The most important features ARMA 2 needs to have

[stakex 0]

It pains me to see that people defend arma's flaws so freely. Again point to Crysis, fully aware BIS is not as talented or as a big budgeted as CryTek but if you stripped away the lovely graphics and make a large scale map similar in detail and scope of say Arma then it'd probaly run better, look better and have physics.

Arma II needs a physics engine, it needs improved Ai, it needs to be less clunky, more intuitive (the command menu is one of the worst to ever grace a computer system) getting in and out of vehicles should be context sensitive for example; rather then a) walking up to a vehicle, b) selecting a menu and then c) choosing the option. It should be quite simply work up to any vehicle press action button once, no menu, straight into the vehicle with something as simple but subtle as a open door animation. For more complex issues like choosing position in vehicle, hold action button for a context sensitive icons.

It needs these because OpF:DR so far has shown it has all of these.

I very much agree with the first line of your post... a good percentage of the community goes above and beyond to defends OFP/ArmA/ArmA2's blatent flaws and issues. Tho I wouldn't go as far to say BIS isn't as talented as the Crytek team... its more so the budget issue I would think, and the fact that the BIS team is probly alot smaller.

And while I haven't seen anything confirming the things you mentioned for OpF:DR, you have a very good point here. Not so much about that game specificlly, but if more large scale military sim games similar to ArmA/ArmA2 start to come out (not unlikely since the large scale, open world game has grown in popularity the last couple years).... BIS will be in serious trouble as far as selling copies of ArmA2 to gamers that are not die hard fans. Most high profile modern day games have physics engines, better graphics, and play far smoother then OFP/ArmA2 could ever dream of... with far less bugs, and game issues.

As my other post said... ArmA2 has to be a major improvement over ArmA otherwise BIS might be waving the white flag in game development. Becuase if ArmA2 is a patched version of ArmA.... it will be dead in the water.

[Grimnirsson 0]

Here's an Interview about ArmAII with the BI chief, it has German voice overs, but the video shows that there are still the motionless/fixed hands on the wheel we know from OpFlash...  

Interview/Video on ArmA2

Grim

[jakerod 254]

Sorry Jakerod but thats totally unfounded, I make maps for Crysis and not once needed to put down a marker to use cover.

It pains me to see that people defend arma's flaws so freely. Again point to Crysis, fully aware BIS is not as talented or as a big budgeted as CryTek but if you stripped away the lovely graphics and make a large scale map similar in detail and scope of say Arma then it'd probaly run better, look better and have physics.

Arma II needs a physics engine, it needs improved Ai, it needs to be less clunky, more intuitive (the command menu is one of the worst to ever grace a computer system) getting in and out of vehicles should be context sensitive for example; rather then a) walking up to a vehicle, b) selecting a menu and then c) choosing the option. It should be quite simply work up to any vehicle press action button once, no menu, straight into the vehicle with something as simple but subtle as a open door animation. For more complex issues like choosing position in vehicle, hold action button for a context sensitive icons.

It needs these because OpF:DR so far has shown it has all of these.

Okay my bad. I was basing it off of information I heard in the Crysis thread in offtopic so I guess it could be wrong. Either way how many men can Crysis have on a map at the same time?

Quote[/b] ]Here's an Interview about ArmAII with the BI chief, it has German voice overs, but the video shows that there are still the motionless/fixed hands on the wheel we know from OpFlash...

Thats another one of those things that I don't find to be a big deal. When you're driving and scanning for enemies you hardly even notice it. I tend to forget about it unless someone brings it up.

[Enixj7 0]

I had 200 men running around a 4x4km map with tanks and choppers, wasent quite 30 fps but looked pretty good

I think bugs and performance aside its the lack of subtle things that makes Arma poor in some respects. Like when entering a vehicle the doors should open and the animation should match to get in. Arma feels robotic, it was execptable with flashy because it was first of its kind, often my clan mates complain because of how clunky arma is.

