It's the best war simulation out there, but...

[Kermit 0]

I have lately been growing more and more unhappy with the state of Operation Flashpoint. Do not get me wrong, it is an excellent and very revolutionary game, and I agree with everything that my fellow fanatics say of it. It is the only one of its kind. However, this means that there is no other game of this type to turn to. There are huge flaws everywhere in Operation Flashpoint. I do not write this to inform Bohemia Interactive Studios of these flaws. They are well aware of them. However, instead of fixing them, or even patching them up a bit, they release an expansion with even more flaws and bugs. The patches do not fix the real problems. This behavior mirriors that of Blizzard North studios (with Blizzard acting as Codemasters) with Diablo II and its expansion The Lord of Destruction. It isn't right. If I did not like Operation Flashpoint and did not have much faith in its potential, then I would stop playing it and leave this place. However, I love Operation Flashpoint, and I feel that if Bohemia Interactive Studios really wanted to make a completely realistic simulation, they could do so with ease.

I apologize profusely for this. It pains me to criticize this game.

[kegetys 2]

What exactly are those "huge flaws"?

[Kermit 0]

We all know the minor glitches and things which bug certain people (the most obvious is the sound of the suppressed Uzi in Resistance - if you have ever fired a suppressed weapon, you know that they sound more like the MP5 in Operation Flashpoint). However, I am mainly talking about bigger problems.

The physics are terrible. You can walk through walls, and tanks can fly. Helicopters bounce endlessly when they crash, and yet one might be saved from certain death by crashing into a forest. All bullets travel too slow even for subsonic rounds. A small caliber (.223 inches) fired from one gun (the G36) does much more damage than the same bullet fired from another gun (the M16). Indeed, it kills with one shot even if it hits a foot or a hand. And yet, a much larger caliber (.50 inches) does not.

The flight model is even worse, if that is possible. Some people have expressed that they do not care about this, but if Bohemia Interactive wants to be the creators of a truly realistic war simulation, they should make it at least somewhat realistic, or at least a lot easier (it is far easier to fly in real life).

While there is regional damage in vehicles, it is not implemented very well. I did not even know that aircraft had regional damage until I had played the game for many months. Certain weapons do not do anywhere near as much damage as they should in real life. Show me the real life Hind that can withstand several shots from a tank.

The water does not at all live up to the standards set by the rest of the game. You cannot swim in it, and you cannot even drown; you just take damage and eventually die. Even a tank can be destroyed within seconds by water.

There are many, many points that I have overlooked, but these should give you an idea of what I am talking about.

[kegetys 2]

Well, I dont see those being really "flaws", they are more like missing features. Anyone who would start making a perfect game with everything anyone could ever ask for would be doomed for working on it forever.

Better place to discuss those would propably be the this thread http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=14164

[Kermit 0]

I appreciate your understanding of my position, even if you do not agree with it.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Nov. 15 2002,12:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I dont see those being really "flaws", they are more like missing features. Anyone who would start making a perfect game with everything anyone could ever ask for would be doomed for working on it forever.

Better place to discuss those would propably be the this thread http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=14164<span id='postcolor'>

No, because that thread is about OFP2, but this gentleman wants to see OFP itself improved

[kegetys 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Nov. 15 2002,14:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Nov. 15 2002,12:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I dont see those being really "flaws", they are more like missing features. Anyone who would start making a perfect game with everything anyone could ever ask for would be doomed for working on it forever.

Better place to discuss those would propably be the this thread http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=14164<span id='postcolor'>

No, because that thread is about OFP2, but this gentleman wants to see OFP itself improved <span id='postcolor'>

Well, re-writing the physics code, making a new flightmodel, adding "real" water and regional damage would require so large changes to the engine that it could very well be called OFP 2 already

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Nov. 15 2002,13:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Nov. 15 2002,14:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Nov. 15 2002,12:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I dont see those being really "flaws", they are more like missing features. Anyone who would start making a perfect game with everything anyone could ever ask for would be doomed for working on it forever.

