GC 2008 Press Coverage

[paragraphic l 2]

There needs to be randomness here which could really livin up the place, imagine if you were doing a night ops mission in a town and made some loud noise, people are going to wake up and turn lights on.

Okay just the idea of such a mission made me start filling my piggy bank to pay BIS to do so!

Kinda like Splinter Cell  

I could off course buy that, saves me paying the entire teams paycheck

[Placebo 29]

And the next.... again armabase.de  

News:Next Video (aircraft)

Download 391MB

Rapidshare mirror for anyone having problems with FileFront:

http://rapidshare.com/files/142634523/Arma_2_Aircraft.part1.rar

http://rapidshare.com/files/142634515/Arma_2_Aircraft.part2.rar

[Praelium 0]

WarWolf @ Sep. 04 2008,03:35)]Re: lights in buildings/towns...

This can already be done with scripts in the mission, it doesn't need to be automatically running in the engine itself per-se which would only slow things down I think.

Town-by-town scripts in the mission file could accomplish this better without trying to illuminate the whole country and resulting in crazy lag in multiplayer.  If the scripts were re-useable then all the better.

For the vehicle cargo lights, which I mentioned previously, I was hoping for real lights, (like the headlights). However, for the unenterable houses I would be happy with just a texture change in the windows:

Normal

http://www.isarapix.org/pix87/1220565253.jpg

With added light (ingame)

http://www.isarapix.org/pix12/1220565281.jpg

Normal, just photoshopped. This is what I hope to see in Arma II, (just better looking)

http://www.isarapix.org/pix89/1220565314.jpg

Yeah, it does look a bit strange having a bright window, but no light on the actual building or outside. I think if BIS adds more light poles than Arma then it would look more natural.

Anyways, this has gotten kind of off topic so I apologize.

[aus_twisted 0]

WarWolf @ Sep. 04 2008,08:35)]Re: lights in buildings/towns...

This can already be done with scripts in the mission, it doesn't need to be automatically running in the engine itself per-se which would only slow things down I think.

Town-by-town scripts in the mission file could accomplish this better without trying to illuminate the whole country and resulting in crazy lag in multiplayer.  If the scripts were re-useable then all the better.

The problem with this is the lights currently in ArmA light the whole area up where they are placed, if a light is in a building it should mostly light the inside of the building up and slightly outside through clear windows etc.

What Praelium did above is a good example, non enterable buildings could use simple night textures for windows etc that could possibly be activated/deactivated by scripts and time.

[ArMoGaDoN 0]

@AUS_Twisted: would the new shader model 3 and the new hemispherical lighting/shadowing stuff not handle light-propagation and shadows differently in ArmA2?

The lights are weird in ArmA1, true - the light shouldn't be able to go through walls and ceilings - perhaps this is fixed already by the new lighting technologies?

Guess we'll see soon enough.

[MehMan 0]

I lol'd at the end of the aircraft video when he said "oh he died, we weren't fast enough" with indifference .

[HamishUK 0]

VTOL well what can be said, its actual VTOL now and not "get a bit of speed up and switch to auto hover",

Since the Harrier in real-life cannot take-off or land vertically with a full all up weight BIS weren't far off from the truth.

However they did miss Verticle Landing when fuel and ordnance were expended lowering the AUW.

[wamingo 1]

First I'd like to say, just for the record... Wow, arma2 looks great. reloading while walking, improved AI, huge environment, etc. Thank god them fancy dual core cpu's and what have you doesn't cost an arm and a leg anymore! doubt my 3500+ will pull this monster well... Or maybe I'll just clock it up a couple of ghz and see how things are cooking.

Well, the VTOL stuff is nice and all, but it's kind of easy to abuse imo, like VTOL-bombing is rather silly... They should add some heat/stall or damage simulation or so. But eh, it's still cool.

but man, the sound on those video's.. someone shoot that rapper in the background already

[Raj 0]

The last vid looks amazing...especially the graphics and refelction...+ f-35 animations...too coooool..

