Latest screenshots available

[sanctuary 19]

if ArmA is going to center around urban combat, then i wonder what revisions has BIS made to the overall movement/view dynamics.

As I know, OFP has a "hotbox" in the center of the screen which allows a player to move the targeting cursor without changing the view. It's only when the player moves their targeting cursor outside of this invisible hotbox in the center of the screen that one can shift their view to the side, up, down, etc.

The problem I envision is that in close-combat urban environment, one needs to look around much faster. In Resistance, playing in the big towns, the current dynamics of viewing have certainly shown their weakpoint.. Games like Ghost Recon, etc. certainly excel in urban combat, because the player has a lot "faster" way of moving about, hiding behind corner, etc. Current Flashpoint engine simply does not work that well.

The "free aiming zone" system is not a problem in my opinion, it is an usefull and realistic feature.

I guess the problem is in another area, i think the OFP soldier is less responsive to the player control than it should be and that may explain why close range combat feels so different from what any real close range combat documentary can show.

The realistic total conversion " Infiltration " for Unreal Tournament was featuring exactly the same free aiming zone system with ironsight (they were the pioneer of this actually) , and because of the limited range UT maps could be , this TC was mostly about close range combat.

And it was pretty intense despite trying to use real life physics.

So i am sure close range combat can be improved in ArmA without getting rid of the excellent free aiming zone system.

[4 IN 1 0]

i am not a GFX freaks and i have to say that i am really looking forward for multible gunner positions, and to see a Clear and Present Danger style CSAR coop mission being made, i really do, so it left me a big "wish" (it is too much for the word "hope" i think) and if Arma didnt have it supported for such long time request it will be, IMO......well, kind of lame, i may still enjoy most part of the game, but it would be a little black spot on it for me

just my little 20 cents

[funnyguy1 0]

The "free aiming zone" system is not a problem in my opinion, it is an usefull and realistic feature.

So i am sure close range combat can be improved in ArmA without getting rid of the excellent free aiming zone system.

It is, but It should be changed only in cqb using both crosshairs or IRsights...

And yes, character`s reactions have to be smoother...

[Heatseeker 0]

The "free aiming zone" system is not a problem in my opinion, it is an usefull and realistic feature.

So i am sure close range combat can be improved in ArmA without getting rid of the excellent free aiming zone system.

It is, but It should be changed only in cqb using both crosshairs or IRsights...

And yes, character`s reactions have to be smoother...

Hmm, not really and im sure most of us wouldnt like to see the game dumbed down into a RvS or Americas Army fast paced CQB type shooter, the current movement is perfectly good for cqb, you can walk and shoot with your sights up and succeed in cqb. The movement and "free aiming zone" are part of what sets OPF apart from the "rest" and the reason we love the game so much. It cant be changed.

Improving cqb (wich i dont really care all that much about) should be done thru other general improvements such has a.i. behaviour and pathfinding and colision detection improvements.

Character reactions are smooth and fast enough for me considering the style of the game .

[mr reality 0]

One thing that doesn't look to have changed is the lack of a co-pilot in the Blackhawk armed version. I just hope they've implemented full crew capasities in all vehicles.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Everybody knows that the CQB aspect of this game, which is very important when you have enterable buildings, needs a lot of work, Heatseeker. I honestly don't know why you are always so against improving those parts of the game that the community's general concensus says needs to be improved.

The clunkiness of indoor navigation is even more apparent in OFP:E, where you can barely get through a doorway, sometimes. I deal with it, but it doesn't need to be that way.

[funnyguy1 0]

The "free aiming zone" system is not a problem in my opinion, it is an usefull and realistic feature.

So i am sure close range combat can be improved in ArmA without getting rid of the excellent free aiming zone system.

It is, but It should be changed only in cqb using both crosshairs or IRsights...

And yes, character`s reactions have to be smoother...

Hmm, not really and im sure most of us wouldnt like to see the game dumbed down into a RvS or Americas Army fast paced CQB type shooter, the current movement is perfectly good for cqb, you can walk and shoot with your sights up and succeed in cqb.

