What made OPF better?

[falseprophet 0]

arma is sweet from the graphic engine and that stuff but i dont like:

- The AI

- Why the hell the fight on a holiday island? the only part of sahrani which is really great are all these north forests (pita, mataredo, everon..). It should be a more climatically passed island. I mean... you create a complete desert island, dusty buildings, no water, rocks, old abadoned citys or something...

or a green "dark" land with dark deep forests, deserted small towns, hidden enemy camps (somewhere in the middle of a forest)..

or a real big city.. well then you only got cqb but great cqb =)

so what i want to say.. the atmosphere from sahrani is bad, its a mix: darkforests, desert towns, small towns, big towns, holiday island and desert but it should be more the same.

e.g. the desert, the sand is pretty cool but why is it so small? :S

[vilas 475]

oh...

Quote[/b] ]In the eye/mouth of the public, ArmA is regarded as (or should be) a realistic combat simulator. And maybe the box-art on some releases says so too (maybe other advertisement too?), but geez, get over the armor system for crying out loud

You say it is just game no matter about what was/is advertised

okay so if you buy "soccer championship 2007" and on box there is written "a modern plane simulator with many planes" you should expect plane inside , not football players !!!

and you can say to such developer some nice words like f**

it is a matter of "honest" advertisement, in some coutries you can be suited for lies

for me as for public working officer "what is written is saint"

is someone will make statement not true, we give case to prosectutor and it can cost 3 years inprisonment for missing with truth because of paaragraph 233 of Penal Codex

on my Polish release box there is stated "most realistic battlefield symulating system" ans "very realistic made vehicles" "rel behaviour of military equpement" so i thought i was buying VBS 1.5  as a customer

of course i will not suit BIS for this, because i have to time, money and all will to do it

but writing such things on box is really really anoying !!!!

as i remember in some countries law forbides to lie in advertisment

so for example you cannot show walking or crying doll for child, while real doll from box don't walk or cry !!!

if on box of ARMA there was written "game showing modern warfer equipement" i would not say even ONE word against BIS

but "game showing equipement" is not equal "total military realism of behaviour of real vehicles"

this is main "issue" - truth !!!

from some days i don't have ARMA on my PC

more - on my book to game there is showing screen with option "hdr switch" so i suppose ON/OFF HDR, probably from somekind "beta"

[sander 14]

Hi,

Operation Flashpoint had the advantage of being entirely fresh and new, therefore it is hard for Armed Assault to compete. For me personally, the Cold War setting of OFP made it particularly attractive as it gave me as a player the chance to fight out the battles that I had imagined growing up during that era (back in the days when you had real nostalgia). Having the vast military might of the Soviet Union as an opponent instead of the tiny Democratic Republic of Sahrani also lent it more atmosphere. There is more menace exuding from a superpower as an enemy than some minor island rogue state. Having said that Armed Assault does constitute an improvement over OFP in many respects. Gameplay has in my opinion been improved, as you need to be even more careful than in OFP. Although the new flying mechanism is much maligned in forum posts, I actually tend to crash more often in OFP than in Arma. Armed Assault also has superior graphics. Although forests have a significant impact on performance on my aging machine, performance in other areas is as good or even better than OFP while looking significantly better even at normal to low settings. Overall I am quite happy with this update on the original, I regard as the biggest drawback the fact that it requires even more time to create an addon for it.

Regards,

Sander

[Deadfast 43]

@Vilas:

There's nothing as you described written on my box of Czech version. There's only "Od tvůrců hry Operace Flashpoint" - "From the creators of Operation Flashpoint" and "Spatříte-li záblesk, je už pozdě" - "If you see the flash, it's too late".

The cover design is not up to game developers. It's up to publishers. In your case you should contact Lem, which seems to be ArmA's publisher in Poland.

[vilas 475]

graphically ARMA is super, island is beauty, vehicles are super

also many units can fight without lags, it is super too

OFP was poor when 50 men and some vehicles were on map,

ARMA is much better in that issue

but.. other issues makes me angry

p.s.

maybe you are right about publisher, because things written on my box are completly different

then i cannot blame BIS for LEM behavoiur (LEM also gave starforce :/ )

[sluggCDN 0]

@sickboy

imagine a firefight situation where u have to take out infantry that swarmed upon u and start popping around your/friendly APC - not an impossible scenario in urban setting. Lets say there are too many of them and u are low on ammo and have to use frags. Yes, you will flush out enemy infantry but you will also damage your own APC. AND JUST WITH TWO FRAGS! You definitely couldn't do it in OFP. Why such a choice by BIS then? oversight or intention?

[sluggCDN 0]

I make such posts with an intention that devs read it and try not to do the same crap in Arma2. I'm not whining I just want to play ArmA2, a true successor of the glorious OFP, and not be a subject to another marketing scam by BIS.

