ArmA 2 vs OFP 2

[xnodunitx 0]

Was not on the page I thought I was so now my post is void.

[Pulverizer 1]

Well, due to the streaming technology I believe there is no limit, in theory, the limit is more in practicality, as a huge island will have a huge size in the GB range.

There's also the practical limit of coordinate fidelity. They are floating point numbers and at a few hundred clicks from [0,0] you will start to notice warping in movement, getting ever worse the further you go.

[LJF 0]

I'd have more detail over size anyday of the week.

As for OFP2vsARMA2, well, I think they both have their ups and downs. For me, OFP2 will definitely be incredibly smooth and polished, but that's just it, it will be polished to death. They'll smooth out everything that would have made it interesting. ArmA on the other hand, will most likely be quite clunky, not so much as the first, but still clunky. However, I really don't mind. Most of the things which annoy me about ArmA will be fixed in ArmA 2; sounds, #vehicles/weapons etc, more detailed grass, AI, graphics, optimisation for my beautiful quad core, trees that don't carry large sharp knives and wait in ambush for my FPS to walk by, RUSSIANS(!, a descent island, bloom, parralax mapping, the Mi-24, and descent feeling guns! All in all, 6 months is TOO LONG!

[stakex 0]

72 @ Sep. 20 2008,15:25)]I wonder if those who feel arma was a total let down ever played on locked servers with a lot of team players. When your on a server like that, arma becomes more than a game, it becomes an experience. An experience you have in your head for days afterwards.

I know many people that played arma on pub servers and wasnt up to speed with addons etc and the experience for them was so-so to bad-boring. ArmA is extremelly fun when all clicks. The really good thing with ArmA2, as we so far have seen, is that many of the addons we feel we need to make ArmA1 fun are already in there. Then also add that everything is more or less improved! So with this info i pretty much know that ArmA2 will be a great f*king game for me.

Regards

Alex

While I totally agree that playing ArmA with the right group of people can make the game a lot fun... it still dosn't have anything to do with how good the game itself actually is. ANY game is made better by playing with a good group of people, but its not the game itself thats giving you that experience, its the people your playing with.

If the game is not a solid, limited bug experience right out of the box, then its not a good game to your average gamer. Addons are great as well, but have nothing to do with how good a game actually is. Im sure OFP2 will have more then its fair share of great addons as well... so the two games are likely going to be even on that one.

[Alex72 1]

Who cares about average gamers? The average gamers i know play BF2 and they hate ArmA.

But what i meant about that was what i stated. So many try this alone or on a pub server with no teamplay etc. To really REALLY enjoy ArmA, one should be on TS with people and do it tactically. This is where the joy is at least with everyone ive played with (and that is many). So i dont say this is for everyone, maybe i left that out (since this is on BIS forums im not talking to everyone) but many that didnt think ArmA was any good (at all), they might have missed the joy ArmA can be during the correct circumstances. We all know ArmA isnt for everyone (not even OFP was). Some like "faster-bunyhopping-get as much points i can" kind of FPS and some (fewer) like slower, tactical sim/game like ArmA.

Regards

Alex

[Mr Opteron 0]

FP 2 looks amazing but it looks like its gonna be too heavy to run with just a few tanks around. The great thing about having so much over kill performace for ARMA is you can use the editor to create massive battles and still have plenty of computing power left over to run it. ARMA 2 already looks like next gen graphics I think their wont be enough people that can run FP 2 on their hardware. ARMA 2 has a huge fan base but were waiting for flight sim overhaul, physics damage, AI thats better than the Ai from 7 years ago. AS long as the Devs listen to their customers and make the changes needed the graphics wont matter and that FP 1 Arma rip off will be left to the Octo core guys banging their screens shouting for more than 12fps with 6 tanks on screen at once.

[Snots 0]

I reckon ArmA is a very big definate becuase Bohemia try stick to thier game plan and be loyal to thier fan bases needs.

Unlike some other developers who just get it stable and then thats it. Any calls for any changes is met with utter silence.

Im sus on Codemaster's OFP2 as a sim due to the enormity of a war engine sim's code.

Also my guess is more people will end up here at Bohemia/ArmA2 as they bore of the console experience and crappy developers and theres a lot of them.

