What can we expect from the new engine?

[itim_tuko 0]

What would interrest me is if there the new engine leaves possibilities for scuba diving. Like f.x. a Spec Ops team infiltrating the coastline via boat or heli and has to swim or dive too the coast.

[rainbow 0]

We can surely forget about any physical engine. ArmA will be strongly updated OFP but without revolution.

[kavoven 4]

We can surely forget about any physical engine. ArmA will be strongly updated OFP but without revolution.

It's just one point I'm really worring about:

How many active OFP players, mission makers, addon makers, etc do we have? I guess less than 5000.

So, we got all these improvements of the engine, but still nothing really new. I will buy ArmA anyway, but what will the other people do, who're reading magazines and online reviews, which all say, that this game isn't up to date?

In most cases, the magazines are not too objective, concerning a game. But it doesn't matter if they are or if they are not.

If the PC-Games or the Gamestar in Germany (the two largest magazines) say that this game is still the old OFP, but with some improvents (which we find very cool, but which are in other games already basic requirements) and that the graphics and the physics are not what players expect from todays video games, nearly nobody in Germany will buy it.

I can remember the article about OFP. I red it again and again and again, because they were emphasising (uh, correct spelled?!^^) the game so much. That's why so many people bought it. And this can go exactly the other way round....

And I would prefer it, if the Com had more players...

[DanAK47 1]

I think if Join in Progress truely works it will bring a lot more players in.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

I can remember the article about OFP. I red it again and again and again, because they were emphasising (uh, correct spelled?!^^) the game so much. That's why so many people bought it. And this can go exactly the other way round....

What you're saying will probably happen if they don't release a demo and/or some real info before the release of the full game.

[Killbert 0]

I think when people who are not familiar with OFP sees that ArmA is advertising it has JIP, they think it's strange, cause every game for the past 10 years has already had that. People on there forums will get the game for sure, but BIS needs the big growd to buy it also.

OFP is still the only game in it's genre though, as an realistic war simulator. So anyone who wants a game like that will get ArmA. Hopefully that growd will be big enough.

ArmA doesn't seem to have that much improvements from the original, but it's only about 1,5 years untill the real deal gets here. I'm sure BIS will give us enough to play with untill then.

[ninjatek 0]

I don't want to get anyone upset but honestly I don't want to see the developers trying to make this game compatible for older system configurations like the p3 someone mentioned.  Most of the gaming community should be past that stage, and it seems like a waste to try to support systems that old.  I'm sorry if you don't have a system newer then 3 years, but the PC is about upgrading and adapting, if you don't want to or can't fork out the money for upgrades now and then please go back to a console system.

On another subject, JIP is one of the things that really put BF1942 in the spotlight when it came out.  Some other games had it but BF just made it seem easy.  Also BF just threw you right into the action, maps were so small you collided with the enemy around every corner. I think this had a big appeal to thrill seekers.  But how annoying is it to fly a jet in BF2 in constant circles because the map is so tiny.  In OFP it can take a really long time to get around from place to place, but as is in RL and war is not always endless shooting kill sprees.  It'll be different things for different people I suppose, I like the realism OFP and AA will offer over the arcadish BF. But more of a community following will be great too.  Look at JO the online player base is minimal now, it was no OFP but was a hell of a lot better then BF.

LOL funny story I picked up Advanced Battlegrounds in the bargain bin for a few bucks, never had really herd of it but it looked kind of like PlanetSide without the persistant world so I loaded it up and logged into the server list. There was 2 servers, one was empty and one server had 2 people on it, and that was it. I asked one of the pep playing on the server where everyone was and he said they all moved onto FarCry.  

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I would love to see a screenshot from the ArmA system preferences!

[ninjatek 0]

I would love to see a screenshot from the ArmA system preferences!

*EDIT OUT IMG *http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/opflashpoint/print.2.gif

Dude you need to upgrade.   Hows BF2 run for you with those specs?