Better place to discuss those would propably be the this thread http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=14164<span id='postcolor'>

No, because that thread is about OFP2, but this gentleman wants to see OFP itself improved <span id='postcolor'>

Well, re-writing the physics code, making a new flightmodel, adding "real" water and regional damage would require so large changes to the engine that it could very well be called OFP 2 already <span id='postcolor'>

But we already are like 0.15 versions away from OFP 2

[shadow 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Nov. 15 2002,14:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But we already are like 0.15 versions away from OFP 2 <span id='postcolor'>

uh?

Did I miss something?

Have BIS actually confirmed there will be a OFP2 ?

[kegetys 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Nov. 15 2002,15:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Nov. 15 2002,13:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Nov. 15 2002,14:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Nov. 15 2002,12:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I dont see those being really "flaws", they are more like missing features. Anyone who would start making a perfect game with everything anyone could ever ask for would be doomed for working on it forever.

Better place to discuss those would propably be the this thread http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=14164<span id='postcolor'>

No, because that thread is about OFP2, but this gentleman wants to see OFP itself improved <span id='postcolor'>

Well, re-writing the physics code, making a new flightmodel, adding "real" water and regional damage would require so large changes to the engine that it could very well be called OFP 2 already <span id='postcolor'>

But we already are like 0.15 versions away from OFP 2 <span id='postcolor'>

A sequel to OFP (OFP 2) is a different thing than OFP version 2.0

[BaronVonRed 0]

Getting back to the subject, I see SOME of his points. For instance I did not even know the G36 was a small cal - I thought it must be a HUGE cal as I noticed it kills MUCH more effectively than just about any other rifle and I use it almost exclusively now!

I also agree that the clipping issues should be addressed RIGHT AWAY! It is so goofy to be hiding under a window, then boop-bing-schpoing, you're now laying down outside! I also see the AI's doing this and sometimes even exploit (pronounced 'cheat' this bug to my advantage. I can name you buildings on the new island where there are no doors, but I can command an AI into it and he disappears into it! Then I call him back out when needed!

I don't take issue with the flight models, and frankly, just don't see what the big deal is (have heard other complaints). OFP is not a flight sim - the aircraft are there to allow you the experience of having to deal with them - getting them there is not the point. I fly around pretty well in all of the aircraft and no complaints.

I also don't see any issues with the damage (dammage, heh heh, sorry BIS! modelling. I think an armored mi17 or mi24 SHOULD be difficult to bring down without using a rocket, and it IS. I get shot down all the time by tank machine guns and just about anything (including infantry) that is using a higher cal machine gun.

Overall it is an EXCELLENT military simulation, the best ever if you asked me. Room for improvement? Of course there is, but they would drive themselves crazy if they tried to make it "perfect". I appreciate that they still continue with these forums and still seem to be improving it via patches and expansions. For instance, I'd LOVE to see a (official) snow map!

Personally, my biggest gripe would be lack of documentation on mission building and scripting, altough even that they are at least attempting to address with the command ref. And other biggest issue being the clipping issues.

OFP: You LOVE it, or you HATE it! I LOVE IT!

[Zodi4c 0]

Hmm, I agree with the bumping vehicles. Also, the gravity seems a bit low.

But most important, the Scripting It's just so depressing to see a mission fail because of some stupid failed routine.

[spencer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BaronVonRed @ Nov. 15 2002,15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Getting back to the subject, I see SOME of his points. For instance I did not even know the G36 was a small cal - I thought it must be a HUGE cal as I noticed it kills MUCH more effectively than just about any other rifle and I use it almost exclusively now!

I also agree that the clipping issues should be addressed RIGHT AWAY! It is so goofy to be hiding under a window, then boop-bing-schpoing, you're now laying down outside!  I also see the AI's doing this and sometimes even exploit (pronounced 'cheat' this bug to my advantage. I can name you buildings on the new island where there are no doors, but I can command an AI into it and he disappears into it! Then I call him back out when needed!

I don't take issue with the flight models, and frankly, just don't see what the big deal is (have heard other complaints). OFP is not a flight sim - the aircraft are there to allow you the experience of having to deal with them - getting them there is not the point. I fly around pretty well in all of the aircraft and no complaints.

