Accurate weapon systems, target acquiring, damage models and ballistics in Arma 2?

[p75 10]

Hi Lads,

Let me start off by stating that I love Arma 2. And alot is implented quite well. But, after countless hours of playing I start seeing things, which destros the immersion of feeling the stress of being in a war zone. I miss the immersion factor on the in-game weapon systems, I'm talking about the vehicles, it is so tuned down. And I'm sorry to say it, but it feels Battlefield like.

All one does is:

Press tab to acquire target, F to select a weapon and left mouse button/joystick trigger to fire......It could be soo much more.......

I'm just missing hud interaction for the airacrafts and armored vehicles.....Really it feels like a missed oppurtunity :(

And then there is the damage models and ballastics......I'll give you an example:

While flying the AZ-H1 I have a Hellfire locked on a truck target, I fire, the Hellfire ejects and flies to its target. To this point it is okay, but then we come to the point of Impact. Well,.........It is sometimes just soo offputting....( have a look at some youtube videos of how a hellfire's point of Impact is in real life....this is not reflected in Arma 2 at all. Sometimes people survive, other times there is nothing left of the vehicle )

My problem is that in Arma you see the Hellfire fly to its traget, smoke, ....and then you see the actual switch of the model from truck with wheels to a black truck without any wheels and some fire starting. Over and over again. It is always the same. You don't have that feel of Impact...and sadly seeing that same black truck model without wheels starts feeling repetitive :(.

Shattering the illusion of a simlike game....It starts feeling more like Battlefield with more realistic looking troops/vehicles and a different AI system :( But still Battlefield.....

I think this is clearly one point which simply needs more balance and improvement. What do you all feel about this things?

Edited August 20, 2009 by p75

[abs 2]

Again, not worth my time. lol

Abs

Edited August 20, 2009 by Abs
This thread is pointless.

[p75 10]

Thank you for sharing your opinion, appreciating that, but there is no need to call me..............a whiner, now is there? I'm not calling you a........., now am I? :D

Edit: why did you remove your post, lol?

Although, I don't share your opinion for one bit. I love Arma 2 and I see its potential, but it is current state it is simply lacking some critical aspects from my point of view.

And you want to wait what....another 20 years? You rember Novalogics game Joint Operations......where is the change compared to Arma 2?

Edited August 20, 2009 by p75

[abs 2]

Nevermind.

Not worth my time.

Abs

[.kju 3243]

try mandos work

[sakura_chan 9]

Theres nothing wrong with wanting more features or getting tired of the repetitive effects. Just accept that it isn't going to change that much. I don't know how long you've been gaming, but most of the sims I've played haven't even had textures. They did however have lots of things that Arma doesn't, like real huds, missile locks, radar and whatnot. Heck old sims could blow away most new games in terms of actual core gameplay. I remember playing TFX (tactical fighter experiment), setting up a stealth fighter mission planning my flight path around the AA sites in Libya. That game is almost 16 years old and it had a better air combat element than could ever be scripted into Arma. The point of the story? The guys who built Arma actively decided to ignore some basic complexity in order to focus on what they thought was important. As someone who has modded this series a lot, I can say that to implement these goodies would take so much time that they wouldn't be able to fix the more serious bugs that have always plagued their releases. We don't have a realistic weapon tracking system but some people can't even start the game on a new computer. Its all about priorities. Also I would like to end with the statement that there isn't anything wrong with playing the Battlefield series. People always say "go play BF2" as an insult, but I love Battlefield: Bad Company very much. It has immersion and ferocity of gameplay that Arma2 could only dream about. I spend more time on Arma, but when I want to have fun I go a few rounds with BFBC, all the while cursing out the world every time I die. If only Arma had a sweet animation system like BFBC. If you took away the bunny hoping and the shooting while walking part of BFBC, it would put Arma's infantry to shame with its smooth transitions, beautiful recoil effects, fluid reloading animations (that take longer than arma2's guns btw) and vastly more realistic moving speeds. Too bad you are stuck in a narrow trench and you have hitscan weapons and junk, but thats the difference between a game and a sim I guess.

[p75 10]

Theres nothing wrong with wanting more features or getting tired of the repetitive effects. Just accept that it isn't going to change that much. I don't know how long you've been gaming, but most of the sims I've played haven't even had textures. They did however have lots of things that Arma doesn't, like real huds, missile locks, radar and whatnot. Heck old sims could blow away most new games in terms of actual core gameplay. I remember playing TFX (tactical fighter experiment), setting up a stealth fighter mission planning my flight path around the AA sites in Libya. That game is almost 16 years old and it had a better air combat element than could ever be scripted into Arma. The point of the story? The guys who built Arma actively decided to ignore some basic complexity in order to focus on what they thought was important. As someone who has modded this series a lot, I can say that to implement these goodies would take so much time that they wouldn't be able to fix the more serious bugs that have always plagued their releases. We don't have a realistic weapon tracking system but some people can't even start the game on a new computer. Its all about priorities. Also I would like to end with the statement that there isn't anything wrong with playing the Battlefield series. People always say "go play BF2" as an insult, but I love Battlefield: Bad Company very much. It has immersion and ferocity of gameplay that Arma2 could only dream about. I spend more time on Arma, but when I want to have fun I go a few rounds with BFBC, all the while cursing out the world every time I die. If only Arma had a sweet animation system like BFBC. If you took away the bunny hoping and the shooting while walking part of BFBC, it would put Arma's infantry to shame with its smooth transitions, beautiful recoil effects, fluid reloading animations (that take longer than arma2's guns btw) and vastly more realistic moving speeds. Too bad you are stuck in a narrow trench and you have hitscan weapons and junk, but thats the difference between a game and a sim I guess.

