Dragon Rising has been released

[Game__On 10]

like someone said before

FPS above 25 is not mentioned by human eye

for usual human movie is good with 24 photos per second (usual movie in cinema)

so there is no difference for player 50 or 30 FP

FPS we can only treat "how much free power left to my PC"

Man that's so much crap :butbut:

You are honestly telling me, that you can't see the difference between 25 fps and 100 fps ?

I dare you to try it, and see if 25 fps is not choppy like a slide show.

Movies are not games, it works differently.

With games, especially 1st person shooters, above 80 fps it becomes completely fluent to me. Still if framerate changes between 80 and say 150 fast, you can still see a differenct.

I'm so tired of this 'you can't see the difference above 25 fps' .

Man PLEASE try it out yourself

TRY IT, and if you really can't see the difference, you are almost blind

Edited October 27, 2009 by Game__On

[dunedain 48]

"FPS above 25 is not mentioned by human eye"

Man that's so much crap :butbut:

Right ... I can read this everywhere since I'm online "6 years" seems that the average people just can't get it .. I just can't figures out where that stupid statement comes from, it always been obvious to me .. :confused:

Edited October 27, 2009 by dunedain

[Mr.Wolf 10]

With games, especially 1st person shooters, above 80 fps it becomes completely fluent to me. Still if framerate changes between 80 and say 150 fast, you can still see a differenct.

What kind of monitor do you have?

Are you aware of the fact that most LCD's have 60Hz refresh rate, so you can't see more than 60fps?

[dunedain 48]

Yaii fps is limited by monitor's refresh rate, still that I had had a 120Hz monitor for years and you can easily tell the difference, which really annoyed me when I switched to my 75Hz LCD. Even if I agree it's not really relevant to such tactical shooters, I'm kind of open minded and play a wide selection of games.

But an even higher framerate that your monitor is actually capable to draw still influences how the game behave "rate of fire, running speed, traffic between you and the server ect..." depending of the game.

Concerning Ofp2 DR, I really tried to give a chance to this game I even argued against BiS' fanboys on different forums .. But seriously to me R6Vegas2 and Graw2 are much better "tactical shooters speaking" which isn't a compliment at all ...

The controls and the GUI are consolish and bugged "mainly mouse not reacting", the gameplay isn't interesting, graphics are bad even everything maxed out the whole look isn't realistic at all, colors are really strange night is as bright as day, night is blue, day is orange and many little things that ruin the gameplay ..

Seriously Codemasters stick to arcade racing games.

Edited October 27, 2009 by dunedain

[kklownboy 43]

What kind of monitor do you have?

Are you aware of the fact that most LCD's have 60Hz refresh rate, so you can't see more than 60fps?

i use a CRT and have vysnc @90hz for 1900/1440. That the issue with LCDs and low frames with Vsync on. Most LCDs are 60, so if your tankning its at best 30fps... When my FPS tanks, its 45. and when its not falling below my Vsync its 90... FTW

[EricM 0]

With motion blur (like in cinema or TV) it "feels" fluid from 20 fps or so depending on the scene. With a more action packed/hectic scene, you might want to have around 30 or 40, but anything above 60 is pure wasted ressources IMHO and is probably capped by your monitor refresh rate anyway, as mentioned before, if you are among the 80% with modern LCD screen.

I don't know if DR has motion blur, so let's say it should have a higher FPS to look fluid, but 100's fps remains overkill for a tactical shooter where you need to think before you move.

[dmarkwick 261]

Man that's so much crap :butbut:

You are honestly telling me, that you can't see the difference between 25 fps and 100 fps ?

I dare you to try it, and see if 25 fps is not choppy like a slide show.

Movies are not games, it works differently.

With games, especially 1st person shooters, above 80 fps it becomes completely fluent to me. Still if framerate changes between 80 and say 150 fast, you can still see a differenct.

I'm so tired of this 'you can't see the difference above 25 fps' .

Man PLEASE try it out yourself

TRY IT, and if you really can't see the difference, you are almost blind

With the post-process motion blur on I'd say there would be remarkably little difference. That seems to be the main gist of that FPS weblink posted earlier. I should say try watching a film at 25 FPS then watching a film at 100 FPS but I don't think such a comparison exists :)

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

What kind of monitor do you have?

Are you aware of the fact that most LCD's have 60Hz refresh rate, so you can't see more than 60fps?

This is true. You're monitor is the bottle neck for anything above 60Hz, unless you get one of the newest ones, that just came out.

