ArmA Progress Updates

[rekrul 7]

Under copyright laws etc Codemasters technically own Operation Flashpoint (the name, the game lock-stock and however many smoking barrels) for something like 75 years after publishing (I'm sure one of the copyright officionado's will correct me here)

So whether BIS wanted to or not, they couldnt release it as freeware, as it isnt theirs to release.

Hmmm, ok. I thought BIS owned the rights to game and used Codemasters to distribute it. And the deal with Codemasters lasted only for 5 years.

Well thought isn't the right word. Hoped was more like it.

[dm 9]

As I understand, BIS owns the engine, and thats about it. Codies own the rights to everything else. Tho I'm a little hazy on the content (models/textures) but the voice acting, logos, names and everything else belongs to codies.

[berghoff 11]

Ofcourse the models/textures etc are owned by BIS as they made it ._o I think only the name and stuff is owned by Codies.

[judge&jury 0]

My apologies, I guess I wasn't clear enough. While BIS has given many interviews, and I commend them for that, they rarely give any new information. Sure, it's great to hear about the design philosophy of the BIS team, and that they're creating "games for life", but to be honest we've heard it all before. Take the new Lituanian interview, for instance. The only new piece of information in that interview was that they're improving the AI, something we essentially knew already (did anyone actually figure out what "FSM based modular AI system" means?). There are plenty of genuine concerns about the game that have simply gone unanswered. Do they plan to improve the vehicle system? How about the physics? These fundamental questions may only require simple answers about some ideas they want to implement. Unfortunately, since we don't know what to expect in Armed Assault, some of us are beginning to question why we cheered it along in the first place. Sure, BIS created an awesome first title, but then again most hollywood sequels suck. Last time I checked, X Y and Z were still pretty important.

I also understand that BIS, for business related, strategic or technical reasons, may not wish to answer questions at this time. Making promises you can't keep, I'm sure, can be a fatal mistake in such a community-orriented industry. Also, given the problems they're having with publishers, I suppose it's difficult for them to commit to a certain development timeframe. But the unfortunate result of this veil of secrecy is a restless, curious and speculative community. You can't have your cake and eat it too, it seems.

That says nothing about the effect that locking has on community discussion. Several weeks ago, someone posted a thread about creating a Vietnam mod, which was promptly locked because the mods simply thought it was "lame". I couldn't possibly think of a more harmful way to moderate such a creative community. I wouldn't really know since I'm not a mod maker, but I guess they need a lot of time to discuss the ideas and themes of their mods. After all, what else should we do while waiting for the release? Perhaps this calls for a mod forum for Armed Assault. Another quick glance at the "Anybody else see this" thread reveals that we're not to mention the surprise and Armed Assault in the same breath. If indeed this is the case, then I apologise to the mods for my earlier post.

Regarding Flashnews and mod releases, it's possible that you're right. Besides, I was never really expecting much from this surprise. Peoples' expectations are getting blown out of proportion, what with all the recent speculation. We need to keep it cool, and hope that BIS will be a little more open with us in the future

[armandobronca 0]

I havent seen a closed thread without a good reason.

Check that Vietnam Thread again

About an Arma Mod forum, Placebo said

Quote[/b] ]

Although I'm currently toying with the idea of adding an "ArmA:Community" subforum which would essentially be a temporary "ArmA squads & fanpages" and "ArmA addons & mod:discussion" (with all ArmA general stuff remaining where it is).

"Peoples' expectations are getting blown out of proportion"

I think the same. I have no idea about whats coming with flashnews 100 but i dont think it will be something big.

[Ukraineboy 0]

Another quick glance at the "Anybody else see this" thread reveals that we're not to mention the surprise and Armed Assault in the same breath.

It was closed because:

1.)The Surprise has nothing to do with Armed Assault, thus the post was offtopic

2.)There was already plenty of discussion about the surprise

3.)Retarded title. You're not allowed to make titles like "wow!" or "OMG! come see this!". Vague titles are a no no.

[Scrub 0]

Ah well, back to the topic.

After reviewing the 'latest' ArmA screenies (still old AFAIK) and previews of this WIP there is IMHO currently:

The Good-

Models, terrain, cities, grass, vegetation of all types, driving (on the side, and ground effects), water and smoke effects, quantity of units available/possible in a mission, view distance, projectile kinetics / material properties (even coarse differences), wildlife and ambiance.

The Bad-

The current set of voices (Latest are choppy), driving (maybe player induced collisions), AI (one previewers opinion, and yes I know they are attempting great things with it).

And The Ugly (read: unknown)-

Flight controls- some said too easy, some said too hard.. Is this the sweet-spot?  

Building interiors - Has been written many are enterable, but seemingly not too many by the time of the released E3 demo?

Many things have improved, and many complaints have dissappered in the last 4 months. I would bet the so called current info is a bit old at this pace of progress.  So overall, Good job BIS!  

