ArmA Progress Updates

[Commando84 0]

i hope they won't restrict the rolling movement to much, i would like to roll if i have a small At weapon on my back , but im not sure how it would be rolling with a at weapon in my hands

[andersson 285]

Its easier to roll with a small AT-weapon in your hands then on your back. My experience.

But for me, BIS is free to restrict rolling when you have a secondary weapon (heavy machineguns takes up both slots in ofp, maybe its ok to also restrict them?)

Anyway, its up to BIS to decide.

[Maddmatt 1]

I don't think it's really important to bother restricting rolling with an AT weapon, as it would be possible (yet uncomfortable) to do it in real life. Maybe not with a Javelin though

[Kirq 0]

It would be realy nice if they could restric that rolling with heavy equipment but to be honest i wouldnt noticed that if you Guys didnt point me that "problem". So this is not my no1 feature to add

[Stendac 0]

It would be realy nice if they could restric that rolling with heavy equipment but to be honest i wouldnt noticed that if you Guys didnt point me that "problem". So this is not my no1 feature to add

It's not very important, but you would certainly notice it while looking at your soldier in 3rd person.  

The targeting laser and javelin seen carried by the soldiers in screenshots are so big and bulky that it would have to look awkard while rolling.  At any rate, you would not roll around with this stuff on your back in real life.  It would be so difficult and take so long that it would defeat the purpose of rolling in the first place. Better stick to scrambling on all fours.

[Heatseeker 0]

I cant believe someone actually sugested that BIS should swap building models and cover it up with smoke to simulate building destruction, please... .

[MAA3057 0]

I cant believe someone actually sugested that BIS should swap building models and cover it up with smoke to simulate building destruction, please... .

Not to be rude, but that sounds like a joke.

[esti_the_big 0]

Whats so bad about swapping damaged buildin models? Like someone already menioned, a similiar system was used in delta force and comanche series and looked pretty good there actually. If they can't implent true dynamic destruction then at least that alternative. looks better than crumpled cardboard house.

[max power 21]

They were working on this exact thing for VBS 1, if my memory serves me correctly.

[Maddmatt 1]

I cant believe someone actually sugested that BIS should swap building models and cover it up with smoke to simulate building destruction, please... .

It beats crumpling like paper or leaving them indestructible, I don't see the problem.

[ebns72 0]

I cant believe someone actually sugested that BIS should swap building models and cover it up with smoke to simulate building destruction, please... .

Why is this a bad thing...?

Would you rather have them sink into the ground to form 1 ft tall rubble like an nuke just landed on top of it?

[Heatseeker 0]

I cant believe someone actually sugested that BIS should swap building models and cover it up with smoke to simulate building destruction, please... .

It beats crumpling like paper or leaving them indestructible, I don't see the problem.

I would rather have indestructible buildings than seeing the models swap. i remember the structures falling appart in comanche, i dont think they swaped but dont say the model swap in DF looked pretty good, it was plain horrible.

Lets put the cheap stuff aside, the building colapse trailer looks better than that, just needs some parts/walls left and to be slower and its almost perfect, tbh i dont really expect every building in a large town to be destructible.

Even addons that deletevehicle and are replaced with damaged models are too noticeable, never liked it..

And theres too much taking on this, i'll be happy to have solid walls and better colision .

[Journeyman 0]

I cant believe someone actually sugested that BIS should swap building models and cover it up with smoke to simulate building destruction, please... .

It beats crumpling like paper or leaving them indestructible, I don't see the problem.

I would rather have indestructible buildings than seeing the models swap. i remember the structures falling appart in comanche, i dont think they swaped but dont say the model swap in DF looked pretty good, it was plain horrible.

Lets put the cheap stuff aside, the building colapse trailer looks better than that, just needs some parts/walls left and to be slower and its almost perfect, tbh i dont really expect every building in a large town to be destructible.

Even addons that deletevehicle and are replaced with damaged models are too noticeable, never liked it..

And theres too much taking on this, i'll be happy to have solid walls and better colision .

Na!! ... Just think of the fun you will have levelling a city!  

[Maddmatt 1]

Even addons that deletevehicle and are replaced with damaged models are too noticeable, never liked it..

That's just because they are done badly, they don't cover it properly and you can sometimes see both models at once for a short time. And now you say ArmA destruction looks fine? Make up your mind

[dmitri 0]

Close up, its an obvious compromise\design decision. But from far away, I think it'll will look quite good (actually seeing the buildings in a town being leveled - till nothing is left standing).

I didn't like OFP's distorted "destroyed" buildings - they're clipping traps.

[Heatseeker 0]

Even addons that deletevehicle and are replaced with damaged models are too noticeable, never liked it..

That's just because they are done badly, they don't cover it properly and you can sometimes see both models at once for a short time.