Looks like there is custom animation for some weapons...the razor guy holding the m4/m203....his hands on the m203 barrel... and the drag/carry part..ARMA 2 looking awesome....

Way too Cool BIS...nice job..

[Viiiper 0]

ARMA 2 looking awesome....

Way too Cool BIS...nice job..

I totally agree, it is looking sweet, one of the most anticipated tactical games keep up the great work guys.

[EricM 0]

I think that the fact that you can have different torso/leg animation will make it easier to have different hand positions on the guns : just just change the top part, while in Arma 1, you had to change everything... hence the generic pose.

[forum troll 4162 18]

is there anyway to improve the quality of the 4th video that only shows the Osprey and F35? for a few seconds it shows the full list of aircraft in the editor menu. I saw C-130 there but I can't make out anything else.

[Heatseeker 0]

I still believe that BIS should have went with quality over quantity regarding the vehicles for Arma II, this would mean fewer but much better simulated vehicles (and i dont mean graphically).

-Proper get in/out animations with animated doors/ramps.

-Better vehicle handling.

-Better damage model.

-Integrated systems such has radars, laser targeting systems or FCS, countermeasures, CROWS, etc.

-Tanks and APC's with proper interiors and working hatches.

At first sight its easy to be impressed by a large amount of great looking vehicles but:

-Will all windows of a vehicle break with a single shot to a door?

-Will tanks actually slide or roll?

-Will the flight models be the same?

Would it be better to have 50 OPF gen alike vehicles again or 10 properly simulated ones that would bring the gameplay to a whole new level?

[opteryx 1562]

I strongly agree with what you're saying Heatseeker. I fail to see the purpose for such a vast amount of vehicles if there's no diversity through unique features that distinguish them from each other. I'd rather have one or two properly simulated AFVs than 20 point and click toys.

[Average Joe 0]

I strongly agree with what you're saying Heatseeker. I fail to see the purpose for such a vast amount of vehicles if there's no diversity through unique features that distinguish them from each other. I'd rather have one or two properly simulated AFVs than 20 point and click toys.

x3 on what heatseeker said and what Opteryx x2  

Point and click vehicles with no unique features kill immersion something rotten. Yes there nice to look at sure but....whats the point?

[SaBrE_UK 0]

I also agree, good points.

[EricM 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes there nice to look at sure but....whats the point?

Variety + Eye Candy = Sales

And they have various purposes : some aircraft are VTOL, others not, Some are transport others attack, some are heavy armour, some light etc... some are opfor, some civilian, some bluefor, some guerrila/independent, some amphibian some not... In my eye this isn't 167 interchangeable toys with same behaviour and different shapes.

In the end, making abstraction of the 2 or 3 versions of each (because you can't have dynamic loadouts), you only have something like 50 or so different vehicles, which is only about 10/15 unique ones for each of the 4 factions... to be split later into air/sea/land categories. (a little bit more since Russians, Chernarus and guerrilla will probably share a lot, and civilian will have fewer).

Following your thoughts, and playing the devils advocate, "10 properly simulated"vehicles, would make only 2 or 3 vehicles per faction, meaning : 1 boat (if your lucky), 1 car or tank (not both), 1 aircraft (plane or chopper)... for each side. That's pretty restrictive in terms of mission making if you ask me...

[dentist guba 0]

plus i don't think making a few less vehicles would make it any easier to completely make a new physics engine e.t.c from scratch.

[4 IN 1 0]

since when did BI become the almighty god?

really i dont think they have that much of time and man power to creat these kind of stuff, and i just wonder how much impact on perforemce these stuff will creat for an already hardward hungry game

basic physics must improve i agree but only to a point that ppls rig are able to run them, they also have to think about how good or bad will it run on 360

[Heatseeker 0]

Maybe, but even without a good physics engine the vehicles could be brought to a higher simulation level making the gameplay evolve from OPF vanilla standards at last.

They wouldnt need a new physics engine to make the smoke launchers mounted on MBT's and APC's work, or the countermeasures mounted on aircraft, or to implement a laser range finder on vehicles that support these systems, or even to have acurate targeting systems.

