BIS should probably have done some homeworks since 2001

[Alienfreak 0]

As OFP came out 2001 everyone was happy with it, because noone even thought it was possible to have a game this way.

But nowadays we have 2009. A lot time has passed. And even a lot more time when considering the pace of computers.

But sadly some game components haven't changed even a BIT since OFP came out.

• TankFCS and the AI Gunner.
  People tend to use AI Gunners. Why? Not because he BIS AI is so incredibly awesome compared to humans. No.
  If you try to gun a SOTA MBT yourself you tend to have some problems.
  You find youself back in the first Worldwar. You have a optic that features NO methods of measuring distance, elevation trajectories or speed of the objects you are aiming at. You have to train in the editor how high above the target you have to aim to hit it. And how far in front of it.
  The AI Gunner on the other side doesnt have those problems. He always has the correct elevation and almost never misses due to enemy speed. PLUS you don't even have to spot the enemy you are shooting at. Just smash your 2 button.
  It's not like noone ever has done a working FCS. It was not possible in the first OFP versions, indeed. But since the optics and the barrel can face different directions it is possible. The community has made a 3/4 working TankFCS.
  It is even in your very own forums!
  http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=70&t=69123&st=0
  so the question is why is BIS unwilling to take a look at the work a person has done that is purely reliant on the APIs BIS gives him and has no access to the engine or anything and still manages to get it working?
  It can't be that hard for BIS.
  
• Tank Combat
  Tank combat in ArmA2 is more like combat between two dragons in D&D. Both have hitpoints and smash each other. How do you kill a gargantuan dragon with a meter long sword? You just smash his hitpoints by hitting his toes until he is dead.
  It's much like that in ArmA. Hit a jeep with a APFSDS and it will explode. APFSDS is one of the worst weapons a tank has against jeeps IRL. In ArmA it is just the perfect weapon. Why? IT DOES THE MOST DAMAGE
  Shoot at a house. Not your thermobaric OG7 or your HE Frag shells out of a howitzer will do the most dmg to a house. No. Your APFSDS penetrator will. Why? BECAUSE IT DEALS THE MOST DAMAGE
  You get hit with your T90 by a M1A2 with a APFSDS. Your WHOLE tank is Red. Every single part of it. How is that freaking possible? Did it enter it at the front, got reflected by the tracks, desroying them, moving the other tracks, got reflected, destroying them, going up towards the barrel, smashing it, getting reflected, hitting the motor, getting reflected and killing it, getting reflected by the commanders helmet and leaving the tank through the turret? But at least the commander wasnt badly hurt. Only wounded.
  Hit an M1A2 in his right tracks. Get in, all green except the tracks. Hit him in his left tracks. BOOOOOOOOOOM! It explodes. Seriously. What the heck.
  Shoot a tank in his barrel with your 5.56mm gun. It will break
  Shoot a tank several times into his barrel with your APFSDS penetrator. It explodes O_o
  Seriously BIS. It's not like nowadays a at least A BIT realistic damage model hasn't been utilized by even less computer intense games.
  
  
  It doesn't even have to be THAT correct. But at least give us more than freaking hitpoints.
  
• No tracers
  APFSDS penetrators, TOWs, METISs, AT4s and a heckload of other missiles have tracers IRL to be able to spot them better as the gunner.
  In ArmA2 they don't have any. Why!? This is only ONE line in the freaking config. You are pretending to make a realism game and don't have the time and motivation to change A SINGLE LINE?
  This has been done by mods numerous of times. You could even have just copy pasted it.
  
• No FLIR
  Tanks have FLIRs. But not in ArmA. People let their AIs Gun. Why? Because it freaking spots enemies like hell. Just like it had a FLIR.
  Players don't. Even more arcade shooters have come out with FLIR yet.
  