OFP was great for its time. ArmA should have taken all that was good about OFP and make it better. Instead seems like BIS completely dumped all the fixes and improvements that have been done to OFP leading up to 1.96 version, and built an upgraded version of OFP on the "bugs-infested" 1.46 version of OFP engine. In the process they also introduced new bugs along with the new content.

This kinda stuff completely undermines my faith in BIS ability to actually make any sound rational decision about introduction of new content. Damaging armored vehicles with 2-3 fragmentation grenades feature or introducing tracers to sniper rifles are just two of many examples of BIS "innovations" in ArmA. I don't want to list them all because ppl will accuse me of whining and complaining. ArmA is regressive in some areas while making some incrimental improvements in certain aspects of gameplay. I just hope BIS actually sees those issues clearly otherwise they are losing their time with ArmA2. What would you guys think if ArmA2 will inherit all the bugs that ArmA has now, despite all the fixes we have with the version 1.08. I just hope they straighten out their act and we'll all be happy

[sickboy 13]

@sickboy

imagine a firefight situation where u have to take out infantry that swarmed upon u and start popping around your/friendly APC - not an impossible scenario in urban setting. Lets say there are too many of them and u are low on ammo and have to use frags. Yes, you will flush out enemy infantry but you will also damage your own APC. AND JUST WITH TWO FRAGS! You definitely couldn't do it in OFP. Why such a choice by BIS then? oversight or intention?

IMHO a valid point. Never been in such situation though, which is kinda my point in why things like this are IMHO not that much of a problem. Though I agree that such things in the future should be done different/better.

[Deadfast 43]

It's been a while since I played OFP, but if I remember correctly, it was possible also in OFP to damage/destroy armored vehicles and AI even threw frags at you (however, this may be fixed in a patch, I'm not sure, but I don't want to install OFP just to make sure - lost my Resistance CD anyway ).

[Second 0]

It's been a while since I played OFP, but if I remember correctly, it was possible also in OFP to damage/destroy armored vehicles and AI even threw frags at you (however, this may be fixed in a patch, I'm not sure, but I don't want to install OFP just to make sure - lost my Resistance CD anyway ).

There is mission in Red hammer campaign where player needs to eliminate BMP with handgrenades.

I destoyed/knocked out T-80 with frags in one of theCWC campaign's mission just to revenge all those dead resistance guys (there was few boxes of ammo near by ).

[sander 14]

Hi,

The ability to destroy armour with handgrenades was already in OFP, it was not introduced with Armed Assault. Thin skinned armour is in fact quite vulnerable to high velocity metal shards. It should be noted that in documentation for AFV's that claims protection against 155mm shell splinters the small print is often omitted that this is for impacts at a distance of 50 meters. Even though the current armour system is not perfect, it still gives the impression of not making the vehicles vulnerable enough though. Steel Beasts Pro PE is a very sobering experience when one attempts to use armour in the way one can easily get away with in OFP/Arma.

Regards,

Sander

[BraTTy 0]

It really wouldn't take a scripter a whole lotta work to reverse damage done by small arms fire to armor that it shouldn't hurt.

Someday someone should add that to one of these realism mods

[Sevan 0]

I noticed that in ArmA you can destroy an M113 with small arms fire, I don't remember if you could in OPF. I find that a bigger problem then destroying one with gernades, which may be possible in real life.

I'm going to say this agian, the latest discussion here has been about ways that ArmA is dissapointing and not about comparison between OPF and ArmA. There is an ArmA disappointment thread for that kind of discussion.

[-HUNTER- 1]

After reading 8 pages...

What made OFP better...?

The fact that it existed for 6 years!!!

And ARMA only 1 year!

Its not that hard is it... Ask this question in 5 years!

[Sevan 0]

I, and some other people at the beginning of this thread, have come to a different conclusion. It has to do with OPF being more balanced and having more consistent "harmonious" design. example: the level of terrain detail worked well with the capability of the AI. ArmA is much less balanced, because of an uneven development of components. same example: terrain detail, especially in the size of cities, has really improved but not the capability of the AI to fight in them.

[Second 0]

I noticed that in ArmA you can destroy an M113 with small arms fire, I don't remember if you could in OPF. I find that a bigger problem then destroying one with gernades, which may be possible in real life.

I remeber one LAN game with my friend who managed to destroy BMP with M60 (machine gun). Don't know about version number, but back in late 2001 or early 2002 that happened.

In fact it was much more easier to destroy vehicles in OFP with these kind "dirty" tricks than in ArmA. I find it funny that people actually don't know this and put the blame on ArmA alone

[MehMan 0]

And ARMA only 1 year!  

Its not that hard is it... Ask this question in 5 years!

ArmA isn't going to be active for six years, at least not when ArmAII comes around. OFP was one hellishly lucky game to stick around for six years with an active community. Most games die out with new games and they also die out in a normal dev cycle for games nowadays.

