viewdistance and other dissapointments

[boneboys 0]

That depends on how you define winning. Nowadays the longest/biggest/most advanced/most guns win at first, but loose in the end. That's because the more people you kill, the more people start hating you.

Thats pretty deep Yoma and well said, IMHO.

[arma2disapointed 10]

Then what about this?:cool:

I dont want to be hated, but i dont want to be loved either.

Kill first and ask later.

---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 PM ----------

Look in iraq the first war, the T-70 had longer guns than the abrams, but the abrams gun was harder.

Edited July 7, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[kklownboy 43]

whatever...

You want realism, but want your grass lower? I say you should get off the grass and quit being the loaded...

[arma2disapointed 10]

Have you figure out why i want the grass lower?

Or just playing dumb?

Edited July 7, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[arma2disapointed 10]

Times up!

Answer:

You can see nothing and enemies can see you.

The easiest way is just to shorten the grass to fix this problem, and you will be able to see.

Maybe there is some other more complex way to fix this, but i dont think bis will do that, or even try, but thats just my opinion, hopfully far away from the truth.

[whisper 0]

Maybe there is some other more complex way to fix this, but i dont think bis will do that, or even try, but thats just my opinion, hopfully far away from the truth.

They stated they're working on a fix for grass (I guess the same they used for ArmA1)

[Guest]

Odd, for me the view distances are pretty vast and breathtaking when set to max. IMO it wouldn't be realistic to have that far of a view distance...

View distance should be as far as your computer can handle. In real life maximum visibility is when you can see every detail all the way up to the horizon where the world is curving :)

[chaplainDMK 10]

What are you doing when youre riding back off the BMP?

Erm, going from A to B?

[galzohar 31]

View distance should be as far as your computer can handle. In real life maximum visibility is when you can see every detail all the way up to the horizon where the world is curving :)

Except when the detail is <1 pixel there's no real point in calculating it.

[dayglow 2]

Except when the detail is <1 pixel there's no real point in calculating it.

now that depends on how you want to represent the real world within the sim. This has always been a problem with flight sims as the human eye can often discern aircraft shape at a distance that is impossible to replicate on a comparative low resolution monitor. Strike Fighters chooses not to render an object that is smaller than a pixel and it's frustrating beyond belief that objects a few miles out are invisible. Other sims scale the size of objects as they get further way to keep them visible, or have artificial glint or shine from a far off object.

Which is more real or not?

I say you have to have some sort of compromise for the simple fact that a sim should try to represent real life vs purely replicate it.

[chaplainDMK 10]

Look in iraq the first war, the T-70 had longer guns than the abrams, but the abrams gun was harder.

*Bigger guns*

And bigger aint better. The abrams was 1 generation ahead of the T-72

with much more advanced technology implemented (Thermal sights, laser rangefinders, du rounds etc.) + Iraqies were untrained, un motivated and eaven by some modern sources outnumbered.

But in any way, the T72 is no match for any Abrams version (not M1, not M1A1, and certainly not the M1A2) . And the M1s gun could blow the T72 up at 3km, while the T72 were only EFECTIVE up to 1.8km...

A bigger gun is not the better one, the one that fires a faster projectile, is more accurate, uses better ammo is the better one...

[galzohar 31]

Yes, this is definitely an un-solveable problem. Discussed in many threads on these forums and others. Generally the second best solution (first being joining the real army...) is proper use of a zoom feature. Like the one in Arma, except having it tweaked to actually give you abilities as close as possible to the ones you have IRL. That means that in max zoom out you see 120 degrees at the cost of detection distance, and at max zoom in you can detect people as far as you can IRL at the cost of FOV. Then it should also allow you to continuously and instantly change the zoom rather than the on/off animated version the game has. Having it continuous and instant would still not give you the abilities you have IRL and also not add any abilities to the game that you don't have IRL, so adding extra limitations only reduces realism.

[arma2disapointed 10]

*Bigger guns*

And bigger aint better. The abrams was 1 generation ahead of the T-72

with much more advanced technology implemented (Thermal sights, laser rangefinders, du rounds etc.) + Iraqies were untrained, un motivated and eaven by some modern sources outnumbered.

But in any way, the T72 is no match for any Abrams version (not M1, not M1A1, and certainly not the M1A2) . And the M1s gun could blow the T72 up at 3km, while the T72 were only EFECTIVE up to 1.8km...

A bigger gun is not the better one, the one that fires a faster projectile, is more accurate, uses better ammo is the better one...

I think the abrams is better, the T-70 also have "short legs" so the mutch taler, bigger and heavier abrams could just run over the short and smal T-70 like a frog on the highway. 1500 HP and the T-70 only have 700-1000 HP somthing.

Like the zoom in the game but dont like when the graphics shanging and objects dissapear and come up from nowhere when zooming, it´s confusing.

