Operation Flashpoint 2 officially announced

[stakex 0]

If they didn't sell any Armas then there wouldn't be a Arma 2 would there?

And I found Arma in plenty of stores in my hometown after release.

Thats very far from the truth... or at least I should say very likely far from the truth.

For the 100th time... ArmA1 was simply a small go between for what was suppose to be the true OFP sequal which is now known as ArmA2. If ArmA1 had tanked, then I doubt they would have scrapped three to four years of work done on ArmA2/Game2 at the time. They would likely have just accelerated plans to get ArmA2/Game2 out the door.

For what ever reason large parts of the community seem to have forgetten or ignored the fact that ArmA1 was an after thought, started years after Game2/ArmA2 development had already begun. I guess its a bit confuseing that it was started later and released first... but still, thats what it was.

[badlymad 0]

If they didn't sell any Armas then there wouldn't be a Arma 2 would there?

And I found Arma in plenty of stores in my hometown after release.

Thats very far from the truth... or at least I should say very likely far from the truth.

For the 100th time... ArmA1 was simply a small go between for what was suppose to be the true OFP sequal which is now known as ArmA2. If ArmA1 had tanked, then I doubt they would have scrapped three to four years of work done on ArmA2/Game2 at the time. They would likely have just accelerated plans to get ArmA2/Game2 out the door.  

For what ever reason large parts of the community seem to have forgetten or ignored the fact that ArmA1 was an after thought, started years after Game2/ArmA2 development had already begun. I guess its a bit confuseing that it was started later and released first... but still, thats what it was.

Pretty much. It does seem that a lot of the people have forgotten that ArmA at one point was really supposed to be the original OFP with graphical enhancements from OFP:E and an extra campaign on a new island that was called 'Sara'. The falling out with Codemasters meant that none of the original OFP content could be used anymore, which caused BIS to create what we know today as ArmA.

There is no doubt that ArmA was only supposed to be at best a stopgap in between OFP and Game 2, and at worse a way to raise money in lieu of a major publisher's support. In any case, ArmA was never intended to be a full-fledged sequel, which understandably has disappointed some to the extent that they have been completely soured off ArmA II, unfortunately.

[max power 21]

I think that at one point that Maruk said in an interview that if they didn't release ArmA they would not have been able to continue developing ArmA 2. This is how I recall interpreting his words in an interview. My recollection may be flawed but I'm pretty sure he said this. It is also quite widely written that ArmA was OFP 1.5, but evolved further than that into it's own thing, beyond their original intended scope. I think that ArmA was intended to be an interim product for the series but also for the company from a revenue perspective.

[4 IN 1 0]

If they didn't sell any Armas then there wouldn't be a Arma 2 would there?

And I found Arma in plenty of stores in my hometown after release.

Thats very far from the truth... or at least I should say very likely far from the truth.

For the 100th time... ArmA1 was simply a small go between for what was suppose to be the true OFP sequal which is now known as ArmA2. If ArmA1 had tanked, then I doubt they would have scrapped three to four years of work done on ArmA2/Game2 at the time. They would likely have just accelerated plans to get ArmA2/Game2 out the door.  

For what ever reason large parts of the community seem to have forgetten or ignored the fact that ArmA1 was an after thought, started years after Game2/ArmA2 development had already begun. I guess its a bit confuseing that it was started later and released first... but still, thats what it was.

Pretty much. It does seem that a lot of the people have forgotten that ArmA at one point was really supposed to be the original OFP with graphical enhancements from OFP:E and an extra campaign on a new island that was called 'Sara'. The falling out with Codemasters meant that none of the original OFP content could be used anymore, which caused BIS to create what we know today as ArmA.

There is no doubt that ArmA was only supposed to be at best a stopgap in between OFP and Game 2, and at worse a way to raise money in lieu of a major publisher's support. In any case, ArmA was never intended to be a full-fledged sequel, which understandably has disappointed some to the extent that they have been completely soured off ArmA II, unfortunately.

point is that even suma (or other dev) sometime said that "it is looking more and more like GAME 2" when arma is still in developement, this makes many ppl mistaken that ARMA 1 is GAME 2

[sparks50 0]

If they didn't sell any Armas then there wouldn't be a Arma 2 would there?

And I found Arma in plenty of stores in my hometown after release.

Thats very far from the truth... or at least I should say very likely far from the truth.

