Latest screenshots available

[rundll.exe 12]

Thx hurby!

Hmm, I definately need a new PC by then

My laptop with radeon 9000 64MB will be on its knees with ArmA

[berghoff 11]

Well what do you expect they only make 512mb cards now.

[D.murphy man 0]

Edit:Woops, replying to a post and i didnt relise i wasnt on the last page

[eisa01 0]

New shots up:

http://www.cgm.cz/obrazek/bmp2.jpg

http://www.cgm.cz/obrazek/aa_shot1.jpg

http://www.cgm.cz/obrazek/aa_shot2.jpg

http://www.cgm.cz/obrazek/aa_shot5.jpg

http://www.cgm.cz/obrazek/aa_shot6.jpg

[Danny252 0]

All ones I've seen before. The 6th is practically the oldest AA pic ever.

[FCOPZ-illuminator 0]

Yes *LoL* The oldest pics, realy...

[Scrub 0]

Hurby, Your title needs to read "Offical ArmA Translator" or something.

Thanks

-If the AI is not at an advantage they don't draw attention-

Sweeet....

Lets hope they recognise that the pics are old and actually put up new ones.

[aus_twisted 0]

The lighting looks pretty good to me, military vehicles use non reflective materials with a flat coated paint obviously, but even still the brightness of the sun will cause some reflection on the vehicle.

Look at the sun reflection on this F-15C I took at last years Australian International Airshow, do you think they paint those in a gloss finish? lol

http://members.optushome.com.au/twisted1/2005_aus_airshow/100_1749.jpg

Another good example of sun reflecting on a F-111 - http://members.optushome.com.au/twisted1/2005_aus_airshow/100_1838.jpg

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

You will not find armour that makes such lightning.

For example, check this leopard 2:

Armour, opposit of air, is designed minimum light as possible. Planes do not shine on its stomach either.

Would also be cooler to see a more "Dirty" look on the armour... They shouldnt look totally new and washed as they mostly did on OFP.

[Jezz 0]

Yeah im with you mate, tanks arnt exactly shiny unless there straight from the factory or a musem peice. If i remember correctly kenji once told me awhile ago the russians had a tendency on there tanks when they repainted them to just paint over the previous paint without striping it off, this combined with a thick base of anti rust paint led to quite a mat finish after years in the field + an extra 2cm of paint armour

a non shiny finish t-72

[robert(uk) 0]

'Partnership with Codemasters was ended by both-side agreement, so we will release Armed Assault with another publisher.'

Ah well, at least we know that one crappy publisher is out of the picture then...  

[hoot 0]

[...]it's not like BIS will release a program ''Normal_Map-IT!''[...]

ehm: http://www.ati.com/develop....ns.html ...would help

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

The only thing that would cause this would be cloud cover and i can't see them implementing that.

Keep in mind that OFP:Elite has reported cloud shadows.

Uziyahu-IDF, I believe, has reported it in his surprisingly low-bias review

Edit:"Daylight strengthens and wanes as the sun plays hide-and-seek in the clouds above. (Yes, the clouds are not just a texture on the ceiling of a "Truman Show" sound stage.)"

So keep dreaming the good dreams.

I may need to reword that.

You'll see the lighting strengthen and wane in an extremely convincing way when there are some clouds in the sky, and you'll know from personal experience that clouds cause this, but I haven't seen cloud shadows moving across the ground. (That would be REALLY cool!

I wanted to point out in the review that there were actual cloud objects in the sky, not just a texture slapped on the ceiling of a skybox.

The two statements, taken together, make it seem like the clouds cast shadows that you can see move across the ground.

I'll have to actually look at the sun to see if the dimming light happens in exact unison with a cloud covering the sun.

You'll see. It is very realistic and pleasing. Someone (was it Placebo?) said that the new lighting and environmental effects in OFP:E are meant to be so subtle as to be hard to notice when they have taken place. I agree with that, though sometimes this "nature" impresses you with naturally spectacular views, like the moon setting on the horizon, with its light reflecting in the waves of the ocean.

Personally, if ArmA's lighting isn't as good as OFP:E's, I'm going to be a bit disappointed. I've grown dependent on it.

If I could see OFP:E with even 2X FSAA or twice the resolution, I would be extremely happy.

My "biased" review covers many of the game's real negatives and seeks to refute the host of baloney negatives that flabbergastingly biased reviews against the game put forth. I'll add more to the review as I think of it.

[Scrub 0]

Actually 'I' may need to reword that.  Upon reading it through again, there are no words that even describe the concept of a shadow on the ground.  Just the relative strength of the lighting.  So, sorry about moving the context and labeling you with that.  

(hopes taking place of reality  )

The end of 1st quarter is closing in - not fast enough - but it is..

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

No, no, really, I think the fault was mine. I should have had some kind of transitional word there.

I'm really curious, now, whether the lighting dims at the very same time a cloud covers the sun. I don't tend to test out these sort of things, just enjoy them.