[funnyguy1 0]

I think missions that pit you into a real soldiers role.

Amen...with it's AI, and gfx the only thing I need to enjoy it out of the box is a realistic campaign. No super evil characters and war heroes, just a decent and realistic one...

Vehicles could be better though.

[mr.g-c 6]

Here's an Interview about ArmAII with the BI chief, it has German voice overs, but the video shows that there are still the motionless/fixed hands on the wheel we know from OpFlash...

Interview/Video on ArmA2

Grim

Well first its a early version of the game/engine and who knows what they are planning/willing to incorporate until release-date....

But yes it looks so far as clunky and stiff as OFP was when it came out and as Arma is currently....

I really hope Arma2 will be a major improvement over Arma1 and that it will fulfill its slogan called "The Ultimate Military Simulation".

Best Regards, Christian

[jtec 0]

Better, faster and more responsive anims! Totally killed PvP games!

Also notice how East always beat west too? Camo needs to be sorted out so both sides are even instead of west sticking out like a sore thumb! Maybe both east and west having a selection of woodland and desert camo?

[NoQuarter 0]

The island as detailed as may be needs to be more life like in the sense they should be ditches, dykes, potholes, small hills - something which plauges arma is the terrain is very smooth.

Ditto.

It would be nice to see some effort given on this, as well as properly sloped road grades, with cut and fills.

Additionally, a stream, or a river, (that doesn't defy the laws of simulated physics) thrown in would be nice- ford-able in some areas, not in others.

____

The most important features ARMA 2 needs to have? More intuitive AI.

[Patrocles 0]

Better AI system. I want to see more intelligent enemy AI and less accurate enemy AI shooting at me!

[twisted 127]

the most important thing to me would be ArmA2 offering the most realistic weapons simulation in the gaming industry.

This would mean weapon stats like rof, recoil, weight, speed of movement, accuracy and operation are all modelled as close as possible in a video game and supplied that way by BIS. Take and build on the great work by Solus, NWD, Skaven, GSJ scopes, Q116 and many others.

a more 'scientific' way of incorporating recoil would be great as well because at the moment it seems very vague and subjective. not sure how but it is a massive part of the infantry experience and the mod community would benefit massively if mod-weapons were compatible in action/ performance with each other.

I'd also like to see a more 'realistic' way of the in-game characters (player and AI alike) using the weapons (please no standing with PKM up to eye and shooting with pinpoint accuracy). Even holding a rifle up in aiming position for an extended period of time (couple minutes) should have the aim wobble increasing as fatigue sets in - with lighter/smaller weapons like mp5 this would not be such a problem.

add the ability to support weapons by bipods or resting it on walls/etc that are at the right height. very massive want this. make deploying bipod take realistic amount of time/noise/etc but the recoil reduction would make it worth it.

ArmA was a great step in the right direction. ArmA2 can make an even bigger one.

[SHWiiNG 0]

I agree with the above post.

But one can simulate recoil etc to an extent but weapons especially in armas case, weapons are just Single shaped lifeless objects without proper weaon animations.

For example when reloading, seeing the player interact with the weapon will increase the feeling of actually interacting with the 3D environment.

seeing the magazing physically taken from the weapon, switched and put back in (and together with the appropriate steps to feed a round into the chamber) would increase immersion tenfold. Other animations can be used to create other realistic features of a battlefield such as Stopages, different ways of holding a weapon, using forgrips etc.

The magical wizardry of ARMA and OFP should stop with ARMA2, in a sense that we should not be subject to waving ones hands over the weapon to perform all weapon functions.

But of course this is the tip of the iceberg, AI, physics, Sounds can all be improved, but what i have mentioned above is what has bothered me since day one.

-Shwiing

[Heatseeker 0]

I agree with the above post.

But one can simulate recoil etc to an extent but weapons especially in armas case, weapons are just Single shaped lifeless objects without proper weaon animations.

