Why is this game not more popular?

[whisper 0]

A propos DCS "as much horrible as ArmA2" terrain and engine:

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1015/screenshot015l.jpg

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/104/kh25ml040.jpg

And compare with this:

http://www.gamestar.de/index.cfm?pid=1589&pk=13838

Cheers!

Same picture taken from ground level and you'll understand the huge difference in level of details between the 2 engines. It may look fine from 1000ft, on ground level it's just.... laughable compared to A2.

I don't even know why DCS is coming in the discussion.

Because it has features that A2 doesn't have? Sure, and the opposite is true.

The word "sim" is used for both? And so what? Should I compare a racing sim and DCS, and complain that pneumatic simulation in DCS is not good? (though in that regard, DCS is above other flightsims :p )

A2 has a performance issue, I completely agree.

It's because the engine is bad at its core and need whole redoing, and BI are bad and never listen, and blablabla? I have no clue

Is constant 80 FPS even compatible with all the features proposed (scale + openness + moddability + AI numbers)? We don't even know as no other than BI has shown us it could be compatible. Talking otherwise, stating it is possible without a doubt, should be done, is unacceptable in current state, etc... is stupid. imho, you want BC2 perfs (pre-last patch)? Cut down scale, cut down number of AIs possible...

question is of priority. I'd much rather see BI spending time on performance than on implementing new shiny HDR system (broken, btw), HIFI trees up to cm-wide leaves, things that are not what is keeping people away from the game.

[InFireBaptize 0]

question is of priority. I'd much rather see BI spending time on performance than on implementing new shiny HDR system (broken, btw), HIFI trees up to cm-wide leaves, things that are not what is keeping people away from the game.

Thank you. Now we have to pay for better performance?? aka, Operation arrowhead!

[maddogx 13]

Thank you. Now we have to pay for better performance?? aka, Operation arrowhead!

Performance improvements are also in the main game. See latest beta.

[Bulldogs 10]

Ok so lets pinpoint and reproduce a poor Virtual Reality performance and 40 fps on GTX 480 / Radeon 5870: http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=16997&page=16. Isn't that what these forums are for? But this one will be easy, just run the game on any modern PC. :)

Thank god I didn't upgrade my PC since I get 60fps with a less powerful card :)

In all seriousness, you do know that you linked a review based on benchmarks, and that the same review had benchmarks of Crysis with the same scores. http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=16997&page=6

So by that conclusion, Arma 2 is poorly optimised, but so is Crysis.

Graphics gets better, and with that, so does demand. Live with it and upgrade, or lower your settings. Simple as that.

(Note : I am sorry for bringing Crysis into this, but it always comes back to it doesn't it)

(Note 2 : Can we possibly have a thread that doesn't fall to insults and calling each other Fanboys of this and that?)

Edited April 27, 2010 by Bulldogs

[funkee 0]

(Note 2 : Can we possibly have a thread that doesn't fall to insults and calling each other Fanboys of this and that?)

No, we cant:

MadDogX

Mindless F@nb0!

:D

[maddogx 13]

No, we cant:

MadDogX

Mindless F@nb0!

:D

You got a problem with that? :p

EDIT: In order to highlight the topical nosedive this thread has taken lately, I have decided to dedicate a haiku to it.

Spring trolls in this thread

Make Bohemia so sad.

It needs to be locked.

Edited April 27, 2010 by MadDogX

[whisper 0]

Thank you. Now we have to pay for better performance?? aka, Operation arrowhead!

Slight misunderstanding, I guess.

imho, something went wrong with A1 development direction where BI tried to add fancy visual things (HDR, things like that) which killed game performance. Well, not killed per se, because OFP/Resistance perfs were not top of the line either, but it made A1 perfs cross a line where it became too sluggish/poor performance-wise to be enjoyable for many.

I'd like to not see the same with OA. I'd like new features, but usefull ones, and not at the cost of performance. Working FLIR comes to mind. More "gameplay" terrain. Fluid addon/mod integration and distribution. Maybe we'll get some of these, and hopefully have decent performance, apparently at the cost of object density as it is what BI is bringing forward to explain performance enhancement.

[funkee 0]

You got a problem with that? :p

C'mon man, I was just kidding!

Edited April 27, 2010 by funkee

[maddogx 13]

Why do I get the feeling that I'm being flamebaited? :rolleyes:

Maybe we'll get some of these, and hopefully have decent performance, apparently at the cost of object density as it is what BI is bringing forward to explain performance enhancement.

