Latest screenshots available

[brataccas 0]

LOL I think there is multiple gunner, look at this

http://games.tiscali.cz/clanek....nga.jpg

the turret is on the right side in this pic and other pics has it on the left so maybe theres lots of UH-60 variants, with ones with left and right both?

[llauma 0]

LOL I think there is multiple gunner, look at this

http://games.tiscali.cz/clanek....nga.jpg

the turret is on the right side in this pic and other pics has it on the left so maybe theres lots of UH-60 variants, with ones with left and right both?

That's the left side as people have already pointed out.

[Colossus 2]

LOL I think there is multiple gunner, look at this

http://games.tiscali.cz/clanek....nga.jpg

the turret is on the right side in this pic and other pics has it on the left so maybe theres lots of UH-60 variants, with ones with left and right both?

The engine (which means the rotorblades also) is behind the MG so what you see here is the left side ..again..

[Heatseeker 0]

I understand what you are trying to say Kyle, but if it is already possible with VBS1 with a simple patch, I don't see why it shouldn't be possible even in OFP with a patch. But they stopped the OFP support long time ago and nobody expected them to add that.

They are making a whole new game here, it's not simple OFP extension as it used to be, if they are capable of editing the engine to allow for such a nice graphics, I can't possibly think that adding extra gunners and MiV is THAT hard, altough since I don't know s** about how it's done, I could be wrong.

Far has i know the multiple gunners thingy isnt available for VBS1 yet and with VBS2 under development its even possible that it never will be.

Armed Assault is not supposed to be a whole new game, its supposed to be a heavily upgraded version of OPF with several big engine improvements, a significant face lift and new content. Its likely to take advantage of the improvements and optimisations acomplished during the development of OPF:E for xbox.

Maybe Arma will have multiple gunner positions and maybe it wont, coming here crying about not seeing certain features in WIP pictures is indeed a bit childish (no ofense meant), and people bitching about WIP footage is usually why we dont get to see much about games during development stage.

People should get over it and apretiate the nice screens BIS have released for us, thats what this topic is about anyway .

[brataccas 0]

oops forget what I said then

[lockjaw-65- 0]

Looking really good, was at one point starting to think this would never happen. Been waiting for 2 years now so i think a few more months will be worth it. Thanks

[Sniperwolf572 758]

I understand what you are trying to say Kyle, but if it is already possible with VBS1 with a simple patch, I don't see why it shouldn't be possible even in OFP with a patch. But they stopped the OFP support long time ago and nobody expected them to add that.

They are making a whole new game here, it's not simple OFP extension as it used to be, if they are capable of editing the engine to allow for such a nice graphics, I can't possibly think that adding extra gunners and MiV is THAT hard, altough since I don't know s** about how it's done, I could be wrong.

Far has i know the multiple gunners thingy isnt available for VBS1 yet and with VBS2 under development its even possible that it never will be.

Armed Assault is not supposed to be a whole new game, its supposed to be a heavily upgraded version of OPF with several big engine improvements, a significant face lift and new content. Its likely to take advantage of the improvements and optimisations acomplished during the development of OPF:E for xbox.

Maybe Arma will have multiple gunner positions and maybe it wont, coming here crying about not seeing certain features in WIP pictures is indeed a bit childish (no ofense meant), and people bitching about WIP footage is usually why we dont get to see much about games during development stage.

People should get over it and apretiate the nice screens BIS have released for us, thats what this topic is about anyway .

I suppose you don't know me that well then, I'm not crying about the multi gunner positions, if Elite scripting is there, we probably will be able to do it ourselves even without the support.

I'm saying that they are keeping all the shiny stuff for people who pay them good money for it, I've seen trailers with shooting from vehicles, moving in vehicles and a screenshot with multi gunner positions, altough the screen was not that revealing.

I'm not bitching about it, I was wondering if this is what BIS is doing.

I am aware that ArmA is supposed to be an heavily upgraded version of OFP, but what are those "several big engine updates" you're talking about? I've seen no evidence of new scripting commands (except those from Elite), I've seen no new features that add to the gameplay or realism, all I've seen from screenshots are updated graphics, a shiny new model of Blackhawk, increased view distance, awesome new models of Russian tanks, updated models of soldiers and maybe some new anims.

The view distance is decreasing with each new screenshot (probably they just lowered it in the settings, no big fuss).

I'm even pleased with current OFP graphics, I'm not one of the Ritalin or Eye-candy addicts.

But yes, you are correct, this isn't the place to discuss it. Those are WIP pictures and they do not represent the final product.

EDIT:

Also I forgot to mention something ontopic. The colour pallete seems to have more vivid colors, and IMO is a bit stepping down from realism, the good-old OFP had that kind of "gray" atmosphere, what I would love to see screenshots of is night time, and a storm (rain?). I'm sure that they didn't leave that out, but so far most of the pics are taken during the sunny day.

[Heatseeker 0]

I'm saying that they are keeping all the shiny stuff for people who pay them good money for it, I've seen trailers with shooting from vehicles, moving in vehicles and a screenshot with multi gunner positions, altough the screen was not that revealing.