For example when reloading, seeing the player interact with the weapon will increase the feeling of actually interacting with the 3D environment.

seeing the magazing physically taken from the weapon, switched and put back in (and together with the appropriate steps to feed a round into the chamber) would increase immersion tenfold. Other animations can be used to create other realistic features of a battlefield such as Stopages, different ways of holding a weapon, using forgrips etc.

The magical wizardry of ARMA and OFP should stop with ARMA2, in a sense that we should not be subject to waving ones hands over the weapon to perform all weapon functions.

But of course this is the tip of the iceberg, AI, physics, Sounds can all be improved, but what i have mentioned above is what has bothered me since day one.

-Shwiing

Thats just the nice candy, add the following to it.

Partial reloads and the extra round in the chamber.

Diferent reload times depending on the weapon.

Bolt action rifles using single rounds instead of magazines.

Being able to control grenade throwing.

These are not the most important features... but i think they can be found in pretty much any shooter, dont think the ultimate combat simulation should be missing on the basics.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Being able to control grenade throwing.

I especially agree on that one, throwing in ArmA takes alot more practice then it does in real life, and even after alot of practice its still partly guessing.

[SHWiiNG 0]

Heh, yeah and if you look in slow motion, the grenade still comes out of the players chest. This has got to be improved.

In reply to my above post, Its candy alright,

Fundermental Candy.

[Average Joe 0]

Somewhat through the initial animation of reaching for the grenade there should be some kind of distance bar..it doesnt have to be in your face but just by simply letting go of the key you should be able to adjust your distance instead of guestimation.

[rstratton 0]

a completely remade animation system is what it desperately needs above everything else

[Baff1 0]

Totally understand thats why I mention Crysis which deals with large areas. The point I'm getting to is they should be layers of Ai.

Indvidual Ai with profiles (eg a Sniper profile so it acts like a sniper)

Fireteam level Ai (Moving in small groups providing full cover, taking examples from Cod4)

Squad level Ai (commanding effectivtly assaigning orders etc)

I think good 'human like' AI, Good animation and good presentation is what BIS should be aiming for, the more time they spend on making the Ai rock solid and script free the more people they will impress with ease of use.

Commander level Ai ( Ai that can read the stratgeic importance of the mission and effecitly command multiple squads)

From what I heard about Crysis AI you have to define cover in every mission you make using markers. They really have no clue what they're doing unless you put those markers in. Ideally I would like it if our AI knew where cover was without me having to put markers by every tree, rock, crate etc. I don't have the time to place 10,000 markers on a map that takes place in a single village.

Surely that is a job for the model maker.

Once a crate is made, all the markers are already in it.

Also I would like to see AI lanes, like in Unreal.

The map makers includes a load of "invisible" tracks on which the AI can run.

This is how they get their AI to work nicely in cities.

I would much rather have a maximum of 32 decent AI on a map than 256 zombies. (Or maybe a combination of both to keep numbers up, system resources down, but mission critical fights exciting).

I too obviously would be looking to see a dramatic improvement to the AI. Currently, it is truely dismal.

I would also like to see a better graphically scaled product. I think I've heard how great the view distance is one time too many.

It might be the games unique selling point, but another of the games unique points is that it lags. If it doesn't have a fluid FPS, (and no I don't think 30 is fine), I won't be bothering with it.

Make the map smaller if you need to. Much smaller. Put in less foliage, less buildings, lower res textures.....whatever.

Make it smooth first, you can tailor the story to make the settings realistic. You don't have to overstrain the engine.

If it can't handle cities, just make a village. If you can't make a village run smooth, just make a farm.

Similarly, if the game code only allows tanks to have the functionality of a 1950's tank, then only include 1950's tanks in the game. Don't give me an M1 that functions like a Sherman.

Just give me a Sherman.

Plenty of armies in the world still use old tech. Just set the story somewhere (or sometime) your technology is best suited to recreate.

If it is a choice between simple, real and smooth or complex, real and dysfunctional, I'll take the former.