[NeMeSiS 11]

My apologies, I guess I wasn't clear enough.  While BIS has given many interviews, and I commend them for that, they rarely give any new information.

Actually, they give us a nice amount of info, and also stuff we are asking for, for instance, some weeks ago people wondered if the artillery was just spawned bombs or real artillery units, and in the latest interview we got info about that. When people wondered if there would be a hind in ArmA we got a screen of one in an interview, etc etc

[martinovic 0]

Quote[/b] ]When people wondered if there would be a hind in ArmA we got a screen of one in an interview,

Supply me with said screenshot please.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Quote[/b] ]When people wondered if there would be a hind in ArmA we got a screen of one in an interview,

Supply me with said screenshot please.

Cant

1. Too lazy

2. It might have been a mi17, or a mi24, i dont know

[armandobronca 0]

Quote[/b] ]When people wondered if there would be a hind in ArmA we got a screen of one in an interview,

Supply me with said screenshot please.

This one?

[Adamicz 3]

Quote[/b] ]When people wondered if there would be a hind in ArmA we got a screen of one in an interview,

Supply me with said screenshot please.

This one?

Yeah, that really looks like a Hind

[martinovic 0]

That's an mi-17:

http://www.airventure.de/gatowpics/Mi-8-01-93+14.jpg

Hind (mi-24):

http://perso.orange.fr/aeromil-yf/MI24%20au%20decollage.jpg

[Scrub 0]

If I remember correctly, there was one in an early vid

doing paradrops.

[Ukraineboy 0]

If I remember correctly, there was one in an early vid

doing paradrops.

Yes, the Russian preview.

[meyamoti 0]

A Hind is not a Hip :P. But no,we have not seen any Mi-24 other than the very first video's,which of course were extremely early,the guns were present yes,but animations and character models were exactly like OFP:E aka placeholders. There are many questions unanswered yes,one would be why we see so little of the Russian forces. I have a few theories on this,keep in mind theories are not facts.

1. They are reworking the vehicles,I highly doubt that the North would have only T-72's,BMP-2's,Mi-17's,UAZ's,Ural's,ZSU-23 and the BTR. (BTR-60 I think...I know it has no turret.)

It leaves many gaps,where is the North's heavy battle tank,such as a T-80,their 'attack helicopter' Mi-17 can't carry AT missiles last I checked.

2. The vehicles are there,but they are being kept hidden,we have seen alot of US stuff right? Well the US stuff was apparently worked on first,and our little informant,William Porter whom provided some images that didn't match the timeline,was on the US side,so its natural we don't get any images of the Northen base. And what of the South Sarhani's? Is a simple repainted Ural all they have? I would tend to think not,so many things don't match up and so many questions remain.

If you guys remember back to the images of the UH-60's released by William Porter but then taken down later because of his "base commander" then you would remember the problem with the rotors. For those of you not familiar,there was a bug or misdefining of some sort that caused the rotor blur to show up with the rotors while the rotors were not moving,you might notice the same issue in the picture with the Mi-17.

Further more there was the mysterious image of Sahrani on google earth,no coordinates were given so nobody else could find it. Could it be a hoax? A photoshopped image? Seems like a pretty big hassle to do it,and whoever did it seems to have a good idea of how the island would look. Yes we were given an image of Sahrani but only in terms of its topography,showing land height and few features. And what of the blur to the north,why would that be there? My guess is that, IF it is valid,then it may be a possibility of the Northern base,but nobody other than BIS nows this for sure.

My speculations are not facts,they may be but I wouldn't take them to heart,but too many things are misplaced here and don't add up.

We have two US Marine vehicles,AH-1Z and Stryker,the super cobra equipped with AIM-9's and AGM-114's,in its current state,the north has no helicopter or AA system to really go against it. Yes they have a Shilka but even that is more limited.

Then we have southern Sahrani,using older US equipment,in terms of weaponry such as rifles we have seen a mix,vehicles we have only seen a repainted ural,but heres where it doesn't add up.

There are M11-3's and Vulcans,both of which would be outdated and not used by the more modern using US forces in the game,they have to be hiding some things there. In terms of vehicle classes,power and balance,the game other than infantry does not work well together,so yes,I believe there are things kept from us,and I can respect that.

As for the suprise,Placebo's words kind of make me wonder...He didn't necessarily say the suprise has "absolutely nothing" to do with Armed Assault,he said. "It is not 'specificly' related",a carefully worded statement,do not get your hopes up,but don't be too oblivious.

[Ukraineboy 0]

which of course were extremely early,the guns were present yes,but animations and character models were exactly like OFP:E aka placeholders.

Why would they have an Mi-24 placeholder if they didn't intend to have an mi-24 in the final game? Do you understand the word PLACEHOLDER? I.E. it holds a place.

Also there is absolutely, positively no reason the Mi-24 wont be in game! None whatsoever. It isn't a rare helicopter at all, and it will be in the game, 99% sure.