Even in the monitor days, 75Hz was the best you can see. The monitor just can't react faster than 60Hz.

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------

To say that DR's AI is better than ArmA II's AI over and over and over again should be considered trolling. Before the game's release, sure, you could say that. But post-release it's incredibly evident that the AI in DR is terrible by default, and anyone who says otherwise must be blind to the countless videos, statements, screenshots, and even to them playing the game themselves. It is AI like in COD4. It's spawned, shoots, and does little else but be cannon fodder for the player. It needs heavy scripting and the placement of many different gamelogic-like elements in the editor to get them to do incredibly simple things that they should already do by default. Sure, ArmA II's AI isn't perfect at all, but it's so obviously better than DR's AI, despite it's flaws.

Pretty sad, that you have to hack a game to get it to shoot at you. I mean, a combat shooter where the enemy doesn't shoot at you? and if they do, can't hit you?

May as well play Hello Kitty.

Then to say how the modified AI owns in DR after someone hacked it. Take the AI in Arma2 and jack it up as well then. Compare apples to apples. But in the light of DR, it's like comparing Apples to applesauce.

Hacking code to make the game shoot at you. Classic.

[Second 0]

Well, DR is uninstalled on my PC, never to be installed again. However, I did try the AI tweaks and messed around with a few custom missions, even tried creating my own. The AI tweaks are just stupid, now instead of never hitting you, they always hit you. It seems you can only have one extreme or the other due to the way CM made their AI. Also, all custom missions currently released for the game are extremely poorly made, but I don't blame them. I blame the lack of any scripting information being released to the public, as well as CM encrypting their files obviously intending on people not to look at them. Denying the fanbase the ability to mod already makes this game a bastard child of the OFP name.

Flawed agruments here.

I myself use difficult AI mod. It's not very wise to move without suppressing enemy. Yeah, there has been time when i just rise up from grass trying to do short rush only to get hit, reason being that enemy just is too powerful and my buys are lying in grass doing nothing but trying to be as small targets as possible (it's called morale). And there has been times when i can move around relatively safely IF i have can pour more fire on enemy than enemy can pour on my men or my friendlies (it's called morale).

There's values for accuracy and they are pretty complete: there's atleast morale, range, injuries. Those can be tweaked to anything from total inaccuracy to total snipership.

Not enough scripting support!? Did you even looked at manual they provided? I don't know many games which would have that long list of scripting commands along with game, tutorial missions to cover the basics, even campaign creation tutorial and examples. You really can't wait for people to get the system in mere weeks even with good tutorials.

[bangtail 0]

Well, I admit that I can't talk about ArmA2, because I played only demo and few minutes of german release, but comparing to ArmA1 version 1.08, DR 1.0 is still much more polished.

Core of AI is not bad, only engaging values are f*cked...Look at this post:

http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=391694

Look, seriously now, DR is a mediocre tactical shooter at best. You might have duped some of the good people here BEFORE it was launched but you and william1 might as well go "peddle your wares" somewhere else (like the CM forums).

The cat is out of the bag (and I wish there was a way to get it back in there). DR has failed in almost every conceivable way. It is no competition for BIS and it wont be any competition for the "real" tactical shooters (one of which is releasing in 2 weeks or so).

It's fail and FAIL.

Bye

Eth

[yanquis 10]

the argument comes from the FACT that films only move at 24 frames per second and yet we have been using film to DOCUMENT reality for the past 100 years. no one has complained that the FPS of film needs to be bumped up to closer match the refresh rate of the human eye or whatever it is gamers say to justify spending hundreds of dollars on the latest card or processor or cooling system.

i know i cannot tell the difference between arma 2 running at 40+ frames per second, and arma 2 running at ~22. i never know what fraps is going to say when i turn it on. the game feels the same to me unless when i turn AA on high, or am involved with 1000s of AI, i can occasionally feel the molasses type feeling and i would imagine the frames are constantly in the teens. but i tend to agree with vilas that 25 frames, and 60 frames, are essentially indistinguishable and both match reality. till im proven otherwise that is.

OFPDR does feel more responsive, and yeah it probably runs at a higher frame rate as well. but i am not convinced the two are related. like i said, last time i turned fraps on it said arma 2 was running over 40 fps. felt the same to me as when it said it was running 20.

[william1 0]

but you and william1 might as well go "peddle your wares" somewhere else (like the CM forums).

i will be in CM forums the same way that i will be in these forums because i'm not a fanboy

It's fail and FAIL.

are you gonna cry? if it makes you feel better i can say DR is very bad :bounce3:

[Bulldogs 10]

I like both games. Personally I don't play DR for realism, I just play it for an occasional fun coop bash, but because of the lack of depth I find myself playing Arma 2 most of the time.

