Latest ArmA2 & ArmA2:OA Press Coverage | NO discussion here!

[BOTA:16 0]

That was a great write up. As previously stated it seemed very balanced. Now if we can just get a NA publisher and release date....

[Crazyfox 0]

There wont be moving trains. It was scripted in the NAPA video.

Thats not official yet.

[That guy 10]

That is a very good read through. Some great info there, thanks!

a couple of questions though:

firstly, has the AK107 model been corrected? is it still a 74m with a abnormally long gas tube?

Are thier going to be any actual in-game (non digicam) vids coming out from the event? Where there major game mags or websites present? 505 or BIS vids?

That new medical system is sounding more advanced than I had anticipated. the tac gamer preview said something about needing bandages and morphine for treating casualties? if so (and its like ACE) then freaking awesome! and the need for actual casevacs? sweet!

edit: just remembered something elce: BODY ARMOR. i think on the twitter thing some one said that armor is modeled in game (not a removable vest etc) on certain units. did you observe anything like that? I hope we cant kill people in 7.62 resistant plates from 100m with a makarov...

Edited May 22, 2009 by That guy
added stuff

[NeMeSiS 11]

Thats not official yet.

Yes it is and i wonder how you missed it as it has been discussed like 300 times. :confused:

EDIT: I have to say that the whole twitter thing made a mess out of everything, most of it is just wrong/incomplete/giving people false hopes.

Edited May 21, 2009 by NeMeSiS

[sparks50 0]

Thats not official yet.

Jan Prazak, PR Manager has said it, how much more official can it be?

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.armamdb.de%2Fphpkit%2Finclude.php%3Fpath%3Dcontent%2Farticles.php%26contentid%3D1419%26page%3D1&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0=

Great job on the preview Rock and Foxhound. Finally a detailed and objective preview from someone who knows this series of games. And I agree about the abnormal bloom effect looking cheap and bad.

Edited May 21, 2009 by sparks50

[Heatseeker 0]

Thank you two, sounds like Arma2 is going to be ok :) .

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Very good job on the report Rock.

Glad you all like it and found it useful.

firstly, has the AK107 model been corrected? is it still a 74m with a abnormally long gas tube?

I honestly cant answer that. I doubt Foxhound can either. We weren't really looking at specifics at that time. There was an awful lot of information to take in.

Are thier going to be any actual in-game (non digicam) vids coming out from the event? Where there major game mags or websites present? 505 or BIS vids?

I doubt any other videos will appear. Its wasnt a crowded event, apart from a Dutch TV show, Jason from Tactical gamer was the only one shooting video that i noticed. We didnt have the facility (or foresight to bring software) to record ingame videos. Maybe next time.

That new medical system is sounding more advanced than I had anticipated. the tac gamer preview said something about needing bandages and morphine for treating casualties? if so (and its like ACE) then freaking awesome! and the need for actual casevacs? sweet!

It is impressive, im not sure about the bandages etc but only some classes can provide medic support. Most classes will be restircted to basic first aid. I beleive its only SF and Medics that can heal properly.

edit: just remembered something elce: BODY ARMOR. i think on the twitter thing some one said that armor is modeled in game (not a removable vest etc) on certain units. did you observe anything like that? I hope we cant kill people in 7.62 resistant plates from 100m with a makarov...

I think you are out of luck on that part. I think Jason asked a question about body armour during the demo but the reply was something along the lines of its not removable and the armour values are set inthe config. I suspect that the damage system is very similar to ArmA1 but the injuries you sustain are more interesting now :p

Edited May 22, 2009 by RKSL-Rock

[That guy 10]

thank you for that reply rock

I dont know much about arma1 internal working so i dont know how much has actually changed in regards to armor, but even if the armor rating in the config has been added, that is a step in the right direction.

as long as it is more difficult to kill or injure an armored marine vrs an unarmored insurgent i will be content

[trunkz jr 0]

Yeah that preview was nicely done ty for it.

[4 IN 1 0]

Thx rock for this indepth report, not atless we know that the game worth buying

No model correction on F35B well that means rock you got a new job to finish(hint hint):p

[alan8325 10]

If you are reading this without ever playing Armed Assault then it may not sound like a greatest game of all time but I would seriously suggest you take a good look at ArmA 2. Its not like any FPS or Tactical shooter out there. Its better.

Why would ArmA 2 not look that great based on this review if I haven't played ArmA? I usually play more military sims like the Combat Mission series and flight sims than FPS's, so I'd be more likely to compare it to those games than mainstream FPS's like Battlefield or CoD. I didn't even look into ArmA until I read about ArmA 2. There must have not been much marketing or hype. Hopefully I'll be in for a good surprise with ArmA 2. :)

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Thx rock for this indepth report, not atless we know that the game worth buying

No model correction on F35B well that means rock you got a new job to finish(hint hint):p

Already on it

Why would ArmA 2 not look that great based on this review if I haven't played ArmA?

That paragraph is a little out of context now. When I wrote the original draft article there was a paragraph preceding that one then went into the mixed reviews from ArmA1 in the early days prior to the 1.08 patch etc.

In the cold light of day it didnt really seem too relevant to ArmA2 so i removed it. I obviously missed that vauge reference. Sorry for the confusion.

