Some of those less than awsome ArmA2 features

[MehMan 0]

I'm not sure if this is an impression post or suggestion or just a general rant, but I think it might be worth a topic of it's own.

What I mind is the one-size-fits-all solutions that have been present in this engine since OFP. They're not huge gamebreakers, but enough to make me go ugh, because I've seen far simpler games with better solutions. I'm aware that ArmA2 is all about infantry but most of what I'm about to say does touch the infantry aspect.

First off, is the hitpoint system. I don't mind hitpoints, there's no other way to portray damage or calculate damage other than hitpoints. What I mind is the implementation. There are simply not enough variables in play. I can blow up tanks with an M249. to be precise I tried to blow up the T72, it took 1000 M249 rounds. No huge deal you might say. You'll never have a chance to take 1000 shots at a T72(took nearly twice that much for the BRDM2). True, that'll almost never happen. But the problem lies with a tank that takes a hit, or gets some splash damage from a bomb. It's a bit damaged but still running. Lets say you have somebody with an M249 and he fires a few shots at a tank. He hits a track that's borderline damaged and it gets to the red/yellow state where the AI crew bails out. That's possible. So you get an abandoned tank from an M249 shot.

next up is the generic blow up/on fire thing. It's a small niggly bit. But still, everything blows up. Full of fuel they blow up, empty they catch fire. Why I don't know. I like the HMMW, how it gets the shot up texture when you fire upon it. Very nice, but if you continue firing it either blows up or turns black and catches fire. Not really awsome. I know it's a way of conveying the message that the vehicle is knocked out for sure, but there are better ways. The game should distinguish between small arms destruction and if a rocket or bomb was the cause of destruction. Also, tanks always blow up or start burning. I wish it wasn't always so. The crew abandoning it is great, but they do that too soon and expose themselves. Destroyed tanks shouldn't always blow up or burn. A good example is the Liberation 41 mod for OFP. The tank combat there was amazing. When tanks got destroyed they didn't always blow up or start burning. They went through some stages and slowly after some minutes perhaps blew up. Or it was a bit random. But in any case, it was brilliant because you had knocked out tanks on the battlefield, but not a million burning shells. It was really impressive.

Now lets look at a much simpler game called C&C Generals. I used to mod this game and it had very handy things for armour. You could define different armour values for each weapon type. Granted the game only had a few different weapon types(smallarms, gattling gun, rocket, shell, and I think bomb) but you could define armour values for each of these. You could make tanks like tanks, small arms couldn't touch them. Along with that you could define a destroyed FX for each of these weapon types. By default the armour values for tanks against small arms was around 50%. So infantry could destroy a tank if you crowded them and they fired on it and the tank didn't run over all your men. But when it got destroyed it didn't blow up. You could define what kind of FX happens when small arms destroy it. Brilliant!

So you could define what happens to vehicles when you destroy them with different weapons and if those weapons can actually do any damage to it. And that's from a 2003 RTS with a rather shitty engine.

One other small issue is the wheeled vehicles and optics zoom. You cannot have a fixed zoom like in a tank or any other vehicle, but you need to hold the zoom key in order to have the optics zoomed. And that means you only have two zoom levels compared to the tracked vehicles zoom where you can set it at the depth you like. Pretty annoying.

I've mentioned this before, but I don't think I can do any harm if I say it again.

Edited June 16, 2009 by MehMan

[dmarkwick 261]

First off, is the hitpoint system. I don't mind hitpoints, there's no other way to portray damage or calculate damage other than hitpoints. What I mind is the implementation. There are simply not enough variables in play. I can blow up tanks with an M249. to be precise I tried to blow up the T72, it took 1000 M249 rounds. No huge deal you might say. You'll never have a chance to take 1000 shots at a T72(took nearly twice that much for the BRDM2). True, that'll almost never happen. But the problem lies with a tank that takes a hit, or gets some splash damage from a bomb. It's a bit damaged but still running. Lets say you have somebody with an M249 and he fires a few shots at a tank. He hits a track that's borderline damaged and it gets to the red/yellow state where the AI crew bails out. That's possible. So you get an abandoned tank from an M249 shot.