• AT Missiles of Air Vehicles are no beamriders
  You still TAB select enemy tanks (or better 2) with your attack vehicle and then hit fire.
  TAB SPACE TAB SPACE TAB SPACE. Remember something? Right. Armoured Fist did it that way. Seriously.
  You even have the right mechanics IN YOUR GAME. No work to be done.
  Realistic would be: the gunner selects targets by either right clicking them and thus advising his targetting computer to follow that target. Just as it works IRL.
  Or you just guide it somewhere manually (as done with the laser and GBU) if you want to engage a target that is not recognized by your targetting computer.
  Its all right there. But not used.
  Even worse: VIKHRs are the death of any air superiority fighter. VIKHRs, just like Hellfires, or any other laserbeam riders, can engage air targets. True. Slow moving or hovering air targets that is. Not a fighter jet going almost mach 1 and heavily evading.
  Thats just bollocks.
  
• No Mildot system
  People have come up with mildot systems long ago.
  Most modern sniper rifles feature scopes with laser range finders attached.
  In ArmA I have to train in the editor how high above my target I have to aim with my sniper to hit a target. If I lie somewhere on a hill and see an enemy standing in some distance I have to give away my position just to check whether I aim at the right height.
  People have come up with proper mods for that. Ok you had to carry a laser marker with you for that to measure the distance or find it out via your optic's features. Then I can just look up a table and adjust the right MIL, aim at the right dot and HIT. On distances like 1 km. Impossible to do otherwise.
  
• Same optics for EVERYTHING
  Take a BTR90. And try to hit targets some hundred meters in front of you with your AGS. Good luck. You pointlessly aim into the sky without any reference points. It's not even reproducable if you look down again to see where your grenades have hit.
  Why can't we just give the AGS an elevation? Had been done before.
  Just as this it is with rocket launchers. You have to aim that high that you cant see your target anymore. Why cant we just adjust it to a range?
  Has been done by modders before, too.
  
• Tanks are starting their main engine just to turn their turret. Most modern tanks have auxillary power units for this. A simple config issue. Easy to fix, again
  

Just a few things that have crossed my mind. There are more.

Those are ALL easy to fix. And would give a lot of "wow this is impressive" "this is cool" moments. Even with the critics of game newspapers.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

It is simply because BIS is willing, but not able to create "the most realistic military simulation". And they have a total different opinion about what a "realistic" warsim requires. Suma very often uses "it does the job" in the past when he was participating in discussions.

As long as the decision makers in BIS will not change their mind about this and the issue with the low production quality we will get this bugged stuff.

And again, I would pay even 150€ for a proper sim-engine, it is not much compared to the money you usually invest in rig and controllers to play this game.

Edited July 17, 2009 by S!fkaIaC

[phunkmaz 3]

OFP was a revolution but ArmA and ArmA2 are just evolution. I agree to the most parts of Alienfreaks post.

[kremator 1065]

Alienfreak, you put across some very valid points. I'm sure that either BIS will fix some of them or ACE2 will try to fix the rest.

In the meantime try to play the game for what it is. Not a revolution of a game but an evolution. It will be survival of the fittest when OFP2 comes out.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

OFP was a revolution but ArmA and ArmA2 are just evolution. I agree to the most parts of Alienfreaks post.

An evolution with genetic defects. Since those defects are present also in ArmA 2 it might make sense to let that engine die and rather create a new from scratch.

---------- Post added at 02:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

It will be survival of the fittest when OFP2 comes out.

I hope, but I am afraid it is rather the survival of the fattest.

Since I do not have insight to BIS I am not sure if BIS does not see the need to do significant improvement on engine functionality and quality or if they simply never had nuff money to make large steps.

Doesn't matter, fact is that the first product that can somehow compete with ArmA 2 will blow BIS from the market if they continue like that.

I can not imagine a future without BIS :cool:

[phunkmaz 3]

I hope, but I am afraid it is rather the survival of the fattest.

Since I do not have insight to BIS I am not sure if BIS does not see the need to do significant improvement on engine functionality and quality or if they simply never had nuff money to make large steps.

Doesn't matter, fact is that the first product that can somehow compete with ArmA 2 will blow BIS from the market if they continue like that.

