What do you *HOPE* will be in ArmA?

[Ukraineboy 0]

Saying that the modmakers are busy making another m4 model is just RUDE! Those people spend hours and hours for us to make such great addons. And they don't even get paid or such.

You are constantly whining over the fact that there are a couple of m4 addons around! Stop doing that!

I don't owe them anything, and they waste hours and hours making uninteresting, boring addons. I mean M4 Addons as an example where these modders make 20,000 same models.

[FriketMonkey 0]

As you say waste hours and hours making uninteresting, boring addons. That's your opinion, we knew that, so there is no need to repeat yourself over and over again.

And please be a bit more friendly and understandable!

[-DsO- ShapeShifter 0]

i have 120GB of AddOns, 60GB are uninteresting

[dm 9]

You people don't want ArmA to support more than 3024 units at the same time? I don't get that...

i don't get that too..

We don't need more than 3,000 units. Plus if we did it would lagg the crap out of the game, what's to get?

Fair enough. Make 3,000 units just for a side then (East per example) i woun't complain that way.

when i say ARMA needs more Units per side i mean enemys!

Imagine we fight with East only, we will be able to put 756 enemys (only! ) (if we follow OFP style)

When i said 3024 its in general (Friendlys and enemys), ofcourse we will only have 2268 enemys if East+Civil+resitance are friendly

I really think if BIS idea is to creat massive combats we will need more then 756 enemys!(per side, i.e. East or resistance or West or Civil)

EDIT: all this hope came with the NEW ENGINE mentioned by BIS!

Seriously, when are you ever going to get a battle so large that you need more than ~700 units (on each side) in the field at the same time?

As a player you can only see so far - its called the horizon - and anything beyond that is pointless CPU waste. Considering the CPU time it takes to process AI, it is MUCH more efficient to use a dynamic mission/campaign engine to decide the outcomes of battles that the player is NEVER going to see.

Seriously, with your "huge scale battles" the load on the CPU('s) to process the AI information and the sheer bandwidth needed to transmit that information to and from the server would be ridiculous. The whole idea of real AI units fighting out battles is really nice, but totally technologically impractical. Even top of the line military simulators (and I'm not talking CotS software like VBS here, I mean the big-boy multi-billion dollar, custom hardware stuff) dont run battles with every unit represented. A large part of it (that which is outside the Line of Sight of the participants) is computed via a force ballencing script (the force with the better numbers, morale, equipment and position will usually win but thats a generalisation) Even they can not simulate the number of AI entities needed for your "uber battles"

I imagine the max-out number for the AI MIGHT increase, but dont get excited for 23423487234 unit battles, as its just not going to happen in this game generation.

[Ukraineboy 0]

As you say waste hours and hours making uninteresting, boring addons. That's your opinion, we knew that, so there is no need to repeat yourself over and over again.

And please be a bit more friendly and understandable!

If you know of my opinion why are you repeating yourself on "oh they worked hard blah blah"?

[Placebo 29]

I don't owe them anything, and they waste hours and hours making uninteresting, boring addons. I mean M4 Addons as an example where these modders make 20,000 same models.

As you haven't learned to stop trolling your negative flamebaiting opinions you are post restricted for 1 week and receive a warning level of 2. You were requested a number of times to improve your attitude and you chose not to.

Perhaps in the week away you can learn to make addons yourself then you won't have to complain about all the M4 Addons.

[bravo 6 0]

Seriously, when are you ever going to get a battle so large that you need more than ~700 units (on each side) in the field at the same time?

As a player you can only see so far - its called the horizon - and anything beyond that is pointless CPU waste. Considering the CPU time it takes to process AI, it is MUCH more efficient to use a dynamic mission/campaign engine to decide the outcomes of battles that the player is NEVER going to see.

Seriously, with your "huge scale battles" the load on the CPU('s) to process the AI information and the sheer bandwidth needed to transmit that information to and from the server would be ridiculous. The whole idea of real AI units fighting out battles is really nice, but totally technologically impractical. Even top of the line military simulators (and I'm not talking CotS software like VBS here, I mean the big-boy multi-billion dollar, custom hardware stuff) dont run battles with every unit represented. A large part of it (that which is outside the Line of Sight of the participants) is computed via a force ballencing script (the force with the better numbers, morale, equipment and position will usually win but thats a generalisation) Even they can not simulate the number of AI entities needed for your "uber battles"

I imagine the max-out number for the AI MIGHT increase, but dont get excited for 23423487234 unit battles, as its just not going to happen in this game generation.

The key is having realistic time (hours) of combat.

There could be 2 or 3 massives combats in the island (North and South)

2 intensive combats: (in extreme option)

1st assault could last half a day and the other could last 2 or 3 days (in real time..) the first troops in the 1st assault could support (or having other option also JIP) the last intensive assault in order to support it and defeat that intense combat and attack of the enemy.

That way we would need more units in the map without using the spawn script.

[Metal Heart 0]

Yes that sounds nice and all but the problem is that it wouldn't actually work. Not without spawning/cleaning scripts anyway.

[dm 9]

The key is having realistic time (hours) of combat.

There could be 2 or 3 massives combats in the island (North and South)

2 intensive combats: (in extreme option)

1st assault could last half a day and the other could last 2 or 3 days (in real time..) the first troops in the 1st assault could support (or having other option also JIP) the last intensive assault in order to support it and defeat that intense combat and attack of the enemy.

That way we would need more units in the map without using the spawn script.

You're still not reading my posts are you?

