Artillery

[Daniel 0]

Nice posts CoC team!

[walker 0]

Hi Dslyecxi

Thank you for that assesment of UA 1.1 We have actualy gone further than that on artillery though. I hope we can show this off to ARMA players.

Kind Regards Walker

[gunterlund 0]

Chain of Command: Unified Artillery v1.1 Beta Preview

48 screens, 7 videos, all showing off the new as-yet-unreleased UA 1.1.

If you guys were wondering what kind of improvements CoC did to the UA addon post-release of CoC UA 1.0, you should probably check that little article out.

Summary is basically that UA 1.0 was just the tip of the iceberg. UA 1.1 surpasses it in every single way, and it's faaaaantastic.

Oh is this post going to open up a can of warms. All right here we go.

1. Will there be an easy to follow set of instructions on how to adapt CoC to different addons. I know there was a gentleman who adapted 1.0 to the LAV mortar. It worked great but there was some additional lag present that wasnt present in the original addons included in CoC. Instructions would be great.

2. Can you limit the kind of ammo available to a weapons system. For instance do the OPFOR have availability to a copperhead type of round.

More questions to come.

Unbelievable work by the way.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

UA v1.1 looks awesome and fear-inspiring, just as arty should be! Some of the best explosion and dust effects I've seen in Flashpoint!

[gunterlund 0]

Just had to repost after watching the vids. Truly amazing. I cant wait to try this on a large AA island where arty cant reach and has to be moved into position. Im also interested to hear more about the counter battery fire. Will the enemy be able to home into your firing position.

[Talyn 33]

So long as the artillery is destroyable, movable and totally user controlled (in armed Assault) I’ll be happy with that.

[Jinef 2]

The counter battery system in UA 1.1 is fully automated. Just stick a COBRA (British Acronym For Counter Battery Radar) vehicle on the map and fire off some rounds, the enemy will respond with any assets in range, trying to destroy your artillery assets.

Quite cool.

In the Artillery Module for VBS1 they go into even more depth, deploying a mortar for example is no simple process. You need to get out the levelling sticks to perfectly place your mortar. Then using a firing table you need to calculate how many charges you need in your mortar tube etc. etc. Quite fun for mortar men to play around with.

Hopefully BIS will provide us with all this so the CoC team can just kick back and relax ... yah right

Hopefully Walker will not smite me for talking too much.

[walker 0]

Hi Jinef

The version of the mortar trainer in VBS you are talking about is a seperate although linkable system to the artilery however is unlikely that those modules would be released outside VBS.

Anything that apears in OFP or Arma is not likely to be as detailed because it would be too complicated and for most players boring.

What play testing we have already done shows that most players outside the elite sim fans find the time real shells take to arrive too long so we would possibly have to reduce charges and range to improve game play. We will have to continue with the play testing and run more analysis. My own feeling is a full simulation is best.

The physics and scripting possibilities in the different versions of the engine also alter what is possible.

Kind Reards Walker

[gunterlund 0]

Hi Jinef

The version of the mortar trainer in VBS you are talking about is a seperate although linkable system to the artilery however is unlikely that those modules would be released outside VBS.

Anything that apears in OFP or Arma is not likely to be as detailed because it would be too complicated and for most players boring.

What play testing we have already done shows that most players outside the elite sim fans find the time real shells take to arrive too long so we would possibly have to reduce charges and range to improve game play. We will have to continue with the play testing and run more analysis. My own feeling is a full simulation is best.

The physics and scripting possibilities in the different versions of the engine also alter what is possible.

Kind Reards Walker

Hah Walker well who cares about the non elite sim fan.. :-). Give us all you got baby. Would love to give it a good go.

[Garcia 0]

Hi Jinef

The version of the mortar trainer in VBS you are talking about is a seperate although linkable system to the artilery however is unlikely that those modules would be released outside VBS.

Anything that apears in OFP or Arma is not likely to be as detailed because it would be too complicated and for most players boring.

What play testing we have already done shows that most players outside the elite sim fans find the time real shells take to arrive too long so we would possibly have to reduce charges and range to improve game play. We will have to continue with the play testing and run more analysis. My own feeling is a full simulation is best.

The physics and scripting possibilities in the different versions of the engine also alter what is possible.

Kind Reards Walker

Actually, it would have been fun to test that complicated thing in OFP Peronally I'd liked CoC to release that too, so the mission maker could choose the easy mortar system or the more complicated one But that's just me, I guess most of the ones that's gonna use CoC UA would only like the simple system.

[SHWiiNG 0]

i wonder if we will have differations on the arty explosion effects eg. if it is a hot and dry day, then the explosion will be mainly dust and cloudy, whereas if it were wet, then the explosion wil be much denser, and also i hope we will see pieces of the vegetation, eg grass, bits of tree.

