Interface discussion

[funnyguy1 0]

Would be cool If we could turn off the chracter`s voice when commanding a squad/tank or a heli. Just an option to chose: hear your character or not.

I`m thinking about buying some voice recognition software/hardware whatever, and would be cool If It allowed me to command my squad by actually talking to them, the only thing that seems to be not so cool is a fact that my character would react on the voice command and repeat after me all the time.  

Now, pointing targets by mouse and ordering "engage that tank/soldier" would now make sense.

Handsignals are a completely different thing, but somehow signing targets and directions along with saying them would be nice especially for mp.

("contact left" doesn`t work sometimes because you don`t know which "left" it is)

edit:

No matter if there will be any other system of commands, like in Raven Shield or the old one from ofp, we need an option to assign every command to a key or combination of keys like in ofp (I mean the old system) just like in swat 4. It has this fancy graphic interface, but you can also use the one from the previous vesion if you want.

Why?

To make use of the voice recognition software!

about drawing orders by mouse:

It shouldn`t be that hard to draw a simple circle or a square even during a fight...

[.:50Ca_}{_Fe(A)R:. 0]

Just make the UI look better.  Making it animated would be one approach. This includes the menus and the in-game HUD.

A diagram that conveys how many seats in the vehicle are vacant and how many are full.

Include

-A Map rotation

-When you move your mouse over an entry in the server browser some basic info should pop up (an icon of the current map and how many players are playing on the map)

[victor1234 4]

In the gear or inventory section, there could be a really easy way to have different kinds of looks for soldiers and changing clothes during a mission. Simply have 4 slots from bottom to top (representing footwear, pants, shirt, headgear), and then you can add the clothes, boots, kevlar vests, whatever in the mission, and the player can put them on in place of their existing stuff. Then all you have to do is have one pre-existing mechanism by which it is determined how the item would look on a soldier, and that's it (since the helmet would look the same on every soldier, no matter who wore it).

Would make spy missions or things of that sort, much better. If it was possible, making the AI recognize certain items being worn by the unit would be nice too (ie, wearing clothing class:civilian, no side will fire on the unit).

[DerogArg 0]

There is absolutely nothing else that needs to be changed more than the main menu backgrounds. The forced "cutscenes" behind the menu options do nothing but add considerable lag to the game. They're in no way or fashion even remotely interesting; a simple static image background would not only improve the situation performance-wise, but visually too. The whole -noworld thing is an extremely half-baked solution, as once you enter something and re-enter the main menu, the horrific cutscene backgrounds just pop back in.

Please remove these permanently.

[NeMeSiS 11]

There is absolutely nothing else that needs to be changed more than the main menu backgrounds. The forced "cutscenes" behind the menu options do nothing but add considerable lag to the game. They're in no way or fashion even remotely interesting; a simple static image background would not only improve the situation performance-wise, but visually too. The whole -noworld thing is an extremely half-baked solution, as once you enter something and re-enter the main menu, the horrific cutscene backgrounds just pop back in.

Please remove these permanently.

If you are worried about the performance drops because of the background cutscenes i think you have more to worry about, like the performance ingame?

[Mtn Goat 0]

I dunno if this has been mentioned in the past or not (probably has been mentioned), but when the player is close to ALL of his teammates, he doesn't have to use the radio - he can just give signals or say it from his mouth.

In covert missions, you whisper (and the "radio whisper" mode can be turned on via a trigger or by general mission settings).

And also work on the radio sounds too. In ArmA, soldiers on the radio sound considerably weird. Believe it or not, in OFP, sound files were seperate also - but you couldn't hear the weirdness going on because the voices were a bit distorted (due to it's 1985 of course! ).

Chris

[Mtn Goat 0]

I think an "auto-radio" command for leader newbs will be awesome. So if they turn it on, you'll automatically be giving your mates intelligent orders.

You can also set "categories" - so you could set the auto-radio mode to "stealth" and the player will automatically give out "stealth-friendly" orders, etc.

I reckon it's a definite good feature.

Chris

[kuIoodporny 45]

Bikes and motorcycles unflipping option ;P

[paragraphic l 2]

I think an "auto-radio" command for leader newbs will be awesome. So if they turn it on, you'll automatically be giving your mates intelligent orders.

You can also set "categories" - so you could set the auto-radio mode to "stealth" and the player will automatically give out "stealth-friendly" orders, etc.

I reckon it's a definite good feature.

Chris

I think this would open up the game for beginners and casual gamers!

