Secondary Monitor as Map

[Pulverizer 1]

give everyone possibility to shoot miniature nukes from any weapon

Logical fallacy of the straw man kind if I ever saw one, besides it's already possible if you allow mods on the server or script it into your mission :D

There are far more ridiculous features already in the game than having the map on a second screen. Auto-aim, third-person, extended super-man armor, cheating-death-simulation aka first aid, Goa'uld healing device medics, enemy highlight, map info, respawn, team switch etc.

As long as it's a server-side option, there's no unfair advantage to anyone.

[kylania 567]

As long as it's a server-side option, there's no unfair advantage to anyone.

Tell that to people who can't afford a second monitor. :)

[NeMeSiS 11]

Tell that to people who can't afford a second monitor. :)

AF and AA on very high are an advantage for people who have a good PC over people who have to look at a blurry mess. The world just isnt fair. ;)

Though i do have a second monitor i still disagree with this feature. I would like to use it in the editor though.

[Pulverizer 1]

Tell that to people who can't afford a second monitor. :)

Well then they can't afford to spend their time playing on the internet either. What's a used CRT cost, 10 dollars?

If that's somehow possible, and they think they're in a disadvantage, then they should choose a different server that doesn't allow a map view on second monitor.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Such a constantly updated + open big map would be too arcade for infantry. Maybe think about other and more authentic features. ;)

[Tankbuster 1733]

That sounds like overkill.. you might as well just print the map out and hang it on your wall.. ?

I'm running out of wall space, what with the A0 prints of Takistan, Chernarus and Everon.

[Pulverizer 1]

Such a constantly updated + open big map would be too arcade for infantry. Maybe think about other and more authentic features. ;)

How is that too arcade when getting shot in the face and living is apparently* not?

*extended armor difficulty setting + first-aid simulation module + shoot a team mate straight in the face with an assault rifle = as you can see, the guy has been shot in the head and is bleeding badly, but it's nothing serious

[CarlGustaffa 4]

The GPS in its current form is supposed to be a rather unique item. It's not something everybody gets (except in some missions). Check out vanilla loadouts, I think only squad leaders (pluss special units) still gets them, and even HMMWVS and MTVRs still aren't GPS equipped.

So what's the point of having GPS a unique item, when MAP which (normally) everybody gets becomes a GPS on steroids (too many games out there with extended map info enabled) for some users? Heh, even map for everybody isn't really realistic :)

For others, we have to lower weapon, take a knee, open map - this takes time - realistic time. But for some it should be a freebie?

Tell that to people who can't afford a second monitor.

I have a second monitor, although currently not in use. But I don't want it to be available for that (the map).

Logical fallacy of the straw man kind if I ever saw one, besides it's already possible if you allow mods on the server or script it into your mission

Unable to translate the first part. I gave a (imho) stupid argument a counter. That "then don't use it" is getting old and over used. It's not up to me to choose what other people choose to use, but this map thing becomes seriously unfair.

As for the second part, well I don't know about such mods, and it's not a key we would install. If mods came along that put an aircraft MFD on a secondary monitor, I wouldn't have a problem adding key for it. Because it would most probably be made with intended realism in mind, and I'm sure the creator would make it work like the GPS (no extended map info shown) rather than the map (extended map info shown). Pluss it would only be available in vehicles where it was used.

There are far more ridiculous features already in the game than having the map on a second screen. Auto-aim, third-person, extended super-man armor, cheating-death-simulation aka first aid, Goa'uld healing device medics, enemy highlight, map info, respawn, team switch etc.

And some of them pushed me away from MP gaming, but I'll address each one:

* Auto-aim - Okay, this one I've never even heard of, so...

* third-person - I'll allow it for vehicle drivers only. And it can be enforced (I'm doing it) on a mission basis. I hate 3rd person, but vehicle drivers lack ability to "get around" in the vehicle; side windows are unusable in MTVRs and certain HMMWVs since viewpoint is locked.

* extended super-man armor, cheating-death-simulation aka first aid - I have no objections on these. It's a game, whos mechanics in the first place fails a bit since there are so many casualties. In real life, it takes a lot more fighting to cause a casualty than in the game. I think I saw the number 10.000 bullets spent per casualty (or fatality). So the medic functionality is there to counter this somewhat.

* map info/enemy highlight - Yeah I just log out when I see this is activated. I'll use map info moderately in SP though, due lack of possibility to communicate properly with your AI.