Do you even know how much CPU time it takes to simulate ONE AI? Multiply that by several thousand and its taking so long to process the AI that your framerate is a wonderful 3 fps.

Its not that I don't want the capability to simulate more than 3000 AI entities, its just that I know its not possible to do on this generation of hardware.

Oh, and your massive battle could be done with spawn scripts, you just have to output the ground gained/lost and the attrition rates (men and equipment lost) from the dynamic mission "engine" and spawn men, equipment and positions accodingly. Oh and you can spawn dead bodies and destroyed vehicles quite easily too.

Its not that I'm obsessed by spawn scripts, damn I'd even go so far as to say I dislike them because I'm not a very strong scripter and can't really use them. But, they are FAR more powerful than just plopping units on the map.

[Radnik 18]

I *HOPE* in ArmA will be:

- That you have a feeling that vehicles have weight, not like in OpF where it's like they're 50kg(after all tanks are 47-60 tone of steel), and spining around in spot like they have eyes instead front lights so it needs to turn and look around searching the enemy with eyes.

- In some folowing patches ability for diferent soldier body size will be added.

These are my top two hope wishes for ARAS. (those are probably mentioned somewhere but this is how it would dream game look for me,curently!)

[Dohtar 0]

Perhaps in the week away you can learn to make addons yourself then you won't have to complain about all the M4 Addons.

- In some folowing patches ability for diferent soldier body size will be added.

Would be cool in SP, but how would it work in MP, when everyone would like to choose the smallest characters

[wamingo 1]

Has this question ever been answered?:

Will the View Distance in ArmA's Multiplayer be Locked and/or Changed?

In ofp, the view distance is locked to 500m and it's not possible to change - correct me if I'm wrong.

A server max view setting has always been my wish.

Cheers

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

[VISTREL 0]

In ofp, the view distance is locked to 500m and it's not possible to change - correct me if I'm wrong.

The maximum view distance is 5000 meters and it's not locked.

[figjam 0]

I'm hoping there will be:

Supression.

Morale system similar to Close Combat.

AI contact drills/disengagement drills.

Ability to shoot from the cargo of a helicopter.

Proper trenches and foxholes the AI know how to use.

Weapon dependant animations.

Working the bolt animation for bolt action rifles.

That's all i'm missing in the original OFP - from my point of view.

[Daniel 0]

wamingo

Use

setviewdistance #

to change the view distance of the session. This can be changed in game. Replace # with a number from 1 to 5000.  

[ratslla 0]

Most important thing that arma needs is the flashpoint feel..

Don't think we need to tell BIS what arma needs when it comes to the game as they already did one hell of a job with flashpoint..

[wamingo 1]

Is it 900m?

and setViewDistance can't be used by the server (right?). It's in the hands of the mission designer only... aka it's locked - until it's locked to something else. I can understand advantages by that, but not being able to change it yourself in turn, is not very user friendly.

A player should at least be allowed to set a shorter than max view distance, to improve performance.

Why have a lock by default?

Why not have it un-locked by default? Then the designer or server can lock it if wished.

[froggyluv 2136]

Damn if all this AA talk isn't makin me miss my OFP(lost years ago)! All the newer "Battelfield" games always leave me wanting more especially since there's only dial-up in my part of the world.

That said, I would love to see a 'replay' feature either after your killed or complete the mission. I'm talkin a balls to the walls dynamic re-cap of the carnage with floatable cam or controlled dynamic camera with a kick ass soundtrack.

The worst thing in any shooter, is when your capped and you have no idea how it happened-Game Over.

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]The worst thing in any shooter, is when your capped and you have no idea how it happened

In single player, after you die you are shown who killed you. If it's a soldier, chances are that it happened so that you ran into his sights and then he pulled the trigger or threw a grenade at you. If it's a tank, it shot or ran over you. That's about it.

In MP it wouldn't be fair to reveal the enemy if there is respawn because you would know where and what the enemy is even though your current character might have no way of knowing that.

[ratslla 0]

I remember the kill-cam in Call of Duty.. people instantly knew where i was which cut my survival change in half.. i don't think a game such as AA can use this, if the game feeds on realism.

[VISTREL 0]

Kill-cam would suck in AA. I just don't get it how people might not like to not see where you got shot from. It's part of the fun to figure out where the enemy is.

[ratslla 0]

Kill-cam would suck in AA. I just don't get it how people might not like to not see where you got shot from. It's part of the fun to figure out where the enemy is.

my point exactly..

[froggyluv 2136]

I remember the kill-cam in Call of Duty.. people instantly knew where i was which cut my survival change in half.. i don't think a game such as AA can use this, if the game feeds on realism.

I'm not talking MP- only SP. If the game truly has advanced AI, enemy soldiers positions wont be given away, because they won't be in the same spot next time. I just think it's cool to see were I erred in my strategy, by getting a replay.

COD is comparable to AA, as the enemies were always in the same spot making the game more about memorization than stratgey.

[mandoble 1]

Currently we have setVelocity to set objects velocities relative to the space, but we are missing rotation velocities relative to the object axes. I would like to have this introduced into ArmA so you can set pitch, yaw and roll velocities,something like setangularvel[pitchvel, yawvel, rollvel].

It would be great also to be able to set only some of the velocities, for example 99999 would mean this velocity component is managed by ArmA engine and not modified by setVelocity. For example, obj setVelocity[99999,99999,10] if you only want to interferre with Z vel.

Aswell as something like setAngles[pitch, yaw, roll] and the corresponding getAngles.