ArmA Progress Updates

[kernriver 4]

ArmA is the unofficial Operation Flashpoint 2 since the official Operation Flashpoint 2 will be released by Codemasters.

That's exactly my point: ArmA is ArmA, Game2 is Game2 and OFP2 is OFP2. Why call ArmA "unofficial OFP2"? Those are two different games, and they are that for a long time now...i don't care what Codemasters will do, i care what BIS will do Sorry if i sound too excited, it's not ment for you TiOn3r

[max power 21]

Well, first of all, from what I can see, the machineguns in arma and in Ghost Recon are different weapons between the two screenshots. The one for Arma is the full sized M249 SAW, and the one for Ghost Recon is the paratrooper model.

Secondly, the are being viewed from different angles under different lighting conditions. I'm sure the yellow light being case off of the muzzle flash has much to do with the dynamic appearance of the GRAW model.

Thirdly, the GRAW weapon model seems to have a slightly higher poligon count- but the ArmA model seems to be slightly more proportionate to what I've seen of (replica) M249s. (My friend owns one and I shouldered it only last night).

Finally, what you are seeing in the ArmA screenshot may not represent a feature/ graphics complete engine or game model.

Oh, and nice photo Sanctuary. That picture is so close to the model's virtual angle/focal length/perspective that it's crazy!

that screenshot for ArmA may not represent a feature/graphics complete model.

We would call ArmA unofficial OFP 2 on account of the fact that it's using a brushed up OFP engine, whereas OFP 2 may not. A better monicker of ArmA might be OFP 1.5, as the developers have stated in interviews in the past.

[EddyBoy 0]

GR is set in 1013 so its unlikely they're the same gun anyway

[ziiip 1]

Whoops, sorry! Then let's hope there will be an addon for ArmA including the paratrooper version of that MG with nice textures and high poly-count.

EddyBoy: I think ArmA is set in late 2000s.

[kernriver 4]

We would call ArmA unofficial OFP 2 on account of the fact that it's using a brushed up OFP engine, whereas OFP 2 may not. A better monicker of ArmA might be OFP 1.5, as the developers have stated in interviews in the past.

IMO, if they wanted to relate it to Operation flashpoint in any way, they should've said: "Armed assault, from the developers of Operation flashpoint", or something like that, but i guess people (gamers) who don't know the whole story will get confused anyway...

Btw, does your friend have a permit for that M249

[oyman 0]

I think arma m249 is good, just needs the rails to be modeled which will add like 80 more faces if done right

[Scrub 0]

[OT]

Quote[/b] ]Kernriver Posted on April 29 2006,18:17

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Btw, does your friend have a permit for that M249  

Thought the same thing, but -> replicas

[/OT]

Thinking I'm not going to refer to OFP at all after ArmA's release.  It will all be relative to ArmA,  it will be my new unit of measure. Screw 1/10 of an inch, meter, angstrom... It's .5 ArmA, or at most .99 ArmA but nothing larger

(can you tell I worked all day out in the hot sun?   )

[HotShot 0]

I reckon its better if they dont refer to Flashpoint as people may just think its a rehash of an old game and wont be interested in it, where as if they think of it as a brand new game they might gvie it a chance.

Fans of Flashpoint will already know AA is a thunderballs version of Flashpoint anyway so dont need to publicise it for them (us).

On the M249, i reckon AA version looks better than GR one. GR m249 looks more like a Flame Thrower.

[DBR_ONIX 0]

I think arma m249 is good, just needs the rails to be modeled which will add like 80 more faces if done right

*Ahem*

http://www.answers.com/topic/nitpicking

(Erm, first definition)

- Ben

[Marco.A.Aguilar1 0]

I tried searching for this but I don't think searching helps me find the specific post. But is there any news on a VOIP feature?

[max power 21]

This is the replica he has:

http://steelhawkairsoft.com/ca249.html

It's all metal (except for the composite parts like on the real thing like the stalk and grip). It's actually very close to the weight of the real thing, if not slightly heavier.

And why would you want the para version? They issue the full length version to grunts for a reason. You take the para version, I'll be on the other side of the field with the full length heavy barrel version (in the game). Be sure to yell really loud when I'm filling you full of holes, because I'll be outranging you by quite a margin.

[dslyecxi 23]

And why would you want the para version? They issue the full length version to grunts for a reason. You take the para version, I'll be on the other side of the field with the full length heavy barrel version (in the game). Be sure to yell really loud when I'm filling you full of holes, because I'll be outranging you by quite a margin.

Seeing as how the M-249 SAW and the Para are the same basic weapons, firing the same ammo, just with different barrel lengths... oh, and considering that they're both MACHINEGUNS... someone with a SAW facing off against someone with a Para at any distance between say 100 and 500 meters would stand equal chances of killing each other. They're both light machineguns, anyway.

