Swaying trees and bad vehicle interiors carried over from A2

[doveman 7]

Having had a quick look at the Alpha, I see the ridiculous swaying tree trunks from A2OA are still there. Fair enough if it's too hard/cpu intensive to make the branches sway but don't make the entire tree sway as a substitute, because it just looks weird and doesn't help with immersion. I also noticed the near/mid trees still thin out and fill in as you move view unless Objects is on V.High as with A2OA.

I also see we've still got the terrible vehicle/helo dashboards/control panels which look like they've been drawn in crayon by a kid. I realise the focus is on testing Infantry at the moment and a lot of content is still to be added but I imagine the vehicle and helo that are in the Alpha are probably considered finished as far as the interiors go. Maybe I'm just spoilt by DCS Black Shark but again it doesn't really help with immersion when you see this in a vehicle and it's hard to see how anyone could justify calling it a "simulator" as it seems rather arcadey when in vehicles, what with all the indicators in the top left showing damage and altitude/air speed in helos, instead of having proper gauges/readouts on the dash or this information on the HUD (for helos which have a HUD). It seems like the vehicles/helos are somewhat of an afterthought and the only part that is intended to be a simulation is the infantry.

Doesn't really strike me as massively different from A2OA (obviously I've been using mods like JSRS, so I'm not comparing to vanilla), more of a cosmetic paint job, with much nicer/richer colours and lighting.

[Zordon 1]

Yes you are spoiled by DCS Black Shark

[EvenLease 11]

When it comes to interior of vehicles, you do know this is alpha right?

That the actual full product hasn't been released?

I'd rather them free up FPS then work on prettying up the dashboards.......

[Zin466 1]

Usually Arma fans aren't to anal about graphics. Im fine with them other then the rear view video and mirror but they should fix the lag of it later on.

[nodunit 397]

Yeah helo's are more of a secondary background vehicle and will most likely stay that way.

Don't expect to see navigation and radio equipment, at the best we'll get PIP with thermal, we'll be lucky if we have to use lasers for missile useage.

Infantry will always be the priority and physX is still in a young stage, requiring a great deal of testing and feedback, this is one of the reasons for the alpha.

Edited March 12, 2013 by NodUnit

[max power 21]

I also see we've still got the terrible vehicle/helo dashboards/control panels which look like they've been drawn in crayon by a kid.

It's so fun to make fun of people, yes? There are more constructive ways to express yourself than oblique insults.

+1 abusive / insulting to developers infraction.

The warning carries no points. The infraction for this results in double the amount of points necessary to ban a user, and they never expire. I suggest you rethink your communication style if you wish to register further complaints about the software.

edit: actually there is no warning for that infraction so I guess we'll make it 'trolling'.

[mordeaniischaos 3]

It's so fun to make fun of people, yes? There are more constructive ways to express yourself than oblique insults.

+1 abusive / insulting to developers infraction.

The warning carries no points. The infraction for this results in double the amount of points necessary to ban a user, and they never expire. I suggest you rethink your communication style if you wish to register further complaints about the software.

edit: actually there is no warning for that infraction so I guess we'll make it 'trolling'.

It DOES look like it's drawn in crayon, that's literally what it looks like because of the resolution and interpolation. Look at the working instruments in the large chopper. It ACTUALLY looks that way. That's not an insult, it's a description.

And no one was insulted, the game was critiqued. The game that is in alpha. That the developers should be taking feedback on so as to improve it, because it is not in a releasable state currently. That's the point of this style of release.

Not really sure what that edit means, sounds like changing the crime to receive a punishment but I don't know how the system works. Maybe you could explain what that means? I'm asking more out of curiosity/my own knowledge on how the mod system works on here as I didn't spend a ton of time on the forums before the Alpha.

[max power 21]

It means that instead of being permanently banned, you received a warning for trolling. There is no option to give you a warning for 'abusive / insulting to devs'. If you would like me to revoke the warning and go back to the original 'insulting to devs' infraction, I can do that.

Your original message states that it looks like it was drawn "by a kid" with "a crayon". This is quite inconsistent with your latest claims. If your intention wasn't to insult someone, I suggest you rethink your communication style as I indicated earlier.

Finally, commenting on forum moderation is against the forum rules. Of you have any further comments, please PM me.

[dmarkwick 261]

it's hard to see how anyone could justify calling it a "simulator" as it seems rather arcadey when in vehicles, what with all the indicators in the top left showing damage and altitude/air speed in helos, instead of having proper gauges/readouts on the dash or this information on the HUD (for helos which have a HUD).