By all this stuff I wrote I mean improoving the "free aiming zone" by decrasing it a bit (in cqc), for more acurate and faster aiming in cqb.

Solution?

2 modes cbq and...not cqb:) and the ability to adjust the "free aiming zone" area just like "dead zone" of any game controller, in each mode.

edit: besides, when you`re using IR sights, you`re looking exactly where you`re aiming, just like in R6, you don`t use it all the time, but it`s like that, especially in cqc in towns...

On the other hand It`s obvious you can always scan the sorroundings in rl, but you can`t in ofp, until you switch off the IRsights.

[TokarevT33 0]

Cqb is totally possible in the regular OFP, yeah it need some work in collision detection,but as long as you walk slowly using the ironsights ONLY and do not shoot the weapon from the hip (which is unrealistic) you'll have no problem

[Big Dawg KS 6]

One thing that doesn't look to have changed is the lack of a co-pilot in the Blackhawk armed version. I just hope they've implemented full crew capasities in all vehicles.

Well, Mr Reality, I think you have to consider BIS's view on this; what would be the function/point of a co-pilot crew position?

And for everyone concerned about multiple gunner positions, the only evidence we have of support of this in VBS1 are a few videos/pictures, nobody is able to confirm exactly how it works or if it is available. If you don't see them in ArmA then it means BIS couldn't do it without extensive engine modification, so like I said they have a good reason for it.

[FCOPZ-illuminator 0]

I think you have to consider BIS's view on this; what would be the function/point of a co-pilot crew position?

You want a function ? Just take a look to "Joint Operations". There only the Co-Pilot can drop flares...

[mr reality 0]

Well, Mr Reality, I think you have to consider BIS's view on this; what would be the function/point of a co-pilot crew position?

What if they implemented an option for the co-pilot to mount the MG if the gunner was killed as he's in a vunerable position. Or atleast the unoccupied seat could be used by anybody boarding the aircraft. I agree my point was more of a cosmetic one but does the co-pilot position realy need a function. Just don't use it if you don't like being flown around  . On a similar point you could say what's the point in the gunner position on the BWMod fenneck and Dingo as the player can't actually see through the sights, but the position is still crewed.

[scfan42 0]

Having the option for a co-pilot would be nice. If you're just having player-driven MP type-mission, then you don't use it. If you have an AI piloted chopper, then it wouldn't hurt to have a co-pilot (except for more poly count). Hopefully that can be achieved through modding if BIS doesn't do it by default. And of course the co-pilot should be able to take over flying if the pilot is incapacitated.

[Heatseeker 0]

Everybody knows that the CQB aspect of this game, which is very important when you have enterable buildings, needs a lot of work, Heatseeker. I honestly don't know why you are always so against improving those parts of the game that the community's general concensus says needs to be improved.

The clunkiness of indoor navigation is even more apparent in OFP:E, where you can barely get through a doorway, sometimes. I deal with it, but it doesn't need to be that way.

hmm... the clunkyness in OPFR is caused by poor colision detection, clipping problems and the many a.i. issues in such areas (moving, seeing and shooting/fraggin thru walls).

I have been thru plenty of successfull urban firefights in OPF (MP and SP) and the movement (although a bit jerky/shaky) is more than good enough and i dont even use the crosshairs.

If you enter a building you can walk and shoot with the sights up to eye level and be relatively acurate in close distance, you can also walk and hip shoot in full auto. When walking and using the sights i can pick and shoot targets in what feels like a good compromise or should i say relation betwean gameplay and realism. I am talking about the PC game .

OPF gameplay is challenging and realistic. I hope Arma follows the same path and doesnt turn into a simplistic, fast crosshair shooter ala CS or Americas army.

The "free aiming zone" thingy is important imo because it eliminates the feeling of having the rifle glued to your screen or atached to your body like some freaking robot and performing unrealistic movements, it feels much more natural and is a very important aspect of flashpoints gameplay .