Im not saying simulation level acuracy but a significant step forward to have the game not only look more realistic but to play more realistic too .

[4 IN 1 0]

partly agreed, but i think things have to have a buttom line

for example yes it might be cool if BI can completely animated the get in get out progress but i also thinks that what they did on the A10 in ARMA is good enought

[stakex 0]

since when did BI become the almighty god?

really i dont think they have that much of time and man power to creat these kind of stuff, and i just wonder how much impact on perforemce these stuff will creat for an already hardward hungry game

basic physics must improve i agree but only to a point that ppls rig are able to run them, they also have to think about how good or bad will it run on 360

Well you know, its all a matter of gameplay vs eyecandy. BIS obviouslly is more concerned with the look of the game, then the actual gameplay factor... as most of the major improvements to the game have taken place in the graphics department. In fact, there dosn't really seem to be one MAJOR improvement to gameplay compared to ArmA. It would seem that the target for ArmA2 is the 360 community, and not the long time series fans... who aside from the BIS suckups, don't want yet another repeat performance with ArmA2.

Of course with a small dev team, you can't do everything... but, if you actually care what the community thinks, you would fix/change/add the main things on their wishlist. And Idk about you, but I haven't seen anything more sought after then improved vehicle handleing/targeting/damage. Yet... there dosn't appear, and there has been no mention of, any serious improvement in this area.

And hey, if the devs stoped tacking on all the latest and greatest graphical effects, then there would be plenty of hardware room to add physics and hardware draining gameplay improvements. That game dosn't have to look THAT good to be a hit, and people will buy a game that has really good gameplay as long as the graphics aren't too terrible. But again, its very clear where BIS is thinking with ArmA2.

[sandzibar 0]

Not sure how much gameplay can be added through the use of SM3.0 As thats where a lot of the new prettier graphic effects come from. The new shaders.

Can you program shaders to do physics and other such things? i really have no idea how they work. And generally.. artists dont make for very good core system programmers.

Though we didnt get to see it in action at GC08 im hoping the destructible buildings will be a major feature to add to gameplay. And whilst they may seem insignificant to you the 'reloading on the move' and 'movement with binos' is hopefully an indicator that BIS recognises that some actions constrained the player much too much in previous games. So we may see improvements in that whole area too.

Flight model. Vehicle handling. Weight physics. Object collision. Countermeasures. the 'OFP' Radar. Targeting system. Voice acting. Animation system. Inventory system. Weapon switching. Vehicle Damage system. Ballistics & Penetration.

Yep. No info on those pretty much. But then the devs dont owe any of us an answer to what they are doing with those. They dont work for us im afraid. Just have to be content with what things they are willing to share at this time.

[jakerod 254]

Well you know, its all a matter of gameplay vs eyecandy. BIS obviouslly is more concerned with the look of the game, then the actual gameplay factor... as most of the major improvements to the game have taken place in the graphics department. In fact, there dosn't really seem to be one MAJOR improvement to gameplay compared to ArmA. It would seem that the target for ArmA2 is the 360 community, and not the long time series fans... who aside from the BIS suckups, don't want yet another repeat performance with ArmA2.

Because Micro-AI, Macro-Command, VTOL, carrying wounded people, talking to anyone on the battlefield and a better bullet penetration model has absolutely nothing to do with better gameplay.

[Brendon 0]

Well you know, its all a matter of gameplay vs eyecandy. BIS obviouslly is more concerned with the look of the game, then the actual gameplay factor... as most of the major improvements to the game have taken place in the graphics department. In fact, there dosn't really seem to be one MAJOR improvement to gameplay compared to ArmA. It would seem that the target for ArmA2 is the 360 community, and not the long time series fans... who aside from the BIS suckups, don't want yet another repeat performance with ArmA2.

Because Micro-AI, Macro-Command, VTOL, carrying wounded people, talking to anyone on the battlefield and a better bullet penetration model has absolutely nothing to do with better gameplay.