For the 100th time... ArmA1 was simply a small go between for what was suppose to be the true OFP sequal which is now known as ArmA2. If ArmA1 had tanked, then I doubt they would have scrapped three to four years of work done on ArmA2/Game2 at the time. They would likely have just accelerated plans to get ArmA2/Game2 out the door.  

For what ever reason large parts of the community seem to have forgetten or ignored the fact that ArmA1 was an after thought, started years after Game2/ArmA2 development had already begun. I guess its a bit confuseing that it was started later and released first... but still, thats what it was.

How is that far from the truth? you are not following me here, my statement was that that if Arma really was the economical failure as claimed,

BI wouldn't have resources to make Arma 2. This is something you are even saying yourself.

As for Arma 1 being claimed by BI to be OFP 1.5, I know about this. But once again this has nothing to do with what you are quoting.

Please take a minute and read before you start posting, it helps.

Anyway, Q and A from ofp forums:

Quote[/b] ]1.How will ballistics be reproduced in-game?

The ballistic performance of both weapons and projectile types is painstakingly reproduced, this includes penetration of different materials, the detonation / effects of individual warhead types, gravity effects on projectiles, projectile velocities and ricochet system to name just a few.

2. How many armor hitpoints are on each vehicle? (Treads, turrent damage etc)

We don’t use a points based system, this is not realistic. Instead we use armour vs. penetration system. Armour has an effectiveness rating, projectiles and warheads also have a penetration rating, we use these figures alongside some rather complex mathematics to calculate the effectiveness of a projectile in damaging or penetrating a particular armour type and location. So for example 7.62mm has no effect of the hull armour of the Type 99 tank. Firing a large number of these rounds at a tank will not ‘chip’ away at some invisible armour total till the armour is destroyed, it has no effect. Alternatively a HEAT round from an M1A1 could defeat the armour achieve penetration and destroy the vehicle out right.

4. We know the game will be good for modders, but specifically, will versatile scripting language (or equivalent in ability to configure) be included?

Yes. Via the mission editor tool modders will be able to access the scripting component of the game. The scripting is very flexible and will allow the creation of custom content, game modes and much more depending on the modders skill and of course imagination!

5. What about the Weapons handling? (jamming, overheating ect)

Weapons have a number of simulated aspects, these include round velocity, ballistic performance and the effects of sustained fire on accuracy. Weapons also have a chance to Jam based on usage and sustained fire rate. We looked at over heating as a separate aspect but in fact this event is one of the contributors to blockages and jamming, so it is rolled into that system.

6. What about the Ai? Will theye be smart and act like a soldier?(Supression fire, flank enemys ect)

Well we have spoken about the AI a number of times over the last few months, but I think your question is specifically about individual soldiers as opposed to fire teams. In which case I’ll go into a little more detail about these guys. The individual soldiers are able to find and use cover, seek out targets, suppress or eliminate them. They can also be suppressed, lose and gain morale including falling back if need be. As a whole the agents are very much like soldiers, capable of making their own localised tactical decisions and operate within the larger context of their unit, working with other soldiers to perform actions such as covering fire, mutual bounding moves for assaults etc, render medical assistance, work together in vehicles and much more.

7. Can you play as a soldier under the command of an officer, or only as a squad leader?

Absolutely, in fact you begin the game under the command of an AI officer. We felt it was important to allow players, especially those new to the world of Operation Flashpoint 2, to see how troops are commanded and how tactics are used. Later in the game the player is placed in command of infantry units and vehicle crews, hopefully using their experience early in the game to become an effective combat leader.

8. Will there be an 3rd person View or is it only First Person?

The game is predominately first person, particularly when playing as infantry. As it currently stands all vehicles must also be used from first person as well, however we are listening to the community and feedback from play testing and we may consider 3rd person external views to vehicle drives and pilots if it becomes a feature everyone wants.

[BraTTy 0]

I watched the E3 video and am impressed for the most part.It sure does look nice.Some good points I see:

-35k view distance

-Decent animations

-Nice looking stuff, cockpits even

-vehicle animations

-realistic reloading

-pushing the sales (interviews,videos,advertising) Unlike what they did for OFP

However I am upset at the fact that they make it sound like they made OFP, using the logo and all

For that matter using the whole Idea

Bis should get a percentage of the sales

Some stuff I didn't like:

-Simplistic Infantry equiptment loadout.I only saw a glimpse but saw only weapons,ammo stuff

-Vehicle damage model,just looks like burnt stuff(Similiar to OFP) I'd lik to think I could fix a flat tire or drive a vehicle with broken glass or even a weak motor (some drivetime while fluids leak)

-Fairly impressive vehicle and equiptment list but it still reminds me of looking at OFP like 8 years ago.Didn't catch any wildlife or things Arma already has (maybe there is) civilian interaction and variables

They are doing a good job at advertising and I am confident that Arma2 matches the features already.I already see more in Arma (boats,motorcycles,civilians,wildlife,island size)

To my belief they haven't matched Arma yet

Some Ideas for Arma2:

Do the Recent conflicts !