Maybe some option in grafics to set it on "alwaysfullobjects" somthing could help, yes the load on CPU will be high, but it´s really an option that need to bee, some have giant computers others dont, and it should bee up to them to deside how they want to play the game anyway.

About the grass i think that it should bee grass everywhere or nowhere so it could bee used when playing. It´s just not useful how it is now. And to force it in multiplayer demo, why?

If bis want to have it just to look niceley at it,(that i could say about a lot of things) make it short so it dont affect gameplay in bad way.

It´s not a painting on the wall, it´s a game.

Tactical and strategical.

It´s somthing like flowers on a chess board, ok it´s nice but common.

If you liked operationflashpoint you like armed assault, and if you did not like it you dont like armed assault either. The flowers just wont help.

Edited July 10, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[chaplainDMK 10]

I think the abrams is better, the T-70 also have "short legs" so the mutch taler, bigger and heavier abrams could just run over the short and smal T-70 like a frog on the highway. 1500 HP and the T-70 only have 700-1000 HP somthing.

Like the zoom in the game but dont like when the graphics shanging and objects dissapear and come up from nowhere when zooming, it´s confusing.

Maybe some option in grafics to set it on "alwaysfullobjects" somthing could help, yes the load on CPU will be high, but it´s really an option that need to bee, some have giant computers others dont, and it should bee up to them to deside how they want to play the game anyway.

About the grass i think that it should bee grass everywhere or nowhere so it could bee used when playing. It´s just not useful how it is now. And to force it in multiplayer demo, why?

If bis want to have it just to look niceley at it,(that i could say about a lot of things) make it short so it dont affect gameplay in bad way.

It´s not a painting on the wall, it´s a game.

Tactical and strategical.

It´s somthing like flowers on a chess board, ok it´s nice but common.

If you liked operationflashpoint you like armed assault, and if you did not like it you dont like armed assault either. The flowers just wont help.

Erm, what T-70 are you refering to.

The russian WW2 light tank or something? Only tank i know is the T-72 and thats a realy realy realy low tank. Not to mention it likes to stuff its gunners as ammo thanks to the autoloader

That would be a nice feature :p

And tanks dont run each other over lol, as i said T-72 vs Abrams is no match, it would get wasted before it knew what happaned.

[arma2disapointed 10]

Erm, what T-70 are you refering to.

The russian WW2 light tank or something? Only tank i know is the T-72 and thats a realy realy realy low tank. Not to mention it likes to stuff its gunners as ammo thanks to the autoloader

That would be a nice feature :p

And tanks dont run each other over lol, as i said T-72 vs Abrams is no match, it would get wasted before it knew what happaned.

Yes it was the T-72 i was talking about, with the long gun. Also i like it in game for the real number of crew it have.

Cant understand why it should be so hard to fix this in all tanks and other vihicles.

It´s fun that it is a human loader in some tanks.

Maybe tanks in the future will have there own toilet and a small kitchen where the crew could cook theire meals.

[Mojo 0]

I can't believe I read this whole thread ... *sigh*

[PRiME 1]

animations for firing while moving in tight situations. (don't give me that crap that soldiers or people don't do it. THINK) . Also perhaps MG gunners should only look down iron signs of MG if in scope mode or laying down. Show me a video of a personal MG Gunner crouched or standing while looking closely down the iron sights? Please?

[Pyronick 21]

Thing is that computers are not mutch better now then ten years ago, 3Ghz limit was broken a long time ago, so thats why physics has "stand still" more or less last 10 years. So it´s understandable that brics dont fly when the sabbot hit a bric wall.

It has always been talk about penetration values and destructable buildings, bric by bric. And always about the game engines potential, not mutch have been done there.

That's not really true. It's the software which hasn't been improved. And because of that, hardware has to be designed on very strange ways.

The clockspeed limit has never been a problem. Who needs a 3 GHz CPU with a small pipeline when you can have an equally performing 1.6 GHz CPU with a very long pipeline?

As long as Microsoft doesn't make DirectX a proper multi-GPU capable API and a proper multithreaded kernel, there will be no progress.

Since Windows+DirectX is popular, hardware is designed for just that.

Which means Mac OS and Linux won't get the progress that want aswell.

It's basically "the law of the handicap of a head start".

But seeing big companies (Apple, Google, Sony, Intel, nVidia, Nokia, Qualcomm) working on/supporting open standards like OpenGL, OpenRT and OpenCL are becoming more and more populair I hope the reign of Windows and DirectX will be history soon.

We could have had raytraced games, with particle physics and water physics, deformable terrain if it weren't for Microsoft.

DirectX 11 is a step in the good direction, but the computer has never been so held back in technological advancement.

The smartphone has taken the crown from the computer as the pinnacle of technology.

[arma2disapointed 10]

Sure.

Take youre 1.6 Mhz CPU, with the latest GPU on the market. Put them togheter and then tell me how many units you can have at same time in operation flashpoint, use witch settings you want, But use full view distance and full rendering on that.