What i really meant is... if they remove the free aim from Arma i will just kill all of you .

[Scrub 0]

Heatseeker, I don't think there is a single person here that would disagree with you. But to have your gun on the hip, to see at a wide angle in a building, means you need to point your gun 15 degrees or more past your target to turn to see them.. Unless you like to shoot at a target on the periphery of your screen. Turning in this manner is something I would like to label 'clunky'. Just saying like so many other posters if there was a setting with tighter movement (not getting rid of it, just tightening it up a LITTLE ) would make a world of difference. To bring this a bit back on topic, would it be possible to see some interior shots (or a MOVIE? ) of the new collission detection? Please?

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Cqb is totally possible in the regular OFP, yeah it need some work in collision detection,but as long as you walk slowly using the ironsights ONLY and do not shoot the weapon from the hip (which is unrealistic) you'll have no problem

Actually, when you're in iron sights mode with an MP5 the view is too zoomed in, you have almost NO peripheral vision, and the iron sights are larger than life. Zoomed in that much, you're required to pick up your mouse to scroll enough to swing left or right.

No, it's no good.

Go play some paintball and see why.

It should feel like SWAT4 or any number of the other realistic CQB titles out there.

I don't even switch to iron sight view in buildings and towns in OFP. It's a good way to die. Thus, the MP5 sight, ideal for CQB, is rendered a hindrance rather than a help.

Yes, built-up environments should be meat-grinders, but not because you can't get your avatar to do what you want.

The plain fact of the matter is that if you're well-trained, you CAN quickly swing your weapon and get headshots. What happens to me in paintball is that if I swing too quickly right or left, I spin myself right off my feet. (It's the damnedest thing.) The Infiltration mod forum once talked about how you should lose your balance or fall down if you turn too quickly.

On the X-Box they will design games so that the controller sensitivity is dictated by the environment. If you're pointed down a corridor you don't need as much sensitivity as when you're in the middle of an arena. I don't see why they couldn't tighten-up the "hot box" when the player entered a town or building.

[advocatexxx 0]

Actually, when you're in iron sights mode with an MP5 the view is too zoomed in, you have almost NO peripheral vision, and the iron sights are larger than life. Zoomed in that much, you're required to pick up your mouse to scroll enough to swing left or right.

This is exactly what I mean. It's especially apparent in Resistance, where larger urban environments allow for urban combat, and I don't think I'm alone in saying this, but fighting indoors from room to room, etc. is by far the greatest weakpoint of the current gaming engine. It was designed for large, open spaces, and Resistance makes it more than obvious that urban combat is much too convoluted.

As you say, iron sights are way too large, obstructing a good portion of the screen, while the field of view is notoriously narrow.

And since urban combat is the clear focus point of ArmA, my faith rests in BIS and that they have successfully adapted the gaming engine for this type of warfare, without compromising target engagement at long distance.

[lwlooz 0]

ArmA is focused on Urban Combat? Is that official?

In that case .. I rather hoped for 2 platoons dislodging a enemy defending a slope or something.Well.. geee,but if Arma is unorganized Hooah urban combat... .

Anyways,take away OFPs freeaim and you take away one of the best things the game has.I never got why in other games you are basically a moving camera with a gun attached to it.Great OFP came up with a different solution,but if that solution suxxors for house-to-house headshot battles,i guess it has to go then

[D.murphy man 0]

I dont think urban combat will become the main focus of Arma. Considering its stated in one of the press releases that the new island will be bigger then all of the original islands in OFP including resistance combined. I cant see how theyll fill that giant land mass with buildings.

[Kode 0]

Well, BIS is obviously hiding a lot of things for us, which I would also do if I was BIS(and they did it with OFP:E aswell). People talking about multiple gunnerpositions etc...it's still possible, there is just simply almost no material(screens, movies) of Arma. It's a bit useless to discuss about it, because the only persons that can answer on those question are working on Arma. BIS mentions features which haven't been seen yet.