It might be possible, but I've never actually seen it happen. If I ever did, it would be an event so rare that it might as well be a realistic fluke :)

next up is the generic blow up/on fire thing. It's a small niggly bit. But still, everything blows up. Full of fuel they blow up, empty they catch fire. Why I don't know. I like the HMMW, how it gets the shot up texture when you fire upon it. Very nice, but if you continue firing it either blows up or turns black and catches fire. Not really awsome. I know it's a way of conveying the message that the vehicle is knocked out for sure, but there are better ways. The game should distinguish between small arms destruction and if a rocket or bomb was the cause of destruction. Also, tanks always blow up or start burning. I wish it wasn't always so. The crew abandoning it is great, but they do that too soon and expose themselves. Destroyed tanks shouldn't always blow up or burn. A good example is the Liberation 41 mod for OFP. The tank combat there was amazing. When tanks got destroyed they didn't always blow up or start burning. They went through some stages and slowly after some minutes perhaps blew up. Or it was a bit random. But in any case, it was brilliant because you had knocked out tanks on the battlefield, but not a million burning shells. It was really impressive.

I'm not sure, but I think the "gap" between tank being abandoned and tank blowing up hitpoints can be increased, to give a more realistic empty-tank behavior.

Now lets look at a much simpler game called C&C Generals. I used to mod this game and it had very handy things for armour. You could define different armour values for each weapon type. Granted the game only had a few different weapon types(smallarms, gattling gun, rocket, shell, and I think bomb) but you could define armour values for each of these. You could make tanks like tanks, small arms couldn't touch them. Along with that you could define a destroyed FX for each of these weapon types. By default the armour values for tanks against small arms was around 50%. So infantry could destroy a tank if you crowded them and they fired on it and the tank didn't run over all your men. But when it got destroyed it didn't blow up. You could define what kind of FX happens when small arms destroy it. Brilliant!

So you could define what happens to vehicles when you destroy them with different weapons and if those weapons can actually do any damage to it. And that's from a 2003 RTS with a rather shitty engine.

But didn't you just say that this behavior in C&C is modded in? It can be modded in to ArmA too.

[Maddmatt 1]

Along with that you could define a destroyed FX for each of these weapon types. By default the armour values for tanks against small arms was around 50%. So infantry could destroy a tank if you crowded them and they fired on it and the tank didn't run over all your men. But when it got destroyed it didn't blow up. You could define what kind of FX happens when small arms destroy it. Brilliant!

That should be possible to do with some modding, and it's actually something I'm hoping to experiment with.

As for the rest, I agree. But it looks like, at least for ArmA 2, that it will be up to the modders.

Except the wheeled vehicle zoom thing. Only BIS can fix that.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

If BIS insist to develop still based on the stone old engine, we will never get rid of those oddities. Question now is if they are a.) willing to go for it and b.) having the financial breathe the start a design with an empty white paper with some new designers among the old (the old/current would do it again the old way). But I am pretty sure that the Spanels would start a development in a total different way as they did it 8-10-12 years ago. Like I would do now a lot of things in my life different then years ago.

If BIS would be open and tell us that it would take x years and YYYk$ to do it, we might collect money/buy ArmA 2 copies to make it happen :D

Edit:

"stone old engine" in terms of generic design decisions made years ago which can not be changed by an evolution, it needs a revolution.

Those decision were right at that time, but now we have better HW etc.

Edited June 16, 2009 by S!fkaIaC

[4 IN 1 0]

If BIS insist to develop still based on the stone old engine, we will never get rid of those oddities. Question now is if they are a.) willing to go for it and b.) having the financial breathe the start a design with an empty white paper with some new designers (the old/current would do it again the old shitty way).

If BIS would be open and tell us that it would take x years and YYYk$ to do it, we might collect money/buy ArmA 2 copies to make it happen :D

Edit:

"stone old engine" in terms of generic design decisions made years ago which can not be changed by an evolution, it needs a revolution.

