Tank sim

[foxer 0]

I'm not a graphic whore,but i think there should be a limit on how far you go back,I say 98 is the limit.This game was made with an 94-95 engine.It may be close to real.But it hardly runs,well it runs.but it's a bitch to setup.

[IceFire 0]

You should change the picture under your name wobble, it's a little creepy.

[IceFire 0]

Also it makes it hard to take you seriously while looking at that horrible picture.

[Sandman 0]

I remember playing "Armored Fist" alot. That was cool. I dont remember if it was realistic or anything, but it was sure fun.

Dont play "AF 2" tho....it totally sux ass.

M1 Tank Platoon 2 is rather good also.

[S_Z 0]

The problem is with a tank sim is that you need a much greater visual range than you need in a fps like OFP.  Try to play OFP with a “setviewdistance†at let say 4000 meters… you would need a pretty powerful computer to make that run smooth. I rather play a sim that is realistic were you can take out tanks 3000 meters away than a good looking one were you only have a visibility range up to ~1500 meters.

There is so much more to a sim than the graphics…the AI is great for example.. order them in battle position and the will find a good hull down position.After playing the game for awhile I had no problem at all with its graphics.

I know that many people thinks that graphics in OFP is pretty dated too…and I agree the models(soldier) aren’t the best  have seen and the textures aren’t that great(needs higher res) maybe but I don’t care…There is so much more to OFP than graphics and that how I feel about Steel Beasts too. I choose gameplay before graphics any day….but maybe that’s just me…

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Try to play OFP with a “setviewdistance†at let say 4000 meters… <span id='postcolor'>

Hey, when i make a mission that involves piloting an aircraft or long range shooting i use setviewdistance 3500, and it runs ok. My system is a P4 1400, 256 mb ram and a shitty TNT2 model 64 32mb.

[S_Z 0]

Well...if I set viewdistance to 4000 and max the visual quality setting(you need to see every tree), put alot of tanks in and start firing I get maybe 2-6 fps...and I have an athlon 600, GF2 GTS and 384Mb mem. I dont think anyone would make a game where you need some 1400+ Mhz and a some GF 3 - 4 to just to be able to play at all (maybe DOOM3 will need it ).

[Wobble 1]

sacrificing *SOME* level of detail for a farther view is expected... but 640x480? no hardware acceleration AT ALL??

you could run that game FASTER at 1024x768x32 with D3D than you could 640x480x16 with no acceleration at all..

and it might actually NOT look so much like total shit that way too

[SpaceAlex 0]

SB abmras:

OFP Abrams:

I cant enyoj with so ugly graphic. OFP tanks are not so realistic, but they're more fun in OFP than in SB.

How can u say that SB is realistic. Tank tracks are not even moving and trees are falling like in 1992 games.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

yeah, but OFP doesnt model the M1s laser range finder, chobham armor, ACTUAL HEAT rounds (not the ones in OFP), real armor values, the commander's 50 cal, 4 kinds of artillery, Leopards, can model much larger armor engagements, models the different power systems in an M1, smoke launchers, the list goes on. If you arent gonna buy a game just because a model lacks a few polys or because a tree doesnt fall the way yu like it, just go pick up Quake 3 and look at the pretty pictures

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 25 2002,07:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you arent gonna buy a game just because a model lacks a few polys or because a tree doesnt fall the way yu like it, just go pick up Quake 3 and look at the pretty pictures<span id='postcolor'>

Bah. Quake 3 looks like shit and it plays like shit.

Trees should fall they way they fall in real life.

No. I'm not gonna stay without this game because of this, but because this game is crap. U can enjoy in your 1992 graphic, but i won't. I'm sorry. This game just looks like crap. U can't say that this game is realistic. U don't have so ugly terrain and tanks in real life.

OFP is no tank sim, but i like it the way it is. OFp tanks are not realistic, they just look more realistic than those in SB.

anyway. Do what u want. I won't spoil your fun. No need to replay this post. It would be pointless.

