Is the damage model for armor based on hit-points?

[benreeper 0]

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat but did GTA have weapons ballistics, multiplayer and a game area 100sq km?

Do you not think BIS would like this game to be the "End All"? But at this time, creating that game is very costly and, with the way everybody hates this game because it isn't perfect, not a very profitable one.

Everything is a trade-off but MOST PC gamers will never be satisfied. I'm guessing future BIS titles will be console shooters. More money, less critics; why would any sane developer want to deal with us. That's why they're all jumping ship and I don't blame them. The only losers when this happens are gamers like me who will not have this type of game to play anymore. Right now it's the ONLY game in town and it seems like many of us are going criticize it right out of town.

--Ben

[Heatseeker 0]

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat but did GTA have weapons ballistics, multiplayer and a game area 100sq km?

Do you not think BIS would like this game to be the "End All"? But at this time, creating that game is very costly and, with the way everybody hates this game because it isn't perfect, not a very profitable one.

Everything is a trade-off but MOST PC gamers will never be satisfied. I'm guessing future BIS titles will be console shooters. More money, less critics; why would any sane developer want to deal with us. That's why they're all jumping ship and I don't blame them. The only losers when this happens are gamers like me who will not have this type of game to play anymore. Right now it's the ONLY game in town and it seems like many of us are going criticize it right out of town.

--Ben

Its not just a critic, its a fact.

I dont like dumping a stryker or 6 wheeled truck because one of its rear wheels turned rusty by small arms fire.

Or have 1 single pistol round shatter all the windows of a hummwv making visibility in first person impossible (while the windows of the racs 4x4 are bullet proof).

Discussion leads to ideas .

[benreeper 0]

I don't like some of the damage modeling either but I don't complain about it (the discussions all appear to be complaints to me) because I know that BIS did not make it that way because they were lazy or they hate us; it's the best they (or anyone) can do under the circumstances. This is proven by the fact the OFP and Arma are the ONLY games of its kind out there.

Basically the choices are this game or nothing because no other developers are scrambling to make this type of game. Saying they should have done this or that is complaining and if I don't like hearing it you can that the devs don't like it either.

Constructive criticisms is good, such as saying that the bridges don't work so they should be removed, but saying that the tank simulation should be as good as a dedicated tank sim is just plain wrong.

We have no choices in this matter if BIS stops developing this sort of game then it's over: if that's what you want then continue to criticize and complain about all of the perceived shortcomings and you will get your wish.

--Ben

[max power 21]

I don't like some of the damage modeling either but I don't complain about it (the discussions all appear to be complaints to me) because I know that BIS did not make it that way because they were lazy or they hate us; it's the best they (or anyone) can do under the circumstances.  This is proven by the fact the OFP and Arma are the ONLY games of its kind out there.

Basically the choices are this game or nothing because no other developers are scrambling to make this type of game.  Saying they should have done this or that is complaining and if I don't like hearing it you can that the devs don't like it either.  

Constructive criticisms is good, such as saying that the bridges don't work so they should be removed, but saying that the tank simulation should be as good as a dedicated tank sim is just plain wrong.

We have no choices in this matter if BIS stops developing this sort of game then it's over: if that's what you want then continue to criticize and complain about all of the perceived shortcomings and you will get your wish.

--Ben

+10!

[Second 0]

We have no choices in this matter if BIS stops developing this sort of game then it's over: if that's what you want then continue to criticize and complain about all of the perceived shortcomings and you will get your wish.

--Ben

Some people, like me, gives rat's arse about freedom, (too) wide open spaces, 'you can do whatever you want'-BS. This doesn't sound like mil-sim... Because it ain't!. It sounds more like virtualworld, you own 'The Sims - Guns on Sahrani'. My wife likes Sims-series, i do not: I'm $#¤&@ wargamer-wannabe for crying out loud.

I would be intreseted to see charts of how many customers thinks that BIS has got it wrong after OFP and how many thinks that it was right step which BIS took with armA. To me it seems more that BIS desided to bloat OFP, not to make better OFP.

[froggyluv 2136]

We have no choices in this matter if BIS stops developing this sort of game then it's over: if that's what you want then continue to criticize and complain about all of the perceived shortcomings and you will get your wish.

--Ben

Some people, like me, gives rat's arse about freedom, (too) wide open spaces, 'you can do whatever you want'-BS. This doesn't sound like mil-sim... Because it ain't!. It sounds more like virtualworld, you own 'The Sims - Guns on Sahrani'. My wife likes Sims-series, i do not: I'm $#¤&@ wargamer-wannabe for crying out loud.