As for the AI, Arma 2's AI is much better. Monitor it closely and you'll notice. The ulimate AI mod makes the DR AI that much better, still not better than Arma's as they can be easily tricked, but they do become better (seriously CM, was it that hard if a fan did it in less than 2 weeks)

I should point out that I'm talking about the enemy AI. There's problems with friendly AI on both sides. With Arma it's a case of not enough autonomy. If you put them on "safe" then they think it's safe regardless of how many bullets are flying. I can see the help of having this I just wish that the AI would act more human and think "Crap, we're under fire, should maybe take cover", fortunately you can put them in danger mode and they'll take cover and use caution.

The DR friendly AI on the other hand has the bonus that they'll auto-switch between safe and danger modes depending on contact, but most of the time they'll ignore cover and walk towards the enemy while firing. For the later part you can order them to do something else (flank, stop, etc), but for the first part, you can't order them to take cover.

With Arma you can order a unit to go exactly to the point you want them, with DR they'll go to the general area. In most cases it's fine but order a unit behind cover and they'll move to the left of it, right of it, in front of it, and once in a blue moon they may actually get behind cover, then stand up tall and take a bullet.

I must admit that I saw the friendly AI do something good once. When we were taking the morter hill I moved to the top and ordered my men to flank right on an enemy position. I then opened fire on the position and drew fire and my men flanked around the right side of the building, around the back, then I saw one of my units walk up right behind an enemy soldier, put the barrel to the back of his head and open fire.

I thought it was brilliant, only problem being that I've tried to replicate it and every time I try the AI either vanish (for up to 30 mins one time) and then come back, or walk to the left of the building and get shot to pieces.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Why do even need AI (bots) in any game? I mean we know they will never be anything artificially intelligent about them, will only cause WTF moments, so why do we even bother? Why not devote the time to something that really matter: MP?

[stumagoo 10]

Seriously people I think we all have to acknowledge that DR is not what the promos said it was going to be. I mentioned the 225mtr tether earlier, I have not tried to see what will happen if I stay out of the zone but I am not really interested. For me this is not a game that competes with arma its a BF2 or COD competitor and in that scope it has its place, and not even at the front I rank it BF2 then DR then COD franchise. At least BF2 has the ability to fly when and where u want on the map and in a Jet too. My clan mates are still intent on smashing their head against this game but as far as they are concerned Arma2 was just too complicated. (they are in it for the rambo feeling). after a couple of hours of coop play I have 800 or so kills 8 deaths and 1 team kill. You cant it seams shoot over the driver in the crappy jeeps under certain circumstances, havent ried replicating it but I fired and got told to stop shooting him reaimed and made sure the animation was above him and still hit him and agian and agin untill I killed him. Seems the Hitbox extended above the character by about 1/2 a game metre. I also find it amazing that a game like this has the ability to hit an enemy who only has his head showing above a sandbag fence 4 to 5 times before killing him.

The game definately plays smoother personally I feel its due impart to poor game design on BIS behalf but more importantly to there being NOTHING in the DR map. I go back to the tether if I am not allowed more than 225 metres away from my teammate the game has no need to do anything outside of the immeadiate gameplay zone.

The editor.

I have modded maps and missions on quite a few game engines now this editor has to be the worst and that includes the likes of Radiant sdk's for quake engines. I am fighting things every step of the way, game play zones, ai not staying in their stated posts, and finally the roads dont exist, if you put a vehicle on the road and a waypoint at the other end it does a straigh drive to it over under through what ever is in its way I had to plot 150 waypoints for it to follow the road 3 kms. My last querry here is, Am I the only one that wonders how many wars were fought by two armies of 32 men????

Edited October 28, 2009 by stumagoo

[Defunkt 431]

Why do even need AI (bots) in any game?

I'm with you, even the very best AI is disappointment compared to human adversaries.

[bangtail 0]

i will be in CM forums the same way that i will be in these forums because i'm not a fanboy

are you gonna cry? if it makes you feel better i can say DR is very bad :bounce3:

I don't really care what you think tbh.

I was merely pointing out that no one here is going to be convinced that DR's AI is better than A2's for example and that your time would be better served over at the CM forums in that pursuit.