I also don't see any issues with the damage (dammage, heh heh, sorry BIS! modelling. I think an armored mi17 or mi24 SHOULD be difficult to bring down without using a rocket, and it IS. I get shot down all the time by tank machine guns and just about anything (including infantry) that is using a higher cal machine gun.

Overall it is an EXCELLENT military simulation, the best ever if you asked me. Room for improvement? Of course there is, but they would drive themselves crazy if they tried to make it "perfect". I appreciate that they still continue with these forums and still seem to be improving it via patches and expansions. For instance, I'd LOVE to see a (official) snow map!

Personally, my biggest gripe would be lack of documentation on mission building and scripting, altough even that they are at least attempting to address with the command ref. And other biggest issue being the clipping issues.

OFP: You LOVE it, or you HATE it! I LOVE IT!<span id='postcolor'>

Or perhaps make it possible to have seasons

[BaronVonRed 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (spencer @ Nov. 15 2002,16:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[

Or perhaps make it possible to have seasons <span id='postcolor'>

What a GREAT idea! This would make it even easier on the BIS team to deploy since the maps are all already done and all they would have to do is "dust" them if the mission builder set the time for winter!

[BRITISH BULLDOG 0]

Theres just no pleasing ..... .

Seriously lads i've got to agree with kegety when he say's more like missing feature than HUGE FLAWS. Having played ofp from the begining and anyone else who has done so, will of seen some huge improvements over the months. BIS have worked their gonads off to make these improvements happen and in its current state its bloody awesome, so be patient cause its gunna get better.

[RED 0]

Well when the new patch comes out it may fix some of these "huge flaws".

Anyway BIS do read the forums so they know what people want, they just need the time/money to do it.

RED

[S_Z 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Nov. 15 2002,12:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I dont see those being really "flaws", they are more like missing features. Anyone who would start making a perfect game with everything anyone could ever ask for would be doomed for working on it forever.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with you that most of the â€flaws†he mentioned is just missing features, like flight model, vehicle damage and so on but the collision detection problem is certainly not a missing feature, it's a pretty big flaw in my opinion!. You should not be able to wall through walls or sink through the ground.

The collision detection code is some thing I really hope they will work on because it really lower the quality of this otherwise great game.

I was hoping they would have fixed this problem in OFP:R but they hadn’t and I cant see this being fix with a patch because its not an easy task rewriting the collision code so I guess we have to live with it until OFP2 is released.  

[USMC Sniper 0]

I also would rather have aircraft blow up into oblivion that crumple up! Those were flaws-albeit not huge, they are flaws. Cars do not drive thrui buildings, nether do ppl walk thru them, and the ballistics arent the best either! Scripting is also sumtimes annoying because of those times when a script fails to initiate.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (S_Z @ Nov. 16 2002,02:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The collision detection code is some thing I really hope they will work on because it really lower the quality of this otherwise great game.<span id='postcolor'>

There is nothing wrong with the collision detection. It works 100%. The thing you mean is that you want the models in ofp to have a more detailed geometry lod. Play around a bit in O2 and you'll see what I am talking about. It is not an OFP engine problem but depends on the details of the geometry lod of the individual models.

Why didn't they make a more detailed GLOD? Very simple - nothing comes for free. Having a detailed GLOD means a lot of more calculations for the computer to do. With such a complex and large environment as OFP there would be no computer today that would be able to run it.

[toadeater 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

There is nothing wrong with the collision detection. It works 100%. The thing you mean is that you want the models in ofp to have a more detailed geometry lod. Play around a bit in O2 and you'll see what I am talking about. It is not an OFP engine problem but depends on the details of the geometry lod of the individual models.

<span id='postcolor'>

I think the collision detection problems which DO exist have more to do with OFP using Octrees (AFAIK) for space partitioning than LOD. You can use BSP trees like in Quake 3, etc., with LOD with no problem, but you can't use them for huge outdoor environments. I'm not sure if these problems can be fixed without pretty much rewriting the engine core. I guess we'll have to wait for OFP2 to have it truly fixed.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadeater @ Nov. 16 2002,08:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

There is nothing wrong with the collision detection. It works 100%. The thing you mean is that you want the models in ofp to have a more detailed geometry lod. Play around a bit in O2 and you'll see what I am talking about. It is not an OFP engine problem but depends on the details of the geometry lod of the individual models.

