ArmA II: Operation Arrowhead discussion thread

[p75 10]

It is odd, but I can't wait for this expansion..........somehow I feel like Arma 2 is not what it is supposed to be now that Operation Arrowhead is coming.

That is partly due to the fact I like Operation Arrowheads settings more (Afghanistan), but also because Arma 2 feels like a down tweaked engine now that I know Operation Arrowhead will support additional features..........I wanted to start modding in Arma 2, but it won't make much sense when it is not compatible with Operation Arrowhead.....

I can't help, but think, I want to play Operation Arrowhead now, instead of Arma 2.

[max power 21]

Yes. They developed the VR engine to it's ultimate extent, 300 years in the future, then tweaked it down and travelled back in time to release the engine in various states of castruation at various intervals. I wish I had thought of that business model.

[mr_centipede 31]

I wanted to start modding in Arma 2, but it won't make much sense when it is not compatible with Operation Arrowhead

Where do you get that from? I thought it has been said that ARMA2 content will work with ARMA2 OA, right? Contents as in mod/addon

[p75 10]

Where do you get that from? I thought it has been said that ARMA2 content will work with ARMA2 OA, right? Contents as in mod/addon

Somewhere in this thread of 80+ pages, don't ask me where exactly.....maybe I misunderstood.....anyhow....can't be bothered with Arma 2 now anymore. I'll wait for Operation Arrowhead for my modding needs.

---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:55 AM ----------

Yes. They developed the VR engine to it's ultimate extent, 300 years in the future, then tweaked it down and travelled back in time to release the engine in various states of castruation at various intervals. I wish I had thought of that business model.

Did you read the words: feels like.....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I think I'd like Operation Arrowhead 10 x better.......

[jonneymendoza 10]

Yes and it won't be changed in Arma 2. The buildings are entire objects, and cannot be broken in real-time. The buildings that can take progressive damage are essentially separate buildings: after a certain amount of damage is sustained, the normal model is removed and replaced with the damaged model. This makes it impractical to have realistic damage at point-of-impact, as you'd have to make a new model for every place it could possibly be hit. And then what happens if it gets hit again?

Since damaging buildings is a very, very small part of the gameplay, I feel pretty confident in stating that it will never be possible in Arma 2 even though I have absolutely no proof of that. I'd be very surprised to see it in OA, too.

Also, AI units don't tend to use buildings at all as it currently stands. Maybe OA will change that. So blowing a hole in the building to reveal the enemy within would be a rare event, anyway. And real people shouldn't be silly enough to hide in a building if there's armor around. Unless the RoE forbid damaging buildings I suppose, but then the whole point is moot. :)

I diddnt say it will be an easy task and i am fully aware on how it works on Arma 2 so far but it looks half baked imo and should be implemented fully. Arma 2 is suppose to be a army sim. making building get destroyed realisticly is all part of a real life battle. Look at the state of some of these countries like iraq etc. some buildings are damaged so i cant see no reason why BIS cant look into this for maybe Arma 3?

Like i said, you cant even shoot and damage a window from a building in this game and there are nto even bullet holes/marks in a building when you shoot at it.

Also, your telling me its better to not hide in a building then to stand right out in the open when a tank is approaching?

[Shadow NX 1]

Somewhere in this thread of 80+ pages, don't ask me where exactly.....maybe I misunderstood.....anyhow....can't be bothered with Arma 2 now anymore. I'll wait for Operation Arrowhead for my modding needs.

---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:55 AM ----------

Did you read the words: feels like.....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I think I'd like Operation Arrowhead 10 x better.......

The devs themself said that from the technical point of view it is more liek ArmA2 was a addon for Operation Arrowhead as you can import all your ArmA2 stuff into it and have all new features in ArmA2 too that way.

Doesnt work the other way around afaik.

[max power 21]

Did you read the words: feels like.....

I did. It's still an odd thing to say.

I diddnt say it will be an easy task and i am fully aware on how it works on Arma 2 so far but it looks half baked imo and should be implemented fully. Arma 2 is suppose to be a army sim. making building get destroyed realisticly is all part of a real life battle. Look at the state of some of these countries like iraq etc. some buildings are damaged so i cant see no reason why BIS cant look into this for maybe Arma 3?

Like i said, you cant even shoot and damage a window from a building in this game and there are nto even bullet holes/marks in a building when you shoot at it.

Also, your telling me its better to not hide in a building then to stand right out in the open when a tank is approaching?