I can not imagine a future without BIS :cool:

Sad but true. :(

[Alienfreak 0]

Alienfreak, you put across some very valid points. I'm sure that either BIS will fix some of them or ACE2 will try to fix the rest.

BIS hasn't fixed any of them in 8 years. And now they will fix it. For what?

ArmA 5?

ArmA 1 was said to be OFP 1.5. Those gamelogic bugs were ok

But Game 2 was said to be an REAL overhaul, fixing all those things. ArmA2 is Game 2.

Also ACE is not a bit better.

With their nerdy hyper realism. You cannot run (not sprint) 1km with 20km of package. You can only CRAWL with it. Because it is really heavy for their nerdy bodies.

Guns do sway what you cannot see through their movement. Tank combat was the same bollocks.

Their medic system made it worse instead of better. Morphium after EPI to make him wake up? lol.

Enemy zombiearmies ftw!

Sorry. ACE for ArmA was a real fail.

Most of the good things they had they just copied in from existing mods.

Also I don't want to have to use MILLIONS of mods just to have a decent game.

ArmA 2 doesn't have a mod synchronizer.

ArmA 2 doesn't even support loading/unloading mods upon joining a gameserver if you have them installed. You will need a link on your desktop for every freaking SINGLE server in order to play there.

Sorry, but no. Not being lazy and letting the community do all the work for you.

Doesn't matter, fact is that the first product that can somehow compete with ArmA 2 will blow BIS from the market if they continue like that.

The thing making me sceptical about OFP2 are all the faked non ingame engine screenshots. Which are also NOT specifically labeled to show that but mixed within ingame graphic screenshots.

But OFP 2 will have FLIR. Thats for sure.

We will have to wait and see until october.

BIS should better start working hard until october. The clock is running and until now they have the pole position.

[Tozmeister 0]

Couldn't agree more. Tank and Vehicle combat is the worst letdown of ArmA2.

Motorised/Mechanised Infantry has been the mainstay of every nation for the last one hundred years yet we still have this 'moving magic box' nature of cars and helos.

When OFP came out 2001 that was fine, it was braking new ground and pushing technology, but this 2009. 4 cycles of Moore's Law have come and gone and we have nothing to show for it.

Except in the graphics department. Because shiny shiny screen shots sell product in the glossy magazines right?

I, too, am disappointed that my M136 +5 Holy Avenger doing 260 damage per shot is still a decent tool for destroying that Elder Red T-90 with its 700 Hit Points.

[celery 8]

It's a bit provocative but everything is true. If the old engine can't handle the stuff it should accomplish, it's time to make a new and better one.

[11aTony 0]

Lol, I remember in some interview before release they said that tank combat will be "overhauled". I was quite excited about it becouse I really like tanks and planes. So I got the game and it was the same as OFP...

[ProfTournesol 956]

As i'm not familiar with modern military warfare, i mainly agree with the vehicle damage system. And i'll add things being worse than in OFP (TBH among lot of others being much better), such as ground vehicles pathfindings and helicopters crashing into trees too often.

[sanctuary 19]

Very good points Alienfreak.

Indeed while it was acceptable (though it always annoyed me and continue to annoy me as i have sticked with it) in OFP because everything was just breakgrounding at this time, 8 years of engine upgrades later and always the same arcade system as in 2001 is certainly not something one could expect from a war sim.

The video of the ww2online damage system is purely awesome.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

Maybe we should convince BIS to do a little bit more if we pay more:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=80411

:cool:

[Alienfreak 0]

People are willing to pay for that

[whisper 0]

30 of them, yes

Majority of current A2 buyer? I bet no

I think it's a question of not being too hardcore for target audience.

[Alienfreak 0]

So having tracers in your missiles and an actual FCS (which makes things easier) makes the game more hardcore?

Or being able to hit with the first shot?

[-=seany=- 5]

I agree with most of the OP's post. Especially about the same old FCS in the tanks and lack of things like FLIR etc.