[alan8325 10]

Already on it

That paragraph is a little out of context now. When I wrote the original draft article there was a paragraph preceding that one then went into the mixed reviews from ArmA1 in the early days prior to the 1.08 patch etc.

In the cold light of day it didnt really seem too relevant to ArmA2 so i removed it. I obviously missed that vauge reference. Sorry for the confusion.

Ah, got it. That makes much more sense now. Looks like the F-35B correction is going to be one of the first mods out. Looks good so far!

[eble 3]

Already on it

That paragraph is a little out of context now. When I wrote the original draft article there was a paragraph preceding that one then went into the mixed reviews from ArmA1 in the early days prior to the 1.08 patch etc.

In the cold light of day it didnt really seem too relevant to ArmA2 so i removed it. I obviously missed that vauge reference. Sorry for the confusion.

I managed to get my footmunch's conversion of the F35 to do a correct VTOL takeoff only problem I had was getting it to land VTOL at under 15knts (basically it wouldn't) at about 16knts it would slowly descend.

The menchanics were fine just need someone with a lot more experience to tweak it to make it work perfectly.

Seems the Arma engine was either like the harrier unable to take off VTOL but could land VTOL where as the F35 I did could take off VTOL but not land VTOL.

I'm sure a scripted version would be a work a round, but it wasn't something I wanted to do.

Thanks for the review.

Southy

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I managed to get my footmunch's conversion of the F35 to do a correct VTOL takeoff only problem I had was getting it to land VTOL at under 15knts (basically it wouldn't) at about 16knts it would slowly descend.

The menchanics were fine just need someone with a lot more experience to tweak it to make it work perfectly.

Seems the Arma engine was either like the harrier unable to take off VTOL but could land VTOL where as the F35 I did could take off VTOL but not land VTOL.

I'm sure a scripted version would be a work a round, but it wasn't something I wanted to do.

Thanks for the review.

Southy

Its as much about the pilot's skill as it is about the config :p

This topic isnt the best place for this discussion though. Lets stay on the ArmA2 topic.

[MQ-9 Reaper 10]

Thanks for the good and honest report. It looks like Arma2 is gearing up for success.

Suppressive fire: Place the suppressive fire game logic in the area you want. Place an AI Machine Gunner and link it to the logic. Now when an OPFOR player or AI comes within range it will begin firing suppressive bursts in that area.

The way I understand this : you must first be in the mission editor to place the game logic before your machine gunner can use suppressive fire against an enemy target. :confused:

But during a mission, as a squad commander, can you ask your squad to use suppressive fire towards a particular direction, or area ? Or maybe the team mates will use suppressive fire automatically depending on the circumstances ?

[Andi 10]

The way I understand this : you must first be in the mission editor to place the game logic before your machine gunner can use suppressive fire against an enemy target. :confused:

To me, that would make no sense. I rather think you can place a surpressive fire area marker for AI the same way you place a waypoint for AI. :o

[MQ-9 Reaper 10]

Thanks Andi, I hpe you are right. I also hope we can order suppressive fire through the regular command menu.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

To me, that would make no sense. I rather think you can place a surpressive fire area marker for AI the same way you place a waypoint for AI. :o

We only saw the mission editor application of the game logic modules. I really wouldnt like to guess how suppressive fire would work as an order in mid mission. It wasnt explained to us, and no one thougth to ask that question at the time! Its just one of those things we will have to wait to find out for ourselves.

[Andi 10]

If you had to place every suppressive fire area in the editor before, that would totally fail the idea of the whole concept (in my opinion). That'd mean I could order suppressive fire just on pre-defined areas and therefore would force me to encounter with the opposite part in exactly this area or I would not have the option to suppress them if encountered elsewhere... if I got the idea right. :(

[Guest]

If I understood how those modules work correctly you dont place the "supressive fire" module where you want it to happen.

You are supposed to "group" the modules with any unit you wish to use it.

I saw that really quick on the demo. Jan placed a player, 5 different friendly groups of infantry, a chopper and an armored platoon.

He than added one module of which i forgot the name, than he added the high command module, grouped the player with the high command module and the other module too and started the game. In game he had command of all the groups with the high command functionality by just placing 2 "markerlike" modules on the editor, grouping to the player and thats it.

No fancy command lines, no fancy scripting. Just drop and drag.

I assume it works the same for any other module.

[EricM 0]

It's probably more like so : you place the suppressive fire module in the game (wherever, it doesn't matter, it's just a global game logic) and all the guys linked to it will suppress when needed (wherever they are) but the others won't and will keep their ammo more sparingly and only "shoot to kill".

I 'm not sure to understand the point of doing suppressing fire "optionnal" and not a "standard" feature. Maybe the AI would deplete their ammo too quickly otherwise and it's better to leave it to machine gunners for instance...

[MehMan 0]

We'll see in a week or so.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

1st: Thank you for that report RKSL, THAT is exactly the style I would expect to get from the "experts" of the game magazines.

You gave me some confidence that we will not have a disaster as we had with ArmA 1.

Looking forward to see you on Chernarus .

[Spokesperson 0]

If there's a surp. fire feature it should be possible to script it to be real time as well.

But spontaneous surp. fire wouldn't be bad if it was default. There should be some kind of probability inversely proportional to the amount of ammo and the ammo reserves around and proportional to favorable types of scenarios.