[t80 0]

Quote[/b] ]the time real shells take to arrive too long so we would possibly have to reduce charges and range to improve game play.

NOOO..... maybe make simple system for as. oles that dont like real time, real range thig??

Quote[/b] ]My own feeling is a full simulation is best.

YEAH!!!... youre right... Good feeling, dont loose it..

[t80 0]

OR....

Just add a WW1 Artillery that dont shoot so far, so they dont have to wait so long, but it still would be realistic...

[Ukraineboy 0]

To be honest, I would be perfectly fine with BF2 style Artillery. Just spawn the explosions down, and have a modelled Artillery that can be destroyed. But there's no point in wasting CPU process just to have it fire a real shell that we cannot see anyways. Just spawn the shell, it's fine. Mods can make real Artillery in OFP anyways, so in ArmA it'll be even better.

Is there any news on using "fake" deformable terrain? Like in FFUR, when you crash your helicopter, it spawns a ring of dirt around the crash area, making it look like a crater. This would be a simple and cool turn around for deformable terrain. With artillery it'd be cool because you'd have some cover when attacking open fields.

[t80 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ukraineboy Posted on July 03 2006,00:51

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

To be honest, I would be perfectly fine with BF2 style Artillery. Just spawn the explosions down,

hope that it is a joke there is lot off different artillery that need to be simulated in a different way, there would be no difference between a small mortar and big paladin if u spawn everything down.. and also remember that the map´s can be huge...

[CorlanMcD 0]

To be honest, I would be perfectly fine with BF2 style Artillery. Just spawn the explosions down, and have a modelled Artillery that can be destroyed. But there's no point in wasting CPU process just to have it fire a real shell that we cannot see anyways. Just spawn the shell, it's fine. Mods can make real Artillery in OFP anyways, so in ArmA it'll be even better.

Is there any news on using "fake" deformable terrain? Like in FFUR, when you crash your helicopter, it spawns a ring of dirt around the crash area, making it look like a crater. This would be a simple and cool turn around for deformable terrain. With artillery it'd be cool because you'd have some cover when attacking open fields.

Agreed. BF2 artillery was a workable chioce, for once.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In Reply to Ukraineboy

In actual fact spawning shells out of magic nowhere probably uses more processor time than proper shells fired from a gun.

You fire an M16 in OFP uses about as much as UA does.

For the record you can see the shells and if you have a misile cam on the firing unit you can follow the sell through its full balistic path. If you foolish enough to set the mortars up without checking top cover, say in a forest under some trees, and you are any where near the firing tube you are likely to feel it

There are a mess of reasons why we gave up on magic shells spawned out of the sky. Quoting myself earlier in this thread.

Quote[/b] ]I and Jostapo had a real problem trying to explain why shells falling out of the sky just could not cut it. The reasons were complex and involved a massive amount of higher level math.

But for a simple explanation consider the following factors:

* Any one on the reverse slope of steep hill cannot be hit by flat trajectory artillery

* Steep trajectory artillery takes longer to arrive

* over shoots of flat trajectory shells on a reverse slope are larger than flat ground often by hundreds of yards

* Time of flight can only be accurately modeled with a true ballistic solution

* If you are on the lee side of a building your chances of being hit are lower even with steep trajectory fire (do a graph)

* AI reacts to Artillery that comes from a real gun

* Steep sided valleys may be completely inaccessible to fire depending on distance of the artillery from target and available charges...

That AI not reacting to magic shells spawned out of a sky above a few squads it lands and kills a bunch of them. Do they react? Nope.

Fire UA at them and they will duck when they hear it. Heck they will even try and hunt it down.

Magic shells spawned out of the sky is best left in hogwarts.

Kind Regards Walker

[Ukraineboy 0]

Realistically, I bet they will really dumb down Artillery. It won't be even close to like CoC or whatever you guys are looking for. Time and time again people think "Oh OFP was realistic, so we can expect BIS to make ArmA a full blown simulator". No. You're thinking of MODDED OFP. BIS is not making a full blown simulator, thats VBS2. This game will be a game, maybe not as arcadey as BF2, but definately not a VBS1 Retail. Don't expect lots of realism, that will come with good mods, not in the box ArmA.

[t80 0]

Im sure"hope" they will try to do it as realistic as possible, In my experience more and more people dont care about graphics any more, and playing old games witch have everyting else but good graphics, like graphics is just fun the first 15 min, than u get use to it, and it´s not nice any more, so what if a game have just graphics and nothing else? It will be really cool the first 15 min, and then nothing..

[Ukraineboy 0]

In my experience more and more people dont care about graphics any more, and playing old games witch have everyting else but good graphics, like graphics is just fun the first 15 min, than u get use to it, and it´s not nice any more

Ofcourse in your experience. Not everyone wants to play a simulator...Also, lots of people care about graphics, and gameplay outside of Simulation realism...