[armandobronca 0]

I believe there are things kept from us,and I can respect that.

As for the suprise,Placebo's words kind of make me wonder...He didn't necessarily say the suprise has "absolutely nothing" to do with Armed Assault,he said. "It is not 'specificly' related",a carefully worded statement,do not get your hopes up,but don't be too oblivious.

I think ur right. They are hiding a lot.

Arma related: wiki

Not arma related: no idea

[Scrub 0]

Well, to be honest, it WAS an early build. Seemed to be OFP's engine touched up a bit, with the original units. With the north having such a numeric advantage, it might be unstopable with many 24's. So I see his point saying it's a placeholder, might have a lot of Hips instead for troop transport and shock effect, as we have not seen a Hind recently. I do hope there is one though, there would be something missing without it.

[BWFSabian 0]

To be honest, I'm exhausted, along with many of you fellas and a host of others, waiting for the sequel...  Maybe it's my cynical mind or the pint and a half of Smurff but I'm starting to think that lack of full disclosure hints at in-game issues.. BIS have been talking about publishers and thier security issues with Codemasters, but even though they say they would be ready in June 2006 (Q2), they have the felt need to shift that back to November 2006 (Q4).. I realise that I have no idea about the complexities of forming such a detailed and intricate work such as is Operation Flashpoint, but I have a calender on my wall which conveys, along with the various nefarious legal corruptions of womanhood, the dates which are fairly fixed on the Julian measurement of time.. (Except for an African country where it is still 1982...)

I just wish that I could find some steadfast and solid date to treat as my target in this.. It's been five years since the release and a lot of us dedicated ourselves to the concept straight away.. It would be a shame if the continual retreat stopped anyone beleiving in the rebirth of what must be one of the best PC/Xbox/PS2 games ever developed..

BWFSabian

British Weed Freaks

UK.

[RMATICH 0]

So that I don't have to go and read endless posts on this thread please tell me where AmedA stands right now. Do we have a publisher? Thats what I'm worried about is that they don't have a publisher yet. Are there legal issues with Codemasters or somthing?

[meyamoti 0]

which of course were extremely early,the guns were present yes,but animations and character models were exactly like OFP:E aka placeholders.

Why would they have an Mi-24 placeholder if they didn't intend to have an mi-24 in the final game? Do you understand the word PLACEHOLDER? I.E. it holds a place.

Also there is absolutely, positively no reason the Mi-24 wont be in game! None whatsoever. It isn't a rare helicopter at all, and it will be in the game, 99% sure.

I meant place holder as in holding a place until they get a new one.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Further more there was the mysterious image of Sahrani on google earth,no coordinates were given so nobody else could find it. Could it be a hoax? A photoshopped image? Seems like a pretty big hassle to do it,and whoever did it seems to have a good idea of how the island would look. Yes we were given an image of Sahrani but only in terms of its topography,showing land height and few features. And what of the blur to the north,why would that be there? My guess is that, IF it is valid,then it may be a possibility of the Northern base,but nobody other than BIS nows this for sure.

My speculations are not facts,they may be but I wouldn't take them to heart,but too many things are misplaced here and don't add up.

We have two US Marine vehicles,AH-1Z and Stryker,the super cobra equipped with AIM-9's and AGM-114's,in its current state,the north has no helicopter or AA system to really go against it. Yes they have a Shilka but even that is more limited.

Then we have southern Sahrani,using older US equipment,in terms of weaponry such as rifles we have seen a mix,vehicles we have only seen a repainted ural,but heres where it doesn't add up.

There are M11-3's and Vulcans,both of which would be outdated and not used by the more modern using US forces in the game,they have to be hiding some things there. In terms of vehicle classes,power and balance,the game other than infantry does not work well together,so yes,I believe there are things kept from us,and I can respect that.

As for the suprise,Placebo's words kind of make me wonder...He didn't necessarily say the suprise has "absolutely nothing" to do with Armed Assault,he said. "It is not 'specificly' related",a carefully worded statement,do not get your hopes up,but don't be too oblivious.

Yes it was photoshopped.

Infact it wasn't BIS who made it, but someone from our community. Sorry, I cannot recall his name right from the back of my head, help anyone?

[Cifu 0]

T-72's,BMP-2's,Mi-17's,UAZ's,Ural's,ZSU-23 and the BTR. (BTR-60 I think...I know it has no turret.)

Thats not BTR, but BRDM-2.

Quote[/b] ]We have two US Marine vehicles,AH-1Z and Stryker...

The Stryker is an US ARMY vehicle. The USMC use LAV series armoured transports and AAVP7A1 Assault Amphibian Vehicle.

[GBee 0]

Infact it wasn't BIS who made it, but someone from our community. Sorry, I cannot recall his name right from the back of my head, help anyone?

Are you absolutely sure about that? The faked google earth image had far more detail than the original Porter map, much of that extra detail has since proved to be accurate and reflected in in-game shots. The inlets on the south coast for example.