ArmA 2

[shinRaiden 0]

Ok, Mr I-got-totally-suckered-by-the-marketing-bs-so-I'm-demanding-anybody-but-me-justify-my-money-whoring, would you care to proffer an explanation of how to apply asynchronous multi-threading to a linearly sequential simulation system? I'm eagerly awaiting your profound wisdom, nobody else has made a comparable game that actually utilizes multiple threading.

Since you so clearly know how to do such high level process scheduler control programming, what are you doing spamming here, and why aren't you making your own game?

Marketing BS my ass. So are you saying that he shouldn't have upgraded his system for other games using it because they cant figure it out? Going from a P4 to Q6600 was totally worth it.

Anyways, i'm going to hold my judgement about Arma2 until we see details(hopefully in a couple days). I'm sure they have something nice stuck up their sleeve and are rofl at some forum posts(i hope *gulp*). But I really hope they make the 2008 release date. Mid 2009 i'll be in USMC boot camp.

Again, the BS is on your side, not mine. Performance gains from a P4 to a C2D has nothing to do with the core count, it has to do with the fact that the entirely different architecture within any one of the Core core's is vastly more efficient than the hotplate legacy P4's.

Secondly, I call shenanigans on the other games that claim to be 'optimized' for dual cores. I cite the mountains of threads of people pointing out how their applications run smoother and faster when they lock their affinity. Additionally, the so-called optimization is generally little more than forking off little nigglies like more smoke particles, which are intrinsically multi-tasking friendly, but a minuscule part of the entire linear simulation cycle on CPU load. The more serious and complex parts still remain sequential - AI, viewport, collision, visualization, all those inherently require preceding logic to be executed, in sequential order. Guaranteeing that they will be executed in proper order across multiple independently scheduled threads is an entirely impractical mess.

[smiley nick 51]

I sincerely do hope BIS release a "new features" list over the next few weeks to help secure the concerns people have. But judging arma2's look, it appears to be yet another fancy graphical update, which tbh look's exactly the same as arma.

Im not sure what tactics BIS are using atm. But i can assure if, if game2 proves to be another arma with different packaging and setting, i will be jumping ship.

Game2 was on everyone’s list to be the "real" cookie, with role-play elements; I guess it doesn’t seem to be the case.

Lets see  

[Sosna 0]

What is the likelyhood of a 64 bit version?

[mant3z 1]

I can live with this, and I can buy ArmA2 and OFP2 and everything else what BIS give me.

But why? Why again we must play game where are russians and americans. Whats the problem with making a new conflict... for example France vs. Sweden. I know that's not real... but, nobody in the past made something like this and It can be interesting.

World is big and there is a lot of nation... give them a chance to fight

[Törni 0]

Great! The time put into learning ArmA addon making and scripting has not been vain   And fictional Russia is a way better than ArmA Islands.

EDIT: I wish they devote more of their time to content than purely graphics engine this time.

[BLSmith2112 0]

#vote codemasters-help-bis-make-arma2!

[4 IN 1 0]

i REALLY do start thinking that BI should stop making games for gamers and move on to mil stuff, better customers, bigger money, and without risk being pissed by idiots and getting a f==kin stroke

[pmd 0]

well... what the fuck is this bullshit now!? they just fucking released ArmA and now they are coming out with a completely NEW ARMA!?

at first glance it's kind of cool, but when you think about it, it's kind of fucked up! the arma/ofp community is split into 3 here

1: the people still playing OFP saving enough money to get a computer to play arma decently

2: the people playing arma (1?) and are going to stay with arma simply because it's new and they've spent a lot of time on arma

3: the people that want the latest and greatest game and will move onto ArmA II

if you think about all that shit... well... this kind of blows

the only way they can make this situation good is if...