Like another poster said above I will also be looking for all the game features found in VBS 2 to be in Armed Assault 2.

If what they are selling is not the most upto date generation of the engine, I wouldn't feel they were really all that serious about getting my money.

Storyline is another hook I seek. I love the sandbox arena of this game, that is what makes it so replayable.

It's not however what "inspires" me to play it in the first place.

Having waxed lyrical about the stories of OPF so many times and played it through again and again, I can only say that this particular spark of inspiration got extinguished somewhere along the way to ArmA.

Historically themed recreations are always a solid plot if all else fails. Research a corner of some war somewhere and show us around it.

I would of course like to see the armour model improved a lot. Penetration models and critical hits perhaps. Armourtypes vs ammunition types. That sort of thing.

I do feel the tank simulation is rather weak currently.

However I do not feel as strongly about this as I do the flight model.

I will need to see intuative controls for the aircraft before I buy this game. They took a giant leap backwards between OPF and ArmA.

If it is closer simulation that you seek to provide, if you are that desperate to pander to the hardcore flightsim heads, then take note that professional simulations offer both a simple and an advanced flight model.

Planes were horrible in both OPF and ArmA, but at least in OPF the helicopters were fun to fly.

Mostly I think the dev's need to keep it as simple as they possibly can.

A very few basic different weapons not everything imaginable or currently available in the world.

I prefer that "you'll take what you are given" army feel. Or that make do with whatever you can get your hands on "resistance" feel.

Start with very modest units, you can always make more in expansions and updates. Better to have just a few really good ones than a load of mediocre ones.

[sluggCDN 0]

To understand what ArmA is badly lacking now and what it really needs - everyone on this forum and most importantly Suma have to download and try ECS mod. Of course there are other things beyond the scope of ECS. What the BIS lead programmers and devs have to realize is they cannot create everything with just good programming. Suma might be brilliant in his understanding of what it takes to program an amazing virtual-reality simulation. Yet his choices in terms of the sound effect, visuals effect and combat effect aspects in the end product may not be very sound. When we play a game we don't care how genius are the programming technological solutions. What we care about is what's going on our screen and in our headphones/speakers. We connect with the game on the visual and audible levels. Therefore more attentions should be paid to those aspects of the gameplay.

What kills me the most is devs irresponsiveness to the community generated materials. There were some absolutely brilliant things released by OFP modders before ArmA was created. Many of these mods were instant hits i.e. FFUR, ECS, MFCTI. They kept OFP going for 8 years. You would think BIS would use the modded content as a guide to the OFP community expectations and incorporate the best mods features in ArmA?...

No instead BIS took OFP version 1.46, inserted the streaming terrain technology and JIP, added a few different addons, 1.5 new island and voila here is ArmA.

On top of that now in Arma it's also possible to destroyed Abrams with exactly 1200 hits from an MG.

Quote[/b] ]4. Interrupting animations. Yes. People change their minds sometimes. People should be able to stop whatever it is they are doing and do something else! Let's say I am reloading my bazooka and someone pops up in the distance. F#%# reloading! I would throw that rpg on the ground and pull my weapon out in an instant.

Totally agree with this! I wouldn't be interested in completing reloading an RPG if all of sudden an AI would run up to me from around a corner and stick a gun into my face.

[shinRaiden 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yet his choices in terms of the sound effect, visuals effect and combat effect aspects in the end product may not be very sound. When we play a game we don't care how genius are the programming technological solutions. What we care about is what's going on our screen and in our headphones/speakers. We connect with the game on the visual and audible levels. Therefore more attentions should be paid to those aspects of the gameplay.

What kills me the most is devs irresponsiveness to the community generated materials.

What kills me is the avg whining community member's willful ignorance over how the engine works, and why the decisions were made that way.

Going back to 'in the beginning' the purpose was not to create a corridor shooter, the purpose was to create an open and explorable environment, in the FPS genre, but influenced by aspects of the RPG world. Nobody else in the industry has even attempted to replicate it because the idea is so contradictory and impossible. Yet BIS has somehow managed to make it work reasonably well enough.