[redface 1]

on a sidenote: it's a bit unlucky for BIS' ArmA that Ghost Recon 3 for PC is scheduled for November 2005

some promising new GR3 screenshots have been revealed at Leipzig Games Convention here

[Guest Ti0n3r]

But Ghost Recon 3 is arcade while Armed Assault is more of a simulator. So I dont think we have to worry about that.

[ANTH 0]

I would love to see a screenshot from the ArmA system preferences!

[im]http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/opflashpoint/print.2.gif[/img]

I hope they dont use the same system prefs as in being able to turn objects down so you can see through certain parts of buildings, sucks and is used a lot in player vs player games.

[metalchris 0]

It would be cool for addonmakers if ther would be an type of Dammage LOD system.

Just as your dammage rises , the LODs will change, and xour vehicle would look more dammged.

I think its no really big deal to implement this , but since im a noob on game engines i remain silent to demand anything , its just a suggestion

[Placebo 29]

ANTH remove image tags when quoting please

[Batukhan 0]

The Ghost Recon looks like a child made it. Overdesigned HUD, and LOTS AND LOTS of shaders. I mean.. it's so blurry, you can hardly separate the enemies from the bushes.

The first time i heard from OFP, i thought that it would have no hud at all. It's still better than any other game, but it would have been even cooler of it wouldn't show how many bullets you have left. Kinda RoboCop'ie

[PhantomStalker 0]

listen....

everyone post r6 2 game made by redstorm= arcade crap. They sold out when they sold the game to ubisoft.

Other then the old delta forces, and the old rainbow 6's.... op flash is really the only game that keeps the fps realism genre alive. Every other fps is total arcade quakey crap, cs, bf, moh, cod etc.

Oh im sorry there is also hidden and dangerous but they even went arcade for the multiplayer while the single is very realistic.

As for graphics I could give a crap less if they didnt even upgrade the graphics from op flash, I still love them. I do not want to see any major changes in armed assault that would make op flash any less then it was, which is the most realistic combat simulator ever made.

I fear for arma and op flash 2... I know they say they are gonna make it even more real ... but you never know until the game is in your hands.

[meyamoti 0]

Yeah people are going on games by graphics these days,graphics can only get so far and OFP was not made with special graphics in the first place,remember,the more graphics the less gameplay and stuff you can do/use,think of BF2,sure it has gfx and some gameplay but those tiny arse area's whereas OFP has much much larger areas.

[Scrub 0]

Yes, and also, BIS seems to be overcoming 'The larger the island, the fewer the details' dilemma. Hopefully the capability/efficiency balancing act will put some strain on the CPU like now. I like the fact that there is more game than the (then) current technology could handle. Now, after my upgrade, among other things I have richer detailed forests as far as I can see, instead of the drop down in detail bunching of canopy. With added efficiency, it'll mean they crammed in more game to be unleashed as you increase processing power.

[PhantomStalker 0]

Yes, and also, BIS seems to be overcoming 'The larger the island, the fewer the details' dilemma. Hopefully the capability/efficiency balancing act will put some strain on the CPU like now. I like the fact that there is more game than the (then) current technology could handle. Now, after my upgrade, among other things I have richer detailed forests as far as I can see, instead of the drop down in detail bunching of canopy. With added efficiency, it'll mean they crammed in more game to be unleashed as you increase processing power.

I would rather have " sparse" islands... then small maps like bf2...

[Scrub 0]

Not disagreeing with you at all.

[sputnik monroe 102]

(Bear with me this is on topic)

  Ok so I tried to play Flashpoint today. I'm running CSLAII BIS effects config. The mission has 2 CSLA Mi17s dropping off 9 RHS naval infantry each south of La Trinite on Malden. After inserting the 18 Naval Infantry they circle the town to offer support. Defending La Trinite is 20 UKF British Infantry and one UKF Land Rover WMIK.