Halo 2 - 7.4 Million units sold worldwide

Halo 1 - 6 Million units sold worldwide

Battlefield 2- 2 Million units sold as of March 2006

I'm sorry but just liek OFP, Armed Assault will be a game, not a realistic simulator. I could make a page with the inaccuracies in OFP, but what made it great wasnt its realism, but it's engine ability, gameplay and vast experience. If you want a simulation, buy VBS1, or wait for mods to come out for ArmA.

As for graphics, hah! Look at Oblivion and tons of other games that have good graphics compared to OFP. I'm sorry but people do want graphics, and no they are not stupid unlike some of you people think.

[t80 0]

Quote[/b] ]what made it great wasnt its realism, but it's engine ability

thats exactly what i want to be improved, with no spawned artillery.

As for graphics, hah! Look at Oblivion

15 min of fun.. (compared to OFP) nothing new in game play really..

Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry but people do want graphics, and no they are not stupid unlike some of you people think.

? ?

[Ukraineboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]what made it great wasnt its realism, but it's engine ability

thats exactly what i want to be improved, with no spawned artillery.

As for graphics, hah! Look at Oblivion

15 min of fun.. (compared to OFP) nothing new in game play really..

Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry but people do want graphics, and no they are not stupid unlike some of you people think.

? ?

For you it was 15 minutes of fun. Millions of people bought the game, and thousands if not hundreds of thousands still play it.

[dinger 1]

For most people, a video game is 15 minutes of fun; okay, maybe it's more like an hour, but those huge sales numbers are people who pick up a game, play it, and go on to the next (HL2 did not have the longest campaign on record, but less than a third of those who bought the game finished it).

The problem right now in the market is that, if you want to play for the "huge best seller" crown, you need something visually stunning for those huge numbers of players, as well as something accessible, but at the same time, you need something that appeals to some segment of the "hard core" (in terms of hours played), so that the product generates buzz, and those millions buy. So three things: A) visually stunning B) Accessible C) deep

But right now, "visually stunning" means enormously expensive. "Deep" can be achieved in one of two ways: either throw a lot of content out there (=even more money), or add complexity (=risking losing accessibility).

Complexity doesn't have to mean "make it hard or frightening", even though to judge by some of my interfaces you might think that. Basketball can be a complex sport, but the rules are simple enough, and you can find people playing pickup games in most cities in the world.

As for BF2-style artillery, what bugs me about that stuff is there's no depth. Any commander can use the artillery, and with 2 minutes of practice, have mastered all that there is to master. For example, with UA in a mission (and we've spent time greatly improving the interface), within two minutes, a forward observer can be at the level of a BF2 commander: Click and barrage comes in some time later. That's all most people need to know how to do anyway. But those who study the art can achieve the "Wow" effect analogous to a spin move followed by a slam-dunk.

I don't expect BIS to develop anything to the ridiculous complexity that we do it: as a mod group, we can tap into our specific insanities and produce something better for far less time. Yet there's a reaction many of us have had since CWC: this game has huge maps, and large battles. Where's the artillery? Why model such a huge space if you're not going to fling shells through it? Artillery should be a 2D problem only, only in 2D games.

if a game has room for master medics, engineers, snipers, helo pilots, fighter pukes, mud movers, tankers and DAGITs, why not mortarmen and FOs?

[t80 0]

@Dinger Posted on July 03 2006,09:05

well said...

[Garcia 0]

People care about graphics when buying a new game. People whos played a great game trusts the developer when the sequel is released and doesn't care as much about the graphics, while players who didn't play the first game(s) do care about the graphics of the game, because bad graphics give a bad impression.

Problem with games BF2-style games is that they're shit easy and becomes boring fast. I didn't buy the game, and I'm happy I didn't, cause when I played it for the first time I used about 2-3 hours to get bored by it. That's why BIS needs to add some complex stuff to ArmA. That's what made OFP special, along with the large scale etc. Games like BF2, Medal of Honor and Call of Duty, they're games without depth. You do 2 things...run and shoot. They're brainless games, you don't have to think to become good. Therefor BIS should add some complexity to the game, by making i.e the artillery more than click somewhere and then the shells comes. As somebody said, when ArmA comes out, I want the game to be good as it is, I don't want to have to "patch" it with mods. Of course, I don't care (unlike quite many others it seems) if the units use M16A2 or M16A4, I don't care if the units got their eyelashes all wrong, I don't care if they got a spot a bit wrong on their pants or any other bullshit like that, because that's errors that you almost have to search for to spot. Shitty artillery is not, since artillery will be a noticable part of the game and the official campaign, and you certainly will notice if you can click on the map with your eyes closed, and then some shells comes out the air hitting the target spot on, or if you actually have to put some thinking and effort into getting the artillery to hit the right spot and not your own arse.