To be honest, shitting in the bushes and kneeling for hours in a puddle is more a part of military life than any of those things. Due to technical limitations, the devs must pick and choose what they are capable of representing based on a lot of different factors. There's more to it than 'what is part of the military experience'.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Max Power

[bogdanm 0]

The devs themself said that from the technical point of view it is more liek ArmA2 was a addon for Operation Arrowhead as you can import all your ArmA2 stuff into it and have all new features in ArmA2 too that way.

Doesnt work the other way around afaik.

It won't work like that. None of the ARMA2 content will have the OA features just by putting them in OA because the devs would have to modify the ARMA2 units to add the new features. And they said that its unlikely they'll do so...

[Defunkt 431]

So... what actual impact will that have in most cases; no FLIR/Flashlights/PEQ's? Mission makers will just have to restrict themselves to OA content for night missions, not a biggie. Still a huge boon to have all the Marine gear available for everything else (most missions are of course played in daylight).

[bogdanm 0]

So... what actual impact will that have in most cases; no FLIR/Flashlights/PEQ's? Mission makers will just have to restrict themselves to OA content for night missions, not a biggie. Still a huge boon to have all the Marine gear available for everything else (most missions are of course played in daylight).

I'm afraid there is a bigger problem. Since BIS has to do new textures for the new FLIR system, the ARMA2 textures won't work properly with the new FLIR. I won't be surprised if you won't be able to see the ARMA2 vehicles and soldiers with the new FLIR system.

[Defunkt 431]

Isn't that what I just said? It's not a big deal, in fact it's a non-issue for the vast majority of uses (in daylight).

[bogdanm 0]

Isn't that what I just said? It's not a big deal, in fact it's a non-issue for the vast majority of uses (in daylight).

FLIR works in daylight also. It might not be a "biggie" for you it is for me. Why should I be restriected to use the ARMA2 units only in daylight and not being able to use one of the main features of OA.

[Defunkt 431]

Uh, well the "why" has already been explained but if it's gonna bunch your panties, don't buy OA.

[echo1 0]

How difficult would it be for BIS to patch the pre-existing textures?

[Inkompetent 0]

How difficult would it be for BIS to patch the pre-existing textures?

Difficult? Not a bit.

Horrendously time-consuming and a huge volume of data that needs to be patched causing distributoin issues? Yes.

[Defunkt 431]

Well it's all speculation at this stage, there's been some suggestion it'd mean recompiling and redistributing new p3d's but I'm rather hoping it'll be more like a diffuse map that can be swapped-in/specified at run-time (as is done with hidden selections).

[bogdanm 0]

Uh, well the "why" has already been explained but if it's gonna bunch your panties, don't buy OA.

Your answer doesn't make sense. Why shouldn't I buy OA because I can't properly use the ARMA2 units? Perhaps I shouldn't have bought ARMA2, not the other way around. The problem is with the ARMA2 units, not with the OA expansion.

Edited August 28, 2009 by BogdanM

[jonneymendoza 10]

Did you read the words: feels like.....

I did. It's still an odd thing to say.

To be honest, shitting in the bushes and kneeling for hours in a puddle is more a part of military life than any of those things. Due to technical limitations, the devs must pick and choose what they are capable of representing based on a lot of different factors. There's more to it than 'what is part of the military experience'.

yea but even that is broken, the grass distance fades away from a distance leaving you exposed and vulnerable.

It also depends on where the battle is taking place, there aint much bushes and puddles in iraq for example :rolleyes:

[maddogx 13]

Like DM said previously, wouldn't the older Arma2 units still work in a limited way with the FLIR system? I mean, instead of having some cool heat zones, they would simply be completely white, as opposed to invisible on FLIR. At least that's what I gathered. Maybe we'll get an official word on the matter.

[Inkompetent 0]

I mean, instead of having some cool heat zones, they would simply be completely white, as opposed to invisible on FLIR.

That's how it works in VBS2 afaik, and since it's that code we're getting in OA...

[sparks50 0]

Thats probably right. I'm surprised arma2.com and bistudio.com hasn't added a presentation page of AO yet.

Edited August 28, 2009 by sparks50

[nomdeplume 0]

Look at the state of some of these countries like iraq etc. some buildings are damaged so i cant see no reason why BIS cant look into this for maybe Arma 3?

Buildings do get damaged already, so the "look" of a post-war environment is already in place. If they do an Arma 3 then yes I'm sure they will look into improving it, but if you can't see any reason why they may choose not to then you aren't looking very hard. As you said yourself, it'd be a massive amount of work and to me, the benefit is pretty small.