1: they make it to where if you play arma with decent graphics then you wont need to upgrade your computer

2: they fix some seriously fucked up bugs in ArmA 1 such as AI owning your ass with a headshot 500m+ away and your own AI intellagence such as reaction time and path-finding

3: and lets make the tanks a bit stronger

so many different emotions right now

that pretty much sums up what i'm feeling

[-duke- 0]

Ok, Mr I-got-totally-suckered-by-the-marketing-bs-so-I'm-demanding-anybody-but-me-justify-my-money-whoring, would you care to proffer an explanation of how to apply asynchronous multi-threading to a linearly sequential simulation system? I'm eagerly awaiting your profound wisdom, nobody else has made a comparable game that actually utilizes multiple threading.

Since you so clearly know how to do such high level process scheduler control programming, what are you doing spamming here, and why aren't you making your own game?

Marketing BS my ass. So are you saying that he shouldn't have upgraded his system for other games using it because they cant figure it out? Going from a P4 to Q6600 was totally worth it.

Anyways, i'm going to hold my judgement about Arma2 until we see details(hopefully in a couple days). I'm sure they have something nice stuck up their sleeve and are rofl at some forum posts(i hope *gulp*). But I really hope they make the 2008 release date. Mid 2009 i'll be in USMC boot camp.

Again, the BS is on your side, not mine. Performance gains from a P4 to a C2D has nothing to do with the core count, it has to do with the fact that the entirely different architecture within any one of the Core core's is vastly more efficient than the hotplate legacy P4's.

Secondly, I call shenanigans on the other games that claim to be 'optimized' for dual cores. I cite the mountains of threads of people pointing out how their applications run smoother and faster when they lock their affinity. Additionally, the so-called optimization is generally little more than forking off little nigglies like more smoke particles, which are intrinsically multi-tasking friendly, but a minuscule part of the entire linear simulation cycle on CPU load. The more serious and complex parts still remain sequential - AI, viewport, collision, visualization, all those inherently require preceding logic to be executed, in sequential order. Guaranteeing that they will be executed in proper order across multiple independently scheduled threads is an entirely impractical mess.

You know something, it's guys like you that make a community like this so great. You get one little bug in your arse about what someone says and you think anything you have to add comes out as a pearl instead of the sh1t nugget it really is.

All I did was make a simple comment on how I wish the game ran more fluidly and you decided to ram it down my throat. I don't know if you run any of your own sites my friend, but this is not a recipe for healthy communication.

You're right, I don't know how to create software to utilize multi core CPU's but Adobe does so clearly someone's doing it. I believe Alan Wake will also be optimized for multi-core CPU's so it can be done, hence my remark.

[-Puma- 2]

i REALLY do start thinking that BI should stop making games for gamers and move on to mil stuff, better customers, bigger money, and without risk being pissed by idiots and getting a f==kin stroke

or release a game that delivers, what they promised, as alot of ppl seem to get worked up about it. To me arma is great, no big problems. Keep going BiS, and make arma and arma2 compatible.

there's allways whiners around, so just ingnore that BS, if they have't got any real point.

[Törni 0]

If BIS was a normal games company the standard procedure would be to release an enclosed game that cannot be modified or edited in any way. Once the content has been played (about a week) you could toss the game into carbage. Please do not do this. Still some people seem to prefering this alternative

Well it is easy ready-made fast food junk...

[Placebo 29]

Can't we all just get along?

[hoot 0]

That's great news BI. Well, then in 2008 i want to immerse into that announced deformable terrain and do some fun with with those destructable buildings. I do really expect some proper nextgen folks

[smiley nick 51]

Can't we all just get along?

We can, now that your here

[jasono 0]

Can't we all just get along?

We can, now that your here

Indeed

If I see a noticable difference in ArmA 2 (which I most likly will) I will buy it.

Remember this is 2008 we are talking about here. In BIS's minds that will be 2009-2011 times. We still have ages on ArmA yet.

What's making we wonder is, if less work on ArmA 1 bugs is done now..

[Gunney 0]

You know something, it's guys like you that make a communitylike this so great. You get one little bug in your arse about what someone says and you think anything you have to add comes out as a pearl instead of the sh1t nugget it really is.

All I did was make a simple comment on how I wish the game ran more fluidly and you decided to ram it down my throat. I don't know if you run any of your own sites my friend, but this is not a recipe for healthy communication.