Those decision were right at that time, but now we have better HW etc.

What engine should BI use then, and how do you know that how much change they have made in the engine?

[dmarkwick 261]

start a design with an empty white paper with some new designers (the old/current would do it again the old shitty way).

And maybe do it in a new shitty way :) look at the direction OFP2 is taking. New developers, new white paper as you say.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Slightly off topic, but is it possible to set independant zoom 'speed'? As OP says in a tank you can have varying amounts of zoom. I thought the Abrams had only two levels. If speed was changable we could at least make it impossible for tanks to use any inbetweens since the zoom would be too fast to control. Or?

Back on topic. When the crew finally does bail, the explosion always kills them. A varying amount of time before it blows would be highly welcome. Also they should run away in fast mode and take cover from their known attacker.

[MehMan 0]

It might be possible, but I've never actually seen it happen. If I ever did, it would be an event so rare that it might as well be a realistic fluke :)

It is indeed the smallest chance possible, but if you recall, you could make the crew bail out on the shilka in ArmA by firing at the back idler. And it wasn't damaged or anything.

I'm not sure, but I think the "gap" between tank being abandoned and tank blowing up hitpoints can be increased, to give a more realistic empty-tank behavior

Or not have it blow up always. A knocked out tank isn't always a blown up tank. Just having a destroyed flag in the code for tanks before they actually blow up would be nice. It would be great if not all tanks blew up when they get knocked out. But I guess that's a personal prefrence because you need to convey the message that the tank is gone and blowing it up is probably the easiest. But if you see the crew bail, then it's also gone in a way. This is more or less personal prefrence with tanks getting blown up.

But didn't you just say that this behavior in C&C is modded in? It can be modded in to ArmA too.

Yes, but it was a simple change in an ini file, it didn't require some workarounds. It was part of the original game design, you could just change a value. You need a workaround in ArmA. I don't want to use workarounds, i want it work like that out of the box. But even if, modding it should be changing a value, not adding a script.

If BIS insist to develop still based on the stone old engine, we will never get rid of those oddities. Question now is if they are a.) willing to go for it and b.) having the financial breathe the start a design with an empty white paper with some new designers (the old/current would do it again the old shitty way).

If BIS would be open and tell us that it would take x years and YYYk$ to do it, we might collect money/buy ArmA 2 copies to make it happen

Edit:

"stone old engine" in terms of generic design decisions made years ago which can not be changed by an evolution, it needs a revolution.

Those decision were right at that time, but now we have better HW etc.

All good engines are old engines. They just get upgraded. The RV engine has received constant upgrades through it's life, just not in all areas equally. The original concept that Marek and Ondrej had is worlds away from the engine today.

Back on topic. When the crew finally does bail, the explosion always kills them. A varying amount of time before it blows would be highly welcome. Also they should run away in fast mode and take cover from their known attacker.

Lets say the squad leader tank gets destroyed. The crew bails and if they live, if the squad leader is alive, he'll continue the attack. so the tank group is commanded by a crew member on foot. Again, liberation 41-45 had this sorted greatly. The bailed out crew simply isn't part of the group anymore and the tanks move at tank speed foward. So you don't have tanks going forward at snails pace because the squad leader has bailed out and his legs got taken out and he's crawling.

Another issues I have is the jump key. it's rather inconvinent because it immobilises you and you can only go over small walls. A context sensitive double tap would be nice. Lets say you come up to a wall and you want to go over it. Instead of pressing a seperate key for an action that only happens at certain moments you double tap the forward key and voila you're climbing over that wall. some games have that for getting over obstacles, so you don't jump, but when you get up to an obstacle, you double tap the forward key. I think it's a bit smoother than having a single key for exactly one single action.

Edited June 16, 2009 by MehMan

[dmarkwick 261]

It is indeed the smallest chance possible, but if you recall, you could make the crew bail out on the shilka in ArmA by firing at the back idler. And it wasn't damaged or anything.

