viewdistance and other dissapointments

[hund 0]

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

With the MP player sizes I keep hearing about, ofp:dr ain't gonna take a damn thing.

But I will still give it a try, nothing wrong with that.

[arma2disapointed 10]

With the MP player sizes I keep hearing about, ofp:dr ain't gonna take a damn thing.

But I will still give it a try, nothing wrong with that.

Mp size is not so mutch more in Arma2, but it could be, and thats what i talking about.

[dayglow 2]

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 ----------

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

wait, you just posted that without complete simulation of vehicles that ArmA is 'just another shooter' and that other games would already have it beat then.

Speculation of another game coming out, which I hope is really good mind you, has nothing to do with what you posted.

Why shouldn't you say anything good? Because without mentioning what you like it seems you are whining that the game is crap because it doesn't have these outlandish features that you keep going on about.

[arma2disapointed 10]

The good stuff dont need to be changed, and not worth talking about in this thread.

Just trying to stop BIS to go to close to infantry sim, and back off from it as far as possible without ignoring infantry completly, just make it balanced with other units in game.

To make it more clear, to mutch work have given the infantry, and the other units being ignored.

Let dragon rising take care of the infantry simulation.

It´s just not the right base to make a infantry sim.

Edited July 19, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[jw custom 56]

Mp size is not so mutch more in Arma2, but it could be, and thats what i talking about.

Yeah ofcause, if we could just settle with crappy graphic so you can have your huge battles with thousands of units visible on 50000000000000000m+ distance...

[arma2disapointed 10]

Yeah ofcause, if we could just settle with crappy graphic so you can have your huge battles with thousands of units visible on 50000000000000000m+ distance...

Not necessary, with sliders you could adjust everything on what mission you play, spec OPS in town with low number of units you could have everything on full and lower the view and render distans.

5000 meters up in the air you just dont need the details and could set everything on low and keep viewdistance at full.

Now what´s wrong about that tell me.

[TimRiceSE 10]

....

This is complete nonsense.

[jw custom 56]

I really hope Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising is what your seeking.... :pray:

[dm 9]

....

This is complete nonsense.

Its been nonsense since the very first post, but never mind eh.... :j:

[TimRiceSE 10]

well.. yeah, but after reading the entire thread, i just felt i had to post something... but im absolutely dumbstruck and i think i have a migraine coming.... thanks @OP

[arma2disapointed 10]

im absolutely dumbstruck @OP

Dumbstuck´s pleas dont post:mad:

[TimRiceSE 10]

or you could try making sense?

[arma2disapointed 10]

or you could try making sense?

I just dont have the energy to explain one more time.

[dayglow 2]

Not necessary, with sliders you could adjust everything on what mission you play, spec OPS in town with low number of units you could have everything on full and lower the view and render distans.

5000 meters up in the air you just dont need the details and could set everything on low and keep viewdistance at full.

Now what´s wrong about that tell me.

because it isn't feasable within a rendering engine. Why do you think it hasn't been done, either here or in any other flight/combat sim? Terrain mesh has always been a very hard balancing act from the development standpoint of any sim.

May I suggest if you are looking for a better simulation of armoured combat that you look at Steel Beasts; for helicopter DCS: Black Shark; and for CAS aircraft you will probably have to wait for DCS: A10C

Simply, consessions for time and money have to be made. I'm sure if BI had unlimited funds and no timeline they would create the ultimate battlefield simulator, but as we have it they have always consintrated on the infantry side with simpler representations of larger weapon systems. For myself and most others, they enjoy the angle that BI has taken and hope that they continue to increase the terrain fidelity.

I agree the render distance for objects has to be increased, but that is aside your continued harping about the 'sub standard' view distance of the terrain itself. It can already be pushed to 10km now. I don't see a need to push it farther when no system today can have a playable framerate at 10km with any amount of detail in the terrain.

[arma2disapointed 10]

Tanks for the explonation, im sure there are those that have a different point of view.