You're right, I don't know how to create software to utilize multi core CPU's but Adobe does so clearly someone's doing it. I believe Alan Wake will also be optimized for multi-core CPU's so it can be done, hence my remark.

Seriously, Alan wake and Crysis will be utilizing them and they said it would be a nice performance gain during intense action scenes. While I know nothing about programming,

I just figured maybe BIS could do something to support these cause they will be used in many other future games coming out. idk, what your gripe with multi cores is but what do you suggest, stick with single core? I'll be happy with my Q6600 during Crysis.

[ERC-Blackwater 0]

This is rediculous! ArmA, NO TOOLS FOR EDITING, They're pulling an expansion pack outa they're ass... now ArmA Two!?!?! What in the hell are they thinking?!

[hoot 0]

Did anyone noticed the recently released Teaser for the Codies OFP2? Guess it's rendered. However, interesting to see both OFP2 on the market in 2008 - perhaps

[Balschoiw 0]

Where is the news ?

[hoot 0]

Dunno. Maybe they got a shock when watching those BI-Screens

[jono_retard 0]

its on www.armedassault.com balshcoiw (or something like that lol)

[-duke- 0]

Did anyone noticed the recently released Teaser for the Codies OFP2? Guess it's rendered. However, interesting to see both OFP2 on the market in 2008 - perhaps

For the life of me I can't remember my CodeM info so I went to YouTube for the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL4aEYbJvf4

It definitely looks like a splash video or perhaps an FMV.

Chilling to think that one day, games will actually look like that though, can't wait.

[Balschoiw 0]

Seriously, I know where the "news" originate from, but I´d like to know where the news are, as for me this simply looks like Arma with some units that were supposed to be in original Arma in the first place; the storyline is very whacko imo as Russia hardly would tolerate an open US-Russia confrontation near their heartlands. This would turn into a worldwar scenario in 1,2,3. Apart from that this gum has been chewed upon for a very long time now and it has become a bit lame in taste.

What I specifically dislike is that Arma still has some real showstopper bugs, I mean AI flaws and technical breakdowns like broken pathfinding routines, unresponsive AI´s, etc, etc and I´d like to see that fixed for customers who have bought Arma before basing another version on the engine and releasing it.

2008 doesn´t sound like a reasonable date for me as betatesting

would run short again, as with Arma, and the result of this is sitting on our computers. A game with good potential taken down but a serious number of bugs and flaws.

Announcing that QG will come with 1.08 patch doesn´t make me specifically optimistic about NEEDED bugfixes for the product.

So they´re fxing the Arma 1 bugs with Arma 2 ? This can´t be the right approach and I doubt it will work, keeping in mind that with Arma 1 we got served bugs that were already present in OFP 1.0.

I´m a bit sad that they are pressing for the release of another game before fixing the existant one for users who´d like to use the game without limitations and the really serious flaws like AI pathfinding routines.

Each time I see another vehicle driving off a bridge because of broken AI pathfinding and wrecked collision detection I could bite my hat, each time I see another unit standing lost in the fields doing nothing while he was JUST supposed to move with his groupleader I could rip my nails, each time I see enemies running through solid objects and vehicles I could just close my eyes and forget about Arma.

Why don´t BIS try to fix those bugs FIRST and then move on to another project, or is Arma 2 meant to be the bugfixed version of Arma 1 with new units ?

Thank you very much, I´d prefer a bugfree Arma 1 first, then something else, but only if I see that BIS is actually taking responsibility for their products and customers.

And that would mean for me to fix Arma for the people who bought it and then move on to whatever project.

Thanx for your time !

[smellyjelly 0]

Just so you guys know, http://www.arma2.com/ is working now. There is nothing interesting there though.

[bravo 6 0]

Where is the news ?

Can't we all just get along?

We can, now that your here

Yup we can, glad your here

We have some news..

..the main ARMA2 site have 4 rotate background images!

edit: Im going to see the 42 mb OFP2 from Codefeckers