Thank you for your extensive reply.

After reading your post I agree to some part....in the sense that I don't expect a Free Falcon like simulation for every aircraft/vehicle in the game, but what I would like to see is somewhat of a simulation, using the actual techniques in the field.

It is a simulation game after all.

BF BC has some incredible destruction effects, I agree, which will get only better with BF BC 2 and BF 3. Although the BF BC series is laking in complexity, the destruction effects do create more feeling of war stress and general immersion.

Makes me wonder if BIS could make it modular, what I mean with that is, create some additional addon code one needs to purchase. Like an extension for the more sim like gamer? If cost where an issue, alittle bit like the VBS 2 route.

Edited August 20, 2009 by p75

[bogdanm 0]

I really don’t see a point to this thread. If you search your title you will see that everything was already discussed/complained about many times before. This thread is just another opportunity for some people to copy-paste their complains about the obvious over and over again.

Everyone is aware about these issues and I couldn’t agree more that ARMA2 should have evolved from the previous titles but these things were requested for ARMA and than for ARMA2 but were never incorporated into the game. At this point the developers are trying to make a clean version of the game, not rewrite the engine to add new features and probably even more bugs. My hopes are(as always) in the modding community…

[p75 10]

I really don’t see a point to this thread. If you search your title you will see that everything was already discussed/complained about many times before. This thread is just another opportunity for some people to copy-paste their complains about the obvious over and over again.

Everyone is aware about these issues and I couldn’t agree more that ARMA2 should have evolved from the previous titles but these things were requested for ARMA and than for ARMA2 but were never incorporated into the game. At this point the developers are trying to make a clean version of the game, not rewrite the engine to add new features and probably even more bugs. My hopes are(as always) in the modding community…

Thank you for your reply. Well, isn't it time then to search for some solution? If the demand is that high? Why doesn't BIS incorporate it? Etc, etc....

But to be honest, that is not point of this thread. I'm just wanting to know what the other people feel. In my personal view it is a valid flaw of the current game, even if the other elements of Arma 2 are great.

If you have a solid base covering 85%, why not try to shoot for a 100%? Like stated earlier above I could imagine BIS going the VBS 2 route, adding modules, as tastes also differ.

Edited August 20, 2009 by p75

[bogdanm 0]

I'm only saying that is unlikely BIS will make such major changes to the game especially at this point(after the release), because hundreads of people have requested them for the last 6-7 years and nothing happened. I have been playing BI games for the last 5 years and what I've noticed is that BIS rarely adds new features to the game, if these features were/can be made by the community.

[p75 10]

I'm only saying that is unlikely BIS will make such major changes to the game especially at this point(after the release), because hundreads of people have requested them for the last 6-7 years and nothing happened. I have been playing BI games for the last 5 years and what I've noticed is that BIS rarely adds new features to the game, if these features were/can be made by the community.

I hear you,....

[turin turambar 0]

...

It is a simulation game after all.

...

Uhh, things doesn't work like that. Just because the game is in the simulation genre don't means they have the budget to make a fully detailed war simulator, including infantry, weapons, land, sea & air vehicles, logistics, AI for everything, realistic cities, etc etc.

Of couse the game could be more detailed, more realistic, have more features, etc etc. Like every game. But that would mean the game should sell at 250$, instead of 50$. Bad idea.

Hell, it could be argued that they should tone down the realism and the amount of content of the game, and in exchange have a more polished and less buggy game, it would sell a lot better then in the mainstream public.

[p75 10]

Uhh, things doesn't work like that. Just because the game is in the simulation genre don't means they have the budget to make a fully detailed war simulator, including infantry, weapons, land, sea & air vehicles, logistics, AI for everything, realistic cities, etc etc.

Of couse the game could be more detailed, more realistic, have more features, etc etc. Like every game. But that would mean the game should sell at 250$, instead of 50$. Bad idea.

Hell, it could be argued that they should tone down the realism and the amount of content of the game, and in exchange have a more polished and less buggy game, it would sell a lot better then in the mainstream public.

That is an interesting viewpoint, which would make me think that if BIS were to make a modular approach to the game, it could actually work. That is, if it is a pure business decision.

I'm wondering how many people would pay say 100$ extra to see everything included and bugfree. I would.....what about you all?

[bogdanm 0]

I wouldn't ever pay for a game more than 100$ and this only if its twice as good as any other game. Also the idea to pay more money for a bug free game is crazy. It would damage BIS's reputation forever if they will ever do something like: that rich people get a bug free game while others are stuck with a buggy/crappy version.

Like I said in the previous post, if BIS knows that such features can be made by the community, it will not make and sell such modules since the costumers can get similar modules(eg. ACE2) for free.

[p75 10]

I wouldn't ever pay for a game more than 100$ and this only if its twice as good as any other game. Also the idea to pay more money for a bug free game is crazy. It would damage BIS's reputation forever if they will ever do something like: that rich people get a bug free game while others are stuck with a buggy/crappy version.

Like I said in the previous post, if BIS knows that such features can be made by the community, it will not make and sell such modules since the costumers can get similar modules(eg. ACE2) for free.

Well, that is debatle as some things need to be surported within the actual engine, but I guess that is their approach. I would certainly pay for a good bugfree full featured game. That is mostly because of its sand-box nature.