Its not that... i've seen very good scripting used to achieve this on vehicles but it still feels fake since you can easily tell that something was deleted and something was spawned out of nowhere. This was with small vehicles, imagine the horror if it was used on large buildings and structures (like Lipany town hall or a huge hangar).

Quote[/b] ]And now you say ArmA destruction looks fine? Make up your mind

When did i say otherwise? What i say is that it needs some work but its definetly better than something like deletebuilding and createbuilding this... if they slow down the colapsing and add more debris and some remaining walls it will look damn fine .

edit: Remember that BIS are the pro's, i doubt they will use bad workarounds in Arma.

[zigzag 0]

if i know BIS right they have already fixed this thing and it works and looks beautyful

[Ukraineboy 0]

I love the swapping models idea. I.E. it falls but it isn't completely destroyed, there's some of the structure still there. Maybe even make interim models for half-damaged etc.

[Scrub 0]

That is a good alternate destruction method, just remember that the other side of the forums will come in with the "hey, why did the other side of the house get the huge hole? I shot it on this side" type argument. Lets just face it. Not everybody will be happy until dynamic destruction is in... and then there will still be a crowd that doesn't like something about that...

[max power 21]

I'm not entirely sure what the argument against swapping models is all about. Currently, they swap models. They swap a building that they animate sinking into the ground for a pile of rubble.

I don't believe that dynamic destruction WOULD please this camp. Any building you have on the battlefield that's made up of any meaningfully sized atoms, especially from what I see in Sarahni, would seriously hit the performance. Then we'd get all kinds of whining about how urban ops are totally impossible to play. The sensible thing to do is not have the buildings pre-destroyed, but have them intact and replaced with models as they get destroyed.. be it in different stages of destruction, a totally destroyed model, or dynamically by replacing building parts.

I would like to see a system where you can conduct joint urban ops realistically... that is, you can blast open a wall with a recoilless rifle or a tank and then move through the holes. I'm not going to hold my breath and stomp my feet until I see it, though. The sense I get from this community these days is that we are increasingly unable to see the forest through the trees. I, personally, am glad that BIS doesn't hang on every stupid thing that comes out of our mouths. One of the biggest flaws in the STALKER project was that there was too much community participation. Let's leave some decisions for the experts who actually know what kind of comprimizes they need to make.

On a serious note, I cannot really bring myself to come to these forums as often as I used to because I'm sick of reading all of the whining. Please stop it.

[Rg 0]

The sensible thing to do is not have the buildings pre-destroyed, but have them intact and replaced with models as they get destroyed.. be it in different stages of destruction, a totally destroyed model, or dynamically by replacing building parts.

Thats really interesting and it does seem doable.

[GimpyBassturd 0]

Funny ,,,, the crumpled up cardboard buildings still beat the hell out of the indestructable buildings in BF1942 and BF2

[SHWiiNG 0]

thats true, what about AOE 3... they system is good, basically you see a connon bal or something go into (out back out) a building and shards of the builting or ship are spread throughout the surrounding area, and the model is replaced by an increasingly more damages model (at least i think thats how it works/.

heres the link to a you tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX06sodvkiI

[max power 21]

The sensible thing to do is not have the buildings pre-destroyed, but have them intact and replaced with models as they get destroyed.. be it in different stages of destruction, a totally destroyed model, or dynamically by replacing building parts.

Thats really interesting and it does seem doable.

Yes, but unfortunately, in order to do the latter, you either have to have an incredible library of models and model parts... mulitplying the number of models per actual building.

Ie, if you want to destroy the buildings one half at a time, you need 5 models. An intact building, two intact halves and 2 destroyed halves. Imagine how many models you would need if you wanted to divide the building into 3 along the x axis, 3 along the y and 2 along the z for a 2 story building? No, you would need more than what you think, because you don't want the building to divide into 18 parts if the corner is hit. You'll want to make the minimum number of divides, meaning that you'll want the largest chunks possible. Everytime you divide into another level of complexity, you have to model every step along the way.

Or you would need procedurally generated content- meaning that the game engine would make slices and cuts and rearrange polies, giving the engine the power of a program like 3ds max. BUT, even the 3ds max procedures for binary operations and that sort of thing is completely flawed, and rarely works properly, especially for complex shapes.

Dynamically destroyed buildings in a real time world are really what is the cusp of what is possible in terms of man-hours, the capability of modern 3d algorythms, and hardware technology.

Given their track record of excellence, BIS will choose the the method that gives them the best balance between visuals, gameplay and performance in their present and future projects.

editted for clarity.

[bravo 6 0]

-Will there be a demo?

Yes, two. First, we'll get a multiplayer demo, then short before release a singleplayer demo. Exact dates aren't specified as of now. They are planned to be released <span style='color:red'>before the actual game.</span>

Does this info still remains or will there be any changes to the main plans?

There's only 19 days left.