The only thing i can say to you is fak you, they got 1! Are you the 1?

Edited July 11, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[chaplainDMK 10]

Sure.

Take youre 1.6 Mhz CPU, with the latest GPU on the market. Put them togheter and then tell me how many units you can have at same time in operation flashpoint, use witch settings you want, But use full view distance and full rendering on that.

The only thing i can say to you is fak you, they got 1! Are you the 1?

Your seriusly wierd dude...

"The only thing i can say to you is fak you, they got 1! Are you the 1?"

I have no idea what your eaven trying to say there.

And you still want loaders in tanks so the guy being the loader can do nothing for the entire mission.

You want bigger draw distances when you got 10km etc.

They could be improved but honestly i dont see the point.

[luckyhendrix 10]

Seriously viewdistance is a HUGE problem in ARMA II, the distance you can see objects is very lower than in ARMA I less than 1000m most of the time , and this really matter , because even tough you may see the next hill , you won't see the armor on top of it. Not being able to see an armor at 1000m is a big issue....

[arma2disapointed 10]

Lucky there is still those that understand this:yay:

[Mojo 0]

yep, there are. You have beaten the horse, he is still dead. BIS will come out with a patch to deal with the limited draw distance, it is much greater than 1000 meters, more like 2500 or 3000 iirc.

However, I still fail to understand what you would care about draw distances, if all you want to do is be a loader in the tank. Wouldn't you rather have interiors?

I suggest you learn to do something useful, help out rather than continually complain about the same thing over and over. We all read what was said, thank you, come again.

[arma2disapointed 10]

So its rather this or that? Make it both, incresed view and drawdistance, the right crew number and interior. 2500-3000 meters is ofqourse better than 1000, but still to little, should be possible to made the slider go further in both viewdistanse and drawdistanse.

Viewdistance was viewdistance and drawdistance was visual quality in operationflashpoint.

And its just a option, nothing more. So what if it gett lag on some computers, you just need to take the slider to the left, until the lag is acceptable, and it´s differs from computer to computer what settings fit.

To made it possible to use everything, there should also be a terraindetailslider and a grounddetailslider, like it was in OFP.

And maybe a drawdistanceslider for other things than units also. And not to forget the UNIT DETAIL SLIDER from cube even at close range to a detailed unit in the distance, also to be able to choise what texture you want from 64x64 to 4096x4096 just add flashpoint preferences. And enhance it.

Cant be to many sliders.

---------- Post added at 04:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 AM ----------

And all settings should automatically go to joiners from the host in multiplayer.

If you think it´s to laggy or not suited in other way, just join on a other host, or use filter that should also bee on settings.

---------- Post added at 05:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 AM ----------

A game could easily be famus just for it´s sliders go beyond maximus computer limit´s.

Auto detection make it easy for rookies.

Maybe bis is afraid of the question, why cant i have everything at full, whats wrong with the game?

Autodetection should be a balanced max setting.'

If you want help, i could always test things.

All things that is writen obove, artillery, and everything that has to do with largscale combined warfare, from antiairdefence to tomahawkmissiles and unmaned airplanes.

I was happy to see the CTI with the commander mode. Can call it expected evolution.

Cant just sitt and wait 30 years to the PC´s to get faster, only thing to do is to adept the game to current PC, and yes it must be some kind of visual compromises to made it possible with largscale warfare combined.

---------- Post added at 07:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 AM ----------

To that i can add, somthing that you could deside in what distance the unit (model) and trees o other stuff vill change, and deside if you want them to change at all, and if yes then how many times from cloes nose range to maximum draw range. As it is now everything changes to many times, it is easy to see when zoom with youre view right mouse. Very confusing.

---------- Post added at 07:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 AM ----------

Anywhere you can insert a scripting command pretty much.

Isn´t that a mess?:eek:

---------- Post added at 08:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 AM ----------

And also a slider on what degree of animationlevel you want to have, from 0 to 100%. Some animation are just not needed, but it could ofqourse be nice to see where the main gun off the tank is pointing, even at far distance some times.

---------- Post added at 08:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 AM ----------

About the graphics.

They are nice the first 3 seconds, and thats a big loss. Then you get use to them and they are really taking power from the game and drainig it to a useless direction.

All that power could have been directed to improve other things, and there a lot that need to bee improved.

Anyway all that powerloss can be fixed by sliders to enable really really low settings on everything.

Example: The main gun on a tank dont have to animate vertical, just horisontal, and it will gain some power to other more important things.

Edited July 12, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[Zipper5 74]

You really sound like you should stick to OFP. Very non-graphically intensive, good draw distance for the view distances it offers, no grass and no awesome AI like in ArmA II. Since those seem to be some of the main things you're disappointed about, sounds like OFP would be your best choice.

As for me, I shall stick with the 8 years of advancement.