can be construed as cheating: (This is down to difficulty settings and can easily be configured by the server admins)
   
2. Not Realistic. (More realistic than not having it actually, an eye movement switches from looking at the map to looking infront of you)
   
3. I Dont want it. (Make it a toggle setting where the mission maker/admin can disable it)
   
4. Not possible in real life when sprinting. (Valid point, have it temporarily disable while doing this)
   
5. Anything else?. (Ability to disable this function would probably be the answer to that one)
   

N0.4 would seem to be a reasonable and viable argument

Edited August 7, 2012 by Terox

[LeeManatee 4]

it will be really good to be able to set map on 2nd monitor

it will be absolutely great to be able to aim rockets / use thermal on 2nd monitor

it will be fucking awesome to be able to throw all helicopter/aircraft tools on 2nd monitor!!!!

[liquidpinky 11]

it will be really good to be able to set map on 2nd monitor

it will be absolutely great to be able to aim rockets / use thermal on 2nd monitor

it will be fucking awesome to be able to throw all helicopter/aircraft tools on 2nd monitor!!!!

You certainly can in ToH already with triple monitor, I can put all the HUD elemnts wherever I like and I can scale the GPS and PIP elements so I can have them full screen if I wanted.

Still going to be tricky for dual monitor users unless they can add some sort of offset to counter the missing monitor and bring the crosshairs back into the centre of one of the monitors.

[NoRailgunner 0]

There is nothing against it as long as the animations and view of your own ingame character is done/transmitted in a reasonable + authentic way. If the player walks/sits around on high alert (or even in combat) its not so usual that he has a map always + ready + open at his hand. Same could be said about the inventory of his backpack/vehicle cargo - its only possible to remember the things that are in. In short: if there is a action/move needed to open/close or activate/deactivate something ingame this action/move should be required for everyone. :)

[doveman 7]

I agree with this. As Terox says, you could have the second monitor blank out when sprinting. You could even still need to press the M key to show the map on the second monitor and have it blanked otherwise (would still be a lot quicker than the current open/close map which neither simulates how long it would take to get a map out and unfold it, nor how quickly a sniper could glance at a map on the floor next to them) and when pressing M it could take the first monitor out of sniper scope view and into normal view if that better simulates the time it takes to look between a map on the ground/laptop and through the scope but still leave the player able to see their surroundings as they would IRL when looking at a map.

I also think that players with two or three monitors should be able to have the helicopter/planes MFDs on the extra monitors (and one of the MFD could be showing a map/GPS of course) as obviously pilots don't wrap a map around their heads IRL, losing all awareness of their surroundings. Same could apply to any vehicles that have MFDs/monitors inside for certain positions, so that the player can quickly glance at them as they would IRL. Players with touchscreen monitors should be able to actually control the MFDs by touching the monitor as well, which just requires the graphics to include clickable buttons mapped to the MFD functions. For players without touchscreen monitors, I guess there needs to be a button combo to switch the mouse between the monitors, for the map display as well not just MFDs, so that they can click on the buttons, set markers, etc.

[LeeManatee 4]

You certainly can in ToH already with triple monitor, I can put all the HUD elemnts wherever I like and I can scale the GPS and PIP elements so I can have them full screen if I wanted.

Still going to be tricky for dual monitor users unless they can add some sort of offset to counter the missing monitor and bring the crosshairs back into the centre of one of the monitors.

sadly i use only one atm, 2nd one is collecting dust since i can't find better way of using it right now.

There is nothing against it as long as the animations and view of your own ingame character is done/transmitted in a reasonable + authentic way. If the player walks/sits around on high alert (or even in combat) its not so usual that he has a map always + ready + open at his hand. Same could be said about the inventory of his backpack/vehicle cargo - its only possible to remember the things that are in. In short: if there is a action/move needed to open/close or activate/deactivate something ingame this action/move should be required for everyone. :)

i'm all for arma 3 to be authentic, but look here

^ this is just infantry aspect

and you can read map on the move while running aswell

but if we talking about helicopters/planes it ALWAYS got atleast 2 additional displays

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/images/black_shark/HelModel_05_Big.jpg (163 kB)

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/images/warthog/HUD-2.jpg (432 kB)

Edited August 7, 2012 by n7snk

[avfc 10]

Aslong as those using multiple monitors dont get an advantage over us "normal" people who use 1 then i guess its ok. I dont see how you having the game on one screen and the map on the other isnt an advantage though given that we would have to stop and check the map which imo is obviously a lot more realistic.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Issue is that there is still nothing ingame between closed map and full map view and something that one can throw/quit/abort quickly if needed. Btw Land Warriors still need to open + focus on small displays > 0:13 and typing/reading/zooming is still an action + distraction.