Have body armor options

Individual vehicle destruction parts(like is already partial implemented ie:tires,glass,turrent,engine failure)

Keep what you have going...civilians,motorcycle,airplanes etc..

Do some water stuff (carrier missions!!

Add some personal stuff (moral,fear,shell shock etc..) (if you scare the enemy they dont fight as well etc...)

[Blackhawk 0]

What about the Chinese equipment? I don't see how that relates to OPF at all, Also, We have M16A4's and the new Super Cobra Viper (Is it called that). There are supposedly Civilians and wildlife, But we have only seen one BETA video of half of the first mission, so we really can't go around saying what there isn't.

Quote[/b] ]

However I am upset at the fact that they make it sound like they made OFP

Well, it is the proper sequel to OPF.

Quote[/b] ]Simplistic Infantry equiptment loadout.I only saw a glimpse but saw only weapons,ammo stuff

So, your saying ArmA and OPF didn't have simplistic weapon load outs, No default unit was given an M16, almost EVERY default unit was given an M4 Aimpoint.

Here is the Weapon list to refresh your mind.

M4 MWS (Ironsight)

M4 MWS (EOTech)

M4 MWS (ACOG, AN/PAQ-4C)

M4 MWS (Ironsight, M203)

M4 MWS (AN/PVS-10, AN/PAQ-4C)

M4 MWS (CompM2, M4-2000)

M16A4 MWS (Ironsight)

M16A4 MWS (EOTech)

M16A4 MWS (ACOG, AN/PAQ-4C)

M16A4 MWS (Ironsight, M203)

M16A4 MWS (AN/PVS-10, AN/PAQ-4C)

M16A4 MWS (CompM2, M4-2000)

HK MP5

QCQ-05

QCQ-05

QCW-05 (QCQ-05 with suppressor)

FN SCAR

QBZ-95

Type 81

Thats just a basic Small arms list.

If you want to see everything you can view it - http://www.flickr.com/photos/29306805@N08/2747701947/sizes/o/

It's not finished yet though.

Quote[/b] ]They are doing a good job at advertising and I am confident that Arma2 matches the features already.I already see more in Arma (boats,motorcycles,civilians,wildlife,island size)

To my belief they haven't matched Arma yet

Yet again, There is only one video out for OPF2 and millions out for ArmA 2.

[Balschoiw 0]

Thx for the QA

I really like their approach. Especially these 2 made me absolutely happy :

1. We don’t use a points based system, this is not realistic.

2. As it currently stands all vehicles must also be used from first person as well

Whoopie !

[BraTTy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Pavehawk :What about the Chinese equipment? I don't see how that relates to OPF at all

Just that OFP had 3 sides, I expected to see at least that or more in OFP2

OFP had binocs,mines,laser designator and some misc equipt.

Just I was hoping for more variety in OFP2.I don't just mean different items for equiptment list.I mean more equiptment slots.

Maybe tools-utilities,ammo belts,binocs,different armor,rucksacks etc... variety along those lines

Who knows maybe MRE's...use your imagination,I am not making the game.I am not stunned however (yet)

I only quickly saw rifle and handgun slots

Quote[/b] ]

Well, it is the proper sequel to OPF.

Huh? Thats like saying Geo's are proper Chevrolets

Different manufacturer

Quote[/b] ]

Here is the Weapon list to refresh your mind.

I refresh your mind with OFP's weapon list

AK47

AK47CZ

AK74

AK74SU

Bizon

FAL

G36a

HK

HKG3

HuntingRifle

Kozlice

M4

M16

M16S

M21

MGun

Riffle

Steyr

SVDDragunov

UZI

XMS

M60

PK

MM1

6G30

RiffleGrenadeLauncher

M16GrenadeLauncher

AK47GrenadeLauncher

AK74GrenadeLauncher

Quoted from:

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki....irearms

Various mines,pipebombs,grenades,smokeshells,timebombs

Quote[/b] ]

Yet again, There is only one video out for OPF2 and millions out for ArmA 2.