* respawn - Reinforcements? Needed for persistent missions? If done right, you would have longer respawn times. Makes it more painful to die, and the tactical knowledge you had about the battlefield would most likely be obsolete by the time you get back.

* team switch - Never seen in MP. For singleplayer I don't care. I played SP mission today where I would have loved team switch just to get half the team out of stuck in structure mode.

* weapon cursor - Which you forgot ;) I typically don't stay long on servers with this enabled. It's insanely annoying and completely unrealistic (the way it is formed now) for rifles. There are ways to make it a pointing device, but loose the capability of being an aiming/sniping device.

But the common thing about all those, are that none give some users an advantage, it's something that affects everyone.

AF and AA on very high are an advantage for people who have a good PC over people who have to look at a blurry mess. The world just isnt fair.

Correct, it sucks to be on the low end. :p But AF, AA, and even triplehead displays for extended viewing are realistic features, and I won't complain about those. My bad that I can't have it, but as long as they aren't unrealistic I'll keep quiet.

Map on the other hand is an artificial and highly unrealistic feature to make the game easier. It has nothing to do with realism. You simply cannot run, shoot, roll around, while reading a map. It is prevented for those without a second display, and it should be for those with a second display.

This is all from infantry standpoint. Should vehicles have it? Define vehicle. For sake of simplicity (dragged body and parachutes are also vehicles) I say no, it's probably better to have addons that deals with vehicle specific MFDs if you want them on a secondary monitor. Try reading a map next time you drive to work, I'm sure you won't find it as easy as it would be in the game with map on secondary monitor. On second thoughts, no, don't try it :D

I'm running out of wall space, what with the A0 prints of Takistan, Chernarus and Everon.

A0? Check these :D

Edited October 12, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[Pulverizer 1]

If you support the feature for vehicles, then why not allow the people who decide to play Arma as a video game instead of a map reading simulator to use it even for infantry? Think of the people playing PvP modes like CTI, berzerk, AAS, hold, ctf. They already have minimaps on screen, in these decidedly unrealistic game modes, moving it to a second screen would not be a big change at all.

Also, you forget peripheral vision you would get when reading a map in real life. You'd still catch any movement, even distant, quite well from the corner of your eye. Looking at a second monitor would simulate this nicely.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Minimaps on screen is something everyone would get, depending on the game mode naturally. Map on secondary screen would be reserved only to a few with the luxury. And those few would get a severe benefit. Surely that matters in PvP, where afaik many people turn off immersion providing features they would otherwise use? Such as headbob, shadows, and post processing giving way for even higher AA in order to achieve a better score. Imagine being a sniper with map on secondary with extended info on, and maybe even auto reporting. Someone flanking you right? You don't even have to leave the scope, but can see on the map when you're facing him, just waiting for him to pop up behind the ridge.

As for vehicles, I meant I support 3rd person for driver only, until we get some sort of seat height adjustment at least, and some kind of working mirrors (spooners mirror addon was the best attempt so far, but that was for Arma1, not sure if this is still active).

For vehicle map support, I mean only vehicles that have some sort of MFD (GPS is good enough to simulate a BFT display), using a special map resource programmed to some level of realism (forcing off any extended map info etc). Not as a general purpose map for all vehicles.

Btw, what happens if you on a triplehead display moves a resource, containing a map, beyond safeZoneX?

Edited October 12, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[Pulverizer 1]

-You could keep using the minimap overlay to negate the disadvantage if you don't want to use a second screen for some reason. Old CRTs are dirt cheap, so cost is not an excuse if you can afford a computer that can run Arma2 in the first place.

-If it bothers you, play on a different server that enforces hyper-realism up the wazoo and has everything disabled. Much like you might do with 3rd person view or crosshairs. If you want to tell people how to play, start your own server.

-If the feature was in the game for 1. some vehicles with MFD map stuffs, then it could easily be made a server-side difficulty option to also enable it for 2. any vehicles or 3. anyone at all.

-There's also single player, where no one would care if you used map or not. And I suppose most co-op players would gladly approve too.

[Panthro 10]

I gotta agree having your RWR, BFP or map on your own MFD's would be cool. I mean these are realistic flying aids in our modern glass cockpit right? Some vehicles have them too and they should be available too.