[Fredsas 0]

OFP2's graphics are far better than Arma 2. It has an actual 200sq mile island with high viewdistance. That's the 200sq miles of island alone, not the entire map and ocean surrounding like in Arma. 20 mins to fly over in a plane. It take like what 2 or 3 mins to fly over Sahrani? The footage reminds me of Crysis in the forest areas. The Infantry world is engrossing, dangerous and encompassing.

The Tanks and APCs have their modern digital fire control computers and interface systems simulated. No longer just point and shoot like Arma. you have to interface with the Tank or APC's FCS. The only mods that tried to simulate these things in Arma were NWD tank FCS addons.

Think almost M1 Platoon 2 simulation complexity, and aircraft? Try Team Apache for Helos like the Cobra and other gunships, and a simplified Lock On Modern Air Combat level simulation for fighter and attack jets.

With all of these things in one simulation game, I'm sorry but Arma 2 comes nowhere close to being so detailed and sophisticated.

There'll be no more tabbing at red dots on little Laser/IR/Radar thingy on the top of the screen, I'm not even sure what that is supposed to simulate up to this day.

The Helos and Aircraft are modelled pretty well. They have working cockpits, flare dispensers, weapon specific engagement sequences etc, you have to lock targets manually with by actually looking for targets using the thermal / laser designator systems on a cobra or actually using the radar scope depending on aircraft. Thermal Inverse white on black/ black on white, IR strobes to mark targets on the ground. Its all being simulated.

I really hope Arma 2 will have all these things in it as well. But I've seen the footage of Arma 2 and it still all looks and feels pretty wooden and impersonal like Arma 1, but I'll be honest. I've made whole realism mods and reconfigured BIS standard stuff for both OFP and Arma. You don't realise that I'm looking at the game from a development point of view. BIS has been working on ARMA 2 aka Game 2 for a long time now. They sit there and tell me from in game footage and screen shots that after all these years this is what they have to offer? I'll be honest Arma 2 looks just like the FSCTI full realism mod I made, which has all those vehicles in it. Everything from M1s to M2s to Hinds, T90s and proper equiped Helos etc etc.

When it comes down to it. This new Game 2 engine looks like a slightly modified version of the Arma 1 engine, which was a modified version of the OFP engine. The fact that we all come here and say we want or demand things like better realism, better AI, better graphics, says a lot about what BIS has been doing... Very little in terms of real simulation engine advances. The same old engine with all its flaws and incapabilities, but this time "we can reload while running"....  This is a joke....

To be fair, Codemasters have been working on their engine for 7 years as well. Lets see when the 2 games come out, just how much love, effort and attention to detail was put into each. These 2 games mean more than just a better simulation for us OFP and Arma fans. It has to show what these guys have been doing to advance the world of PC games.

BIS has had to make the game more arcade-like to improve playability and fun simply because the engine is so wooden, boring and out of touch with the current times. When the game community has to try to correct mistakes and release whole new mods like sounds and simulations for an out of the box "SIMULATION" game, then the writing is on the wall. It's time to look elsewhere.

[max power 21]

Among the many contestable sentences in your ramble, the one about the 'simplified LOMAC' like simulation for aircraft stands out. What the hell is simplified complexity? I'd like to see a post that has actual factual content rather than one laced with platitudes and weasel words - more and more scientists agree.

[Maddmatt 1]

OFP2's graphics are far better than Arma 2.

Please prove it with some comparison shots that are not CGI. The OFP screens and video footage I have seen have nowhere near the level of detail of the ArmA 2 screenshots.

Quote[/b] ]

Think almost M1 Platoon 2 simulation complexity, and aircraft? Try Team Apache for Helos like the Cobra and other gunships, and a simplified Lock On Modern Air Combat level simulation for fighter and attack jets.

And how the hell do you know that? I don't believe you.

M1 tank platoon complexity my arse.

I'm not calling OFP2 crap because I don't believe there is enough solid evidence either way. But your post looks like a load of crap and is clearly biased.

Quote[/b] ]The Infantry world is engrossing, dangerous and encompassing.

Shit loads of bias

If there is some new video footage and other media to give your post and credibility I would really love to see it. It sure sounds awesome, but I don't believe it.

When last did Codemasters make a half decent simulation of anything?