[doveman 7]

You certainly can in ToH already with triple monitor, I can put all the HUD elemnts wherever I like and I can scale the GPS and PIP elements so I can have them full screen if I wanted.

Still going to be tricky for dual monitor users unless they can add some sort of offset to counter the missing monitor and bring the crosshairs back into the centre of one of the monitors.

Perhaps with dual monitors it could just allow the user to switch between which of the two MFDs is displayed on the second monitor?

[LeeManatee 4]

Aslong as those using multiple monitors dont get an advantage over us "normal" people who use 1 then i guess its ok. I dont see how you having the game on one screen and the map on the other isnt an advantage though given that we would have to stop and check the map which imo is obviously a lot more realistic.

did you ever actually played arma?

if so - why you don't complain about people using joysticks, track ir and so on?

saying that checking map on the move is not realistic is invalid argument, since it's pretty much realistic for 2035 year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0yxdj__PAIQ

this is possible today

[doveman 7]

Aslong as those using multiple monitors dont get an advantage over us "normal" people who use 1 then i guess its ok. I dont see how you having the game on one screen and the map on the other isnt an advantage though given that we would have to stop and check the map which imo is obviously a lot more realistic.

That's why I suggest that the player still has to press M to show the map on the secondary display (rather than having it constantly visible). They would still have a bit of an advantage as the would be able to look back at their main monitor if they want to check their surroundings, but that's obviously more realistic than not being able to quickly look up and check your surroundings until you've folded up your map and put it away (which is what pressing M to close the map simulates). If M instantly opened/closed the map it would be a lot better but there's quite a delay at the moment.

[LeeManatee 4]

doveman, same post as mine above goes to you.

[doveman 7]

Actually a lot of people find flying with the mouse+keyboard better in ArmaII than with a joystick so I wouldn't say that's a particular advantage.

It's not exactly hard to hold LAlt and move the mouse to look around either, so whilst TrackIR is nice I'm not sure it's a major advantage.

[LeeManatee 4]

bother to reply to this one?

saying that checking map on the move is not realistic is invalid argument, since it's pretty much realistic for 2035 year.

this is possible today

[vido=youtube;is8wjAT4iu0]

there are analogues of future warrior developing in several countries including Russia, so this should be pretty regular thing for 2035,

if you look on phones evolution recent years and compare your old simens a55 from 2003 to iphone let's say 2007 you will see that it become quite regular to have phone these days and it's more then just a phone.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Placebo

[avfc 10]

did you ever actually played arma?

if so - why you don't complain about people using joysticks, track ir and so on?

saying that checking map on the move is not realistic is invalid argument, since it's pretty much realistic for 2035 year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0yxdj__PAIQ

this is possible today

Thats not widely used but nice try, its not an invalid argument at all just because you dont agree with it. There are plenty of things that "could" be in wide use in 2035 doesnt mean it has to be in this game.

[LeeManatee 4]

Thats not widely used but nice try, its not an invalid argument at all just because you dont agree with it.

argument is invalid because it's possible. not because it's not wide used yet.

There are plenty of things that "could" be in wide use in 2035 doesnt mean it has to be in this game.

with all advance in computers, pda and internet nowdays it's quite realistic.

tell me, when you drive somewhere, you use gps, right? google maps or some paid analogue. and you don't have to open paper road map and stop to check are you on right turn or not. you just look on phone screen, see your position on gps and drive.

Don't you feel bad that this give you unfair advantage before drivers who use paper road maps?

[avfc 10]

You can bring up as many real life points as you like and try to compare them and you can keep saying the argument is invalid. It isnt. Simple.

[LeeManatee 4]

You can bring up as many real life points as you like and try to compare them and you can keep saying the argument is invalid. It isnt. Simple.

when i bring up irl points it's actually make sense since someone around here was saying that:

we would have to stop and check the map which imo is obviously a lot more realistic.

while it's not realistic at all if we are talking about 2035 while there are future soldier systems developing nowdays i.e. land warrior,

while it's not realistic at all since you use gps to drive somewhere today instead on looking for right page in paper road map.

so your argument stay invalid untill you will provide some points to prove it. i gave you few irl references, shown usage of additional displays in helicopters, planes and it's commonly used nowdays in transport for example in strykers.

at the moment all irl references tell that this is realistic and authentic, while you didn't provide any argument to prove your point that opening a paper road map instead of gps is realistic.

heck, gps is not real!

[avfc 10]

My argument is already valid, moron. You know for a fact people wont have to check maps in 2035? Can i also have next weeks lotterys numbers too? Not having to open the map while other players do have to is advantage plain and simple. Bringing up gps in cars and stuff to try and win the debate is laughable i dont know how else i can say it.

Were talking about a soldier checking a map not helicopters and cars you complete muppet dont go offtopic to try (and fail) to prove your point.