Anyone can buy a second screen these days, they are anything from $2 to $15 at ya local op shop/out look. It's more likely that those using that argument dont know how to plug a second one in dont want a big ugly CRT :-/

I'd love ArmA to support a second screen at a different (lower) res too.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Realism and immersion for me defines the fun I'm getting. Hence there are no other games for me or anyone like me. With, I'm sorry, stupid simplicity options like this, the game is moving more and more towards the action games. What's next, no friendly fire? Then most servers would use that feature too to avoid team killers, and yet another important realism aspect of the game is lost.

The whole public coop scene is now (mostly) filled with servers whose difficulty options are left pretty much at default. Even veteran servers tend to use 3rd person or crosshairs. It used to be better when you could join a server of a certain difficulty and expect a simulation from a sim game, rather than a CoD like game within a sim game.

Sorry, but I just disagree that options for everything is really helpful at all, as most will choose the easy way out and lower the standard of gaiming to CoD experiences...

What's really sad is the way difficulties are enforced, set in stone by the server. It would be much better if server dictated the highest amount of help you could get, but you were free to set higher standards for yourself. I.e. crosshairs. Server allows you to use them, but if you wanted to you could turn them off yourself. Not the other way around naturally. But now, on a crosshair enabled server, the bloody thing is forced upon me and I just leave. I would for sure turn them off. But I might activate it if I'm assigned as side gunner on a BMP3, where they are the only means of aiming (and other examples exist).

But that is side tracking. I can not see any positive things about allowing a map (the M map, in all its extended mapinfo glory) on a second screen, while most people were forced to lower rifle, take a knee, wait for map to open, study, put down map, get up and get ready to fire. We're talking about the MAP here, for all intents and purposes, not a simplified overlay/resource (like the GPS) that is defined by some game mode, that tend to have reduced functionality to maintain realism.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

I would actually like to see the feature, but within reason. Say a slightly larger GPS screen, centered on the 2nd screen. I'm not sure if it's already like this (Might be) but the GPS would need to be restricted to officers (By default, say in the next patch) imho, so that it would not be abused (much).

[CarlGustaffa 4]

If so, make it DAGR GPS ala ACE, with buttons (i.e. to set a waypoint). No mapclick interface of any kind, which can never go wrong. And force off for th same reasons as the regular GPS (like turn off while in scope etc, or while running like in ACE). For comparison, just check out the advanced Garmin GPS versions for FlightSim. This is still (for many) a MilSim, so why make it anything cheaper? :p

[Pulverizer 1]

Again, if the functionality was there (to render a resource such as a GPS map on a secondary display), then why not make it a difficulty option to render the normal map there? Because the game is so hardcore? No it's not, look at the existing options.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Simple, because this is still a simulation at it's core, we don't want a BF2 style map or a permanently open map. If you think that you need a full map open all the time even during combat, I say you should try to find a way to do it yourself. A printer and some tape is probably your best bet.

[NoRailgunner 0]

It would be great to have a map to unfold/fold and a working+functional military laptop as device/object. For a little extra eyecandy - make the AI use the map/laptop too! :)

[Pulverizer 1]

Simple, because this is still a simulation at it's core, we don't want a BF2 style map or a permanently open map. If you think that you need a full map open all the time even during combat, I say you should try to find a way to do it yourself. A printer and some tape is probably your best bet.

Simulation schmimulation. I'm not going to enter that cyclical argument again. It would be an option, with all the rest of the "arcade-action combat game" options.

Don't speak for the whole community "we don't want", many people in this community evidently do want, if you read this thread.

[Pyronick 21]

Is the maps rendering actually hardware accelerated? I've noticed a slight change in performance since I have Operation Arrowhead.

Also, it would be nice to have SVG support to add custom markers and symbols for the map.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Simulation schmimulation. I'm not going to enter that cyclical argument again. It would be an option, with all the rest of the "arcade-action combat game" options.

Don't speak for the whole community "we don't want", many people in this community evidently do want, if you read this thread.

I've already explained why options aren't always a good thing.

I've already explained those other "arcade-action" options.

I've already explained why this suggestion brings severe advantages to only a few people.

I believe most of the community is here because of the simulation aspect.

Arma is a simulator, or a war role playing game with high levels of simulation.

Arma is the only one of its kind. Those who enjoy non realism have plenty of games to choose from.