Well of course ArmA is not a simulator. We're not going to get the level of vehicle simulation we enjoy in DCS because that's simply not the purpose, the vehicles in ArmA are there to be used appropriately, meaning that you don't need to be an expert to use it, you just use it. It means simplifying and abstracting a lot of functionality and behavior, the object is what you DO with the vehicle not how well can you operate it IRL.

[metalcraze 290]

If ArmA is arcade because vehicles have no racing sim level then DCS Black Shark is an arcade because vehicles in it just slide across the very flat ground and have banal HP bars.

[chortles 263]

More specifically, "DCS style" is narrow sim, Arma is broad sim -- and with "infantry focus" at that.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I do agree however that the way the trees are moving is weird...but that's far from being a priority.

[calin_banc 19]

If ArmA is arcade because vehicles have no racing sim level then DCS Black Shark is an arcade because vehicles in it just slide across the very flat ground and have banal HP bars.

It's not an arcade, but it's not a true sim either. To be fair, those vehicles you're talking about, aren't controlled by a player so it really doesn't matter that much. Still, there is no need of simulation DCS style, but at least something close to IL 2 would be nice for flying vehicles. As for ground vehicles, something of at least BF levels would be great also. There's no need to be a race sim, but some weight and forces are needed to make them look more life like and a little less like some boxes with tires stuck to the road. :)

[metalcraze 290]

Well there's the solution then. Remove the ability from vehicles to be controlled in ArmA.

Still, there is no need of simulation DCS style, but at least something close to IL 2 would be nice for flying vehicles. As for ground vehicles, something of at least BF levels would be great also.

BF vehicles are lightweight toys themselves (and they lack subsystem damage, just a single hp bar). However I do agree that physics need to be adjusted for more realistic inertia and weight. Adding TKOH flight model will be a start.

There's always quantity vs. quality and focus. Steel Beasts Pro is a military training software and the best tank sim currently available - and yet there's really nothing but FCS and damage simulated - however you get 10+ tanks to play with.

Edited March 12, 2013 by metalcraze

[calin_banc 19]

They just need to add some tweaks here and there, at least for the ground vehicles physics wise, and add/improve features/functionality to other aspects. Choppers are arcade like BF 3, something needs to change here too (A2 is much better in this department). Anyway, Arma is close to a sim like experience, but not really one. The fact that is at a large scale compared to other games out there, isn't an excuse either. Just my humble opinion.

[ProfTournesol 956]

They just need to add some tweaks here and there, at least for the ground vehicles. Choppers are arcade like BF 3, something needs to change here too (A2 is much better in this department). Anyway, Arma is close to a sim like experience, but not really one. The fact that is at a large scale isn't an excuse either. Just my humble opinion.

Because it's (only) a realistic game, not a simulator.

[calin_banc 19]

And what means "realistic" in this context if not closer to reality and being closer to that, means being closer to a simulation of it, a sim?

[ProfTournesol 956]

And what means "realistic" in this context if not closer to reality and being closer to that, means being closer to a simulation of it, a sim?

Realistic games => OFP / ArmA series

Military simulator => VBS series

Some like to think ArmA is a simulator, but it isn't. It's simply a realistic sandbox game.

[doveman 7]

It means that instead of being permanently banned, you received a warning for trolling. There is no option to give you a warning for 'abusive / insulting to devs'. If you would like me to revoke the warning and go back to the original 'insulting to devs' infraction, I can do that.

Your original message states that it looks like it was drawn "by a kid" with "a crayon". This is quite inconsistent with your latest claims. If your intention wasn't to insult someone, I suggest you rethink your communication style as I indicated earlier.

Finally, commenting on forum moderation is against the forum rules. Of you have any further comments, please PM me.

The message you're replying to is not actually by me. Anyway, of course my intent wasn't to insult the devs but simply to describe what it looks like to me. I'll continue this by PM as requested.

[calin_banc 19]

I didn't played VBS so I don't know what you mean by military simulator in this case, but I do hope I've got and idea about what's ArmA in your mind (something like below perhaps?)

