ArmA II: The Vehicles

[Mafia101 0]

I hope there is an LCAC. I was just reading about the 13th Marine Expeditionary and saw that in the description. It would be good to have a way to actually get vehicles to shore so I can stop saying... Uh yeah there was a big ship here five minutes before the mission started that put all these tanks on the island but now its gone.

Well, If you looking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKX5GNVe6Qg (Dunno did you mention it) at 5:00 there is big ship. It looks like Amphibious assault ship so it should definitely include LCAC but yeah, lets wait boats/ships section.

Are the scales of the vehicles correct to the real world?

Yeah, that M1A1 looks bit small tho.

[mr.g-c 6]

Bravo6, the overall scaling in BIS games is IMHO a typical BIS problem (i was complaining about that around Arma1 release already).

It was incorrect in OFP1(but better than in Arma), it got worse in Arma1 and it doesn't seems any better in Arma2 after looking at those screens (why should it anyway - same engine, same base, same everything).

Yes the Abrams seems to be to tiny, to answer your question from my point of view.

[bravo 6 0]

Well, you are not forgetting that all models are new are you?

Nothing is used from ARMA1, it was said in some interview or video recently that everything was built from scratch, hope its true.

Saying that i still have some hope that these issues can be fixed in time.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Vehicles and the environment have always had roughly correct dimensions (check some of the ArmA sample MLODS). BIS have just made the characters quite a bit bigger than they should be (anyone who's had to make crew animations for ArmA vehicles will know what sort of problems this creates ). As stated, they're around 1.85 m tall.

I'm told (by a couple of game developers I know) that this is a common thing in video games because the camera is normally positioned slightly above the player in order to give a better field of view. Mounting the camera above a figure creates foreshortening, which make the character model look shorter than it actually is, relative to its surroundings. To reduce this effect, player models are given increased dimensions.

If BIS scaled the units realistically you'd all think they were too short, unless you pulled the camera down.

[bravo 6 0]

Quote[/b] ]they're around 1.85 m tall

Its ok by me, i do have that exact same size, and i don't consider myself a tall person. I bet the average US marine is bigger then that.

What I'm more concern is the scale of the vehicles assuming the men size are normal. Maybe the vehicles should be bigger instead of the soldiers to be smaller.

Like I said, i have no idea if its hard or easy to fix the vehicle scaling issues.

Its a fact that a lot of people have noticed it and it creates a strange feeling into the game and i just wish it could be fixed properly.

Maybe not.

PS- I don't want to sound like an ass but if people thing this should be fixed to improve the simulation, please revoke your wishes.

[Scrub 0]

About the LCAC:  Please, yes!  Or at least make the functionality for one.  Heck, I'll even alter my model that's been waiting for a scripting miracle to function correctly for 2 years, any way you want, gratis.  Just please allow the ability for one (I know, so close to finishing, is there any chance for this if it isn't in there already, ~99.9% not   )

[jtec 0]

Vehicles and the environment have always had roughly correct dimensions (check some of the ArmA sample MLODS). BIS have just made the characters quite a bit bigger than they should be (anyone who's had to make crew animations for ArmA vehicles will know what sort of problems this creates ). As stated, they're around 1.85 m tall.

I'm told (by a couple of game developers I know) that this is a common thing in video games because the camera is normally positioned slightly above the player in order to give a better field of view. Mounting the camera above a figure creates foreshortening, which make the character model look shorter than it actually is, relative to its surroundings. To reduce this effect, player models are given increased dimensions.

If BIS scaled the units realistically you'd all think they were too short, unless you pulled the camera down.

I suppose the only thing that could be done in response to that is to increase everything else in the game world by 5% more? The M1A1 does look a lil small although could be just the angle.

[POTS 0]

A more intelligent solution, if anybody has heard the mensa salt shaker joke, is to simply shrink the men a little bit. Visual realism should be more important than unitary measurement. If it's easier to simply shrink the men to obtain a realistic visual scale, why not?

[jakerod 254]

A more intelligent solution, if anybody has heard the mensa salt shaker joke, is to simply shrink the men a little bit. Visual realism should be more important than unitary measurement. If it's easier to simply shrink the men to obtain a realistic visual scale, why not?

Because then if there is something that was correct which im sure something is bound to be the correct ratio then you just ruined that.

Ex. You are going to have some stairs that look really big as well as some guns, trees, grass, flowers, dogs, etc.