Eth

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

the argument comes from the FACT that films only move at 24 frames per second and yet we have been using film to DOCUMENT reality for the past 100 years. no one has complained that the FPS of film needs to be bumped up to closer match the refresh rate of the human eye or whatever it is gamers say to justify spending hundreds of dollars on the latest card or processor or cooling system.

i know i cannot tell the difference between arma 2 running at 40+ frames per second, and arma 2 running at ~22. i never know what fraps is going to say when i turn it on. the game feels the same to me unless when i turn AA on high, or am involved with 1000s of AI, i can occasionally feel the molasses type feeling and i would imagine the frames are constantly in the teens. but i tend to agree with vilas that 25 frames, and 60 frames, are essentially indistinguishable and both match reality. till im proven otherwise that is.

OFPDR does feel more responsive, and yeah it probably runs at a higher frame rate as well. but i am not convinced the two are related. like i said, last time i turned fraps on it said arma 2 was running over 40 fps. felt the same to me as when it said it was running 20.

Actually with Digital Movie Projectors, they could in reality film at whatever speed the projector can display. So 60FPS movies are possible. But if they continue to film to photo film, it will stay at 24.

---------- Post added at 10:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------

I don't really care what you think tbh.

I was merely pointing out that no one here is going to be convinced that DR's AI is better than A2's for example and that your time would be better served over at the CM forums in that pursuit.

Eth

heh, you do realize that they program damage into the scripts in DR? You can actually set a trigger that when tripped, just kills you.

---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

I'm with you, even the very best AI is disappointment compared to human adversaries.

well, being that say in Warfare game you're saying that you'll be able to consistently get 15+ human guys on a squad, to all go where you tell them, and take your commands and orders?

Does anybody here see that even remotely happening?

[Hans Ludwig 0]

I don't really care what you think tbh.

I was merely pointing out that no one here is going to be convinced that DR's AI is better than A2's for example and that your time would be better served over at the CM forums in that pursuit.

Eth

Both game's AI suck bawls. Now lets stop having game developers create them and put the effort into real MP experience with a minimum of 64+ PvP.

[bangtail 0]

Both game's AI suck bawls. Now lets stop having game developers create them and put the effort into real MP experience with a minimum of 64+ PvP.

Can't agree with you there. A2's AI can be "tempremental" but it is light years ahead of DR's. DR doesn't really have "proper" AI. It reminds me of Project IGI (which was a much better game than DR, but with similar "AI").

Obviously, playing with humans (and depending on which humans of course) is preferable to playing with AI (regardless of the game).

Eth

[Bulldogs 10]

Convincing 100 human players to stand guard over a base while me and 3 friends sneak in to set sachels isn't the easiest thing to do.

[bangtail 0]

Convincing 100 human players to stand guard over a base while me and 3 friends sneak in to set sachels isn't the easiest thing to do.

Yah, that is definitely a limitation but I find the AI in A2 can be quite a challenge tbh.

Eth

Edited October 28, 2009 by BangTail

[Bulldogs 10]

I forgot to ask where everyone was getting the 60hz for most monitors. CRTs had a 60hz limit with the later ones having 75-100gz limit (mainly 75), LCDs have a 75hz limit with 100-120 on the more recent expensive ones. I don't think an LCD over 17" has been made with a cap less than 75hz at native Rez.

Seems most people don't realise it because windows defaults to 60

[maddogx 13]

I forgot to ask where everyone was getting the 60hz for most monitors. CRTs had a 60hz limit with the later ones having 75-100gz limit (mainly 75), LCDs have a 75hz limit with 100-120 on the more recent expensive ones. I don't think an LCD over 17" has been made with a cap less than 75hz at native Rez.

Seems most people don't realise it because windows defaults to 60

It depends on resolution. My 23" LCD can manage 75hz, but only at low resolutions. If I set it to 1920x1080, 60hz is the maximum.

[Zipper5 74]

Not enough scripting support!? Did you even looked at manual they provided? I don't know many games which would have that long list of scripting commands along with game, tutorial missions to cover the basics, even campaign creation tutorial and examples. You really can't wait for people to get the system in mere weeks even with good tutorials.

Yes, I did look at it. Quite thoroughly in fact. It has a section on LUA scripting but it's hardly as complex as any mission designer would want it to be. It doesn't just offer you the commands, it tells you how to only do specific things... Such as adding a "letter box" :j: ...

LUA is definitely much more complex than they make it seem in that guide, and no where else has it been laid out in detail so that editors could really get at it. Until such time as that happens, missions will only be able to reach the mediocrity level of the ones provided in the game by default. But hey, I don't think there are that many people left who are actively modding the game.