So I have played ARMA 2 for a few weeks now and have 2 points of feedback for BIS

[norsu 180]

Indeed LockDown but what if a vehicle had a ridiculous amount of static health points but HitPoints classes had a lot less. This way you could disable parts of a vehicle one by down and it wouldn't explode. And with penetration values it would be even better.

A script that blows up the vehicle if ammo HitPoints class reaches zero or critical levels would compensate for the huge amount of static health points (these must reach zero in order to blow up the vehicle in vanilla ArmA2).

I haven't tried any of this really but it's a nice concept :).

EDIT:

Here's a video demonstrating projectile penetration in game

Edited July 15, 2009 by Norsu

[arma2disapointed 10]

CAVS - Common Armor Value System (duh, if I'm not mistaken and me old brain didn't fail me :D )

Think thats it, find anything about it?

[whisper 0]

Think thats it, find anything about it?

I think it has been used as the armor design standard for WGL/ACE for example.

It was "just" a standard for armor values calculation for addons so that they would be compatible with each others.

With refined things to simulate some effects, but it was limited by engine capabilities

@Norsu : I've not modded vehicles enough in ArmA to know, but in OFP you definitely could not make custom HitPoint classes and were limited to the predefined ones, which were few and had specific roles (wheel/tracks, turret, engine, hull, etc...)

+ their hitpoints were not defined independantly of the global hitpoints, but as a percentage of global hitpoints, setting global hitpoints to ridiculously high values would affect the "hittability" of the vehicle

[Jimmy the Saint 10]

Joint Operations is already five years old? :eek:

[arma2disapointed 10]

I think it has been used as the armor design standard for WGL/ACE for example.

It was "just" a standard for armor values calculation for addons so that they would be compatible with each others.

With refined things to simulate some effects, but it was limited by engine capabilities

@Norsu : I've not modded vehicles enough in ArmA to know, but in OFP you definitely could not make custom HitPoint classes and were limited to the predefined ones, which were few and had specific roles (wheel/tracks, turret, engine, hull, etc...)

+ their hitpoints were not defined independantly of the global hitpoints, but as a percentage of global hitpoints, setting global hitpoints to ridiculously high values would affect the "hittability" of the vehicle

Now i remember, that was the story.

Those engine capabilities is still present, and really i expected somthing more with this third game and "compleatley new engine"

That still if you remember was "engine 1,5" in arma1. And still was acceptable for that reasone.

Bis chould be shamed like a dog.

New engine!!

Edited July 16, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[whisper 0]

Now i remember, that was the story.

Those engine capabilities is still present, and really i expected somthing more with this third game and "compleatley new engine"

That still if you remember was "engine 1,5" in arma1. And still was acceptable for that reasone.

Bis chould be shamed like a dog.

New engine!!

Tbh, I'm reading devheaven findings about the new scripting and engines capabilities... and in this area, it looks like things can be improved.

Looks like there's now a very intersting new damage eventHandler that could permit some refined simulation, if you ask me

[arma2disapointed 10]

Tbh, I'm reading devheaven findings about the new scripting and engines capabilities... and in this area, it looks like things can be improved.

Looks like there's now a very intersting new damage eventHandler that could permit some refined simulation, if you ask me

I would not expect to mutch, it just the experiance i have saying me that.

[jw custom 56]

I would not expect to mutch, it just the experiance i have saying me that.

I wonder why you waste your time in these forums when all you do is pestering us with all your negativity :confused:

Edited July 17, 2009 by JW Custom
typo...again :D

[ProfTournesol 956]

I wonder why you waste your time in these forums when all you do is pestering us with all your nagativity :confused:

Because he is arma2disapointed :icon_ohmygod:

[arma2disapointed 10]

I wonder why you waste your time in these forums when all you do is pestering us with all your nagativity :confused:

If there is things that are negative, it´s not a solution to pretend that they dont exist. And what it look like, im not the onlyone thinking Arma2 is going in wrong direction of what it could go.