Would it be fair to conclude that IF the lighting dims when a cloud covers the sun that it is casting a shadow, even if we can't see it move across the ground? The way it happens isn't abrupt, so in that sense I guess you could call it a "soft shadow".

From what I've seen in games, though, real-time shadows can really bog a system down. Still, OFP:E does have some real-time shadows that OFP didn't have before. Like in that new M113 pic, where the barrel's shadow is on the top of the BMP hull. That wasn't in OFP before, was it?

[Scrub 0]

Quote[/b] ]Uziyahu--IDF Posted on Feb. 28 2006,12:48

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

No, no, really, I think the fault was mine. I should have had some kind of transitional word there.

Alright, if you really want it, you can have the blame.

Would you be interested in doing some sun recon and reporting your findings? I'm a bit interested as well.

[Skulleye 0]

Still, OFP:E does have some real-time shadows that OFP didn't have before.  Like in that new M113 pic, where the barrel's shadow is on the top of the BMP hull.  That wasn't in OFP before, was it?

Isn't the new thing with Elite and Armed Assault that shadows are cast on models too and not only on the terrain? At least that's what I've got from all the pictures I've looked at.

[Kaitnieks 0]

Well after seeing all these reviews from various magazines and the review on OFP.info now I gave all my hope up on ARMA, I had allot of hopes.

But I'm just letting it slip, all ARMA is now is a simple stupid graphich engine update, and some improved models and such, well wake up BIS I don't want no fancy graphics, I want options over eyecandy, I want a proper working engine with every bug from OFP1 straightend out.

Sorry BIS.

[JdB 151]

Edit: Please delete

[berghoff 11]

Quote[/b] ]But I'm just letting it slip, all ARMA is now is a simple stupid graphich engine update, and some improved models and such, well wake up BIS I don't want no fancy graphics, I want options over eyecandy, I want a proper working engine with every bug from OFP1 straightend out.

Read again. BIS = options over eyecandy, they even told it in the ofp.info interview.

Quote[/b] ]We are not afraid of this kind of reaction, because there is so much that is new concerning features of gameplay, not just new graphical effects.

[Kaitnieks 0]

Quote[/b] ]But I'm just letting it slip, all ARMA is now is a simple stupid graphich engine update, and some improved models and such, well wake up BIS I don't want no fancy graphics, I want options over eyecandy, I want a proper working engine with every bug from OFP1 straightend out.

Read again. BIS = options over eyecandy, they even told it in the ofp.info interview.

Quote[/b] ]We are not afraid of this kind of reaction, because there is so much that is new concerning features of gameplay, not just new graphical effects.

 

Well don't get me wrong, but I must've missreaded the interview on OFP.info, because I didn't saw any thing about new engine additions other then eye candy, they even answered allot of questions about engine additions with "NO".

Like swimming, and what about the use of dual weapons on vehicles and such? Why can't BIS implent those things? Can't they code it, or are they afraid if they implent it none wants to buy 'Game 2' because of the lack of updates then?

[klavan 0]

....or are they afraid if they implent it none wants to buy 'Game 2' because of the lack of updates then?

I think you've got the point here.

[Adamicz 3]

....or are they afraid if they implent it none wants to buy 'Game 2' because of the lack of updates then?

I think you've got the point here.

Come on... Game 2 will be revolution in military sim and couple of update in ArmA can't endanger this game.

[armandobronca 0]

Quote[/b] ]But I'm just letting it slip, all ARMA is now is a simple stupid graphich engine update, and some improved models and such, well wake up BIS I don't want no fancy graphics, I want options over eyecandy, I want a proper working engine with every bug from OFP1 straightend out.

Read again. BIS = options over eyecandy, they even told it in the ofp.info interview.

Quote[/b] ]We are not afraid of this kind of reaction, because there is so much that is new concerning features of gameplay, not just new graphical effects.

Well don't get me wrong, but I must've missreaded the interview on OFP.info, because I didn't saw any thing about new engine additions other then eye candy, they even answered allot of questions about engine additions with "NO".

Like swimming, and what about the use of dual weapons on vehicles and such? Why can't BIS implent those things? Can't they code it, or are they afraid if they implent it none wants to buy 'Game 2' because of the lack of updates then?

Quote[/b] ]Q: Are you afraid that the online and print gaming press could give a bad review to ArmA if they perceive it as being too close a game to the original Flashpoint in terms of features and such? Might they consider it merely a "graphically refreshed" Flashpoint?

A (J.R): We are not afraid of this kind of reaction, because there is so much that is new concerning features of gameplay, not just new graphical effects.

I believe in bis.

I think they just dont want to tell us all the new features, and keep the secret until the release.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

....or are they afraid if they implent it none wants to buy 'Game 2' because of the lack of updates then?

I think you've got the point here.

Game2 will have dynamically destroyable buildings (it's already in the game as shown at the E3) and lots and lots of other stuff i can't be bothered to look up on my oldass 56kmodem... go read up on the subject in the game2 forum.