What gave you the impression that the SAW would somehow triumph over the Para in such a situation, anyway?

[max power 21]

Range, accuracy and controllability... also sustained fire rate due to the heavier, longer barrel heating up much less quickly than the para version. I doub this is modelled in the game, however.

Also, damage at all ranges with hits by the full length version will be slightly more than the damage done by the para version due to the m885 round's tendency to fragment at higher velocities.

[dslyecxi 23]

Range, accuracy and controllability... also sustained fire rate due to the heavier, longer barrel heating up much less quickly than the para version. I doub this is modelled in the game, however.

Also, damage at all ranges with hits by the full length version will be slightly more than the damage done by the para version due to the m885 round's tendency to fragment at higher velocities.

It's a light machinegun. The range/accuracy/control isn't going to change dramatically when you cut a few inches off of the barrel. The weapon is ineffective or only mildly effective well before the barrel's shortened length comes into play.

The only valid point there would be the "damage" being higher for a longer barrel at closer distances, but even then we're talking about maybe 20-40 yards of extra increased effectiveness. Maybe 50-75 if we're being extremely generous, and even then, unlike a rifle where you're only hitting the guy with a shot or so every time, an extremely easily controlled LMG like the 249 or Para is going to put a lot of rounds on target at your average engagement distance.

So, in short, you're exaggerating the difference between the two weapons. Congrats for knowing that the barrel is shorter and that M855 fragments at "high" velocities (above 2700fps, to be precise), but to jump to your other conclusions based on that is erroneous.

[bravo 6 0]

one of the really cool things about the HDR lighting we have in the game is that bright lights such as sunlight or explosions affect how well you can see the world around you, what that means in practical terms is that if you have the sun in your eyes, and you're about to ambush the enemy you put yourself at a disadvantage due to your decreased ability to see.

<ul>Link

hope when pilots have the visor on this effect mentioned wount happen and vice versa

[max power 21]

The difference in muzzle velocity between the minimi and the para is on the order of over 100 m/s.

There has been much discussion on the effectiveness of the m4 on desert terrain, given it's relatively poor terminal effectiveness.

YES, it's light machinegun. They are used to provide accurate firesupport to point AND area targets. Range, accuracy and controllability are very important. And this is still to say nothing about the issue of hot barrels. If the para version was teh hax0r in conventional military situations, they would chop all of the barrels off of every weapon they had.

[bravo 6 0]

Don't know if you guys seen the "plastic" ArmA movie (42.9mb) and the OFP elite movie, "Le Port" (85mb)

But my point is this:

I know we will have dynamic weather (trees/bushes moving depending on the speed of wind, aproaching of choppers..)

Its really nice to have grass moving with the wind and all.. but i think the grass is too big or something is not right there.

Maybe it needs to be changed somehow;

That moving grasses annoy me a bit and i believe it will annoy all regular players after a while.

As you can see in the movie Le Port (link above) there is almost no wind and the grass is always moving. The same think happens in "Plastic" ArmA (non official movie), the grass will "dance" all the time.

would be nice to control this movement of the grass or configurable it.

your toughts...

[dslyecxi 23]

There has been much discussion on the effectiveness of the m4 on desert terrain, given it's relatively poor terminal effectiveness.

YES, it's light machinegun. They are used to provide accurate firesupport to point AND area targets. Range, accuracy and controllability are very important. And this is still to say nothing about the issue of hot barrels. If the para version was teh hax0r in conventional military situations, they would chop all of the barrels off of every weapon they had.

By "desert terrain" I'm guessing you meant to say long-range engagements?

I'm quite familiar with the M-249 SAW, believe it or not. Not in the "Well, I read this in a book, and played a game once where it did blah-blah...", but rather in in the "I've fired them 'for real', and I ran a simulated range that had them featured" sense.

I'm not trying to get in a discussion over how various types of machineguns are used in various combat situations.. that's beside the point. My gripe is that you went and took something very small (minor difference in barrel length) and then tried to appear "weapon-wise" to another forumgoer by acting as if that minor difference would make you "triumph" in a theoretical SAW-vs-Para fight.

I'm calling you out on that. You can quit with the armchair-commando "But if the Para was the greatest thing ever, THEN EVERYONE WOULD USE IT, duh!" stuff whenever you'd like. It's irrelevant. You're acting as if the Para is noticeably inferior to the SAW, and the simple answer is... no, it's not, and it's certainly not in the way you said (implying that one would easily triumph over the other in a versus scenario).

