viewdistance and other dissapointments

[dayglow 2]

well there isn't anything stopping you from playing OFP to your heart's content. I find the terrain fidelity and AI much better in A1 and A2 than OFP. If all you want is vast view distances, then you already have them in the game you want to play.

Myself I find the battlefield much more convincing both visual and aurally in A2 as compared to OFP, even though I am limited to around 3.5km view to keep it smooth.

[arma2disapointed 10]

well there isn't anything stopping you from playing OFP to your heart's content. I find the terrain fidelity and AI much better in A1 and A2 than OFP. If all you want is vast view distances, then you already have them in the game you want to play.

Myself I find the battlefield much more convincing both visual and aurally in A2 as compared to OFP, even though I am limited to around 3.5km view to keep it smooth.

And there also is nothing to stop you to play a little BF project reality, and leave Arma2 to be a strategic and tactic game.

Do you really need one more BF reality?

[dayglow 2]

what the hell are you going on about? What does PR have anything to do with the discussion at hand?

[arma2disapointed 10]

what the hell are you going on about? What does PR have anything to do with the discussion at hand?

Was about to ask you the same.:j:

[dayglow 2]

so you want this, but with a 15-20km view distance?

There is so much more to realistically creating a battlefield beyond pure view distance. Proper visual representation goes beyond eye candy, but allows for proper tactics. I don't care if I can see 10+ km if I have to run 500m across a lifeless field that offers no cover or concealment.

A2 is approaching offering a proper visually build battlefield that you can use the natural undulations of the terrain and foliage/clutter as cover/concealment to move. Really, the terrain needs probably 10x the detail we even have now to properly model it, and I think that is far more important than being able to see 5km away. Smart map construction would mean a lot of small valleys to fight and move in so that a smaller visual range cap isn't as much as problem.

Also other graphical improvements such as lighting and shadows make camouflage a real option. To go back to OFP rendering for longer view distances is a major step backwards.

[galzohar 31]

Unfortunately, when it comes to cover and concealment (excluding grass as it doesn't work for concealment and obviously doesn't work for cover either), the Arma 2 maps are as "lifeless" or "flat" as the screenshot above.

[dayglow 2]

I find the follage (not the grass) that is rendered beyond the grass line much thicker, and the terrain is much more varied than OFP. It isn't perfect, but much better than the past. I can move my squads under cover to a contact point vs OFP where you were in a 300m firefight lying on a flat plane.

[galzohar 31]

While I hadn't played OFP so I can't tell you it isn't a big improvement over it, but in Arma 2 you also lay down 300/400/500m from the enemy in open plain with no way of advancing as there's nothing to take cover behind. Right now the only covering objects are hills, trees and buildings, and that's simply not enough. Terrain HAS to be a lot less straight and there HAVE to be more rocks etc, so you can find cover as easily as IRL.

[dayglow 2]

In OFP it was very east to spot enemy combatants at 500+m because of the lack of detail in terrain, and static lighting and shadows meant they wouldn't blend in.

A2 really improves on it and has a lot more static objects that provide cover and the terrain is a lot more varied. I agree it's a far cry from reality, but I'm saying this is the area that should be improved vs pushing the render distance past 10 km.

[galzohar 31]

I think people asking for over 10km view distance don't realize that what they think is 10km is actually 2km (or even less) which is where units disappear. I don't think anyone would notice too much (unless you're flying high) if view distance got changed around between 4km and 10km - but everyone would surely notice easily if vehicles suddenly start appearing at 3km.

So yes, I agree there are much more important things (object draw distance and better terrain realism) than increasing view distance further than 10km.

[arma2disapointed 10]

so you want this, but with a 15-20km view distance?

There is so much more to realistically creating a battlefield beyond pure view distance. Proper visual representation goes beyond eye candy, but allows for proper tactics. I don't care if I can see 10+ km if I have to run 500m across a lifeless field that offers no cover or concealment.

A2 is approaching offering a proper visually build battlefield that you can use the natural undulations of the terrain and foliage/clutter as cover/concealment to move. Really, the terrain needs probably 10x the detail we even have now to properly model it, and I think that is far more important than being able to see 5km away. Smart map construction would mean a lot of small valleys to fight and move in so that a smaller visual range cap isn't as much as problem.

Also other graphical improvements such as lighting and shadows make camouflage a real option. To go back to OFP rendering for longer view distances is a major step backwards.

I could live with those textures and models yes.

Specially if they improve FPS and increase the number of units and add view and drawdistance.

And dont forget it´s other units than soldiers on foot running around. that should be equally playable ina realistic game, Arma2 has gone over to the soldier´s on foot side more than OFP did, i dont want a pure tank sim, just realism and equal balance between all unit types including artillery without favoring any type of them. Then you could say it´s a war sim not a shooter.

Arma2 is more a shooter than OFP, and OFP is more a sim.

Hope you get it, i cant explain better than this.

Edited July 17, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[dayglow 2]

no point in having an increase in view distance when the terrain doesn't even come close to representing real life. I'd rather they concentrate on better terrain fidelity close up so that real world tactics such as suppression and flanking matter as the enemy can keep their head down instead of lying down on a flat plane.

[arma2disapointed 10]

Try to explain that to him here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II

Look at his charakteristics, and think what should be done to get it as realistic as possible. Without decreasing the speed and feeling that this guy can add to the game.

Have a feeling that you did not get it´s hard to make it equally to every unit.

Compromise need to be done, think at it as foure or five simulators in one.

---------- Post added at 08:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ----------

It´s maybe better to start from scratch and use the IL2 engine for this simulation.

Really dont have a clue, or just accept that´s impossible to combine everything in one using compromises.

Have never looked on OFP as a shooter and maybe i should start to do that.

In that case i cant complain in Arma2.