I'm not bitching about it, I was wondering if this is what BIS is doing.

I am aware that ArmA is supposed to be an heavily upgraded version of OFP, but what are those "several big engine updates" you're talking about?

Nah, saw OPF grow from 1.0 to 1.96, BIS will sell us the best product they can make and im positive that if a important feature can be fully implemented and improves the game significantly they will do their best to implement it.

Some of the "several big engine updates" are mentioned here, others are expected since they are available in OPF:E, such has the improved flight model, lighting, colision detection, damage model, etc. Other than that some surprises could be expected too..

Dont go judging the game based on what you can see in wip screenies, the game is under development and im sure BIS will want to surprise us closer to release .

[benreeper 0]

So EA and other companies do this already. They have 10kx10k game environments with hundreds of units all fighting at once.

GIVE ME A BREAK! I hope that Armed Assault has only one gun per vehicle then you all of that say BIS is behind the times can go back to those OTHER games. And insulting BIS doesn't help matters.

OFP sold over a million copies with almost no press because of the game it is. I would rather have them do what they can rather than what we want.

--Ben

[advocatexxx 0]

Let's not forget that EA tends to tailor to an audience of the lowest common denominator. Why? Quite simple actually. Most gaming audience wants "fun" in this medium. Fun meaning, fast-paced, action-packed adventure. The very same adjectives one might use to describe majority of today's hollywood flicks.

"Fun", in its broadest sense does not require much thought, logic or problem-solving (oh, dear lord, spare me Lara Croft!. And thus, titles like Battlefield 2 and such gain a large percentage of the gaming audience simply because they provide hours of easy, mind-numbing, frag-em-all-to hell, trigger pulling experience.

OFP and its sibling clones aim to capture the attention of "realists" (such as myself, dare I say). We long for realistic environments, bullet physics, the now infamous doppler effect, etc.

I personally fail to see how much adventageous it would be to have 2 gunners in a given vehicle instead of one. I am sure if it was within the capacity of the OFP gaming engine, BIS would have long since implemented it. And if not, big deal, nothing is perfect, and nothing ever will be. You can't expect everyone to be satisfied. Compare all that ArmA does have against other titles, and when you put the two in parallel, then I think "realists" such as us will naturally crown the winner with admiration.

If you ask me, I would say that the hype surrounding ArmA has inadvertently attracted some Battlefield 2 fans, who join message boards such as this, and moan about features which they-personally want to see, and lord, I stomp-my-foot, I shall cry until I get them!

You know what? I say to hell with it! Hell, I say remove the gunners all together! For I will rather drive a tank over an enemy squad than waste my precious depleted Uranium ammo on them!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Scrub 0]

Methinks his cup runneth over and down his throat one to many times this fine weekend

Well said.  

[Dynamax 0]

just because you dont see two miniguns on the UH60 doesnt mean that you wont have multigunner positions on vehicals.

most real world UH60's i'v seen only have one gunner.

im sure we wont be disapointed with arma, they have the ability to use your own weapon while riding in a vehical in VBS1, why wouldnt they include that in arma. have some fath.

[jakerod 254]

About destructable buildings. Look at the buildings in the pictures. They aren't all enterable. There would be no point in adding destructable features to it because you would be able to tell that it is just a cube with nothing inside. But then again maybe those are just place holder buildings or something.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Even if we confirmed that VBS1 can support multiple gunner positions, it doesn't mean it supports machineguns for tank commanders, since they are very different, as I stated before.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Blur in the BMP picture looks like the same depth of field blur seen in OFP:E. As I said, what you're looking directly at is most in focus in some views in OFP:E.

Destructible buildings is a feature in Soldner and in World War II Online (which has a map much more massive than OFP ever attempted), so I don't want to hear the Bravo Sierra arguments put forth by supposed OFP experts about what a hit it will be to performance. We're dealing with 3 Ghz systems as common-place, these days. ("Company of Heroes" is going to offer an insane level of ability to progressively destroy buildings.)

In the old days (pre-public demo for OFP:CWC), you could come to conclusions based on the screenshots B.I. released. Is it the same post-Codemasters? I dunno.

Multiple guns would not break the campaigns. OFP's A.I. is far too dynamic for that. The dynamic A.I. would break the campaigns long before an additional gunner position would. The commander's mgun is mostly useful for scraping sappers off of your tank, and I don't recall many sapper missions.

Did B.I. say in some official statement or in some preview that there would be multiple gun positions in ArmA? If they did, I would put my trust in that, and not in a screenshot.

As for multiple gun positions requiring some radical engine change, what do you think mid-game joining/join-in-progress requires? The community bitched at B.I. for JIP for ages, but was repeatedly told that it was nigh-impossible to patch into the old engine. ArmA is supposed to be a new engine from the ground up. No, they're not going to throw out code that works. They'll reuse it, so it'll look like the same game in some ways.

Anyone who has been in a Blackhawk in BF2 knows WHY multiple gunner positions is a necessary thing. You can barely get a pilot player to turn the doorway towards the enemy in flight, much less get him to land so that you can bring your only gun to bear on the ground troops.