[ralphwiggum 6]

please refrain from discussing firearm ballistics and stick to the thread's original discussion

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

So guys, now that multiple gunners has been confirmed... IS anyone gonna work on a B-17 flying fortress or a B-52?

Who wouldnt want to be 8 people flying in a massive plane like that having their own turret

Btw.

Did any1 see the new system requirements confirmed on http://www.armedassault.eu ?

[funnyguy1 0]

Yea, we should thank Placebo somehow, maybe we all should pm him with thanks...

I wonder if there will be any interview or update before the e3 from now...

[meyamoti 0]

Don't know if you guys seen the "plastic" ArmA movie (42.9mb) and the OFP elite movie, "Le Port" (85mb)

But my point is this:

I know we will have dynamic weather (trees/bushes moving depending on the speed of wind, aproaching of choppers..)

Its really nice to have grass moving with the wind and all.. but i think the grass is too big or something is not right there.

Maybe it needs to be changed somehow;

That moving grasses annoy me a bit and i believe it will annoy all regular players after a while.

As you can see in the movie Le Port (link above) there is almost no wind and the grass is always moving. The same think happens in "Plastic" ArmA (non official movie), the grass will "dance" all the time.

would be nice to control this movement of the grass or configurable it.

your toughts...

Too picky to worry about,and grass you see isn't always as short as in peoples lawns,it looks more natural being a bit long,and having the grass move in a bit of wind is better than having no movement at all or spending hours trying to code it,unless they do the weather controls again where the grass would lightly blow or in stormy weather,blow hard just like trees..hm..wonder if its also possible to add a flash in a general area when lightning strikes,if not,ah well. Although enviroment is great and all,weather was one of the contributing factors I liked alot about OFP,there was no "one type weather" bs.

[berghoff 11]

Heh, the grass here in the backyard is even bigger than that on screenshots o_.

[max power 21]

By "desert terrain" I'm guessing you meant to say long-range engagements?

I mean to say that the military scholars and ballistics experts cast some doubt on the terminal effectiveness of the m885 round fired from barrels less than 16 inches in length.

Quote[/b] ]

I'm quite familiar with the M-249 SAW, believe it or not. Not in the "Well, I read this in a book, and played a game once where it did blah-blah...", but rather in in the "I've fired them 'for real', and I ran a simulated range that had them featured" sense.

So you believe that this makes your knowledge superior to mine when we're talking about combat effectiveness? Uh huh.

Quote[/b] ]

I'm not trying to get in a discussion over how various types of machineguns are used in various combat situations.. that's beside the point. My gripe is that you went and took something very small (minor difference in barrel length) and then tried to appear "weapon-wise" to another forumgoer by acting as if that minor difference would make you "triumph" in a theoretical SAW-vs-Para fight.

I'm calling you out on that. You can quit with the armchair-commando "But if the Para was the greatest thing ever, THEN EVERYONE WOULD USE IT, duh!" stuff whenever you'd like. It's irrelevant. You're acting as if the Para is noticeably inferior to the SAW, and the simple answer is... no, it's not, and it's certainly not in the way you said (implying that one would easily triumph over the other in a versus scenario).

It is noticibly inferior to the SAW in terms of muzzle velocity, and the para is noticibly superior to the SAW in terms of ease of portability and probably handling in a CQB environment.

I'm relying here on the opinions of several primary sources. I'm not about to cite them all, but one such man is named Kevin Dockery. Do you believe that scholars must have to conduct every experiment that has ever been done in their field over the course of history in order to know anything about their respective field? Come on. Your opinion on this matter is no better than mine if all you've done with your machinegun is point it down range and pull the trigger on paper cut outs/burned out cars/watermelons.

I wasn't saying that the SAW is better in every scenario. I was saying that I think I could use the superior terminal performance to my advantage in a para vs. SAW fight. Obviously this scenario is idiotic, and I meant it as a passing comment to illustrate the strength of my preference based on what I know. You seem to be the only one holding on to it with both hands. If you wish to provide me with some evidence to support your theory that minute differences in performance don't make any difference in combat situations, you may PM me. Kthnx.

[toster 0]

hi,

Pitti have posted a Link here: http://www.bis-ingame.net/cmpro.e....e&id=53 *spam*

http://www.pcpowerplay.de/index2.html about ArmA in Bistudios. Its only in German sorry.

here the Screens----> http://www.1msd.com/simp....ba5a264

Thats a verry good report.

The newspaper gives to buy it on Wednesday in germany. Even if we already have the article, it is one must go.

btw: My PC cant boot, am just in another PC without Access data in my accounts.

Will try to reach somebody from our team, which a little bit zusammenfast. If there is still no summary. Today maybe you also have to do what the better.;)

bye