What do you *HOPE* will be in ArmA?

[Big-Rooney 5]

What I'd like to see In ArmA is:

-Better Unit Models

-Improved textures

-Improved Animations

-Larger selection of units

-Improved Wounds

-Better Sounds

-Improved AI Effectiveness

-Realistic Armor values for tanks

-Improved tracer effects for infantry and tank weapons

-More modern selection of weapons

-Better AI ability in confined spaces.

Thats all I think

[Jerbo12 0]

i hope they make it so u can use the 50 cal on tanks! btw are there tank crew skins? all the ppl turned out on tanks are reg inf

[Wohful 0]

The "zoom" or change in FOV isn't magical, it's realistic. The FOV of your monitor is rather small at 30 deg or so. Realistically you should only see 30 deg in front of your character and lose tons of periperal vision. This would be like running around looking through a toilet paper tube so game designers allow you to "zoom out" by compressing 60 deg or more of the character's vision into 30 deg of your vision.

So, walking around is "zoomed out" and iron sighted is "normal" there is no "magical zoom"

By 'zoom', I meant literal zoom. In some games when you draw a gun closer to your face, you get a zooming effect (i.e. you can see more clearly at range) along with or instead of a change in FOV. Obviously the weapon itself is going to take up much more of your screen when sighted, but there's nothing realistic about having objects in the distance grow larger.

Also, I'm not assuming this is an effect in the upcoming ArmA, I'm just saying it's an effect I hope won't be there. If all you're trying to say is that it won't be, thank you.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

i hope they make it so u can use the 50 cal on tanks! btw are there tank crew skins? all the ppl turned out on tanks are reg inf

thats done , and tank crews are WIP, there definatly in, just not finished, same as pilots.

[frederf 0]

The "zoom" or change in FOV isn't magical, it's realistic. The FOV of your monitor is rather small at 30 deg or so. Realistically you should only see 30 deg in front of your character and lose tons of periperal vision. This would be like running around looking through a toilet paper tube so game designers allow you to "zoom out" by compressing 60 deg or more of the character's vision into 30 deg of your vision.

So, walking around is "zoomed out" and iron sighted is "normal" there is no "magical zoom"

By 'zoom', I meant literal zoom. In some games when you draw a gun closer to your face, you get a zooming effect (i.e. you can see more clearly at range) along with or instead of a change in FOV. Obviously the weapon itself is going to take up much more of your screen when sighted, but there's nothing realistic about having objects in the distance grow larger.

Also, I'm not assuming this is an effect in the upcoming ArmA, I'm just saying it's an effect I hope won't be there. If all you're trying to say is that it won't be, thank you.

Yes it is there often in games. It's "zooming in" to normal 1:1 view. There's nothing unrealistic about zooming in to to normal view.

What's unrealistic is zooming out beyond normal view when walking around normally.

[Blanco 0]

A command to disable 3th person view in SP missions.

[AntipopAU 3]

MY HOPES;

* Better Models for Soliders and Vehicles

* 3d Iron Sites

* Better Ground textures/ 'Grass'

* Better Wounds/Blood

* Extremely Smart AI

* JIP

* Easy to do Mission Editor (Briefing, Description all mixed in)

* Smoother Gameplay

* Full HDR Support

* More Vehicles/Weapons

* Full DirectX 9.0c Support

* Multiple Gunner Positions

* Extremely Better Animations (Different Reloading for each weapon)

[Lou Montana 101]

I add something a little foolish : being able to edit mission during the game !

Now ArmA would be such a big MMOFPS !

Ok, ok...

[frederf 0]

Even if you couldn't edit missions under way (which would be MFin' awesome... there are a bunch of scripts for stuff like this already)

Being able to save a server state... open it up in the editor, add some stuff, move this there, ect, then resume playing. Then you'd have a semi-continuous mission of infinate length.

[Wohful 0]

Yes it is there often in games. It's "zooming in" to normal 1:1 view. There's nothing unrealistic about zooming in to to normal view.

What's unrealistic is zooming out beyond normal view when walking around normally.

