In terms of realism

[sickboy 13]

Would you please stop now to discuss this of-topic stuff?

I already written my points, so no need to hear any other comments about it - ok?!

You are right, I will.

But only until such annoying behaviour pops up again

[mr.g-c 6]

Ok....

Updated first post with ATGMs

Next thing will be penetration of tanks main battle guns, featured kinetic energy penetrators and the HEAT ammo. Currently im searching for videos when tanks fire at houses... if someone has text, or video showing this - post it here...

[Thunderbird 0]

The way used to catch BIS attention is disputable but this is a 'good' thread, and the word 'good' is used here since I'm getting the slight impression that the objective is fully reached, and the goal in question was to seriously bring BIS attention to this aspect of the gaming-development.

It's reassuring to know that they will truly focus on this part of the project in the near future.

Regards,

TB

[mr.g-c 6]

Tank_Gunnery_(Abrams).rar <------------

Great what i found there at page 214:

Quote[/b] ]ENGAGING HELICOPTERS

9-30. Criteria for engaging high-performance aircraft also apply to helicopters; however, helicopters exposed on the ground, and slow-moving or hovering helicopters, are targets of opportunity that should be engaged if within effective machine gun range. Heavily armored attack helicopters (such as the HIND-D)should be engaged with the main gun (M1⎯sabot; M1A1 and M1A2⎯MPAT).

A nice thing this manual

[shinRaiden 0]

When individuals make posts demonstrating an absence of rational judgment so extreme as evidenced in certain cases in this thread, further discussion is moot as it is impossible to have any sort of moderated or negotiated discussion of the matter. The only option is to allow that action to stand or fall on its own merits, further debate is futile.

I will make one point of caution. Excessive attention to the precision of niche gadgetry will not alleviate the fundamental issues affecting ArmA. It will in fact serve to distract, and not properly inform, the very development team you wish to influence. Rather, a measured analysis of top-down operations, and fitting the gadgetry into the system of the whole, will result in a more appropriate and polished product.

The platform is already quite robust and can meet the demands of its users. To blame the platform for the shortcomings of the product is quite unfair and frankly ill-informed. To quote a prior poster :

Quote[/b] ]While what I have described here may be quite disturbing, the fact is that there is hardly anything which can be done against it. It is quite normal that technologies are born first, and only mature later.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]When individuals make posts demonstrating an absence of rational judgment so extreme as evidenced in certain cases in this thread, further discussion is moot as it is impossible to have any sort of moderated or negotiated discussion of the matter. The only option is to allow that action to stand or fall on its own merits, further debate is futile.

Which is wrong in my opinion, and its "just" you opinion.

Quote[/b] ]I will make one point of caution. Excessive attention to the precision of niche gadgetry will not alleviate the fundamental issues affecting ArmA. It will in fact serve to distract, and not properly inform, the very development team you wish to influence. Rather, a measured analysis of top-down operations, and fitting the gadgetry into the system of the whole, will result in a more appropriate and polished product.

I don't know what you want to reach with your post,

But i'll tell you something... this thread is there to support the people at BIS in terms of realism because when you look at Arma there are a lot things to improve in this manner.

So its not "just" you call it "niche gadgetry" even IF YOU think it is...

Of course its probably not the "main problem" they have, but i think the thread has its right to existence.

Quote[/b] ]The platform is already quite robust and can meet the demands of its users. To blame the platform for the shortcomings of the product is quite unfair and frankly ill-informed. To quote a prior poster :

Sure, i know this... the engine itself is rather great than bad and so my critics always directs towards the end product(Arma1) - not the engine.

Other thing Of-topic:

You always write the posts you write in such a "professional" and "bombastic" way, which is surely on the one side quite impressing....

But i don't know what is that supposed to achieve?

In this Forum the majority does surely not speaking natively english so it is often pretty hard to understand your posts (without a translator). Maybe you could write them just a tiny little bit simpler next time... I mean we are here in a gaming community - not in a professional meeting or in the congress.

Don't get me wrong, i have total appreciation for it, because i also have to talk like this in my native language when i'm in negotiations with customers i work for, but i'm always happy when i can keep simplicity for the things i do in my free time...

Best Regards, Christian

[funnyguy1 0]

I'm tired of reading shinraiden's lofty speaches, just as I'm tired of myself trying to be a moral authority. Suma said they might take a glimpse at this thread, so please solve your personal problems by pming each other. What about deleting the unnecessary spam (this post as well) from this thread and focusing only on important things (for this particular thread).

[Thunderbird 0]

Quote[/b] ]niche gadgetry will not alleviate the fundamental issues affecting ArmA

There are two distinct aspects and that should not be mixed with each other:

[*]Issues and Bugs.

[*]Modifications intended to enhance the robustness of the engine in terms of Realism (Or whatever you would like to call it).