Maybe a rally game years ago. But I can't think of anything else. That Dirt game was disappointing, I was hoping for a good rally sim. Dirt 2 with that rewind feature doesn't sound like it will be any better.

[jakerod 254]

Yeah the first thing I thought when I read that post was "This guy sounds like Codies hired him to trash ArmA II and hype OFP2"

[Fredsas 0]

OFP2's graphics are far better than Arma 2.

Please prove it with some comparison shots that are not CGI. The OFP screens and video footage I have seen have nowhere near the level of detail of the ArmA 2 screenshots.

Quote[/b] ]

Think almost M1 Platoon 2 simulation complexity, and aircraft? Try Team Apache for Helos like the Cobra and other gunships, and a simplified Lock On Modern Air Combat level simulation for fighter and attack jets.

And how the hell do you know that? I don't believe you.

M1 tank platoon complexity my arse.

I'm not calling OFP2 crap because I don't believe there is enough solid evidence either way. But your post looks like a load of crap and is clearly biased.

Quote[/b] ]The Infantry world is engrossing, dangerous and encompassing.

Shit loads of bias

If there is some new video footage and other media to give your post and credibility I would really love to see it. It sure sounds awesome, but I don't believe it.

When last did Codemasters make a half decent simulation of anything?

Maybe a rally game years ago. But I can't think of anything else. That Dirt game was disappointing, I was hoping for a good rally sim. Dirt 2 with that rewind feature doesn't sound like it will be any better.

Vehicles

Obviously you can't have a perfect true simulation in all areas so don't lose the plot. But Arma 2 offers none of these things.

For instance. Whats the point in having a T90 for instance without the proper simulation of all its relevant systems??

   * There are 50 vehicles

         o // One would presume 20 a side with 10 being civilian, rebel or neutral units.

   * There are air, naval and land units all faithfully simulated.

         o Vehicles react to terrain with varying levels of performance.

         o Strengths and weaknesses of vehicles are apparent and a strategy element in Operation Flashpoint 2.

         o The following elements are supported:

               + Crew positions

               + All Weapon systems

               + Detailed simulation and deployment of firing sequences

               + All weapon specific cockpit components, HUDs and interfaces

               + Passenger positions

               + Vehicles are extremely up to date to the current war in Afghanistan.

               + Details include ad-hoc modifications to vehicles now used, but outside original specifications.

               + Interiors of Vehicles are detailed as possible with the resource allotted to this feature.

[max power 21]

I agree with MaddMatt.  There hasn't been enough information released to come to the conclusions that Fredsas is coming to.  It almost sounds like he's a viral marketer.  Either he has some insider information we don't have or he's talking out of his ass, either way I hope he's being paid handsomely for blowing so much smoke up so many asses.  That has got to be both unhealthy and unpleasant.

edit:  50 vehicles?  Wow.  That's almost 1/3 what ArmA2 has.  Wow.

The developer propaganda is just as vague. I will believe what they are saying when they put their money where their mouth is and show us some of these systems that are apparently simulated with simplified complexity.

[Fredsas 0]

The point is Arma is to overly simplistic to be really considered as a proper simulation. And BIS is doing nothing to rectify this situation. As a game OFP2 will attempt to push the limits of what it means to be a simulation keeping in line with its OFP heritage. Arma 2 will attempt to correct the mistakes from Arma 1. Which by the way the vast majority of OFP players consider as crap

[Fredsas 0]

50 vehicles? Wow. That's almost 1/3 what ArmA2 has. Wow. Good job, little guy!

Quantity of vehicles doesn't equal quality. There are a lot of add-ons for Arma atm. for eg. That doesn't make it a better game. making it a better game comes down to the engine itself

[max power 21]

The point is Arma is to overly simplistic to be really considered as a proper simulation. And BIS is doing nothing to rectify this situation. As a game OFP2 will attempt to push the limits of what it means to be a simulation keeping in line with its OFP heritage. Arma 2 will attempt to correct the mistakes from Arma 1. Which by the way the vast majority of OFP players consider as crap

More weasel words.. excellent.

Now sell me something. Tell me that like... more dentists prefer Crown Royal to Wiser's or something.

And unless you have something to actually show us regarding all of this cool 'simply complex' simulation you're talking about, kindly jog on.

[Fredsas 0]

Now sell me something. Tell me that like... more dentists prefer Crown Royal to Wiser's or something.