[ebud 18]

Tanks for the explonation, im sure there are those that have a different point of view.

And they would be wrong.

[Pyronick 21]

Tanks for the explonation, im sure there are those that have a different point of view.

I'm sure there are. But the game is built for people who enjoy multiplayer gameplay rather than graphics. ;)

[arma2disapointed 10]

What about the poll, it´s about every game lovers opinion. To write in these forum is not a bad way to save youre money, if you read my posts you will understand that buying a graphics card is waste of money.

Yes multiplayer could save the game, if the load could be taken by a giant server, in that case the game could be huge and would be somthing like world of worcraft pay every month game.

Like it is now the game is not better than the hardware it´s played on, and that are the limitation´s physically(really viewdistance and everything else but graphics, some parts of it not included).

So if everybody had dual or quad motherboards with 2 or 4 CPU´s And that´s pure gigahertz GHz what it´s all about, just enlighten those that didnt know that, and cant see what so evil about that, just so all crap dont get sold, the kind of crap that chould burn like garbage is core´s in CPU´s and graphic cards, specially multiple ones.

If you have a bad feling about this, just relax and dont bother to post.

Im fully aware of economics to a certain degree.

And the price of a motherboard with 2 CPU´s is from 100$ and sometimes cheaper, is not more expensive than a single CPU motherboard but could boost the FPS twice.

That make room to improve the game physics and many other things.

Now tell me that i am wrong.

Edited July 24, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[dayglow 2]

I would, but I have no clue what you are trying to say

Edited July 24, 2009 by DayGlow

[arma2disapointed 10]

I would, but I have no clue what you are trying to say

Thank you for trying anyway.

[bigduksixx 15]

What about the poll, it´s about every game lovers opinion. To write in these forum is not a bad way to save youre money, if you read my posts you will understand that buying a graphics card is waste of money.

Yes multiplayer could save the game, if the load could be taken by a giant server, in that case the game could be huge and would be somthing like world of worcraft pay every month game.

Like it is now the game is not better than the hardware it´s played on, and that are the limitation´s physically(really viewdistance and everything else but graphics, some parts of it not included).

So if everybody had dual or quad motherboards with 2 or 4 CPU´s And that´s pure gigahertz GHz what it´s all about, just enlighten those that didnt know that, and cant see what so evil about that, just so all crap dont get sold, the kind of crap that chould burn like garbage is core´s in CPU´s and graphic cards, specially multiple ones.

If you have a bad feling about this, just relax and dont bother to post.

Im fully aware of economics to a certain degree.

And the price of a motherboard with 2 CPU´s is from 100$ and sometimes cheaper, is not more expensive than a single CPU motherboard but could boost the FPS twice.

That make room to improve the game physics and many other things.

Now tell me that i am wrong.

The above is meaningless drivel.

Bottom line is that Arma2 is an amazing sim even with some of the current flaws. Jesus, I only paid £20 for it. If you'd told me 20-years ago I would be able to buy a milsim of this complexity for 20 quid I wouldn't have belived you. But the way you go on you would think its being sold for 2k.

Time for you to hush up and go away.

[arma2disapointed 10]

It´s not about the cost of the game. Do you think i am a dog or somthing?

Edited July 24, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[jw custom 56]

It´s not about the cost of the game.

No it's about YOU YOU and YOU :annoy:

[eymerich 11]

what I notice in this thread is the ability to attack someone 'cause most of the time, i have the impression but i could be wrong, people does'nt know how to replies.

My opinion: I totally Agree with arma2disapointed.

1000 metres is a great limitation.

I don't agree with arma2disapointed when he says he'd like 15000-20000 viewdistance.

For myself, 10000 is enough: but it's personal taste after all.

[arma2disapointed 10]

No it's about YOU YOU and YOU :annoy:

I could respect that you cant see me, so i can tell you that i am only one, writing on my computer.