Consider games like Red Faction or Crysis where full building destruction has been implemented and touted as one of the main features of the game, even going so far (in Crysis) to having special abilities specifically designed to allow you to break buildings. How many people still talk about that? So far as I can tell, nearly everyone found it fun for a few minutes, a nice novelty, and then moved on.

If BIS have resources they don't know what to do with, then more realistic building damage/destruction would be nice to have. But if there's even a chance that implementing something more sophisticated than the current model would divert resources from other parts of the game, then hell no!

A more pressing need is to actually make the buildings an integrated part of the game. Mostly this means AI should know they exist and how to use them, and when NOT to use them. Little details like being able to shoot the windows out would be nice too, as that does have significant tactical significance.

Also, your telling me its better to not hide in a building then to stand right out in the open when a tank is approaching?

Interesting phrasing, but I know what you're trying to say. ;) I agree that hiding in a building is a better strategy than standing out in the open when a tank is approaching; but if you're standing right out in the open and there's enemies anywhere near your position, you've already f*cked up anyway. It's about as compelling an argument as saying "it's better to hide in a building than to blow yourself up with a satchel charge". I can't really argue against the logic, but I'd question why you'd consider blowing yourself up with a satchel charge to be a valid response in the first place.

Against things that can't blow up the whole building, they have their strengths and weaknesses. The main problem is they limit your mobility, and if the enemy has sufficient numbers they can surround you pretty easily. These two factors mitigate the benefits of the cover they provide. If you're up high you might be able to surprise an inexperienced opponent, but at the expense of decreasing your mobility even further (you have to get back down to the ground before you can relocate).

This is way off-topic, so I'll close with: Operation Arrowhead is sounding pretty cool, and I'm looking forward to it. Go BIS!

[W0lle 1047]

That's how it works in VBS2 afaik, and since it's that code we're getting in OA...

That's what I think too as it's the same technique. I uploaded a screenshot which shows the differences between FLIR compatible units (left) and "normal" units (right):

[jonneymendoza 10]

Buildings do get damaged already, so the "look" of a post-war environment is already in place. If they do an Arma 3 then yes I'm sure they will look into improving it, but if you can't see any reason why they may choose not to then you aren't looking very hard. As you said yourself, it'd be a massive amount of work and to me, the benefit is pretty small.

Consider games like Red Faction or Crysis where full building destruction has been implemented and touted as one of the main features of the game, even going so far (in Crysis) to having special abilities specifically designed to allow you to break buildings. How many people still talk about that? So far as I can tell, nearly everyone found it fun for a few minutes, a nice novelty, and then moved on.

If BIS have resources they don't know what to do with, then more realistic building damage/destruction would be nice to have. But if there's even a chance that implementing something more sophisticated than the current model would divert resources from other parts of the game, then hell no!

A more pressing need is to actually make the buildings an integrated part of the game. Mostly this means AI should know they exist and how to use them, and when NOT to use them. Little details like being able to shoot the windows out would be nice too, as that does have significant tactical significance.

Interesting phrasing, but I know what you're trying to say. ;) I agree that hiding in a building is a better strategy than standing out in the open when a tank is approaching; but if you're standing right out in the open and there's enemies anywhere near your position, you've already f*cked up anyway. It's about as compelling an argument as saying "it's better to hide in a building than to blow yourself up with a satchel charge". I can't really argue against the logic, but I'd question why you'd consider blowing yourself up with a satchel charge to be a valid response in the first place.

Against things that can't blow up the whole building, they have their strengths and weaknesses. The main problem is they limit your mobility, and if the enemy has sufficient numbers they can surround you pretty easily. These two factors mitigate the benefits of the cover they provide. If you're up high you might be able to surprise an inexperienced opponent, but at the expense of decreasing your mobility even further (you have to get back down to the ground before you can relocate).

This is way off-topic, so I'll close with: Operation Arrowhead is sounding pretty cool, and I'm looking forward to it. Go BIS!

Crysis diddnt do it well and red faction is a crap game when you look past that feature. go and play bad company. that game has strike the right balance for destructible physics with fun addictive gameplay.

People are still talking about that game mate and ALOT of people are looking forward to the sequals of that game.

All im saying is that IF BIS is aiming for a simulator. you have got to simulate other aspects of a real life war.

Edited August 28, 2009 by jonneymendoza

[p75 10]

That's what I think too as it's the same technique. I uploaded a screenshot which shows the differences between FLIR compatible units (left) and "normal" units (right):

Thanks Wolle, it is impressive, too say the least, I can't be bothered with Arma 2 anymore, I'd like to Play Operartion Arrowhead :D