I don't recall, because I never did this :)

Or not have it blow up always. A knocked out tank isn't always a blown up tank. Just having a destroyed flag in the code for tanks before they actually blow up would be nice. It would be great if not all tanks blew up when they get knocked out. But I guess that's a personal prefrence because you need to convey the message that the tank is gone and blowing it up is probably the easiest. But if you see the crew bail, then it's also gone in a way. This is more or less personal prefrence with tanks getting blown up.

All tanks will blow up when hit with appropriate firepower, therefore all tanks should have the possibility of blowing up :) I think a suitably large gap between tank being disabled & therefore abandoned (& thus becoming "empty" in the gameworld) and blowing up is a suitable option, and presumably easy to implement.

I don't want to use workarounds, i want it work like that out of the box.

The fact is that it does not. Everyone wants it to work slightly differently out of the box. That's why modding is enabled & encouraged, the current out-of-the-box settings are appropriate to casual gaming, which is how all games should be released IMO (otherwise the market is an unnecessarily slim one). The "hardcore" stuff should be optional to be sure, but the fact remains that these issues are not insurmountable because of the nature of the game engine.

The game, out of the box, should be viewed as a platform not as a finished realism solution.

[Lauxman 10]

Plenty of mods back in OFP1 and Arma 1 fixed a lot of these. Several mods had tanks that wouldn't explode or catch fire if they were just disabled.

[MehMan 0]

I don't recall, because I never did this :)

IIRC it was discovered by accident.

All tanks will blow up when hit with appropriate firepower, therefore all tanks should have the possibility of blowing up :) I think a suitably large gap between tank being disabled & therefore abandoned (& thus becoming "empty" in the gameworld) and blowing up is a suitable option, and presumably easy to implement.

Only with the right ordnance. Most tank vs tank battles are fought with SABOT rounds that's why tanks get knocked out. You have a variety of rounds and ways to disable a tank, but not all will blow it up. It's just personal prefrence here.

The fact is that it does not. Everyone wants it to work slightly differently out of the box. That's why modding is enabled & encouraged, the current out-of-the-box settings are appropriate to casual gaming, which is how all games should be released IMO (otherwise the market is an unnecessarily slim one). The "hardcore" stuff should be optional to be sure, but the fact remains that these issues are not insurmountable because of the nature of the game engine.

The game, out of the box, should be viewed as a platform not as a finished realism solution.

Yes, it doesn't, but I'd like to see the option implemented out of the box. Instead you have to run a script on a loop or an eventhandler script to do various checks and it's not always fool proof.

The problem is that it's not limited to tanks, but rather all vehicles. So if you shoot at a uaz or ural for long enough on any body panel it'll catch fire or explode. I don't think this is hardcore stuff at all.

[maddogx 13]

First off, good points MehMan. :)

@Others

I really don't think a whole new engine would be necessary to implement these ideas. Stuff like tanks not taking damage from small arms fire really shouldn't take much more than a config setting for a "damage threshold" (something I've said before in a different thread). It would basically just be a minimum strength a weapon should have before it actually causes damage to the vehicle (or certain part of a vehicle, probably better for things like cars).

The idea is really simple: look at the most powerful weapon that shouldn't cause damage to armor. If it has a damage value of 30, give the battletanks a damage threshold of 31. Tadaaa! No more destroying T-72s with machine guns. It's simplistic, but I think it would do the trick. :)

Other ideas like tank explosions should also be configurable in the configs.

On a side note:

I also think the wounding system in Arma2/ArmA/OFP is much too simplistic. I posted an idea about a month ago, but no one commented on it. :(

[mcvittees 0]

That's why modding is enabled & encouraged, the current out-of-the-box settings are appropriate to casual gaming, which is how all games should be released IMO (otherwise the market is an unnecessarily slim one). The "hardcore" stuff should be optional to be sure, but the fact remains that these issues are not insurmountable because of the nature of the game engine.

The game, out of the box, should be viewed as a platform not as a finished realism solution.