I'm sorry but now you've lost me. I'm not saying I wont buy Arma 2 if its good. But it better be miles ahead of Arma 1. We've been waiting long enough and put up with a lot of mistakes, oversights and excuses. I am not biased at all. The plan fact is that if OFP2 is better I'll drop Arma 2 like a hot potato. Like I said fairly previously lets see how much attention to detail has been put into each game at press time. Then may the best game take the sim crown

[Maddmatt 1]

Vehicles

Obviously you can't have a perfect true simulation in all areas so don't lose the plot. But Arma 2 offers none of these things.

For instance. Whats the point in having a T90 for instance without the proper simulation of all its relevant systems??

   * There are 50 vehicles

         o // One would presume 20 a side with 10 being civilian, rebel or neutral units.

   * There are air, naval and land units all faithfully simulated.

         o Vehicles react to terrain with varying levels of performance.

         o Strengths and weaknesses of vehicles are apparent and a strategy element in Operation Flashpoint 2.

         o The following elements are supported:

               + Crew positions

               + All Weapon systems

               + Detailed simulation and deployment of firing sequences

               + All weapon specific cockpit components, HUDs and interfaces

               + Passenger positions

               + Vehicles are extremely up to date to the current war in Afghanistan.

               + Details include ad-hoc modifications to vehicles now used, but outside original specifications.

               + Interiors of Vehicles are detailed as possible with the resource allotted to this feature.

That doesn't really address my post. Mind linking to where you got that information?

You have also failed to show even a screenshot that proved this statement of yours:

Quote[/b] ]OFP2's graphics are far better than Arma 2.

After that great CGI, the in-game screenshots of OFP2 were shockingly bad IMO.

And even in areas were ArmA 2 doesn't turn out as realistic as OFP2, I'll bet the the ArmA 2 modders will beat that

[max power 21]

Now sell me something.  Tell me that like... more dentists prefer Crown Royal to Wiser's or something.

I'm sorry but now you've lost me. I'm not saying I wont buy Arma 2 if its good. But it better be miles ahead of Arma 1. We've been waiting long enough and put up with a lot of mistakes, oversights and excuses. I am not biased at all. The plan fact is that if OFP2 is better I'll drop Arma 2 like a hot potato. Like I said fairly previously lets see how much attention to detail has been put into each game at press time. Then may the best game take the sim crown

It doesn't matter. Prove your points or stop posting unfounded opinions as if they are facts. Everything from 'the tank FCS will be like NWD's' to 'the flight model will be like lomac' to 'the majority of ofp players agree' is totally unproven. So prove any of those points, preferably all of them, because up until now, your post is total fluff and a waste of time to read.

[POTS 0]

IMO, arma2's level of moddability will allow us to put in our own systems probably, even though they are pretty realistic already. OFP2 is all talk, and their ownly ingame screenshots suck really bad. They've only shown one area of their game, a field house and hill area, and they repeat, "we've simply told our AI to attack that hill". Wow, thats informative, how is the AI any better? How are the graphics so good if you havn't shown us anything besides the same area, some 2d trees and a 8bit retro game land screen shot of a helicopter? I really want ofp2 to be good. I hope it has everything they say it has, but they have shown barely any information. It's pretty sad...

[Fredsas 0]

That doesn't really address my post. Mind linking to where you got that information?

Oh sorry Matt, I just got that off wikipedia. The sources from that are on the site.

The Game 2 engine is essentially unchanged in the way it simulates physics from that of OFP. From what BIS has said it simply adds stuff like multi cpu support and better graphics. Modders can do things to make the game a better experience yes, but that only goes so far. The vast majority of people will be playing the out of the box game with out mods.

Getting the game right from the start is very important to the success of Armed Assault 2. They didn't do a good job with Arma 1, nor OFP on that front either for that matter. Game players these days aren't going to accept simplistic, uninvolving or 3/4 done games. If you are a fan of and want to see a good simulation then you will have to ask yourself if you will accept compromises in the game from an outdated engine.

At some point you will simply have to stop dreaming and fooling yourself as to what will be in the game. In respect to OFP2, the engine is based on a motorsport sim engine. That means it supports such physics as gravity, friction, weight, HP, drag etc. so from the start its already outclassed the Game 2 Engine. All these things are common to simulating cars, tanks, aircraft and even people.