You lost me

Do you work for Codemasters?

Wait I can answer that...obviously NOT...where do you see anyone calling it OPF2

Even the irc channel is OFP2 and OFP2.info ring a bell?

http://community.codemasters.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=113

Games looks nice, I can't wait to play, just I am not falling for the hype as of yet.

[Placebo 29]

ArmA 2 is comming fast because BIS is getting low of funds.

I wasn't aware that you have access to the financial records of Bohemia Interactive?

[dmarkwick 261]

Just I was hoping for more variety in OFP2.

IMO variety is not the thing that will make OFP2 great, and in fact (IMO) it's not even up there as mildly important. I had more variety in Ghost Recon than I could deal with, and it didn't make it a great game (although it was a great game). It just took longer to choose a loadout

2 things will make it a great game:

1. Tactical fidelity.

2. Moddability.

Tactical fidelity will only become apparent when the game is released, no point discussing stuff that no-one knows anything about.

Moddability is the only thing we can discuss, and I don't see much reference to how (or even if) moddable OFP2 will be. IMO it NEEDS to have moddability to become a great title, how many people in the world who love to play OFP play it unmodded?

OTOH will Codemasters be interested in increasing the playable life of one of their games? I suspect they'll want to sell a lot of games, but not necessarily have people play those games for a long time. I hope to be pleasantly surprised by OFP2, but I am concerned that no mention of moddability has been published (to my knowledge).

[Second 0]

ArmA 2 is comming fast because BIS is getting low of funds.

I wasn't aware that you have access to the financial records of Bohemia Interactive?

Well it could be that i remember things wrong, but i recall that some top-guy form BIS said something like this, was it Suma or was it not. I don't know.

It's also possible that i mix ArmA2 "early" release date to the fact that ArmA was released so early (in eastern Europe) because of low funds.

Anyways even if i remember wrong i'm still quite sure that i'm right.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I watched the E3 video and am impressed for the most part.It sure does look nice.Some good points I see:

-35k view distance

Thats far..

What is the max object rendering distance?

[Placebo 29]

ArmA 2 is comming fast because BIS is getting low of funds.

I wasn't aware that you have access to the financial records of Bohemia Interactive?

Well it could be that i remember things wrong, but i recall that some top-guy form BIS said something like this, was it Suma or was it not. I don't know.

It's also possible that i mix ArmA2 "early" release date to the fact that ArmA was released so early  (in eastern Europe) because of low funds.

Anyways even if i remember wrong i'm still quite sure that i'm right.

Yes it was Suma/Ondrej in an old podcast talking about ArmA1. Not ArmA2.

[whisper 0]

Quote[/b] ]1.How will ballistics be reproduced in-game?

The ballistic performance of both weapons and projectile types is painstakingly reproduced, this includes penetration of different materials, the detonation / effects of individual warhead types, gravity effects on projectiles, projectile velocities and ricochet system to name just a few.

BI could say the same for ArmA1, tbh.

+They don't speak about air friction.

Quote[/b] ]2. How many armor hitpoints are on each vehicle? (Treads, turrent damage etc)

We don’t use a points based system, this is not realistic. Instead we use armour vs. penetration system. Armour has an effectiveness rating, projectiles and warheads also have a penetration rating, we use these figures alongside some rather complex mathematics to calculate the effectiveness of a projectile in damaging or penetrating a particular armour type and location. So for example 7.62mm has no effect of the hull armour of the Type 99 tank. Firing a large number of these rounds at a tank will not ‘chip’ away at some invisible armour total till the armour is destroyed, it has no effect. Alternatively a HEAT round from an M1A1 could defeat the armour achieve penetration and destroy the vehicle out right.

Looks awesome. Very good approach.

Quote[/b] ]4. We know the game will be good for modders, but specifically, will versatile scripting language (or equivalent in ability to configure) be included?

Yes. Via the mission editor tool modders will be able to access the scripting component of the game. The scripting is very flexible and will allow the creation of custom content, game modes and much more depending on the modders skill and of course imagination!

It'll be very hard to compare with the level of BI system, let's just hope it's a good and open system. Perhaps I'm over-biased on this, put BI have set up very high standards in this regards (bare documentation)

Quote[/b] ]5. What about the Weapons handling? (jamming, overheating ect)

Weapons have a number of simulated aspects, these include round velocity, ballistic performance and the effects of sustained fire on accuracy. Weapons also have a chance to Jam based on usage and sustained fire rate. We looked at over heating as a separate aspect but in fact this event is one of the contributors to blockages and jamming, so it is rolled into that system.