And the first issue is as significant and essential as the second one:

[*]Bugs need to be fixed for several obvious reasons.

[*]As 'Armed Assault' is officially labelled as the 'Ultimate Combat <span style='color:red'>Simulation</span>' then I don't see why the realism factor should be neglected to a certain degree.

Both need the same attention, and the combination of both characteristics establish the basis of a first-class <span style='color:red'>simulation</span>'s foundation.

Regards,

TB

[shinRaiden 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]When individuals make posts demonstrating an absence of rational judgment so extreme as evidenced in certain cases in this thread, further discussion is moot as it is impossible to have any sort of moderated or negotiated discussion of the matter. The only option is to allow that action to stand or fall on its own merits, further debate is futile.

Which is wrong in my opinion, and its "just" you opinion.

Thank you for opening your mouth, removing all doubt, and proving my point, although you actually weren't the target of that particular comment.

Quote[/b] ]I don't know what you want to reach with your post...

k, let me spell it out for you then.

You say that the vehicle destruction is 'wrong'. Are you familiar with the model.cfg and config.cpp model destruction capabilities? Evidently not. That capability is already implemented in the platform, however due to development constraints could not be implemented into the content. Again, to quote Ondrej :

Quote[/b] ]While it can be a quite interesting psychological exercise, to observe the reactions of artists when you explain to them a few weeks before the game goes gold "Look, all those gears and gadgets could be moving. Now sit and rework all vehicle models so that this works", one should really reserve such a exercise only for very special occasions.

Since you're unfamiliar with how this can be done, I'll give you a freebie :

What you'll need to do is rig the destruction effect so that when when the vehicle is damaged, the turret is hidden, and you spawn a debris wrecked model of the turret along with whatever particle effects you care for, all done in your spare time without consideration for deadlines or budget.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

class Animations

{

class damageHide

{

type="hide";

source="damage";

selection="damageHide";

};

}

That code snippet is from the recently released ArmA content source, and proves that that capability exists, but was not practical for BIS to implement into the content for the release.

The same goes for most, but not all, of your gripes about armor penetrability. There is a penetrability system implemented in ArmA, it has its limitations but with careful, calibrated, and coordinated content development can be used for a wide range of weaponry types effectively. 'Mod Wars', addon manglers, and re-packers generally run counter to this objective however, as they introduce conflicts that destabilize the balance in parameters.

Weapon effects can similarly be handled now by trivial scripting. Back blast can be modeled using setVelocity or setDammage on objects within a defined range and direction of the shooter, depending on the weapon fired.

I'm sure BIS is well aware of the limitations in their content, again, you can scroll up for further proof of that. To fault them though for not doing what they in fact have actually already done is unfair and uninformed. That's what I take issue with.

Lastly, the issue of differences of opinion in discussion style. The posts I write with which you disagree, are written free-form as they come to mind. They are spontaneous and un-scripted. I am in no way attempting to sandbag anyone, this is just naturally how I think. I have made no criticism of your manner of communication, only of the content and substance of those communications. Those who have met me in that mystical place called 'real life' can attest to this.

As an aside, I find it strangely ironic that BIS, who's product reaches a very wide international market, still continues to dig their heels in regarding proper standards-based OS-level localization support in their products, despite this actual engine issue having been brought to their attention nearly three years ago.

[MehMan 0]

Tank_Gunnery_(Abrams).rar <------------

Great what i found there at page 214:

Quote[/b] ]ENGAGING HELICOPTERS

9-30. Criteria for engaging high-performance aircraft also apply to helicopters; however, helicopters exposed on the ground, and slow-moving or hovering helicopters, are targets of opportunity that should be engaged if within effective machine gun range. Heavily armored attack helicopters (such as the HIND-D)should be engaged with the main gun (M1⎯sabot; M1A1 and M1A2⎯MPAT).

A nice thing this manual  

They already do this. I have been shot down by fire from the main gun. Although more rare than with the MG I have seen it happen. They will also use the howitzers against you.

[shinRaiden 0]

Tank_Gunnery_(Abrams).rar <------------

Great what i found there at page 214:

Quote[/b] ]ENGAGING HELICOPTERS

9-30. Criteria for engaging high-performance aircraft also apply to helicopters; however, helicopters exposed on the ground, and slow-moving or hovering helicopters, are targets of opportunity that should be engaged if within effective machine gun range. Heavily armored attack helicopters (such as the HIND-D)should be engaged with the main gun (M1⎯sabot; M1A1 and M1A2⎯MPAT).

A nice thing this manual

They already do this. I have been shot down by fire from the main gun. Although more rare than with the MG I have seen it happen. They will also use the howitzers against you.