I have a theory on why it is like this. I remember reading an article a while ago (cant remember where or when :/) but it was one of the lead developers talking about the OFP series. They talked about how they where not really into the Military thing and that it was more of a medium to create the kind of open ended game they wanted to see, with massive landscapes and multiple possibilities for missions etc. In other words simulating a real as possible natural landscape for players to do there thing in, like a sandbox. They where less concerned with making an accurate military sim.

looking at Arma2, I feel it re-enforces this theory. As a simulation of the natural world, nothing comes close in terms of scale and detail.

But, if you make a military themed game, you are going to attract fans of military warfare style gaming..obviously. This is where there is a break down between the wants and needs of the community and the driving force of the Dev team. We want to see things like FLIR, Fastropping, advanced FCS, realistic flight mechanics, detailed damaged model for tanks etc. But the developers are not so passionate about these aspects.

With this in mind I can forgive the Devs for some of it, I mean they did give us one hell of a sand box to play in and much ability for the community to change the game as they see fit, with addons etc. I do think that they should have paid a bit more attention to upgrading and including some of the obvious things that Military sim fans would like to have seen in Arma2, however.

Edited July 17, 2009 by -=seany=-

[IronPants 0]

I have to agree with this assessment. Even in 2001 a plain hitpoint system was oldschool (IL2 anyone?) - by now it's archaic. I was hoping for some basic attention paid to the traditionally lacking aspects of the series in A2: damage and systems modeling.

I applaud the vision of an open ended gameworld for combined arms operations, but the extreme environmental realism just highlights how unrealistic the rest of it is (hitpoint and magic radar implementation; lack of FCS and countermeasure systems). It's a strange jumble where the end result is a simulation only in the loosest, most abstract sense.

Fortunately for BIS they have yet to be challenged except by WW2 Online which, being a subscription based MMO, isn't direct competition.

[icebreakr 3159]

Kudos AlienFreak for pointing out some of the biggest errors in 2009 release. Its amazing to see the same missing features and to see that modding community does almost all of the job for BIS... in all titles so far.

[Drongo69 117]

Great post Alienfreak. For a game/sim based on modern warfare, these problems are inexcusable. M1 Tank Platoon had FCS and component/penetration based damage 20 years ago.

[.kju 3245]

Well BI, like every company, has a limited amout of resources / workforce.

Other companies may have a bigger. Yet thats nothing to be changed easily.

So BI decided that it is best for them to concentrate on Micro AI, the campaign and Warfare

in A2. Along with having visuals in the top league, as well as modules for specific game features.

First and foremost it was their decision and they need to decide it and live with it.

Was it a good decision - hard to say. If we ever will know how sales and customer

satisfaction turned out, it will still needs some months to get a better idea.

Should BI focus on other areas, like MP, addon management, optimization, polishing,

more indepth infantry, vehicle and air simulation as well as gameplay, making the effort

of the community more a buy-argument for their products.

You will probably say yes.

Would it be good for BI in the long run? Will BI decide along the line? We will see.

Edited July 17, 2009 by kju

[nkenny 1057]

Arma2 is said to be an Infantry simulator. You'd think they would be able to dedicate 'some' development to non-infantry aspects in what? How many games and expasions?

All we keep getting are smaller products with shittier campaigns and rehashed bugs.

- K

[Scrub 0]

Smaller.. Smaller? Really asking here, how do you see this as smaller?

[frederf 0]

One of my biggest beefs with BIS is not all the stuff they left out because it would take a while to code, but all the stuff they obviously worked hard on and got wrong anyway. I can understand when something takes a lot of effort so you don't do it. However there are many examples of BIS expending more effort to do something wrong when they could have done it correctly with less or equal effort.

They modeled the F-35B without the external gun pod and then gave it the weapon anyway. Surely that took effort to model, skin, and code. Wouldn't it have been easier or just-as-easy to model or config it correctly?

[chops 111]

A very good post Alienfreak.

There are no excuses for having the same damage system 8 years after first release. What have BIS changed in functions and abilities since OFP 1.96? JIP, some scripting comands and mulitple turrents. Arma2 is essentially a retexture mod of OFP 1.96, with worse driving AI (from what I've seen).