We all know that no matter how much we ask for some things, at the end of the day B.I. does what they want. (Beretta 92 with a 10-shot mag?) We've seen this more than once. Most of us are still satisfied, even though the little flaws still annoy us.

I hope they code in multiple gun positions, destructible buildings, moving within vehicles, and missile-launching wheeled vehicles. B.I. coded OFP for upwards-scalability, so we hope that they will add features that might be better handled by tomorrow's systems.

You guys need to join us in Operation Flashpoint: Elite and heave great sighs of inner-peace when you gaze upon the Rainbow sometimes seen in the game. Except for occasionally having my avatar "possessed" by another player online, I garner immense satisfaction from playing this very polished version of OFP.

[llauma 0]

About destructable buildings. Look at the buildings in the pictures. They aren't all enterable. There would be no point in adding destructable features to it because you would be able to tell that it is just a cube with nothing inside. But then again maybe those are just place holder buildings or something.

I dont think that the buildings will be destructable. Just some key structures such as bridges, fuel stations etc. but it wont be like in Game2 which has a totally different physics engine (ODE).

I dont think BIS wants to put a too big effort on upgrading the current physics engine. So the only way we'll see some new advanced physics in ArmA is if they decide to use ODE. I doubt they will but it depends on many factors such as what the future publisher says and when the game will actually be released.

To get slightly back on topic: The new screenshots are great and I have no doubt that the game will be visually great, and I will probably enjoy it very much even with the flaws but it would be a shame if they would release a 'Ferrari with FIAT parts'.

[kegetys 2]

Blur in the BMP picture looks like the same depth of field blur seen in OFP:E.  As I said, what you're looking directly at is most in focus in some views in OFP:E.

I surely hope this is not true or the feature can be disabled (In Armed Assault), since there is no way for the game to know which part of the screen I am looking at.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

By "looking at" I mean what your cross-hairs are pointed at.

In OFP:E I don't believe you have that "hot-box" someone mentioned, where the cross-hairs move but the body does not.

Like I said, it seems to be only in some views. I believe it is in the iron-sights view, for example.

The blur has never been a problem in all of the many hours of playing OFP:E. In fact, I'd say that you rarely ever notice it. It seems to be most noticeable in screenshots.

[kegetys 2]

By "looking at" I mean what your cross-hairs are pointed at.

Yes, but that often is not the point I am looking at on the screen, and having the part I'm looking at be out of focus (even slightly) would most likely be very annoying. Having to move the crosshair all the time to where I'm looking at would be very clumbersome, and it would make me easier to detect as I would be moving around in the bush all the time.

[berghoff 11]

I've only seen the blur in cutscenes in OFPE or maybe it is just the heat rising from the ground =)

[codarl 1]

I hope somebody answers the question about heat haze sometime soon too, I haven't seen any in this gaming enviroment wich is obviously hot...

Also, parts of the asphalt turning into "water" in the distance would be awesome! , but very hard to code...

[kerosene 0]

Does anyone else think the firing from vehicles video in VBS looks a bit crap? If thats the best that can be done insude the engine you may as well leave it cause the AI probably wont able to use it.

I think being able to pivot in the proxy rather than walk around the cargo area is preferable, but mabye that can't be done?

I forsee tons of bitching when the game is realeased and angry forum posts with exclaimation marks. I think it will be good though, the fact it will take full advavntage of the newest hardware is a bonus itself if it means we can expect big, lag-free battles. (To me anyway.)

[StealthTiger 0]

By "looking at" I mean what your cross-hairs are pointed at.

Yes, but that often is not the point I am looking at on the screen, and having the part I'm looking at be out of focus (even slightly) would most likely be very annoying. Having to move the crosshair all the time to where I'm looking at would be very clumbersome, and it would make me easier to detect as I would be moving around in the bush all the time.

I agree with Keg to a point.

Less than full visual clarity across the screen would mean constant 'head turning'.. not necessarily waving your arms about though, as you don't 'have' to move the crosshair. Track IR anyone?

[sniperandy 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm saying that they are keeping all the shiny stuff for people who pay them good money for it, I've seen trailers with shooting from vehicles, moving in vehicles and a screenshot with multi gunner positions, altough the screen was not that revealing.

shooting from vehicles.

there was a thing that is called "convoy training module".

this is not available to the general VBS puplic so far.

(dont even know if the projec tis finished and the module is out for the mil customers.) so there is definatly no shooting from choppers or 5T trucks and no moving in vehicles or chinhooks.

also no multible gunner positions.

whatever screens you might have seen are not taken with official VBS modules available for sale.

====

I love the latest pics released @ tiscali.games and until infos are available about what is WIP and what not I am very happy with what BIS is working on...

[funnyguy1 0]

So in light of BIS's initiative to implement urban combat in their upcoming title, I certainly hope that they've revised (to some extent) the viewing and movement dynamics of soldier units.

Good point, I hope they took it under consideration...

Also, would be nice if the `extra` gunner on the vehicle, or even the mg gunner on a blackhawk has the ability to hide himself behind something or even fire blindly without seeing targets...

The gunner is always exposed, and doesn`t have the ability to hide...

Of course, there`s no need to hide, if there won`t be `extra` firing possitions...