Without trying to sound biased against Game 2. That engine does none of these things in any meaningful way. Just ask any modder out there. In a good simulation its the little details that really make it count. Any engine can put a model of a tank, car person etc and pass it off. But for Arma 2 and OFP2 people have a much more discerning eye for things. Cause so many things are being tried. the more sophisticated stuff like weapon and vehicle interfaces is what will make the games more involving. I hope you can understand where I am coming from

I am not trying to be biased, but the Game 2 engine just cant do these things. At least not without some complicated scripting. (then of course, there is compatibility in MP to etc to worry about). In which case this should be done by BIS out of the box, and not by community modders.

[max power 21]

A wikipedia article on a game that hasn't released any actual information on it other than marketing hoo-haw?  That has to be accurate!

The fact that it has an engine based on a motorsports sim doesn't really mean anything, especially in regards to the complexity of the systems you are describing, nor the aircraft, nor the infantry, nor the ballistics.  Project IGI was based on a flight sim, and how well did that turn out?  And, you are misrepresenting the arma engine.  The ballistics simulation does indeed have all the components needed to simulate external ballistics up to something like a 90 percent agreement with real life.

Furthermore I would like to draw attention to the fact that you have not actually quantified or qualified anything you have previously stated regarding anything.

[bigstone 48]

What different country forces are involved in both Arma II and OFP2? Also where do the campaigns take place?

[Maddmatt 1]

That doesn't really address my post. Mind linking to where you got that information?

Oh sorry Matt, I just got that off wikipedia. The sources from that are on the site.

I suppose that information is taken from preview articles. I don't trust them these days

Quote[/b] ]

The Game 2 engine is essentially unchanged in the way it simulates physics from that of OFP. From what BIS has said it simply adds stuff like multi cpu support and better graphics. Modders can do things to make the game a better experience yes, but that only goes so far. The vast majority of people will be playing the out of the box game with out mods.

Yea not everybody gets the mods. But I'm not sure how many of those people will care about what the mods add anyway.

Quote[/b] ]

Getting the game right from the start is very important to the success of Armed Assault 2. They didn't do a good job with Arma 1, nor OFP on that front either for that matter. Game players these days aren't going to accept simplistic, uninvolving or 3/4 done games. If you are a fan of and want to see a good simulation then you will have to ask yourself if you will accept compromises in the game from an outdated engine.

I mostly agree with you there, except for "Game players these days aren't going to accept simplistic, uninvolving or 3/4 done games."

Most games these days are very simplistic. ArmA is much further from being simplistic or un-involving. But yea we all know it wasn't really 'finished'.

Look at Call of Duty. Hugely successful but simplistic.

Sure the engine OFP2 is based on supports all those fancy physics. But that doesn't mean they will be able to make use of all of that. With large scale missions you are more limited with what fancy things you can do.

Quote[/b] ]

I am not trying to be biased, but the Game 2 engine just cant do these things. At least not without some complicated scripting. (then of course, there is compatibility in MP to etc to worry about). In which case this should be done by BIS out of the box, and not by community modders.

Well the reason so much is done by the community is partly because the community greatly outnumbers the staff at BIS.

We all want to see the engine improved and more cool features. But you can't have everything. Even OFP2 isn't going to pull off such a miracle, even if it does end up being a great game.

[Fredsas 0]

The ballistics simulation does indeed have all the components needed to simulate external ballistics up to something like a 90 percent agreement with real life.

True, but ballistics is only a small part of the simulation as a whole. The Armed Assault series is not an infantry only game. If you are a CTF or other infantry based player then that would be fine. But what about the simulation of other technology like tanks, airplanes, etc.

You can't just ignore other equally important aspects of the game. Unfortunately that's what BIS has been doing. Going for Infantry playability and fun on that front and almost ignoring anything else. For eg. just on the armour vs inf front, an M1A1 MBT has 900mm of armour vs kinetic (sabot) and about 1300mm vs HEAT (Missile/Rocket RPG) type rounds. If this is the case and they are true to simulation, how is it possible that 3 or 4 RPGs doing 200mm penetration can destroy an M1?

And that's just an post engine config weapon vs armour question. They couldn't even get that right. I wonder if these guys making the simulation even do any research on the stuff they are trying to simulate.