If BIS are intentionally leaving certain things undeveloped for anything other than reasons of resources then that, in my opinion, is a mistake. The ArmA franchise is not casual enough for casual gamers and as such, BIS should evolve the game to suit its core audience. That's not to say that it isn't fantastic that it can be so extensively modded (which it is), but some things I've seen as mods in ArmA have features that it would have been nice to see integrated into the core game.

[D_arkman 10]

ArmA engine seriously need penetration values on ammunition, to separete dmg from armor penetration.

[chops 111]

ArmA engine seriously need penetration values on ammunition, to separete dmg from armor penetration.

Exactly. There are already different selections in the armour models for tracks, turrets etc, each with their own hipoints. It would be simple to implement an armour value for these selections and a armour-penetration value for ammunition.

For example the front of a M1A1 has a armour value of say 120 and a hitpoint value of 400. the 30mm ammo from the BMP 2 might have an armour-penetration value of say 50 and a damage value of 70, so it's not going to penetrate and therefore damage an M1A1's front armour at all.

An AT-6 or whatever might have a armour-penetration value of 130 and a damage value of 110.

This would also bring things into play like where exactly you penetrate the tank. I imagine they're more likely to explode once the ammo storage is hit. AFAIK the M1A1 has a much better storage system than the T-XX series. This kind of system would then bring things like this into play and add a lot more to MBT combat, without the need for CPU-draining scripts.

[4 IN 1 0]

Exactly. There are already different selections in the armour models for tracks, turrets etc, each with their own hipoints. It would be simple to implement an armour value for these selections and a armour-penetration value for ammunition.

For example the front of a M1A1 has a armour value of say 120 and a hitpoint value of 400. the 30mm ammo from the BMP 2 might have an armour-penetration value of say 50 and a damage value of 70, so it's not going to penetrate and therefore damage an M1A1's front armour at all.

An AT-6 or whatever might have a armour-penetration value of 130 and a damage value of 110.

This would also bring things into play like where exactly you penetrate the tank. I imagine they're more likely to explode once the ammo storage is hit. AFAIK the M1A1 has a much better storage system than the T-XX series. This kind of system would then bring things like this into play and add a lot more to MBT combat, without the need for CPU-draining scripts.

the problem is that for some reason BI didnt go that path(for armour vehicels at less), it would be bullshit if BI want addon keep its "compatibility"(as we asked for a change for ages now, this is the one part that we dont want it to be like the old way), so maybe a deeper reason?

[S!fkaIaC 10]

The idea is really simple: look at the most powerful weapon that shouldn't cause damage to armor. If it has a damage value of 30, give the battletanks a damage threshold of 31. Tadaaa! No more destroying T-72s with machine guns. It's simplistic, but I think it would do the trick.

I remember those and similar suggestions since OFP. Also reseting everthing back to zero if below the threshold was suggested.

But just damage + penetration is not sufficient to simulate modern ammo + armour.

You can not simulate:

- tandem warheads and related countermeasures

- layered + active armour and their effect to different ammo types

- difference when hitting from different angle (less diff to HE, more difference for kinetic rounds)

You see, you need an overhaul of the engine to bring ArmA into 2009 claiming that you can "simulate" modern weapons. If there is no real technical difference in selecting ammo and armour you can only make a WWII simulator in a believable way.

It goes on with the current implementation of IR/light/radar/sensors......

turrets etc, each

This etc........would it be possible to make all optics on vehicles as own (very vulnerable) sections easy to blind with small arms fire as in reality?

Edited June 16, 2009 by S!fkaIaC

[MehMan 0]

I'll give you shit later, but the engine is in 2009 and you can stop bashing it. There's no other comparable engine out there when it comes to terrain streaming, AI and handling a huge ammount of objects.

[EDcase 87]

Just out of interest...

A reminder of where the engine came from...

[An Fiach 10]

To have a proper ballistics engine with armor penetration values and such would suck all of the performance out of the system. The map would end up being a tenth the size of COD4 if you were to keep the scenic fidelity at its current level. The calculations would eat up CPU like there is no tomorrow.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

I'll give you shit later, but the engine is in 2009 and you can stop bashing it. There's no other comparable engine out there when it comes to terrain streaming, AI and handling a huge ammount of objects.