Sure, but if that 'zoomed out' position is there to simulate what you'd see with peripheral vision, there shouldn't be any zooming in to a 'normal' view as you draw the weapon close. Consistency is key here... If you've got a system that simulates what a person can actually see with their peripheral vision (realistic), then you don't add in the ability to zoom in on distant objects as you bring a weapon close (unrealistic). Perspective shouldn't change.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

is it true viecles dont have interiors anymore? of so thats very disapointing....

[frederf 0]

So what happens when you hop in the back of an APC then? What do you see?

And the "zoom" in is a compromise between periferal and tunnel vision. Keeping it in compressed view isn't good either. The game switches semi-intelligently based on what it thinks you need. The real fix is to get a a monitor that extends to the edges of your vision.

[Llauma 0]

is it true viecles dont have interiors anymore? of so thats very disapointing....  

If I understood it right MBT's dont have interiors. All the other vehicles do.

[wamingo 1]

Zoom is not realistic as such, but I think it's a necessary tradeoff for games with large distances.

The problem is screen resolutions. Nowadays we run at 1024*768, and the fortunate a bit higher. So even with ofp's tiny fov (45deg?) which stretches a smaller view across the screen, to let us see things further away (aka already zoomed), we still can't see worth a damn past 200m - apart from a few pixels that keeps blending into the background...

So, again, I think the slight zoom that we have in ofp is far from unreasonable.

[Wohful 0]

I respect what you guys are saying, but I don't agree that the zoom is necessary or desireable.

Take RO again, as an example. There is no shift in perspective at any time, and it feels completely natural. If you get in the back of a vehicle, it stays the same (why would it change?). If you're driving, it still doesn't change, you can look around the interior, open/close the viewport and in some vehicles adjust how close you're sitting to the viewport, that's it. I actually play RO at a resolution of 2304x1440 and have no trouble with distant targets. Far off targets -should- look small... Just line up your iron sights on that speck, adjust a little high for bullet drop and squeeze off a round into his chest.

As for the tunnel vision thing... When I sight down a rifle, I lose a bit of peripheral vison (not much, a little more on the side I tilt my head towards), but it's not a large enough change to warrant an in-game representation.

Again, the crux of the matter is that objects in the distance shouldn't grow under any circumstances unless you're using a scope. Regardless of any other considerations, perspective should stay fixed or the whole concept of standard marksmanship will seem a bit dodgy. You've got to use the iron sights, that's why they're there (besides, it's far more satisfying to do so).

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just sharing what I think would make ArmA the best possible game.

On a small but related tangent, I think a great alternative to crosshairs for people who want to shoot on the move would be a shouldered position. A shouldered position would steady the gun somewhat and make the length of it visible (so you had a general idea of the line of fire). This way you could move at a walking pace and lay down somewhat effective fire within 20m or so.

[Second 0]

The problem is that someone plays ArmA with <= 1024x768 resolution. It isn't as good as human vision at it's normal. Best possible solution to simulate human eye's focus and adjustability is to be able to zoom. Ofcourse if everyone could play with high resolution, then zoom might not be needed, but still computer screen can't focus like human eye, and focus is something that can be bestly simulated by little zoom. But when looking at system requirements it seems that average computer can't use high resolutions.

[wamingo 1]

Quote[/b] ]I actually play RO at a resolution of 2304x1440 and have no trouble with distant targets

You underscore my point here. Of course you don't have any trouble with such a big resolution... At that resolution you can probably make out objects at twice the distance of 1024x768, or twice as easily at the same distance (monitor size not considered). Although this standard is slowly climbing it is still pretty standard.

OFP works with real ranges and so we need to be able to see real ranges with what is the current technology. 1024-768 is pretty standard right now. We need to be able to see objects at 200m if those objects can see us and shoot us dead.

If you wanted to balance it, then a low resolution could have zoom and a high resolution would have no zoom. But I'm not sure if BIS wants to create a balanced game setting the standard with todays technology +/-. I imagine they'd rather allow the game to take advantage of future computers rather than let them inherit the limitations of the old computers.

But they still need to let us see things at 200m.

I understand that it's your opinion that it's unnatural to you and that's ok. But I would prefer a decision made on technical aspects.

For instance, I wonder how the 2-3ghz computers will run arma at 1600x1200 res...