Quote[/b] ]I suppose the only thing that could be done in response to that is to increase everything else in the game world by 5% more? The M1A1 does look a lil small although could be just the angle.

same problem as above only in reverse

[stakex 0]

Well, you are not forgetting that all models are new are you?

Nothing is used from ARMA1, it was said in some interview or video recently that everything was built from scratch, hope its true.

Saying that i still have some hope that these issues can be fixed in time.

I personally think they might have fibbed a little with the "all models are new". I highly doubt they re-modeled vehicles like the AH-1Z from the ground up... and in fact since it looks exactlly the same as the one in ArmA1, Id bet money they didn't. Not to mention allot of the weapons look pretty clear to be the same models as in ArmA1. Personally when they say "all models are new" I think they are including models that were touched up, or re-textured as well as ground-up models. While thats not really a big deal or anything... its not good for the scaling issues OFP/ArmA have stuggled with.

[Commando84 0]

I think the new model looks somehwat smoother or something, i can't point it out really

But imo I wouldnn't care that much if the cobra was the same as arma 1, since it looked good, maybe just added new textures to pimp it out is enough in some cases

But im pretty sure at least parts of it here and there have been redone.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

May I ask to the experts on the matter:

Are the scales of the vehicles correct to the real world?  

edit: OR are the vehicles compared to the ArmA2 soldiers?

It's hard to tell whether or not they are correct just from the screens.  Those screen shots are certainly not to scale with each other.

In ArmA, the soldiers were larger than average people.  I think they are 185 centimeters tall.  This would make them slightly bigger compared to the rest of the vehicles and stuff than you would expect (they were certainly not easy to fit into the trabant).  

I would expect that they are scaled fairly realistically.  Scaling in 3d is one of the easier things to do.

What are your concerns?

I'm not exactly comparing the vehicles to each other by using the new images in the arma2 web site. I guess i was not quite clear what i tried to say or ask:

If the vehicles are to scale in game comparing to the normal soldiers, houses and from each vehicles in game:

I'm kinda reluctant in the scale matter of the Abrams m1a1 and the soldiers on real life scales concern.

By looking to the following pictures, in game and real life ones, can you see any abnormal scaling error? Or its just my impression?!

When i look carefully and analyze the size of the tank and compare it with the mounted soldiers i notice something is odd and not correct.

'Insert pics here'

Maybe its the angle, i not sure.

In my opinion the M1a1 from the in game pictures of ArmA2 looks kinda small, short, maybe compact is the proper word to use.

By the way I thought it would be hard to scale things, but if you say its easy BIS Still have time to re-fix a more realistic size, no?

Edit: typo

I think what your seeing is due to both the angle of the pics and the standard BIS 185cm height for units.

I noticed that the crew member in the last pic must be a big guy as he looks very similar to the BIS situation.

I dont know how it goes in the US but most of the AUS tankies that I've ever met tended to be on the smaller end of the scale.

I think rescaling any of this stuff would be pointless. Firstly because I think BIS work hard to make all the objects to scale (and any modeler can tell you that this arguably the easiest way to do it) and secondly, without a range of body shapes, rescaling the men will only lead to creating a new pigeon hole to stick the units in. Having multiple pigeon holes ie shorter crew, taller infantry, and medium pilots may offer glipses of short term visual parity but I imagine is a lot of work for little to no gain. And may even complicate things badly as all will still have to suit the given seating proxies.

[badlymad 0]

I personally think they might have fibbed a little with the "all models are new". I highly doubt they re-modeled vehicles like the AH-1Z from the ground up... and in fact since it looks exactlly the same as the one in ArmA1, Id bet money they didn't. Not to mention allot of the weapons look pretty clear to be the same models as in ArmA1. Personally when they say "all models are new" I think they are including models that were touched up, or re-textured as well as ground-up models. While thats not really a big deal or anything... its not good for the scaling issues OFP/ArmA have stuggled with.

Most of the models have already existed in some form or another. The SPG-9, Javelin, XM-8 and silenced Makarov were unused models from ArmA 1, and some of the other models (such as the BTR-90, UH-1Y and possibly the F-35) have been seen from the earliest stages of this game (when it was still called Game 2). Some models might also be from VBS-2, though I can't say for sure.

[adadaead 0]

Anyone noticed Zamak instead of Kamaz. Must because of legal issues

[An-225 0]

The omission of the CH-46 is a bit of a shame because it is a great in-between compared to the V-22 and MH-60, in terms of firepower and troop capacity.