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (S_Z @ Mar. 24 2002,14:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but maybe that’s just me…<span id='postcolor'>

You're right. That's just you.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Alright Alex, I figured out your problem: when you say "more realistic" what you actually mean is "prettier". So, when you are saying that the tanks in OFP are more "realistic", you actually mean they just look better. Dont get me wrong, I love OFP, but to call it a "tank simulator" is just ludicrous. Tanks dont go at the right speeds for their models, aiming missiles is just point and click, you can load different type rounds without firing the shell that is currently in the tube, tanks bounce around like beach balls, armour values are all wrong (a point blank shot to the rear of the tank wont hurt it any more than a medium range shot to the front armor), HEAT rounds arent modeled correctly, SABOT rounds arent modeled correctly, HE rounds are non existent (or masquerading as HEAT rounds, take your pick).

You are trying to say OFP is more realistic than SB because it is graphically more impressive. That is like trying to say that OFP is a better helicopter simulator than Longbow 2 just because the graphics are better.

So get your phraseology right. OFP is prettier than SB, but SB is more realistic in modeling all aspects of armored warfare than OFP.

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 25 2002,08:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Alright Alex, I figured out your problem: when you say "more realistic" what you actually mean is "prettier". So, when you are saying that the tanks in OFP are more "realistic", you actually mean they just look better. Dont get me wrong, I love OFP, but to call it a "tank simulator" is just ludicrous. Tanks dont go at the right speeds for their models, aiming missiles is just point and click, you can load different type rounds without firing the shell that is currently in the tube, tanks bounce around like beach balls, armour values are all wrong (a point blank shot to the rear of the tank wont hurt it any more than a medium range shot to the front armor), HEAT rounds arent modeled correctly, SABOT rounds arent modeled correctly, HE rounds are non existent (or masquerading as HEAT rounds, take your pick).

You are trying to say OFP is more realistic than SB because it is graphically more impressive. That is like trying to say that OFP is a better helicopter simulator than Longbow 2 just because the graphics are better.

So get your phraseology right. OFP is prettier than SB, but SB is more realistic in modeling all aspects of armored warfare than OFP.<span id='postcolor'>

If they would change graphic, i would buy it. SB would rock with OFP abrams and terrain.

Talking about Longbow 2 (1997). It looks better than SB (2000)

One more thing. OFP is an infatry sim. Tanks, cars and choppers are there for fun.

Choppers are the best in OFP. Not so realistic, but great for flying and attacking targets.

Tanks should be a little more realistic. Just a little more, but they're fun though.

Car is a car.

[Deus Ex 0]

check this tank sim out.

its a bit old, but more realistic then any other tank sim ive played to date.

Armored Fist Platoon Official Website

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Joe Porta @ Mar. 23 2002,14:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm thinking of getting myself a modern day Tank sim and was wondering which is the best any ideas?<span id='postcolor'>

Scorched Earth?

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Scorched Earth? <span id='postcolor'>

ARRRGGHHHH!!! That game sux0r!!!!!

[S_Z 0]

No.. I don’t think the terrain in OFP is good for a tank sim.. it not detailed enough …look at the terrain in SB, its really smooth not like in OFP.

I agree with you SpaceAlex.. tanks should be little more realistic in OFP.. It should not be a tank sim(I have SB for that ) but it should be a bit more realistic...that would make it more fun…

In OFP its impossible to get tanks in a good hull down position… don’t know if it because of  terrain or the fact that you can’t aim very low with the tanks in OFP

[GrimCalavera 0]

Nice to see there are others that like SB also WOOT!

Hope SB2 looks good enough for these candyeyes cause I'd really like newbies to be kicked on SB2 MP

[Damage Inc 0]

You will not say that Scorched Earth sucks!

[nordin dk 0]

All hail mighty Scorch!