[meyamoti 0]

On a small but related tangent, I think a great alternative to crosshairs for people who want to shoot on the move would be a shouldered position. A shouldered position would steady the gun somewhat and make the length of it visible (so you had a general idea of the line of fire). This way you could move at a walking pace and lay down somewhat effective fire within 20m or so.

Thats what the F key is for,it was in OFP,regardless of it all,I highly doubt somebody can hold their gun to their shoulder and fire while moving,atleast not as efficiently as they were not moving (dur ) It seems fine the way it is really.

[figjam 0]

On a small but related tangent, I think a great alternative to crosshairs for people who want to shoot on the move would be a shouldered position. A shouldered position would steady the gun somewhat and make the length of it visible (so you had a general idea of the line of fire). This way you could move at a walking pace and lay down somewhat effective fire within 20m or so.

Thats what the F key is for,it was in OFP,regardless of it all,I highly doubt somebody can hold their gun to their shoulder and fire while moving,atleast not as efficiently as they were not moving (dur ) It seems fine the way it is really.

I remeber Dslyecxi posted a video of himself running forward firing a rifle (can't remember what type it was) in his article "Tactical Gaming Done Right".

http://dslyecxi.com/bestoftactical.html

The video I'm talking about is on the second page, 2nd video down.

http://dslyecxi.com/bestoftactical2.html

As you can see, he has no trouble firing the weapon shouldered while moving.

[Wohful 0]

I found it -easier- to hit targets at range when I used to play at 1024x768. One big pixel is easier to hit than a few small ones. Then factor in that I'm playing with a +100 degree FOV to preserve a natural aspect ratio, and you'll see if anything I'm at a disadvantage at range. RO deals with real ranges too, and I'm able to make some pretty long bombs if I properly account for lead & bullet drop.

However, I do agree it should be easy to spot targets at 200m. Sorry, I'd assumed this wasn't a problem as someone earlier said this game uses a rather small FOV (around 45 degrees). RO's default FOV is 85 and it's not impossible to make someone out at 200m (provided they're not camouflaged to their background), so I'm not sure why it's so difficult here. If this is the case though, I understand why the zoom is a necessary compromise.

meyamoti, you misunderstand. I would prefer it if there were no crosshairs in the game (only the actual weapon sights). So as an alternative for people who need to fire in close quarters and emergency situations, a semi-shouldered position (weapon drawn to a braced firing position, but without looking down the sights) would be nice. Obviously this wouldn't be too accurate, but then it's not supposed to be. I know crosshairs will be optional, but I think this position could elegantly remove the need for them at all, making the whole experience that much more realistic.

[Blanco 0]

I hope for new waypointtypes, "paradrop" to name one.

[meyamoti 0]

meyamoti, you misunderstand. I would prefer it if there were no crosshairs in the game (only the actual weapon sights). So as an alternative for people who need to fire in close quarters and emergency situations, a semi-shouldered position (weapon drawn to a braced firing position, but without looking down the sights) would be nice. Obviously this wouldn't be too accurate, but then it's not supposed to be. I know crosshairs will be optional, but I think this position could elegantly remove the need for them at all, making the whole experience that much more realistic.

Ah okay,I thought you meant the sight itself,I was rather stumped on it,but I agree with you on that. As for the walking and gunning,I'm guessing its possible to shoot alright if in the game hold your breath while doing so,but making the weaponry accurate while walking forward with your weapon so its as accurate as when standing still is a bad idea for a game.

[bravo 6 0]

when players get hit appears a red thing (bloody thing ) in the screen, BIS need to change this effect.

[dslyecxi 23]

Here is a post I made in the RO forum that explains why "magic eye zoom" is actually a realistic feature of games like Operation Flashpoint.

Quote[/b] ]The objective of this post is to clarify why the "magic eye zoom" of most games is actually realistic, and that Red Orchestra's no-zoom "feature" is unrealistic.

This illustration is a mockup of my desktop setup at home. I have a 20.1" FP2001 LCD monitor at approximately arm's length viewing distance. I have marked a 90° cone extending from my virtual head and oriented towards the monitor. The red shaded areas show how much of that field of view passes beyond the constraints of the monitor. The pale blue shows how much of my vision the monitor ultimately ends up occupying.

The game I will pick on here is Red Orchestra, because the developers insist that their no-zoom "feature" is realistic. I believe that it is not, and I believe that these illustrations clearly show why that's the case.

