What do you *HOPE* will be in ArmA?

[frederf 0]

I agree with that. It seems everyday people are doing more and more fantastic things with OFP's editor but each new tip or clever idea keeps growing and growing the difficulty and time to make a mission.

[norsu 180]

Is the walking-in-vehicles even a planned feature? Will we be able to shoot from them even if we are fixed in them? (I.E. Drive-by shooting, using your weapon to shoot out of the vehicle, etc.)

These are not planned features for ArmA.

I found this very odd because VBS1 already has this feature quite nicely done. Oh well can't have everything .

[meyamoti 0]

And as vbs1 owners have said many times,its not ingame.

[norsu 180]

And as vbs1 owners have said many times,its not ingame.

It's still a working feature on OFP engine even if it isn't in the current commercial version of VBS1. The videos here should make my point clear .

[berghoff 11]

I found this very odd because VBS1 already has this feature quite nicely done. Oh well can't have everything .

Yes, quite nicely but not quite It looked liked it was only half-working in the videos.

[GBee 0]

If it was a working feature then it would have been released but it never has, which demonstrates that with the current engine BIS are unable to make it work.

The more you watch that 'moving in vehicles' VBS video the more bugs and unrealistic aspects you can recognise.

[Zander 0]

will it be possible to have glow effect on tacers at night, especially with night vision?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

i think thats going to be in it judging with the new effects we have seen

[wamingo 1]

Collision detection for moving objects, like vehicles, coupled with syncronizing for network play must be hell to get working properly...

You can see it working only barely in BattlefieldWhatever. Even in extremely good latency situations like LAN play the server/clients can't sync often enough to make it fluent, certainly not with the movement-prediction/correction schemes used today.

In battlefield, even 20-30milisecond latency across the board is an iceskating lagfest on fast moving vehicles. Updating clients for fast moving and manuverable planes fluently is bad enough.

I'll be suprised if it's even in game2...

[bravo 6 0]

some times dead chats/text (white chats) in MP can be mored and that sucks. It kills the spirit in the mission.

Is there a way to remove the white text and be able to see only the green or blue?

is there a way to remove all chats (gree, blue, white) (optional ofcourse).

[wamingo 1]

random thought here...

Will we by any chance be able to control our parashutes this time round?

I don't know how controllable such a thing is, but I imagine you could somewhat steer 'em things?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

you can get addons with steerable parasutes. From pictures they look relativly the same, but we might get new shutes when the pilots/tank crew are completed.

[colt 0]

Another thing I'm hoping for are more varied waypoints in the editor.

I'd like to be able to set a waypoint for a helicopter or any vehicle and set the height at which it should travel and maybe it's speed.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

YES that would be cool!

[GBee 0]

Another thing I'm hoping for are more varied waypoints in the editor.

I'd like to be able to set a waypoint for a helicopter or any vehicle and set the height at which it should travel and maybe it's speed.

You can do that already with a one line script command, forgive my memory but it's something like flyInHeight. Although it would be quicker if that was part of the waypoint wizard ...

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

no he means it intergrated into the editor as a drop down menu in the waypoint screen.

[=Gorky= 0]

And what about realistic ballistic in the game, especially when you are shooting from assault-reflies? As I remember, in the first OFP all assault-reflies bullets are flying directly, their trajectory not depends on the distance to aim, wind has not any influence on trajectory. In real life each assault-reflie has special marks on the sight, for example: AK has special sight marks which are needed to be set according the distance to aim, M-16 should have such sight marks too. For example: if we are shooting from AK in the aim, which situated at 700 meters distance, we should set sight number "7", if the aim situated at 200 meters distance, we should set sight number "2". If aim situated at 700 meters distance, and you are using sight number "1" for 100 meters distances, bullet will not get the aim, it will just fall down on the ground. Such sight system has all assault reflies. There is also absent an adrinalin influence on shooting process in the game. And also why weapons in the game have not their own reliability level? Armour in the first OFP is also not realistic, in the game T-72 can be destroyed only by 2 RPG missles, but Chechnya's expirience says another: T-72's was standing to 6-7 RPG missles in real battles and without using ERA dynamic defence, of course much depends on the place of tank, which can be hited, all vehicles have their strong and weak places. All infantry battles in the first OFP usually continue for a very small period of time, in real life on one destroyed soldier there is minimum 100 bullets spending, this count was much more bigger in the WW2. In OFP2 I want to see realistic bullet's ballistics, realistic aiming from assault reflies, which is according to distance, also I want to see adrenalin influence on soldiers and adrenalin should depend on the expirience level of soldiers, realistic amour, realistic reliability of vehicles and guns, wind influence on trajectory. Sorry for bad English this is my 10 grades school level.

[Capitan_eXtreme 0]

is it possible to remove the scope and put it on another gun in RL? wouldent you have to shoot it in (not sure what its called) so the aim would be right?

While many modern assault rifles are being made these days with inbuilt scopes, most rifles, at least, have scope-mounts, and many other weapons can be fitted with them. Scopes can then be attached/detached at will from the gun.