I would be intreseted to see charts of how many customers thinks that BIS has got it wrong after OFP and how many thinks that it was right step which BIS took with armA. To me it seems more that BIS desided to bloat OFP, not to make better OFP.

Then why play it?

I'm sure there are plenty of games out there with very limited freedom/units that have top notch cover/suppression and exciting 5 on 5 battles on a city block.

I agree 100% with ya Benreeper. It's exactly that wide-open freedom that hooked me to OFP years ago. My old college buddies who were die-hard Playstation/XBox fans just couldn't get why I loved OFP so much

"Thats boring!"

"EEWH- graphics suck!"

"But, where are you suppossed to go?"

Needless to say, they were all very impressed by Medal Of Honor/Call of Duty types. To each their own, but our market is extremly limited and Arma is the best of it's type.

[Second 0]

Then why play it?

I don't, because mentioned reasons.

[benreeper 0]

Then why play it?

I don't, because mentioned reasons.

Then why are you here posting in this forumSecond if you don't even play the game? What are looking to get out of this? Are you trying to make sure that we can't play it either?

See the the people that hate the game the most DON"T EVEN PLAY IT! Their mission is take our enjoyment away from it also. Well it's not going to work. We still love the game and will defend it.

I am a fan of BIS for what they have given me and I always felt that there was an agenda to the attacks on them. Most of the criticisms are extremely unfair and mean spirited. This game is what it is. Once you've stopped playing it, coming here to badmouth it is in very poor taste.

--Ben

[Second 0]

I'm here to offer my "expertiece", i know ArmA and OFP somewhat well and i think i can offer some solid and honest data about them both. Helping people out with their problems etc. I've put over half year effort to make ArmA more complete. Wondering of what did ArmA wrong, what would make it better etc. Overall i think my brainstorming is growing (and has grown) some intellectual seeds, and i'm willing and eager to share them... Checking out the modding front... You see, i have excuses (maybe even right! ) to visit here and offer my nicely chewed "wisdom".

[[asa]oden 0]

Good answer Second

Hopefully the "If you didn't develop this product you shouldn't be here"-attitude of fanbois will never become a rule.

[froggyluv 2136]

I'm here to offer my "expertiece", i know ArmA and OFP somewhat well and i think i can offer some solid and honest data about them both.

Thats great! although not giving a rat's arse about freedom in a mil-sim is not very hard-core data  

frankly, I don't see how you could have a mil-sim without a wide open playing space but I'd love to hear it.

@[ASA]ODEN

Please don't start with that tired old fanboi argument- it's really stale.

[max power 21]

ODEN @ Jan. 27 2008,00:26)]Good answer Second

Hopefully the "If you didn't develop this product you shouldn't be here"-attitude of fanbois will never become a rule.

One weak minded shortcut to thinking countered by another. I love it!

[benreeper 0]

ODEN @ Jan. 27 2008,00:26)]Good answer Second

Hopefully the "If you didn't develop this product you shouldn't be here"-attitude of fanbois will never become a rule.

No it's more like the ''You admittedly don't play the product so why are you here''-attitude.

Also:

Is calling me a fanboy supposed to be an insult? That's like calling a Ferrari fast. I state in nearly every post that I am indeed a fan of BIS. Thanks for noticing that.

--Ben

[[asa]oden 0]

froggyluv: Sorry.

plaintiff1: well thank you.

Benreeper: Yes, "don't play" level - for now, depends on who states it and what level he's on. A dev would prolly use the other if he had the "I'm more than you" approach.

Anyway, sorry for creating a mess - I have no intention to "out-argue" you guys, I've stated my opinion and will let you others have yours, that's what a forum is for i my little universe.

[Second 0]

I'm here to offer my "expertiece", i know ArmA and OFP somewhat well and i think i can offer some solid and honest data about them both.

Thats great! although not giving a rat's arse about freedom in a mil-sim is not very hard-core data

frankly, I don't see how you could have a mil-sim without a wide open playing space but I'd love to hear it.

Yes that was poorly said from my behalf, humor ain't my main thing... Meaning that rat's arse thing.

What BIS can gain by shrinking island size smaller to half of Everon forexample? Can it enable better microterrain to add more immersive terrain and make it to suit better for firefights (and make AI to use it properly).

Can BIS tweak their AI so that fewer (like ~200) units are allowed on map, but lift AI skills in combat. Introduce some new things to AI leaders. Ofcourse respawning new AI troops would be one way to counter this 200 troops limitation.

Overall has it's size turned against ArmA? I don't feel my freedom limited if i am restricted to southern parts of Everon (well there are some missions which requires larger space), i don't think i've seen many mission's which should require more than 200 troops presence, which can be countered by respawning scritps.