In regards to your points, there wouldn't be any gameplay if that was their focus. And if that is your focus, then it may be difficult for you to understand that. Crysis gave up and requires the content designer to path-plan the environment to death. CoD4 and BF2 didn't even try in the first place. With Arma, as with OFP, the AI has to create a true navigation route from point A to point B.

BIS actually explained how and why a a very long time ago, with actual proof of what's going on. Now sometimes, the content designers forget what they're working with and make goofs that screw up the process, like making plant objects with properties that make the AI think that they're bad to collide with. Trees sure, but not grass. And who's fault is that? The engine's doing exactly what it's supposed to.

The measure of success varies greatly depending on who you talk to and what your objectives are. Take for example multiple turrets. From the gameplay perspective, you're looking at lots of shiney pew-pew. However, lost in the gameplay noise is how it actually works. It's not a matter of unlocking the 'stuck' selections that existed in OFP but lacked the business resources to implement, it actually required a total overhaul of the object animation control system. The end result however was so monumental that it operates at a fundamental level incomprehensible to those solely focused on 'gameplay'.

What you can now do, is make any part and piece move relative and in conjunction with any number of other parts and pieces, whether they be turrets, wheels, radar dishes, stabilization jacks, oil pumps, what not. It's not about multiple turrets, its about building objects that aren't static. Once that's in place, then it's just a matter of indexing for the multiple turrets. And all you see is 'pew-pew', so you have no appreciation for the work that goes on underneath.

As for the penetration, a system already exists using the .bisurf data files. While not perfect, it can be calibrated to be adequate. However, it requires a level of collaboration that the community is frankly not willing to support. It also requires significant additional work on the models to implement.

For terrains, first off terrain streaming is hardly a trivial operation. Second, as Ondrej mentioned, the terrain area was developed before the tools to create it effectively were developed. In other words, the terrain existed before the tools did. I'd like to hear your explanation for how they managed to pull that off. Additionally, there is now a road network created in the map editing process automatically that provides for more efficient long-range AI usage of roads, as opposed to just 'preferred-zone' scanning. There's a lot more that goes into making it work, than may be apparent from 'gameplay'.

As for interruptible animations, a fair point. Particularly imho the issue of death during reload. While iirc it could be interruptible in the configs for the animations, making it look proper would be exponentially more complicated due to how the animations actually work. I doubt they're unaware of the problem, but the fact that there hasn't been a trivial tweak fix would indicate that the underlying issue isn't trivial or tweakable, and would instead need a more complex (and scalable) solution. I suppose this would also tie in with hands-through-m203 complaints. You'd need the ability in general to have micro-dynamic deformation compensation animation capabilities, and I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on how the community can implement this.

Quote[/b] ]The map makers includes a load of "invisible" tracks on which the AI can run.

This is how they get their AI to work nicely in cities.

That to me is the definition of a zombie, it's entirely predictable with no 'brain'. Simply camp a spot divergent from the zombies' lines of drift and *presto*, you win.

[sluggCDN 0]

Quote[/b] ]What kills me is the avg whining community member's willful ignorance over how the engine works, and why the decisions were made that way.

@shinRaiden

Shin, who cares how the engine works - I don't play a game for the sake of the engine, just as I don't get into a car just to appreciate the gear shifting experience. I get into a car to drive from point A to point B. When I get into a car I also hardly ever think about "how far the car manufacturing industry has advanced since 1920, or 1950, or 1980". I don't make a cult out of "car driving and tuning", I just use it as a vehicle - but I guess the response will depend on who u ask.