[Perun 0]

I think an "auto-radio" command for leader newbs will be awesome. So if they turn it on, you'll automatically be giving your mates intelligent orders.

You can also set "categories" - so you could set the auto-radio mode to "stealth" and the player will automatically give out "stealth-friendly" orders, etc.

I reckon it's a definite good feature.

Chris

This looks like a bullshit to me I'm sorry for the word but if you are a squad leader, you have to lead, not to let the computer to lead instead of you. The beginers mode could maybe tell you what is best to do and how but not do it.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

The micromanagement needed today really gets to me. In a mission I made (personal use only), there was a bit of travelling. Both in vehicle and on foot to reach the objective area. Because of the foot distance, I opted to use 20rnd magazines and not too much of it. The suprice was the objective was heavier guarded that intel suggested (not uncommon). While in the middle of battle, having to tell guys to rearm at so-so is unneeded micromanagement if I don't particularly want to do it. If I was a leader in real life, I would order my men to get the gear ad-hoc.

A leaders job is to designate targets and positions. A good leader is one that doesn't need to lead his men. I guess in real life bonds exists between members in the squad, or at least fireteams. One member knows what the other is thinking. Current leading implementation doesn't really undermine this.

But I sort of agree, if someone wants to micromanage everything, by all means let him. Bit if some other guy (like me) thinks there is way too much hazzle, please let us simplify leading by setting a switch in the game config or whereever.

Another thing is how the engine prevents you from doing your stuff. Such as having to select from a text menu where a unit is supposed to re-arm. In real life you would just point. Why no just implement a point interface for these sorts of commands? Also, cargo members of vehicle can't be "geared". If anything, it should be the other way around. But IF there was supposed to be this kind of limitation, you should be able to make a "plan" for your soldiers that they executed once they disembarked (unless they disembarked into contact).

I think I've spent 30-60 minutes rearming 12 men properly while in a mission, just because of the controls and limitations in the engine. It wouldn't in real life

[paragraphic l 2]

I totally support CarlGustaffa's post

If we could not have the automatic management then at least have the AI get new gear that fits their class when out of ammo

And the planned actions are also a good idea, while in transport you can get so much managed before even getting started, we always do such online and it would be really great to have this manangeable with AI as well

The point and click system should be improved as well, more/all available options from the action menu should be clickable as well

I really liked the Full Spectrum Warrior interface but it should be a bit more different in ArmA

[NoRailgunner 0]

Quote[/b] ]spent 30-60 minutes rearming 12 men properly while in a mission

Sorry but this is little bit too much... what did you do?

You have the option of rearm and order your units to weapons/ammo at objects/dead units. For rearming units try VFAI_Equipment addon too.

BIS should improve AI more with skills by rank and of course their "profession" eg. AT, AA, MG, Pilot Crew...

Interface should be easy to customise. I don't like those menu's in middle of screen - it's too arcadish/console style.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Having to do, or cause of why it took so long:

Strykers are wrongly configured as Car instead of Tank, regarding class inheritance when it comes to cargo space. Whenever inventory is accessed, and something replaced, the ground is filled up with the replaced ammo instead of the vehicle. I.e. replaced fully working AI pistols to become M203 HE ammo bearers instead, mostly because AI with sidearms are so extremely buggy (infinite FSM loops or something).

This caused the ground to be filled with ammo junk. Now, in order to rearm *properly*, I had to use the "gear at" command instead of "rearm". However, "gear at" works from current unit position. Making the unit stand in the correct position proved almost impossible since it was accessing the gear on the ground instead of that in the vehicle.

What I ended up doing later, was having one and one unit enter the vehicle as crew and rearm from the group menu. I couldn't load all up, since only crew positions can use this, not cargo positions.

Going inside vehicle was about the only good choice, since they would gear at all that equipment that was spread around the vehicle just because of a simple class inheritance oversight by the devs.

Rearming has a similar problem, at least after a heavy firefight that went well for my squad; rearm at *that guy at 12 o'clock* or at *that guy at 12 o'clock" -- multiple entries at same direction without knowing which is which.

An addon was mentioned, and I'll have a look. But the default interface is far too awkward to use efficiently as of today, and needs to be adressed in future versions (next generation game, not a patch since it involves far too much change).

[smellyjelly 0]

This may have already been suggested, but I would like to have a dynamic radio in vehicles.