[Wolfrug 0]

I'm sorry but, what? Why would restricting space allow for anything else? BIS Devs have repeatedly stated that their terrain-creation is fully streamable: which means you can essentially have as large maps as you want, it won't lag more or less either way. Of course, the larger the map, the less time there'll generally be working on the smaller details - but if you've actually -looked- at Sahrani you'll see something of a small masterpiece that hasn't been bested by any user-made island so far at least.

It's not like it's a question of time here: as if the developers spent 85% of their time with ArmA building the island and only 15% developing "microterrain" and "better AI" or whatever the heck it is you're blathering about. If you're going to criticize one of the core features of both OFP and ArmA, you better come up with some slightly more convincing arguments than "I think smaller size is good because smaller size is good". You -do- know there is no other FPS game to date which has had even a third of the size of either OFP or ArmA when it comes to actual playable space (plenty of games who've tried to give the illusion of playable space, such as Crysis). So why take that away? In exchange for what?

Then again, this is going awfully off-topic now.

Wolfrug out.

[max power 21]

I'm here to offer my "expertiece", i know ArmA and OFP somewhat well and i think i can offer some solid and honest data about them both.

Thats great! although not giving a rat's arse about freedom in a mil-sim is not very hard-core data

frankly, I don't see how you could have a mil-sim without a wide open playing space but I'd love to hear it.

Yes that was poorly said from my behalf, humor ain't my main thing... Meaning that rat's arse thing.

What BIS can gain by shrinking island size smaller to half of Everon forexample? Can it enable better microterrain to add more immersive terrain and make it to suit better for firefights (and make AI to use it properly).

Can BIS tweak their AI so that fewer (like ~200) units are allowed on map, but lift AI skills in combat. Introduce some new things to AI leaders. Ofcourse respawning new AI troops would be one way to counter this 200 troops limitation.

Overall has it's size turned against ArmA? I don't feel my freedom limited if i am restricted to southern parts of Everon (well there are some missions which requires larger space), i don't think i've seen many mission's which should require more than 200 troops presence, which can be countered by respawning scritps.

I don't think that it's the terrain streaming that's the problem. I think it would be more of an overdraw problem, and the computer draws only what's visible on screen... So, without trees, it could render more ground detail... and with less view distance, it could render more detail up close. It's a number of poligons thing on the graphics side, and a number of simulations on the processor side. More vehicles and more AI mean more load, so simpler AI and vehicles would mean less...

It's not the size of the island but the distance viewable. If you have, say, 1 million polies in 45 degrees of 2 km, it would run at the same pace as 1 million polies in 45 degrees of 100m. The latter would be able to have orders of magnitude more detail.

[Second 0]

Yes. that is true. But would BIS be able to add more data for objects, reach more functioning terrain for AI and maybe to player. I don't know how much more complex objects smaller island could have when comparing to Sahrani (=lower object count in general, so more data can each object-class consist). Maybe weapon support for rocks, falled trees, walls. Make them crossable. Maybe even code somekind cover-usage-basics to object, so that when AI takes cover behind rock he knows how he is (atleast somewhat) in cover and how he will be able to shoot at his target but still benefit from his cover. So in general interaction between object and AI should be reached to greater degree. If by using smaller islands and by doing so using less objects, one cannot reach more A. Better microterrain and/or B. complex object-classes, like mentioned, then there's no point.

Lets make bit clearer example:

Sahrani sized island which would be using 200 different kinds Objects (yes i know the real amount is far greater, i just don't remember it)

Island 20% of sahrani size would be using 80 different kinds objects. Now how much more complex object-classes can we create? What kind data can we add to each objects? Cover usage? "Hints" and "guides" for AI to use objects properly (like buildings)?

If this ain't this simple and amount of object-classes isn't limiting factor in each object's complexity and data it can have, then okay.

Sahrani might be masterpeace from it's outlooks, but... I see lots of aspects whiere AI won't handle Sahrani and in many places lack of cover (=microterrain) stands out like sore thumb. Map isn't much usable for firefights, as they tend to end in ten seconds. Try this out in OFP, set terrain detail to very high and look how long firefights lasts and how more "ugly" and 'broken to pieces' the fighting gets... Now add AI which handles this terrain better (fires and pulls he head to cover,

forexample Farcry's (dunno about crysis) engine can handle quite big open spaces. Engine itself ain't demaning valleys and paths. This is how campaign took it's approach in many cases, but there are ways and moment for player to take advantage of open maps to use alternative paths etc. So engine itself ain't limiting this, it's the way missionmaker chooses to do it.

Same thing would apply for AI in my fantasy. I know BIS has developed it's engine to suit for bigger amounts of troops on map (Arma can have much more troops than OFP with same laq)... However, what kind quality would that same effort bring us if it would have been directed to making better individual AI in combat? Could we have better AI leaders, could we have smarter opponent who acted and reacted more like real troops?