The other FPS games is locked to theire enginelimitations, what Arma2 is doing is to lock it self in that position and only use 20% of the possibilities.

In some way it´s sad, and i dont want to see it happen.

[Jimmy the Saint 10]

:raisebrow: ...seriously... :raisebrow:

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

I remember that ghillied snipers were hidden at distance in Delta Force 2. It worked extremely well.

[frederf 0]

DF2 used voxels and was in fact the last in the DF line to do so. Not terribly applicable to the ArmA engine.

[LockDOwn 0]

I remember that ghillied snipers were hidden at distance in Delta Force 2. It worked extremely well.

Exactly.

---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 PM ----------

DF2 used voxels and was in fact the last in the DF line to do so. Not terribly applicable to the ArmA engine.

Same to say an far advanced engine could do what an outdated engine could do, if not better.

[LJF 0]

It needs an armour system, tanks are just pathetic at the moment. If you can't kill a tank you can't kill a tank, punching tank won't kill it no matter how many times you hit it, you'll just break your hand :D

[Vandrel 10]

/5char

Edited September 10, 2011 by Vandrel

[LockDOwn 0]

This is laughable, WWIIOL is not accurate by any means. Doc (Geoff Evans) is one of the most biased people on the WWIIOL developer team, to the point that EVERYTHING in the game has to have a equivalent and as such the Allies always have the upper hand over the Axis. I played that game for many years and was even a key player on the Axis HC before I quit the game so I can say this from experience

To sum it up, that game is a joke and is light years behind ArmA2.

I remember you and your point about ballistics adding much needed realism to ARMA 2 has nothing to do with our discussion to better this game, but instead with a bone you want to pick with DOC.

[Vandrel 10]

/5char

Edited September 10, 2011 by Vandrel

[LockDOwn 0]

Now what I wouldn't mind seeing is a new WWIIOL using a engine such as ArmA2 and be able to hold a massive amount of players and such.

A patch coming out in a few weeks is bringing just that. Supposed to be massive!

[Michael_Wittman 0]

I totally agree the hitpoints system turns the armor aspect of the game completely arcade. It also happens when it comes into what regards aircrafts... the missile tab and fire take us away from a LOMAC/BLACK SHARK game alike and put us closer of a HALO game alike.

Given the size of the map its also ridicolous that they included the JSF-35 and the SU-35 in the game as the engaging ranges of these aircrafts are on more than 50km for long range engagements, more than 30 for medium range and more than 10 for short range.

I think that the problem of armor ballistics in this game is related to the phisics of the game (still poor) and the decission BIS made of not taking advantage of the PhyshX or Havoc technology.

[DJH 10]

My first thought was that the penetration system [snigger] would be an absolute nightmare for people adding new vehicles to the game, but then again, there are some incredibly talented modders in the community, so I think they'd learn pretty fast...

[kremator 1065]

I want to be wearing a suit made of leaves ..... seems that these buggers are impenetrable !

[LockDOwn 0]

My first thought was that the penetration system [snigger] would be an absolute nightmare for people adding new vehicles to the game, but then again, there are some incredibly talented modders in the community, so I think they'd learn pretty fast...

agreed

[lockie1976 0]

It would be nice to see a response from the boys upstairs... especially about the "Distance blurring for infantry that kneel or lay down" its a major flaw imo and makes the ghillie suit completely useless.

[nyran125 10]

in real life if you look over a field with grass on it and trees it only takes a glint of something shiny or a small movement of something and you know EXACTLY where your opponent is. Did you not play war games with your friends in forests as a kid? because you can often see your enemy quite easy over a bit of shrub UNLESS that shrub was massively covering your body. I remember playing tag in deep thinkets of hedges and if somebody lied down in the grass you could see them from a mile away. They had to be completely covered or behind a big bush to not be seen. I think this is quite realistic as far as vision goes. Unless your enemy is amongst MASSIVE vegetation its really easy to see people lying down in grass. Unless the grass is overly long.

Edited July 31, 2009 by nyran125