[ricoadf 0]

I noticed that in ArmA you can destroy an M113 with small arms fire, I don't remember if you could in OPF. I find that a bigger problem then destroying one with gernades, which may be possible in real life.

I'm going to say this agian, the latest discussion here has been about ways that ArmA is dissapointing and not about comparison between OPF and ArmA. There is an ArmA disappointment thread for that kind of discussion.

A 50cal could go through a M113's hull like it was made of cardboard, its paper thin. Even an average AK could do alot of damage if allowed to fire long enough, I think thats a good thing finally some realism in it.

[MehMan 0]

It really wouldn't take a scripter a whole lotta work to reverse damage done by small arms fire to armor that it shouldn't hurt.

Someday someone should add that to one of these realism mods

I don't think it's possible, at least by looking at the bikil. EH hit doesn't register small arms fire on tanks.

[Dallas 9]

A light armoured vehicle isn't the best place to be while receiving sustained fire from an LMG. Agreed an APC offers more protection than an umbrella, but it's unwise to expose the APC defenseless against a heavy barrage.

[celery 8]

I noticed that in ArmA you can destroy an M113 with small arms fire, I don't remember if you could in OPF. I find that a bigger problem then destroying one with gernades, which may be possible in real life.

I'm going to say this agian, the latest discussion here has been about ways that ArmA is dissapointing and not about comparison between OPF and ArmA. There is an ArmA disappointment thread for that kind of discussion.

A 50cal could go through a M113's hull like it was made of cardboard, its paper thin. Even an average AK could do alot of damage if allowed to fire long enough, I think thats a good thing finally some realism in it.

The bullets don't go through the armor to kill the ones inside the APC, they are stopped and then they do "dammage" to the vehicle until it blows up for some reason.

[baddo 0]

I think people should also notice that simulating even a somewhat-realistic damage system is extremely difficult.

Go meet a Mechanical Engineer who has specialized in Strength of Materials and ask how to calculate the damage a projectile or an explosion will do to a sheet of metal...

...start by studying Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Finite Element Method (FEM) if you want to understand even a little bit of the reply you will get!

It's not possible with the current technology to do such analysis run-time in a computer game.

So it is very clear to us: for a game you must make serious simplifications. That means you lose most of the "realism" you would like to see.

You make a lookup-table:

- this kind of projectile doesn't go through this kind of steel plate

- this kind of projectile goes through this kind of steel plate

- this kind of projectile blows this kind of structure into little pieces

- etc...

Then at run-time you check that table according to what kind of objects hit each other, and use the result to show the player the effect.

No matter how BIS calls their damage system and how they arrange their table, this principle is how they have to do it.

And this scheme doesn't take into account the all sorts of possibilities you can get. It only takes into account some pre-determined cases.

So the obvious problem is that doing damage calculations is extemely processing power expensive. Thus the situation needs to be seriously simplified. The lookup-table is what you can do. How big a lookup-table BIS creates is a question of how much time they want to dedicate for that task.

[MehMan 0]

I think people should also notice that simulating even a somewhat-realistic damage system is extremely difficult.

Go meet a Mechanical Engineer who has specialized in Strength of Materials and ask how to calculate the damage a projectile or an explosion will do to a sheet of metal...

...start by studying Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Finite Element Method (FEM) if you want to understand even a little bit of the reply you will get!

It's not possible with the current technology to do such analysis run-time in a computer game.

So it is very clear to us: for a game you must make serious simplifications. That means you lose most of the "realism" you would like to see.

You make a lookup-table:

- this kind of projectile doesn't go through this kind of steel plate

- this kind of projectile goes through this kind of steel plate

- this kind of projectile blows this kind of structure into little pieces

- etc...

Then at run-time you check that table according to what kind of objects hit each other, and use the result to show the player the effect.

No matter how BIS calls their damage system and how they arrange their table, this principle is how they have to do it.

And this scheme doesn't take into account the all sorts of possibilities you can get. It only takes into account some pre-determined cases.

So the obvious problem is that doing damage calculations is extemely processing power expensive. Thus the situation needs to be seriously simplified. The lookup-table is what you can do. How big a lookup-table BIS creates is a question of how much time they want to dedicate for that task.

Well, here's the problem, I don't think it even goes as far as this goes through this, it's only as far as: it hits, it does damage.

[Sevan 0]

I think it could be fairly simple to do. Assign parts of a vehicle with various "armor ratings" based on real world thickness. Then give the weapons in the game "penetration ratings". When a vehicle is hit, if the penetration rating is above the armor rating, the vehicle is damaged or destroyed. If not it sustains only light damage to no damage.

that would create a situation where say a Abrams could take multiple RPG rounds to the front, but would be heavily damaged or destroyed with side and rear hits. Instead of the currenty way, where a one or two RPGs destroy both the Abrams and T-72. It would also stop MG guns and gernades from destroying tanks.

[MehMan 0]

Well I have an idea sorta like that, I always said I need to write it down but never got to there.