Edited July 17, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[dayglow 2]

I agree it's impossible to build a multi-simulator pefectly, but you are ignoring the fact that from OFP has been an infantry simulator first with vehicles added into the mix. Every compramise has been made in the vehiclure level.

Personally I play ArmA2 for the infantry tactics, etc.

If I want to fly an A-10 in depth, which I do, I'm waiting for Eagle Dynamics to release the A-10C module for DCS.

Infantry combat is ArmA2's bread and butter and it needs a lot of work, starting with terrain realism. We should not go backwards to simple flat planes were infantry cannot hide so that you can rip around in an A-10 sim.

[arma2disapointed 10]

With todays lack of computer power,

the solution is sliders.

with them you could create different senarios.

And different missions.

What i could see OFP was first to have entrable vihicles.

It´s even has been sub addons to OFP. All the talk of this i suposed to everyone tought that CPU would have reach higher levels by 10 times then 8 years ago, sadly it has not happen mutch in that area.

Edited July 17, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[oyman 0]

^ all of arma2disapointed's's posts so far

[arma2disapointed 10]

^ all of arma2disapointed's's posts so far

At least it´s the truth. So be happy for that.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ----------

What bis need is some competition. And eventually maybe, who knows.

[SWT_Janowich 10]

Your talk is shit and far from truth.

All the talk of this i suposed to everyone tought that CPU would have reach higher levels by 10 times then 8 years ago, sadly it has not happen mutch in that area.

So what you want to tell me with that.

When we can play it good, why going a step backwards?

[chaplainDMK 10]

And there also is nothing to stop you to play a little BF project reality, and leave Arma2 to be a strategic and tactic game.

Do you really need one more BF reality?

Dude, did you notice that practicaly 3/4 of the forum think your whining is pointless and that Realism doesent = 15km Draw distance?

Its nice for spotting enemies, and does give you time before the enemy arives, but then again, all you could do is lay flat on the ground with your squad and shoot the other guys till one team dies "ala" napoleonic wars...

As a matter of fact, i noticed that that is what you want.

15 km draw distance, OFP terrain quality (as in no cover, concealment), 10.000 guys on a map.

Heres a tip, get ArmA1, set evreything to low (myb eaven make a mod that makes evreything super low) and then find or make a napoleonic wars mod and tada! You can have 15 km draw distance, countless AI running around without much care for their lifes.

Edited July 18, 2009 by chaplainDMK

[arma2disapointed 10]

Your talk is shit and far from truth.

So what you want to tell me with that.

When we can play it good, why going a step backwards?

Thanks for the understanding,

4-5 simulators simply have to chare one.

And if Arma2 is just a shooter, like some of us want it to be.

The competition with other shooters is already lost.

Like i already explained, take a old pentium 3 Ghz CPU and try to have as many units as possible on the map, then try the same with a new CPU and tell me how many more units you could have. The difference is the speed of the evolution on CPU´s.

Use Operation flashpoint to make it easier.

[bangtail 0]

Thanks for the understanding,

4-5 simulators simply have to chare one.

And if Arma2 is just a shooter, like some of us want it to be.

The competition with other shooters is already lost.

Like i already explained, take a old pentium 3 Ghz CPU and try to have as many units as possible on the map, then try the same with a new CPU and tell me how many more units you could have. The difference is the speed of the evolution on CPU´s.

Use Operation flashpoint to make it easier.

Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?

Hint : Pick a less infantile and abrasive user name and go from there.

Eth

[arma2disapointed 10]

Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?

Hint : Pick a less infantile and abrasive user name and go from there.

Eth

You dont have to belive me or take me seriously.

Just try it, and tell me the difference and we will se if i belive you and take you seriousley.

Edited July 18, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[dayglow 2]

Thanks for the understanding,

4-5 simulators simply have to chare one.

And if Arma2 is just a shooter, like some of us want it to be.

The competition with other shooters is already lost.

Like i already explained, take a old pentium 3 Ghz CPU and try to have as many units as possible on the map, then try the same with a new CPU and tell me how many more units you could have. The difference is the speed of the evolution on CPU´s.

Use Operation flashpoint to make it easier.

Really, what other shooter has a good 3-5km draw distance and offers as good infantry-istic play? You can use combined forces, it's just the simulation of the vehicles is lower than of the infantry side.

I'd love to know how this constitutes it as a simple shooter and others beat it out?

Just because it isn't a battalion level sim with 20+km view and perfectly simmed vehicles does not make it a bad game.

[chaplainDMK 10]

Really, what other shooter has a good 3-5km draw distance and offers as good infantry-istic play? You can use combined forces, it's just the simulation of the vehicles is lower than of the infantry side.

I'd love to know how this constitutes it as a simple shooter and others beat it out?

Just because it isn't a battalion level sim with 20+km view and perfectly simmed vehicles does not make it a bad game.

I dont think he mentioned the unrealistic armored fighting, but he whines bout only 3 guys in a abrams (its missing the loader WITCH DOES ABSOLOUTLEY NOTHING BESIDES RAMMING SHELLS INTO THE BREACH!!!oneoneone).

And he seems to thinkg that having 1000 v 1000 guys = hyper realism.

Dude should check at what sizes modern battles usualy occour.

[arma2disapointed 10]

Really, what other shooter has a good 3-5km draw distance and offers as good infantry-istic play? You can use combined forces, it's just the simulation of the vehicles is lower than of the infantry side.

I'd love to know how this constitutes it as a simple shooter and others beat it out?.

Have a feeling that dragon rising going to take it all if Arma dont change direction soon.

---------- Post added at 05:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

Just because it isn't a battalion level sim with 20+km view and perfectly simmed vehicles does not make it a bad game.

I only mentioned the bad sides of the game, i didn´t say anything about the good stuff and why should i?