Again same kind example: 1000 Troops vs 100 Troops which are both straning CPU same amount... Which one can have more quality in individual scale? I know that we can't have 10 times better AI if we are using just 100 troops, but can we have 2 or 3 times better AI? And this is not about flexibility (armA is quite fine with that), but it's about combat skills of AI.

EDIT: Remeber, i pointing out that if after OFP, BIS would have taken bit different path: not multiplying what engine can handle, but making it better in what it can handle (guality instead of quantity).

Maybe this is what ArmA2 will present, we will see. I can't see logical reason to keep increasing quantity, ArmA is capable of running run very huge scale already.

[benreeper 0]

I don't get what you are saying at all Second. What you want is a different game since making the game area smaller will change nothing. There are already highly detailed small islands already and the only change in game play is that the use of aircraft is diminished.

We would all like to see improvements but the difference is that

the game you want to play is not this game but this is the game many of us here want to play. The game you want to play has not been created yet and there must be a reason for that.

--Ben

[wamingo 1]

Since the game works with cells, you won't gain any performance from cutting down the map size, lest you cut it down to almost nothing. It would need to be smaller than whatever your view distance is at, before you'd experience a performance boost. Not until then, could you start putting in more objects for more detail, while maintaining the framerate.

You could probably make the island as big as memory allows, without much/any performance hit.

The size of the island may have "some" technical impacts on the AI, but I truely doubt that the game would be the same if those technical aspects were removed.

Also BIS concentrated on making the game visually up to date rather than on AI, and I bet it was more of an economical decision than anything else.

AI already seems a good deal better in arma2 judging by the video's.

[Second 0]

Yes, it's not so much about island size or what can be drawn to screen. I'm hunting down thing like: smaller amount of object classes used on map -> enables more complex object-classes (configs) with same strain to computer.

I'm not comparing current ArmA Sahrani to current Arma smaller user-island. But i'm comparing current ArmA Sahrani to fictional, smaller ArmA Sahrani (with fictional differently developed engine), with fictional object classes with more complex configs and functionability than current ArmA has.

Let's put example once again: "Hello. I'm mister Concrete Block, i'm small block, you can go prone behind me and your safe. You can kneel and you can see over me and fire your enemy. My config says that you can support your weapon on me, ain't that joy! And you can jump over me, i'm that small! I will stop all small bullets, but can't stop larger ones." And AI troops would be capable to use this knowledge.

Same goes for armor-values, penetration etc... Basic problem is ofcourse how much more complex configs can be created if island is 5-10 times smaller (need for object classes required on map goes down same amount) with same strain to computer as current ArmA? I don't have a glue but i try to quess, 2 times more information packed on object's config?

Yes, this is what-if scenario. There are big changes that i'm wrong in this, it ust crossed my mind. I quess i got too much carried away + Going waaaay offtopic. So i end it here. Sorry.

[volkov956 0]

well you could do like me and some friends did we made overrides for the missions we play that make armor more effective against small arms but sometimes even with overrides it does not help always.

We were disgusted with AA rockets that could take a T72/M1a1 out more aless after adjusting armor values to a defree AA rockets do no damage to tanks. The shooting of the rear track bug we cant figure out 30 shots can blow up any armor vehicle if shot in the right spot in the rear track area. We discovered that there is a point there where BIS positioned a High Damage area.

We discovered shooting at the lights on same armor also cause the alarm to go off and eject AI crew even if the tank is not damaged at all.

We tried the same things in OFP and could not recreate them. Damage also seems more positional in OFP. EX:

1a:If you shoot a engine in OFP you damage the Engine the tank more aless is Disabled. Tank does not explode damage is mainly at rear area.

1b: If you shoot a engine in Arma you damage the engine+ its not positional so tracks/turret/barrel will all get damaged. Result Exploding tank when any part gets redish

2a:Disabling a track in OFP will make a tank just drive circles or not move at all.

2b:Disabling a track in arma = No movement and impending explosion

3a:shooting a shilka in the rear track with 30 pistol rounds in OFP nothing happens

3b:shooting a shilka in the rear track with 30 pistol rounds in Arma Crew jumps out and Vehicle Explodes

4a:Default AA rocket VS tank in OFP = Nothing but a bump

4b:Default AA rocket vs tank in arma = severe damage and killing crew at times.

and I could list a whole book on comparisons but as u can see there is a little list

[icebreakr 3157]

Our team always shoots at Shilka's or BMP's tracks and when the tracks are badly damaged the crew jumps out and we kill them easily. Of course that works on stoopid AI only