Partly. You state examples of working functions. I agree with you here. But some functionalty/ features definitely not. That it is the only engine in the world with that good overall package of features is a fact. But it does not mean it is good enough to serve its purpose to simulate modern weapon systems. Also a fact.

To have a proper ballistics engine with armor penetration values and such would suck all of the performance out of the system

Guessing or knowing? Ballistic is btw quite ok, never recognized an issue with that. My concern is the interaction ammo vs. arour on impact. And if you remeber, HW + SW development goes on...

Edited June 16, 2009 by S!fkaIaC

[D_arkman 10]

ArmA is foremost an infantry sim, everything else is very simplified. We can forget a complex armor/penetration engine, with proper warhead simulation and interaction with armor. If you go this way, you need first implement a similar system for the infantry part (as it is an infantry sim), internal organ dmg, limbs dysfunction… I think that is really unlikely to happen.

You don’t need complex simulation. Penetration + dmg allows you to tell ‘this armor is vulnerable to this type of ammunition’, ‘this ammunition is useless against type of armor’. Which is a simplification I think is acceptable.

The main issue of current system in relation to infantry is that it does not force you to attack tank from flanks/rear. You mostly just need one more hit when you are firing up-front. Penetration + dmg will force you to use tactics against tanks, not just zerg them. Also, the system has zero impact on the game performance.

it would be bullshit if BI want addon keep its "compatibility"

It’s not that big change. You just need to add some values to your config, which you muss touch anyway.

[katua 10]

I am waiting for the demo and europe release so i dont have enough info to analize the strong or weak features of the game, but i have read so far the setting and the "lore" of the game...an american "razor team" comes to save the world...ok.

Well, i know bohemia interactive sells software (VBS etc) for US army and other NATO forces.. and that means they will never make a realistic game (i dont mean about game mechanics),the history will be all about north american political propaganda.

Yes i care about the history and campaign lore and for me the argument of games is one of their strongest points , and i find very unrealistic most of the war games because they can´t bite the hand that give them food.

I will have to play throgh the campaign to see how develops but i am not expecting real content there, sci-fi games are more realistic these days, in that sense.

So that is for me the less than awesome arma 2 feature.

[telejunky 0]

Unfortunately there is no blackblast displayed behind the AT-Weapons and you won't be injured standing behind a M136, RPG...

[An Fiach 10]

I am waiting for the demo and europe release so i dont have enough info to analize the strong or weak features of the game, but i have read so far the setting and the "lore" of the game...an american "razor team" comes to save the world...ok.

Well, i know bohemia interactive sells software (VBS etc) for US army and other NATO forces.. and that means they will never make a realistic game (i dont mean about game mechanics),the history will be all about north american political propaganda.

Yes i care about the history and campaign lore and for me the argument of games is one of their strongest points , and i find very unrealistic most of the war games because they can´t bite the hand that give them food.

I will have to play throgh the campaign to see how develops but i am not expecting real content there, sci-fi games are more realistic these days, in that sense.

So that is for me the less than awesome arma 2 feature.

You might also accept the fact that in the majority of modern conflicts and police actions, the US is the main force involved with all other Countries supporting with smaller contributions. Naturally this is NOT 100% the case but you must also consider that this is a continuation of the original OFP story line which featured US forces vs Soviets/Russians.

Hopefully there will be an expansion (hope I have the money :eek: ) or Mod community will add other Nato forces as they would naturally join the conflict in support of the US and perhaps some other country will be added that supports the Russian movement. Variety is the spice of life :p Heck they could even add UN forces that bumble every operation just like IRL.

Personally if a game is good, who cares if Americans are featured? If this wasn't the continued story line, I certainly wouldn't. The diversity of weapon systems alone is worth having other Armies be the focus. Maybe the bnext installment will have Russia invading Norway.