In Red Orchestra, the player's field of view is set at 85° - more or less the same as the cone you see depicted in that illustration. As you can see, the monitor only takes up around 45° of my field of view. Now, I have a representation of the gameworld being shown to me in a 45° slice of my vision, with the view being an 85° slice of the game world.

Those numbers do not match up. They're cramming an extra 40° of visual information into that 45° slice of my real-world vision. That's nearly double the FOV that should be there in a perfect 1:1 translation. The effect that this has is that everything in the game world appears smaller and further away than it should. This has a dramatic influence of targeting people in ironsight mode - it effectively turns the game into a "pixel hunt" at ranges that should not be that difficult to fire at.

Here is an illustration that shows how close my eyes would have to be to the monitor to have the in-game field of view (in this case, 85°) match up in a 1:1 ratio with my real-world perspective. With my nose just inches from the screen, the image on my monitor would occupy 85° of my field of view. I would also notice at this close distance that I would be getting eye strain from the experience, and depending upon what resolution I'm playing at I'd likely find things to be a pixelated mess at such close range, totally unlike what my real-world vision is capable of perceiving. Oh, and it would be awkward as hell to be that close to the screen.

Most developers are aware of this imperfect translation between real-world and in-game views. Real vision has an acuity that is dependent on the user's visual fidelity. Computer games, on the other hand, have a visual acuity that is based on the user's resolution, the distance the user is sitting from their monitor, and the field of view that the game has.

I think this illustration clearly shows that it is infact entirely realistic to have a level of zoom when in ironsight mode, or even just "whenever" like OFP allows for. If the player's in-game FOV is 90°, for instance, and the screen takes up somewhere in the range of half of that in their real-world field of view, wouldn't it make sense to make the player's zoom change them to a 45 degree field of view at the very least, discounting the issue of resolution altogether?

Now, that's the relatively simple part. That leaves monitor resolution out of the picture entirely. Zooming into a 45° field of view may work great at 1600x1200 or above, but what about players that are at lesser resolutions like 1024x768? Lower resolutions result in less visual information, and less clarity, which would require the FOV to be even lower still to match what a higher-resolution player sees. Whether or not a game ever plans to tackle this is up for debate - it's nowhere near as "simple" as the initial FOV zoom decision is. It's also beside the point of what I'm trying to get across here, though it most definitely is a big factor of how the full system comes together.

Bear in mind that this all changes based upon what kind of monitor you have (size, aspect ratio), and how far away you are from it. I believe that my setup is fairly close to "standard". The point is is that the vast majority of players are using a similar setup, and are experiencing a similar issue. Most developers recognize this, as I said, and compensate for it. Flashpoint is one example. America's Army is another. Raven Shield is a third. The list goes on and on.

For the record, human vision field of view is close to 180 degrees. About 40 degrees of that is considered to be peripheral vision. For argument's sake, let's say we have 130° worth of 'good' vision. If we were to have our default view in any game be 130°, we'd find it to look very warped - at least if we're on a standard 4:3 ratio monitor. Thus, it makes logical sense to have the in-game field of view be lowered to the point that it looks generally agreeable to people, such that it isn't warped but still allows for a fair field of view. This typically means that you end up with a FOV of around 90, with some games like Halo having the FOV down at around 70° due to consideration for the fact that it was originally a console game meant to be played on a standard low-resolution TV. So, we end up getting shorted - there's at least 40° worth of 'good' vision not rendered, and somewhere around 40° worth of peripheral vision that also is not rendered.

It looks like the upcoming Armed Assault will be dealing with this in an interesting way - if something is in the player's peripheral vision, but not visible on their screen, they will get a faint dot on the edge of their screen that indicates that they can see something in their peripheral vision. It's unavoidable that some "hardcore" people will see that feature and dismiss it as unrealistic, but - as I've shown here - it is far from that. It's a great idea, and should work very well for a game like Armed Assault.

To summarize the original point, "magic eye zoom" (as some ROdevs have put it) is actually realistic for the vast majority of players. I hope I've illustrated and explained this in a way that will help people to understand the concepts behind it.

[frederf 0]

God praise you for explaining something I could summon the effort to.