And even "sniper rifles" (god I hate that phrase) have iron sights of some sort. They can still be used just like any other rife without the scope.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

And what about realistic ballistic in the game, especially when you are shooting from assault-reflies? As I remember, in the first OFP all assault-reflies bullets are flying directly, their trajectory not depends on the distance to aim, wind has not any influence on trajectory. In real life each assault-reflie has special marks on the sight, for example: AK has special sight marks which are needed to be set according the distance to aim, M-16 should have such sight marks too. For example: if we are shooting from AK in the aim, which situated at 700 meters distance, we should set sight number "7", if the aim situated at 200 meters distance, we should set sight number "2". If aim situated at 700 meters distance, and you are using sight number "1" for 100 meters distances, bullet will not get the aim, it will just fall down on the ground. Such sight system has all assault reflies. There is also absent an adrinalin influence on shooting process in the game. And also why weapons in the game have not their own reliability level? Armour in the first OFP is also not realistic, in the game T-72 can be destroyed only by 2 RPG missles, but Chechnya's expirience says another: T-72's was standing to 6-7 RPG missles in real battles and without using ERA dynamic defence, of course much depends on the place of tank, which can be hited, all vehicles have their strong and weak places. All infantry battles in the first OFP usually continue for a very small period of time, in real life on one destroyed soldier there is minimum 100 bullets spending, this count was much more bigger in the WW2. In OFP2 I want to see realistic bullet's ballistics, realistic aiming from assault reflies, which is according to distance, also I want to see adrenalin influence on soldiers and adrenalin should depend on the expirience level of soldiers, realistic amour, realistic reliability of vehicles and guns, wind influence on trajectory. Sorry for bad English this is my 10 grades school level.

save that for a mod. The game cant be too advanced, BI do need to make some return on the game. They need to appeal to a more mainstream consumer. Thats not to say it needs to be a FPS.

[frederf 0]

is it possible to remove the scope and put it on another gun in RL? wouldent you have to shoot it in (not sure what its called) so the aim would be right?

While many modern assault rifles are being made these days with inbuilt scopes, most rifles, at least, have scope-mounts, and many other weapons can be fitted with them. Scopes can then be attached/detached at will from the gun.

And even "sniper rifles" (god I hate that phrase) have iron sights of some sort. They can still be used just like any other rife without the scope.

He means that swapping out aiming mechanizism would require calibration that couldn't be done in the middle of combat. Just because you bolt it on doesn't mean there's no problems.

[dslyecxi 23]

He means that swapping out aiming mechanizism would require calibration that couldn't be done in the middle of combat. Just because you bolt it on doesn't mean there's no problems.

The word you're looking for is "zeroing".

[meyamoti 0]

They need to appeal to a more mainstream consumer. Thats not to say it needs to be a FPS.

Screw that,if they don't like it because of its complexity then their free to use other games they like,but it gets old seeing people dumb down things just to please somebody else.

I'm not harping on you but its moreso the idea of dumbing things down.

Oh were gonna make it so that all vehicles can be driven and armed by one person,this means that you can drive a tank while also being the gunner,there destroying the method of teamwork there,oh and we also introduced jumping so that if you get killed too much or don't want to to die then you can just jump and avoid those bullets,and those of you that like to dolphin dive,we'v made it so that you can instantly move to prone position to avoid bullets and cap your openent.

Hell with that..

[0311 0]

The only thing I would really like to see(but I'm doubtful that I will) are Marines in game. I mean the army does its thing in the way that it does it, and everyone assosiates US military power with the army, airforce etc.

I mean we do things differently and I would like to have a few missions specifically with Marines. Being Marine infantry myself, it would be pretty neat for me to play in the way that I work. (Not to mention I'd rather not play as a soldier wearing those jacked up army cammies).

I guess if BIS doesn't put us in, some modder could make a Marine campaign or something.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

They need to appeal to a more mainstream consumer.  Thats not to say it needs to be a FPS.

Screw that,if they don't like it because of its complexity then their free to use other games they like,but it gets old seeing people dumb down things just to please somebody else.

I'm not harping on you but its moreso the idea of dumbing things down.

Oh were gonna make it so that all vehicles can be driven and armed by one person,this means that you can drive a tank while also being the gunner,there destroying the method of teamwork there,oh and we also introduced jumping so that if you get killed too much or don't want to to die then you can just jump and avoid those bullets,and those of you that like to dolphin dive,we'v made it so that you can instantly move to prone position to avoid bullets and cap your openent.

Hell with that..

im not trying to make an argumant but you just cant make a game too complex that is designed to sell well. What your suggesting would be great, really it would, probably somthing for VBS2. But taking the attitude of screw a large consumer base, well then dont expect a 'game 2' becuase BI wont have any money to make one. BI is a buisness at the end of the day and is not there just for our benefit, but to make money for themselves.

[sniper pilot 36]

I hope they fix the tracer issues...