To give an overview:

-Reworked lifelike animations.

-Environments are richly detailed and varied.

-Dynamic weather and daytime simulation (including tides and star constellations)

-Ambient wildlife

-Large selection of weapons and vehicles.

-Unique and proven combatant's AI.

-New island containing large cities with many different, fully accessible buildings.

-Updated controls and command interface.

These things change alot. Multiple gunnerpositions is really not that important compared to those points. But if you can show me a screenshot which shows something of these, let me know...(except for enviroments, which you can see a bit)

I prefer not speculating about things that cannot be determined yet, just by seeing screenshots. In my opinion it's the overall that is important, not 3 details.

[dachrinne 0]

hey i found something

Quote[/b] ]

we know already, and theyre posted on all fansites, and those pics are over 100kb

lol

Full gallery .... click meh

[brataccas 0]

we know already, and theyre posted on all fansites, and those pics are over 100kb

[4 IN 1 0]

One thing that doesn't look to have changed is the lack of a co-pilot in the Blackhawk armed version. I just hope they've implemented full crew capasities in all vehicles.

Well, Mr Reality, I think you have to consider BIS's view on this; what would be the function/point of a co-pilot crew position?

And for everyone concerned about multiple gunner positions, the only evidence we have of support of this in VBS1 are a few videos/pictures, nobody is able to confirm exactly how it works or if it is available. If you don't see them in ArmA then it means BIS couldn't do it without extensive engine modification, so like I said they have a good reason for it.

the point is that someone did said that they have a major code rewrite on the engine "while game2 and ARMA is still in the shadow", hmmmmm

[Heatseeker 0]

It should feel like SWAT4 or any number of the other realistic CQB titles out there.

I don't even switch to iron sight view in buildings and towns in OFP. It's a good way to die. Thus, the MP5 sight, ideal for CQB, is rendered a hindrance rather than a help.

SWAT4.. the crosshair (no sights?) sim wannabe? No thanks..

The MP5 sight and all OPF iron sights are perfectly balanced for use in not only CQB but mid range shooting, they work in a wide range of situations, i doubt anyone would like to see them replaced with a crosshair that zooms in (SWAT4 ). You should consider the fact that ARMA is not supposed to be RvS or CS and the sights must be usable for a much more important aspect of the game, open field, mid range, infantry combat.

With a bit of practice anyone can enter the center Lipany building in sight mode and take out targets on the move, its not hard using a mouse . The only problem is the stuff i have mentioned previously (a.i., colision, blah..)

OPF has a slower pace, its not a dumb fast paced shooter, ARMA should improve on it but not radically change it into an ordinary FPS, atleast not on the PC

[astano 0]

I have to agree with Heatseeker. The only thing that makes urban combat unplayable for me as it stands is collision detection and the A.I.'s inability to work with buildings. The sights and everything else have never been a problem for me in close-quarters shooting.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Well, if they'll use the Q and E keys for leaning, that'll make things easier.

In mentioning SWAT4, I was talking about the overall experience, the way you move through the environment, the weapons simulation.

Obviously the iron sight and scope views of the Lockdown PC demo would be preferable to a mere crosshair.

Right now, you're far too zoomed in with the MP5 iron sight. Add to that the fact that when you move it is like you have your boots encased in cement and the final result is clunky. You don't get magnification when you look through iron sights (though I think that you might with the smallest of peep sights, either that or it is an optical illusion).

The novel "Rainbow Six" mentioned that a man's head should fit just within the front sight hoop of an MP5 at a certain range, with the front sight post falling on the guy's "no-reflex zone". The zoom should correspond to that, whatever it was, and it shouldn't change when going in or out of iron sight mode.

Yes, you're right, you can still pwn A.I., but you can't do so in a natural way. Go play some Rogue Spear to see what I mean.

One thing that gets me about urban combat from windows and balconies in most tactical shooters is that you can't lean out over a window sill to get a bead on targets below.

Yes, keep OFP's free-aim. I certainly don't want a return to conical reticule expansion.