   Average frame rate is 12. It's a slide show and I get a migraine as the view flips and flops around more jerky than a shell shocked dachsund on a caffeine overdose in the middle of a 10.0 earthquake with a tsunami bearing down on it.

   Ok lets review...

42 troops, 2 helicopters, and a jeep. View distance 1000, terrain detail very low. Frame rate = unplayable.

   So now to answer the question posed by this topics title, What can we expect from the new engine?  I'm hoping for a boost of +10fps average. I'm fine with a frame rate in the 20s lower than that gives a migraine though.

    Another engine question I'm curious about is how user created addons from flashpoint will work in Arma. Will we be able to simply drag and drop them into Armas addon folder as is, or will they need some work to make them compatible?

I really want to be able to play some large battles with some of these great looking addons. Currently I've set a rule for missions I make for my self. The rule is that each mission should include no more than 10 units and 1 vehicle per side. If I cross that line I end up in migraine land and unplayability.

[funnyguy1 0]

   

42 troops, 2 helicopters, and a jeep. View distance 1000, terrain detail very low. Frame rate = unplayable.

Amen, the whole potential of ofp is gone when you watch this kind of slide show, gameplay is inversely proportional to the fps count...

[DBR_ONIX 0]

I think the biggest improvment (From what I can tell) with ArmA is a more efficant engine.. This (to me) will be the best improvement, as it will allow you to put "42 troops, 2 helicopters, and a jeep." and still not be too laggy.. Even if it ran at 20FPS, which is extremely possible going by "todays" games.. It would also make RPG missions playable, CTI's much more bearable (To see what I mean, try hosting a server&play two player CTI for an hour...), then a big bonus of having better graphics, possibly walking about in vehicles (Which would open up a large ammount of options), better handling of under-water (Submarines!! That you can walk around in!! Then you could get in an mini-sub, and use it to sneak into an enemy harbour... See, just two "small" improvements lead to so many options if the games free enough )

on an different topic : Would people please fecking stop slagging of games like Ghost Recon, Counter Strike etc.. They aren't fecking ment to be realistic! They are ment to be fun, and if you dont find that, you don't have to play it, do you? ("r6 2 game made by redstorm= arcade crap" - To someone who doesn't like arcade shooters, yeh, but you fail to see that the game isn't made espicaly for you, that game was intended for [an larger] group of people who like that style of games.. Just like OFP is made for people who like realistic games..)

If a game isn't realistic, don't compare it to Armed Assault because their very different games.. One is fun, thus has a bigger appeal, and one is a very "cult" orinented game (:p).

Sorry, but it kinda bugs me, just because you don't enjoy a certain game(s), doesn't mean you have to compare it to a game you do and point out/make up reasons why it sucks..

</rant>

"I would rather have " sparse" islands... then small maps like bf2..." - One of OFP's biggest selling points in the large maps.. if there is a map-streaming system, it would be f***ing amazing, as it would allow big/huge maps, with lots and lots of objects, as it's only loaded when it's needed, down side of this is teleporting it a little hard, as when you teleport, it'd suddenly have to load a brand new area of land (GTA:Vice City's multiplayer mod suffered from this, you saw low quality buildings often when driving around).

But even if this ins't incorprated into ArmA, the more effienct engine would mean you could have an island with twice the density of objects, or a larger island, with less dense objects. So you could shove all x-thousand objects in one area, and get an ubran areas (Although putting all those objects on screen at once would slow it down more than spreading them out, but that's not the point ), or spread them out and have a huge map with lots of little villages/setelments..

...well that was an effictive time-killer

- Ben

[Johan_D 0]

Although putting all those objects on screen at once would slow it down more than spreading them out...

/quote

Unless Bis finds a revolutionary way to do it. Remember: BIS is revolutionary, since they were the first with huge playable maps.

But I agree, fps must be kept no 1 on their list.

[jakerod 254]

If it is a city it should be no problem if there is big buildings. If you put in buildings that help block out other objects you don't have to render them. That is what someone once told people here but I have also heard otherwise.