Indeed. While it is not the ideal solution I would prefer, careful config balancing can achieve this effect now.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]You say that the vehicle destruction is 'wrong'. Are you familiar with the model.cfg and config.cpp model destruction capabilities? Evidently not.

shinRaiden, i feel its not necessary for me to discuss about my (not existing) knowledge of modeling and writing configs.

For this i don't really care what is already in the engine - enabled or not.

What really matters to me is the end-product, which is what i finally play and which is truly lacking realism - a undeniable fact.

Quote[/b] ]That code snippet is from the recently released ArmA content source, and proves that that capability exists, but was not practical for BIS to implement into the content for the release.

Indeed this is new for me, that makes me dream of those possibility's finally included in ARMA2.

Quote[/b] ]There is a penetrability system implemented in ArmA, it has its limitations but with careful, calibrated, and coordinated content development can be used for a wide range of weaponry types effectively.

That may be right, but then its totally unrealistic configured. You can't bring a M1 to explode with an AT4 - thats just for ONE actual example of totally wrong penetration-levels. The other thing is the hitpoint system which leads to the possibility of destroying a M1 tank with a few mags out of the M249 light-MG... Nothing further to add to underpin my point here i think.....

Quote[/b] ]To fault them though for not doing what they in fact have actually already done is unfair and uninformed. That's what I take issue with.

Well, i say it again... even if its already in their engine, models or whatever - as long as its not *usable* inside the end-product (Arma1), then it's in my opinion not really there.

Sure this may sounds dumb and i make it pretty simple for me, but it's what matters to me.

Although, again it makes me more and more convinced that we get that sleeping possibility's "activated" or "usable" or "proper configured" in their next end-product (Arma2).

Quote[/b] ]The posts I write with which you disagree.....

Actually i do not disagree with them, i just ask for a tiny little bit more simple way of writing your posts - nothing else

At the end its good we can discuss everything here... we have all different opinions to certain issues - important is that we come to a conclusion/compromise with our issues.

Regards, Christian

[shinRaiden 0]

Ok, now that we've established a context for the discussion, we can continue. I was referring to the potential capabilities of the platform while you are instead talking about the polishing of the final deliverable product, without regards to mod potential, ie the "out of the box experience". You and I talking about, and have a focused interest, in two totally separate things. Hence my prior point about when it becomes apparent that the parties are not arguing over the same subject, further argument is just plain silly.

Quote[/b] ]Indeed this is new for me, that makes me dream of those possibility's finally included in ARMA2.

Similar enthusiasm was expressed prior to ArmA's release as well. Setting your expectations or rather demands, higher than what BIS may be able to deliver, is setting yourself up for disappointment. A safer course of action is to instead turn the focus around and look at what you intend to do with what BIS provides.

With regards to the penetration system, I refer you to this post :

Penetration Info

That's what I was referring to. Imperfect, but, with community coordination that system can be used to make a working mechanism for all weapons and armor. While you're at that noble task, how about World Peace and End To Hunger? Ideally, there would be additional parameters like armament type and classification, but that likely would still be broken by differences of opinions.

I'm not positive, but I think for the workload reasons cited previously, that it's not widely implemented in various vehicle classes. Hitpoints is also obviously an issue, but there are ways to compensate in most cases for its shortcomings in the configs and models and scripts.

Lastly, I would strongly recommend an introspective consideration of the potential reasons why BIS was able to include features XYZ in the engine, yet not apply them to the content. The answer has already been given many times over, yet generally fails to be accepted by the community.

[wipman 1]

Hi, in terms of realism i think that will be a very needed improvement

to have animated weapons, Bolts, slides... etc; and also that when

you drop a magazine or a weapon in the ground, the model of what

you've dropped be shown as it's and not like a damn bag.

Also, the tanks and APC's/IFV's/ICV's and static support weapons

(cannons, grenade launchers etc) should spitt the empty shells just

like in the CV9040's in the Swedish Forces Pack OFP Mod.

The empty shells should remain on the ground by some time too;

this will enforce the enviromental and graphic shape of how this

weapons systems work in the real life, plus scare the players in front

some weapons or weapons systems like APC's, when you see how

one of this spitt the empty 23, 30, 35, 40 or 125mm shells after

fire, then you realize clearly that that is a powerfull weapon and

that you don't want to stay on his sight when it fires. Scare the

players with this features will also improve the gameplay because

the fear or just the impresion changes your reactions to this things.

Just stay 8m at the side of a M60A3 that's firing to a target in a

hill's skirt and you'll notice this, is not the same than when it's

just stoped or moving forward slowly.

I think that all this things should be present in the ArmA2 to

enforce the recreation of the various weapons systems used in

a battlefield. Let's C ya

[bravo 6 0]

M1A1/M1A2 video1 with 2 mg on top and some images of the interior.

Hope M1A1/M1A2 in ArmA2 have 2 mg mounted.

Would be nice be able to fire rifles in commander position if turned out.

edit: M1A1/M1A2 video2