<span id='postcolor'>

I think the collision detection problems which DO exist have more to do with OFP using Octrees (AFAIK) for space partitioning than LOD. You can use BSP trees like in Quake 3, etc., with LOD with no problem, but you can't use them for huge outdoor environments. I'm not sure if these problems can be fixed without pretty much rewriting the engine core. I guess we'll have to wait for OFP2 to have it truly fixed.<span id='postcolor'>

No. OFP uses neither Octrees nor BSP trees. Hence the use of a geometry LOD. You partition the model space manually when you model the object. It takes more time to use but it also gives you an arbitrary good precision on the collision detection.

As I said, the OPF engine doesn't have a collision detection problem at all. It is as good as the geometry lod in the models defines it to be.

[Guest Scooby]

Main issues with OFP are lack of realism and bad physics modelling which reflects to how vehicles react when you drive them. (tanks behave nothing like real tanks do)

As far as I know new patch allows us to create new vehicle classes which allows us to create more hit zones. This would allow us to add alot of different hit zones to for example tanks, helicopters and other vehicles which would add alot of realism into the game. Different armor penetration values for different weapons would also be nice but I suppose that it is bit too hard to add. Though that was done with half life so why not with OFP?

Weapon physics are also lacking quite a bit. Many weapons have huge flaws. First to come into my mind are how LAW or guided missiles behave. You shouldnt be able to lock BMP's AT-4 or TOW to target. They are manually guided.

Then there are some missing features such as being able to fire LAW from prone position. Being able to get up faster so that man would start moving forward straight from the beginning. Not so that he would first slowly get up, then start running forward. Lack of this feature makes fighting bit frustrating. Resistance fixed problem with too flat terrain. Now terrain provides bit more cover because of additional bumbs.

Lack of different AP (step mine, pipe mine, claymore mine) and AT mines (track mine, bottom penetration mine, side mine) which are modelled in realistic manner is shame. Track mine which is in OFP is a joke.. Satchels are also somewhat overpowered. To get effect you get with satchel that is in game you'd have to lob around tens of kilos of explosives.

Forget about suggestions involving water or changes to flight model. Helos are just fine and fighters arent that usefull at this small scale. Perphaps change fighters to be only AI controlled? Implementation of artillery and mortars would be alot more usefull.

Then add some small details such as frontblast area to tank, which is lethal up to 50 meters in front of the tank as far as I can remember, when it fires, backblast area of AT weapons, etc. and we've got nice game.

[Kermit 0]

I wonder what my new screen name should be.

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kermit @ Nov. 16 2002,11:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder what my new screen name should be.<span id='postcolor'>

I do not follow?

[Jinef 2]

No the phyics model is a bit doeey. (cool word eh)

When an armoured a10 crash lands the wings rip off and as it is titanium armoured it goes about a 150 metres before stopping instead of ripping itself apart and disintegrating.

It does not just jit the ground from 700knts and stop completely intact just a bit warped out of shape from the bump it just had.

Flying model - i have to agree with someone and say that the flight model sucks, it's better with a joystick but in a helicpter the controls are far too simplified and exagerated. In ofp if you do a slight bank in a helicopter it full turns and is facing the other way before you know what happened! If there was a realistic heli model it would be more fun because there would be more features, like Apaches strafing from side to side. Or loops the loops with kiowas or complete inversion rolls by cobras and dives to contact like in vietnam.

The damage model is okay on vehicles, but on infantry i agree. you dont kill people by shooting their hand repetitively. Loads of games have bad damage models, even swat 3 and RS had unrealistic DMs. in swat 3 2 shots to a arm with a M4 = dead. More like in RL lot's of blood and screaming and surrendering. In RS it was better but still there was unrealistic damge when it came to limbs. but then again at least they would die when it came to a headshot with a dragunov, unlike in a mission i played once on OFP.