The same can be said on the Sea Stallion and its huge troop capacity of 37 troops.

Don't forget, the CH-46 is not out of service yet, not until 2014 actually.

[echo1 0]

and some of the other models (such as the BTR-90, UH-1Y and possibly the F-35) have been seen from the earliest stages of this game (when it was still called Game 2).

Yeah, and I think the USMC "Amtrak" was in the earliest screenshot of "Game 2" that I saw about 4-5 years ago. That said, considering the quality of BIS' models - why fix it if it isn't broken?

[bravo 6 0]

Not broken, but what if they look miss scaled?

Not all models look small but some models like the M1A1 and the HMMWV looks small, compact, short in game.

[dm 9]

All I can say is

"what the FUCK"

You're bitching that the models appear to be incorrectly scaled? When your only reference are screenshots where you have no idea where the "camera" was positioned, what field of view was used etc etc.

You just have to look at the sample models for ArmA1 to KNOW that everything is relatively close to being the correct dimensions, so it feels like you're bitching about shit just to bitch...

I mean come ON, "it looks squished"... Jesus, talk about complaining for the point of complaining...

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Fixed wing are up!

Ahaha! Another thinly veiled dig:

Quote[/b] ]No military simulator is complete without a hangar full of planes for the gamer to fly around in!

[bravo 6 0]

Quote[/b] ]No military simulator is complete without a hangar full of planes for the gamer to fly around in!

I was just going to mention that particular note hihi

[BAD BEN 0]

i like what i see. love to do some HALO out of that hercules. and im glad the east side has something else than the SU34 in the shape of the frogfoot. i do look foward to doing some bombing runs on chernarus

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]You're bitching that the models appear to be incorrectly scaled? When your only reference are screenshots where you have no idea where the "camera" was positioned, what field of view was used etc etc.

DM, i think everyone can just see the relations, you don't need to be a genius to be able to.

You don't need to look at any of those settings you mentioned to get at least a vague idea/impression about the relation between soldiers and vehicles.

Quote[/b] ]You just have to look at the sample models for ArmA1 to KNOW that everything is relatively close to being the correct dimensions

I disagree here, Arma1 was IMHO completely off.

Not only personell vs. vehicles, but do you remember those tiny trees?

There are also other examples, but again Arma1 was off with the scaling and as we can get a idea already, Arma2 M1 Tank is clearly to small or the personell to large.

Quote[/b] ]so it feels like you're bitching about shit just to bitch...

I don't know how it is for the others you might have spoken towards with that, but for me its not bitiching or to let BIS looks bad or whatever.

Its just when Hardocore fans seeing that something seems to be offm they mention it or complain about it (in hope it gets discussed about, in hope developers read it and discuss internally about and finally maybe even to fix it).

Again, i can't see any bad word towards BIS, just a couple of people agree to Bravo6 and have the same impression that something is off regarding to the scale between personell and tank.

[MBot 0]

Nice to see the fixed wing aircraft.

Now some nitpicking about the armament from a flightsim enthusiast

The Su-25 cannot carry 4 Kh-29 missiles as shown in the vehicle section. The Kh-29 is simply too heavy, the Frogfoot can only carry 2 units on the most inboard stations. Also the standard Su-25 does not carry R-73 AAMs, instead it uses the older R-60. The newer versions of the Frogfoot (Su-25T, Su-25TM/Su-39) can carry the R-73, but only on the second outboard stations.

Hopefully they also adjusted the ArmaA A-10 to not carry AGM-65 missiles on stations other then the ones outside of the gear pods (on either single or tripple launch rails). All other stations are not wired to accept the Maverick.

[arigram 0]

I am very impressed with the selection of birds.

My only concern is that the Russian-equipped side don't seem to have an equivalent to the C-130 transport, like maybe the Antonov An-12. But, I am no military buff so I could be wrong.

Of course the campaign probably doesn't require the Russians to airlift in large numbers, but one such aircraft would be useful in multiplayer and user created missions, especially of large scale war.

The US seem to have total air superiority, even with their UAV able to carry munitions.

I only have two thoughts:

1) If the armament of each aircraft is fixed (more probable), or can be changed.

2) How cargo is loaded and if that includes ground vehicles.

[EricM 0]

Great array of aircrafts...

Too bad though no transport aircraft for OPFOR or a civilian one.

I would gladly swap the Sukhoi for an An12 or a Cessna...