The radio should be used as a way to simulate the AI contacting other AI and yourself. Imagine that your squad is in a humvee and another is twenty meters ahead of you. Your driving down the road into a large city when you hear over the car radio:

"We've spotted an enemy squad, coordinates: XX, YY"

From there your squad leader could choose to continue or exit the vehicle and engage. If the other team, for example, exited and engaged then they may need to call for help. They could request a medic if their's dies or is overwhelmed with injuries, and the may by request support if there are too many casualties.

Who would hear the broadcasts would depend on the vehicle:

- The weapon trucks would hear calls for low ammo and enemy coordinates to avoid them.

- Ambulances would receive reports of injuries or causalities, as well as information about the enemy to, once again, avoid them.

-Tanks/Attack Helicopters would be used as support against other armored vehicles or large number of infantry, so obviously they would have reports about the enemy position.

-Transport vehicles, including humvees and APCs, would be called to appropriate situations. Since APCs have more armor than the humvees they would be more prone to picking up or dropping off soldiers in immediate danger while the humvees would stick to picking up fleeing soldiers or dropping squads off in safer areas.

I'm not going to list every type of vehicle because it would take to long, but basically they would receive the information necessary to perform efficiently, and the more common the vehicle the more information they would receive.

One interesting way to take advantage of this is to steal an enemy vehicle so you can gain information from the other side of the battle.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Replace the current "Extended Map Info" difficulty setting, with a double one -- one for friendlies and one for others.

In multiplayer, we like knowing our nearby friendlies on the map, for situational awareness. Sounds like a "cheat", but it's very annoying always wondering where your teammate went 3 seconds ago. In real life, you would know even without verbal information. At the same time, we really don't want enemy untis being shown on the map as we feel it is our own job to mark locations on the map. This forces us to make/mod existing maps with custom marker updating.

Markers should be one per unit class, and much smaller. In addition, more colors should be defined. Especially the so called transparent ones aren't much transparent.

Markers should further be possible to define the anchor point. I tried using a bigger marker to define a RLY box-marker (rally point), which its anchor point in the center, but only about half the marker would get the assigned color, the top part would always become black.

[4 IN 1 0]

BI once said they dont have plan for a "Chain of command" system

i really hope they rethink about it

in ARMA1 we are able to control a large number of troops, this idea is good, yet the squad management system sucks to bottom of Mariana Trench

yes there is colour team system but it basicly didnt do any help

it wont sort groups into 1 single unit which cleans up the unit list and allow 1 click easy access of a single group

AI still wont from their own formation when i tell them to do so

makes keeping units together impossible, and creat stupid formations under different circumstances(38 man in a broken line formation WTF!?)

these are major problem of the current team management system, not that its broken--its works fine to a point, and its good to have large number of unit under your control--but the fact that they needed major refine is unquestionable

clearly BI want to cut it short by droping it once an for all, but cant they just RETHINK what goes wrong for the sakes of humanity? as its not about how small or big the number of soldier under your command, its about how well they are being sort, this is what kind of "BASIC Chain of command" we are talking about

BI should try to rethink the concept of the system instead of dumping it once and for all(in ARMA2)

[dr_eyeball 16]

it (colour team system) wont sort groups into 1 single unit which cleans up the unit list and allow 1 click easy access of a single group

The preview video (ArmA2_PCGames.avi at 3:05 mark) shows they have started to implement some sort of variation of a group control system.

It remains to be seen whether this is purely for a single mission (probably CTI) or whether it will be part of their main engine making it available to all missions. Also whether it's purely for controlling AI or for MP orders too.

It seems to show:<ul>[*]group icons (blue rectangular type)

[*]move waypoint lines

[*]click selectable groups

[*]group composition (currently just a message list in middle of screen)

[*]I'm guessing the 'button icons' on the left side of screen are group selectors

Click - full size image

[beta 0]

I think this is the most suited spot for this suggestion. This isn't about the radio for controlling the AI, but more about the VON radio.

For me, the MOST wanted feature for ArmA 2 would be a DIFFERENT way of handling the voice communications in game.

Currently, voice comms are treated exactly the same as text comms. This can cause MASSIVE problems on a public (even semi-public) server. The radio spam can reach epic proportions.

My ideal solution (probably too late .. but you can always dream) would be this.

There would be 2 basic types of voice communication, talking/yelling/whisper and radio transmissions.

You can ALWAYS talk/yell/whisper (have 3 "channels", yelling can be heard from further than talking which can be heard further than whispering), and ANYONE can hear it.