And again, I'll stress that:

If you give too many options, too many servers will be run in stupidity mode (already happening on the public scene, I used to play a lot there, but now it's just not fun anymore). For those who wants the simulation aspect, we are now doomed a life outside the public area, where players might be hard to come by. And Arma just entered the mainstream games as a result of it. Would be very sad.

Think of it this way:

Would you want the option to give people with a second display get instant recognizing of friend or foe, because they have a second display? No you wouldn't (I hope...), because you would think it gave them a major advantage the others didn't get, and it was completely unrealistic (you just called them arcadish options). Well, that's how I think about the map. Except those other options do have some purpose in some circumstances. A map wouldn't.

And finally:

Why do you need it?

[SnR 1]

Make it an option in the profile, for those that dont want it dont activate.

[Pulverizer 1]

.... sigh... this is getting slightly ridiculous and blown out of proportion :o

I've already explained why options aren't always a good thing.

I disagree. Options are always good in a game that's supposed to be a sandbox and a simulator, not a standardized experience like Modern Warfare 2.

I've already explained those other "arcade-action" options.

Explained? I don't need them to be explained, I understand full-well what they do. What I don't understand why you think map screen is any worse realism-wise than a lot of other stuff there, especially because it would also serve realistic purposes (vehicles that really have MFDs and screens, aircraft instruments etc).

I've already explained why this suggestion brings severe advantages to only a few people.

Wrong. Again, anyone can afford a second-hand CRT. If you don't want to, play on a server that dissallows the option = PROBLEM SOLVED, NO DISADVANTAGE

I believe most of the community is here because of the simulation aspect.

Maybe, maybe not, but in any case they're even more here for the fun aspect. Just look at the most popular MP mission types and you will see what I mean.

Also, the feature would also serve the simulation aspect.

Arma is a simulator, or a war role playing game with high levels of simulation.

I disagree. It's a video game with some simesque aspects, such as realistic free-roam landscape and a mission editor.

Arma is the only one of its kind. Those who enjoy non realism have plenty of games to choose from.

Arma is very much a sandbox game (=mission editor, no set game types etc). Those who enjoy military sandboxes don't have anything else to choose from.

If you give too many options, too many servers will be run in stupidity mode (already happening on the public scene, I used to play a lot there, but now it's just not fun anymore). For those who wants the simulation aspect, we are now doomed a life outside the public area, where players might be hard to come by. And Arma just entered the mainstream games as a result of it. Would be very sad.

I think you would simply see a lot less servers if Arma didn't have any other modes than "Veteran". Also, a lot less players = less money to BIS = even more rushed buggy releases. Also, unrealistic game != stupidity.

Would you want the option to give people with a second display get instant recognizing of friend or foe, because they have a second display? No you wouldn't (I hope...), because you would think it gave them a major advantage the others didn't get, and it was completely unrealistic (you just called them arcadish options). Well, that's how I think about the map. Except those other options do have some purpose in some circumstances. A map wouldn't.

Again, anyone can afford a second-hand CRT. If you don't want to, play on a server that dissallows the option = PROBLEM SOLVED, NO DISADVANTAGE

Why do you need it?

I want it because it would be a cool and useful feature. "render resource on secondary display" would have a ton of uses for mission makers and modders.

(again, nothing new was added to the discussion by either party :D)

I respect your "need" to disallow the feature (thus, I think it should be an option), but I think you are being very unreasonable about this considering how many people in the community seem to want it, and how few are actually against.

I hope you realize there's little point in arguing about the subjective points, as there is no clear right or wrong. In the end it's up to BIS to add the feature or not anyway. I don't even think it will happen, even though BIS does support some of the more exotic tech (triplehead, trackIR).

[Baff1 0]

If I was driving or even flying through an unknown place, I would have a map open next to me the whole time.

The more screens the better. This is a difficult game to interface with and the more options the better.

No one in his right mind worries about competative multiplayer. The chances of Armed Assault becoming an Olympically recognised sport are few and far between.

How many people in even play in Clan matches for ArmA worldwide?

I'd be surprised if we were talking more than a hundred, unlike people who own ArmA and use multiple monitors.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Baff1

[NoRailgunner 0]

Yesterday we called it cheating today its an "required feature", tomorrow we dont need to think about anything - its all developed to be accessible and easy to win for casual/mainstream players. :rolleyes:

I want a global permban for all players who are not able to play without any kind of cheats, hacks, exploids...