Good, though I find the "effect of sustained fire on accuracy" suspiscious. Lets hope it turns good.

Quote[/b] ]6. What about the Ai? Will theye be smart and act like a soldier?(Supression fire, flank enemys ect)

Well we have spoken about the AI a number of times over the last few months, but I think your question is specifically about individual soldiers as opposed to fire teams. In which case I’ll go into a little more detail about these guys. The individual soldiers are able to find and use cover, seek out targets, suppress or eliminate them. They can also be suppressed, lose and gain morale including falling back if need be. As a whole the agents are very much like soldiers, capable of making their own localised tactical decisions and operate within the larger context of their unit, working with other soldiers to perform actions such as covering fire, mutual bounding moves for assaults etc, render medical assistance, work together in vehicles and much more.

Once again, it looks like BI when talking about ArmA1. We all know what it meant....

Need in-game reports.

Quote[/b] ]7. Can you play as a soldier under the command of an officer, or only as a squad leader?

Absolutely, in fact you begin the game under the command of an AI officer. We felt it was important to allow players, especially those new to the world of Operation Flashpoint 2, to see how troops are commanded and how tactics are used. Later in the game the player is placed in command of infantry units and vehicle crews, hopefully using their experience early in the game to become an effective combat leader.

Good, though nothing new nor awesome.

Quote[/b] ]8. Will there be an 3rd person View or is it only First Person?

The game is predominately first person, particularly when playing as infantry. As it currently stands all vehicles must also be used from first person as well, however we are listening to the community and feedback from play testing and we may consider 3rd person external views to vehicle drives and pilots if it becomes a feature everyone wants.

Same as above.

Pretty impressed by the description of the armor handling

[Pathy 0]

Funny, the amour handling is the same suggestion I've trolled both the ArmA and Game 2 suggestions boards with since the dawn of time, in the desperate hope that they'd listen and put in a penetration based systen!

Maybe OFP2 will have something ArmA2 won't!

[Second 0]

Sad that they didnt' ask about terrain and it's details... Well if it's going to be that big i'd quess we are gonna have same level of detail than ArmA has. Kinda low in micro detail that is.

[Baff1 0]

I think that tractor racing in OpF2 will be better than tractor racing in OpF1.

[Deadfast 43]

What's with the people using OPF instead of OFP now?

Regarding the awesome damage model for armor in OFP2:

I believe similar system is actually already used in Battlefield 2.

[sparks50 0]

Yes I was guilty of that for some time

Its not a horrible logic though, since operation is often shortened to "op", and then F for the name of the operation.

[Blackhawk 0]

I don't see any problem with saying OPF, It's just like this

OP -Operation

F - Flashpoint

[Lepardi 0]

What's with the people using OPF instead of OFP now?

Regarding the awesome damage model for armor in OFP2:

I believe similar system is actually already used in Battlefield 2.

No, Battlefield 2 has a crappy hitpoint system.

[TeRp 1]

Funny, the amour handling is the same suggestion I've trolled both the ArmA and Game 2 suggestions boards with since the dawn of time, in the desperate hope that they'd listen and put in a penetration based systen!

Maybe OFP2 will have something ArmA2 won't!

Yeah, it's about time that a system like this is implented. I was hoping that ArmA included it, but.. well, you see what we ended up with eventually. To me, OFP2 is becoming more tempting every time I read the latest 'facts' about it.

[ArMoGaDoN 0]

Teasers and hype is all I've really seen from CM so far, IMO the only real in-game footage for OFP2 seen has looked quite far from the dreams they are conjuring in our imaginations.

Only time and further footage will reveal what they are REALLY gonna come up with.

[Pathy 0]

What's with the people using OPF instead of OFP now?

Regarding the awesome damage model for armor in OFP2:

I believe similar system is actually already used in Battlefield 2.

No, Battlefield 2 has a crappy hitpoint system.

If you want to see an awesome damage system in an FPS, look at an ancient game like world war 2 online, where armour thickness, weakspots, and components are modelled. It's possible to, for instance, kill individual crewmen if the round hits in the right place. Angle of impact, range, calibre of round, HE/AP, all taken into account. If its doable in an old crappy MP engine like that....