Arcade------------------------------------------------------------------------Simulator

********CoD****BF************ArmA*******************VBS*********

Going by that, I'll ask, if important parts of the game are not that realistic and resemble BF one's or others are made cumbersome by thinking the game is more realistic that way and not be like BF or CoD (jumping for instance), doesn't that make the game not that realistic after all? I'm only asking because a proper simulated car for instance, should help a lot with the immersion and the feeling of reality that this series strives to achieve, than just someting that's there for use and not really grounded in the laws of reality (mind you, not a sim, but not an arcade either). Also there is, of what seems to be, the never ending discussion about 3rd person, jump or other mechanics like that, and I've been getting the feeling that players don't really put the series into one category: some see it like a military sim, other just like a sim, some like an evolved few steps up Battlefield and so on. A lot of topics and discussions go on about the series, but from what I see, there is no common ground, a somewhat united view of what this game is.

From my part, I'm really enjoying A2 and A3 and I'm glad they've sorted out the clunky movement of the characters, the new added customization option for weapons and equipment, the new car physics (let's hope they'll improve on that; same for the flying birds), the graphics and the fact that in general, it handles and runs like a 2013 game should be. :)

[doveman 7]

Realistic games => OFP / ArmA series

Military simulator => VBS series

Some like to think ArmA is a simulator, but it isn't. It's simply a realistic sandbox game.

I'd tend to think of simulator's not necessarily looking that great but with accurate vehicle systems, physics, flight models, etc whilst a realistic game should at least look fairly realistic, without necessarily being accurate. So if that's what ArmA is aiming for, I think they should at least do something about the vehicle dashs to make them look fairly realistic, even if none of the dials/gauges actually work. Couldn't they use actual photos of the dash/interiors? Would it really be a terrible strain for the engine to have realistic-looking vehicle interiors, as I understand the bottleneck is currently AI/CPU (as with A2) so using the GPU and a bit more RAM/VRAM to improve the interiors seems possible.

[metalcraze 290]

Just because you can't press every button in the cockpit of every vehicle doesn't mean it's not a simulator. You can press like 1/3 of buttons in SB Pro, a dedicated tank sim, and most of the time you don't need to do even that since you can play a game entirely from optics and map view - it's still a sim.

ArmA is a combined arms simulation with infantry focus. It simulates positional damage, bleeding, breathing (incl. underwater), fatigue, encumberance, ballistics (incl. individual shotgun pellets!), material penetration and bullet deflection that follows it, sound (sound sources can even be obscured and silenced by trees!), squad-level and even company-level command, it allows you to play out real world military scenarios in an authentic fashion (which is one of the main things that makes a sim), it even has a realistic night sky which can be used for navigation, FLIR image gets "colder" in colder seasons and a lot more stuff. Jeez it even makes your vision blurry underwater unless you are wearing a scuba mask! And you swim slower and can't breathe without scuba gear. And all those stances and movement speeds that really enable your soldier to behave like one.

Yes it has many corners cut but so is Steel Beasts Pro. And in fact many focused flight sims too when it comes to anything but their titular plane/chopper. Because there are limits of every dev team.

Yes it can be much more detailed in simulation (even adding wind and advanced medic system will help), yes BIS is very conservative about taking it to the next level (ACE aka WGL had bleeding in OFP). But ACE does that. And ACE wouldn't be possible if base framework wasn't there to begin with.

[doveman 7]

@metalcraze, note that I didn't say I was disappointed that we can't press buttons in the cockpit/dash, in fact I clarified that I wouldn't even mind if the dials/gauges didn't work. All I said was that it's disappointing that the interiors don't look more realistic as it ruins the immersion for me sitting in a vehicle that looks so unrealistic.

As you mention it, I noticed swimming looked very weird as well as I could see the sky through the surface from my position say 10-20 feet below, not just directly above me but also extending in a radius of say 10ft, yet I couldn't see clearly 10-20ft in front of me, so that would mean the water above me, both directly and in a radius around my position, is crystal clear, whilst the rest of the water is so murky it completely obscures my vision. It certainly doesn't look normal/realistic at all and meant I had to poke my head above water to locate the boat, which invariably resulted in my head getting blown off as soon as I did so as I was too close or it was behind me.

Several people have said they recognise that ArmA isn't really a simulator. Certainly I think your statement that it's a "combined arms simulation with infantry focus" is wrong. You could perhaps describe it as a "infantry simulator with usable vehicles" but that's it.

[bobby budnick 0]

The OP is totally correct. Vehicle interiors are atrocious in this game and were in the previous games. Don't even get me started on the non-existent instrumentation.

[zimms 22]

Did you even play the alpha yet? The interiors look awesome.

Now you even have the hands on the wheel and animated, and you can see the gears shifting.