Instead of writing this long convoluted statement, please download ECS mod and just put together a simple mission on Rahmadi. Then play it in Vanilla ArmA and ECS ArmA. And ask yourself the honest question which one does the job of conveying the atmosphere of a battlefield better - what ArmA is supposed to be about afterall... One little reminder in case you forgot, ArmA is not a virtual world simulator or a programming experiment, it's a combat simulator game;

When BIS fans like yourself start going on about the great job BIS did in creating the amazing new breakthru OFP/ArmA engine unlike anybody else on the market, I cannot help but think BIS did more or less good job already in OFP. But that was 8 years ago!!!!! What we see right now in ArmA is  just an expansion/addon to OFP, minus all the fixes that have been done to OFP since version 1.46. You see BIS has to move on beyond the great days of OFP and take it to another quality level, instead of going in circles.

Back to the topic - ArmA needs a life atmosphere of a battlefield. That means it needs real life sounds (not the "marble dropping on the floor" type of sounds), it needs realistic particle effects (example ArmaAffest by MadMatt), it needs combat effects concussion, bleeding, etc. It needs character voice-over sounds that don't sound like a telephone answering machine. It needs better AI that uses supressing fire and indoor CQB capabilities. In short all the things ECS team had already done and more, that what will help it to move past the dry world of OFP and the world of technological limitations of the year 2000 engine...

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]The map makers includes a load of "invisible" tracks on which the AI can run.

This is how they get their AI to work nicely in cities.

That to me is the definition of a zombie, it's entirely predictable with no 'brain'. Simply camp a spot divergent from the zombies' lines of drift and *presto*, you win.

And this is somehow worse than the current zombies which all just stand around town confused, unable to readily progress from one side of town to the other?

At least they are capable of moving.

Not only are they capable of just moving they are capable of moving in good order. Tracks can be placed along the edges of streets for example so that AI show a preference towards moving in cover or down more protected routes like behind hedgerows or walls.

Unreal AI are also capable of switching between tracks.

So that their predictability is limited only by the amount of tracks you assign to the map.

An Unreal AI can walk to the end of it's track and then jump over to a new one, or if in range can switch to an alternative track at any time.

A map maker is perfectly able to include tracks that would take the AI on flanking manouvres for example, should it so choose.

If you have played many Unreal games you may agree that Unreal AI, or even better Fear AI can often demonstrate superior ability to human players.

As in real life this may still produce predictable outcomes, you may find yourself camping certain choke points. You may find yourself being able to identify the routes on a battlefield that an expected enemy is more likely to approach by.

This is enjoyable. It's fun.

One of the more visible differences between a tracked system and a scripted system, is that when you replay the same fight, a tracked AI will not all attack in the exact same way as it did last time, it may not choose to take the same track at the same time (every time). A scripted only AI will.

You might have noticed that Unreal AI's are considerably less predictable than Armed Assault AI's. This system works.

[james (J) 0]

better situational awareness for the AI so that frendly and hostile AI can deal with urban environments better.

[Maddmatt 1]

Quote[/b] ]The map makers includes a load of "invisible" tracks on which the AI can run.

This is how they get their AI to work nicely in cities.

That to me is the definition of a zombie, it's entirely predictable with no 'brain'. Simply camp a spot divergent from the zombies' lines of drift and *presto*, you win.

And this is somehow worse than the current zombies which all just stand around town confused, unable to readily progress from one side of town to the other?

At least they are capable of moving.

...

Yes, it works ok in games that have small maps like that. But do you not realise how much work it would be to create missions with AI like that in a game like ArmA? Not to mention the limitations that would create.

From the short old clips and info we have seen of ArmA 2, that doesn't seem to be an issue anyway as AI path-finding seems much better.

[Heatseeker 0]

A.i. is one of the most complicated things to ask for, i cant ask for better a.i. since its already the best a.i. out there, if you dont understand that you dont understand a.i. at all.

Improving it some would be nice but the most significant improvement to the a.i. wouldnt be to improve but to change their decisions, actions, formations, etc.

-More precise pathfinding and use of cover.

-Better unit formations and tactics.

-Supressive fire.

Because... BIS games actually have a.i. .

[funnyguy1 0]

You know what I wan the most? Fallen trees blocking not only mine view...argh