You can only send/receive radio transmissions when you actually have a radio (an object on the player, like binoculars). This radio can be set to transmit/receive on various frequencies, you can make this simple, like channel 1, channel 2, etc. Vehicle intercomms would have a "special" channel that only they could talk on (ie: channel 0 or -1).

Furthermore, there would be various types of radios, handheld, manpack, vehicle. They would have different ranges (say 1km for handheld, 5km for manpack, 25km for vehicle as an example), a radio can RECEIVE transmissions from OUTSIDE its transmit range, so you could have someone with a manpack radio sending you a transmission from 3km away, but you couldn't talk back on your handheld radio. For ease-of-use purposes, you could have a "radio-tower" that transmits out to 100km (hey, now you know why we are always blowing those things up! ) which could be used for administration for the whole server.

I think seperating the voice comms in this way would relieve a lot of the frustrations with over-used radio, but would still give all the benefits of an in-game radio system. Plus as an added benefit, things would become that much more realistic.

[Praelium 0]

I don't really see why we'd need seperate "channels" for yelling, whispering, or normal volume. VON should just send out the same volume that it recieves, (though there should be a max limit to avoid very loud noises).

I like the idea for the radio being an object in the gear menu and having different channels, aswell as giving vehicles and aircraft each a dedicated channel. I think that squad leaders should also get their own channel, to promote teamwork between the different squads.

The extra stuff like transmition ranges and radiotowers might sound fun in theory, but when actually playing it would get annoying.

Anyways, I hope to have more realistic sounding radio communication for the AI. I don't really mind the strange talking as I've gotten used to it already, though I think the radio can still sound better. Use this video as an example:

I don't know if the military radio sounds different, but I think that if BIS makes the AI sound like this then it would increase the atmosphere and overall make the game more exciting. If possible, I'd like to see an option for VON to sound like this also (kind of like a post processing effect).

I also hope that BIS includes and realtime speech recognition option in Arma 2, where the player can speak into a microphone and the AI will listen, as seen here:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=71168

It would make the game much more interesting and it could serve as a selling point to make this game unique, especially when compared to OFP2. Though, as I recall, Tom Clancy's EndWar will also have voice recognition. Come on BIS, you've got to show them how it's done right.

[dentist guba 0]

the main thing for me would be a better "chain of command", in OFP and ARMA it was basically one guy in charge of every single bit of micro management.

i think it would be good if there was one guy in charge of the overall conflict (in CTI this would be the whole operation), then below them people who could be tasked with different sectors of the map/ different parts of the force (e.g. air force) well you get the idea. if the AI used this sort of system then they would be more dynamic as well.

[4 IN 1 0]

it (colour team system) wont sort groups into 1 single unit which cleans up the unit list and allow 1 click easy access of a single group

The preview video (ArmA2_PCGames.avi at 3:05 mark) shows they have started to implement some sort of variation of a group control system.

It remains to be seen whether this is purely for a single mission (probably CTI) or whether it will be part of their main engine making it available to all missions. Also whether it's purely for controlling AI or for MP orders too.

It seems to show:<ul>[*]group icons (blue rectangular type)

[*]move waypoint lines

[*]click selectable groups

[*]group composition (currently just a message list in middle of screen)

[*]I'm guessing the 'button icons' on the left side of screen are group selectors

Click - full size image

i cant change their formation, i have to order them to move here and there everytime i move as they are not a part of my team formation, i cant change their combat behavior, i cant order them to reach a point while i have no time to open the map, i cant even tell the state of individual person in fire team

in fact all i can do what that system might be:

1. see the where about of those "team"

2. order them to reach a point

3. watch them dead hopelessly

[EricM 0]

@4 in 1 : You're assuming a lot here from very little info.

From that (rather bloated) pic you can tell the state of an individual teams : 5 soldiers at 100% with their respective type (USMC), roles (AA, MG etc...) and maybe health (100%)

The pic is obviously cropped as well and rather low quality so we might be missing info (like small dots on the icons to tell you how many peoples there are in each group etc...)

For the rest, what would prevent us from doing the same as usual : select/Move/get back into formation/formation line or whatever ? but with groups instead of individuals ?

[dentist guba 0]

i also like the idea of being aple to set up a plan before a mission starts. that way you can get AI people to set up an ambush without having to sit there and tell them all exactly where to stand while the convoy gets closer and coser.

[ArMoGaDoN 0]

Should have written it here in the first place, got rambling elsewhere...

When vehicle is stopped in ArmA1 the keystroke for Eject doesn't work - could this be made to do the Get Out action instead when the vehicle is stationary?