Since previewers are already noting improved performance, and BIS have now begun implementing more performance enhancements in the main game, I think it's safe to assume we'll be seeing much better framerates. :D

Edited April 27, 2010 by MadDogX

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well OA islands/maps dont have so many objects like Chernarus. But previewers also stated that the performance loss is noticable in the biggest city map. Lets discuss it when OA is released. ;)

Now back to topic and possible solutions.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@***LeGeNDK1LLER***, using quick quotes:

"they changed the form of the radar:it was a rectangole now is a circle"

Let's forget the targeting controls, we agree. I like this "new radar" better than the old one, as it lets you have depth perception (similar to zoom or laser measuring in a FLIR), and it gives you a warning system for incoming threats. The game is not ment only for the elite, but also need new players. Many claim the difficulty curve is too steep already.

OA already have FLIR, so such a "radar" shouldn't be needed. But it's great that it is there. Why? To "lure" in new folks from action shooters, and when they eventually "grow up", they will start to use reality mods removing it. It's easier to remove something that's there than to add something that's not, usually. Split community between Easy Vanilla and Hard Realitymod? I'd rather have a split large community than a singular tiny one because the learning curve was too steep.

The new "circular radar" may also be more challenging to use. Although it gives you depth perception which is nice for prioritizing targets, it is no longer enough just to point the nose in a certain direction/attitude and know you're going to hit something. I would call it a decent step in the right direction, and absolutely not "cosmetic changes".

"why they don't add a simulative FCS since is not difficult at all to implement and to control?"

The obvious guess I'm giving is "resources". Maybe engine changes are required? Dangerous bug delays ahead. A really nice FCS was available in Arma1 (I think by NoWonderDog), but couldn't be used in multiplayer (iirc). "Do we do bump mapping/parallax mapping/new lighting features AND a simplistic FCS, or do we focus everything on getting the FCS"? My point is that even if not "realistic", the current "FCS simulation" (if you can call it that) brought it up from the previous WWII guesswork firing system to a reasonable capable first hit system. An FCS is "fully automatic" (laze and fire, repeat from start, basically). So is the current one even if you don't get to see the distance. But OA will at least have that.

"mmm plz dont try to semplify the BIS bugs/flaws and limitations."

BIS seems to put in stuff, i.e. in terms of scripting commands and config system, that will help the modders make stuff better. Try i.e. latest Domination2.01, and see how the famous "MP incapable artillery module" is now brought to life in MP. Could it have been better? Yes, but again I suspect it comes down to resources. It appears to me that the game you want could never reach release. Coming to think of it, I'm still awaiting Elite4. Was David Braben not man enough to create games solo anymore? :) Do I wish some of the fixes done by the community was implemented? Yes.

"this is truth but if i remember how many bugs were fixed with ofp patches and they were reappeared with arma1/2"

Might be true, I really don't remember. I came late to OFP and even if fully patched up, I thought it looked horrible :) Despite never being able to finish a campaign (I came from Unreal Tournament), nor enjoy MP (modem), something just made me come back - the editor.

"i guess is time for something more than the TAB-left mouse click sistem"

Don't really see the big difference between laze-fire->hit and TAB-left mouse click->hit. Again, I'm not a tanker but infantryman. So for me, the FCS is "good enough" (naturally everything could be better). But as infantryman, I'm much more concerned with the JIP ammocrate problem, where the contents doesn't update properly. You'll hit with your FCS, but I'll never be able to pick up an item that wasn't properly removed because somebody else took it. I guess you'll find another angle though :)

My endpoint: If the work gets done in a reasonable realistic fashion (current FCS implementation vs WWII style "guesswork"), there is no need to go super advanced, risking scaring new people away that given some time might end up a good player. If a modder makes it super advanced later, then good. But BIS could spend that time on other things that many crave for.

Fan boy, me? Yeah, probably. Some day I might even end up as frustrated as you.

[*LK1* 10]

@***LeGeNDK1LLER***,

The new "circular radar" may also be more challenging to use. Although it gives you depth perception which is nice for prioritizing targets, it is no longer enough just to point the nose in a certain direction/attitude and know you're going to hit something. I would call it a decent step in the right direction, and absolutely not "cosmetic changes".

"why they don't add a simulative FCS since is not difficult at all to implement and to control?"

The obvious guess I'm giving is "resources". Maybe engine changes are required? Dangerous bug delays ahead. A really nice FCS was available in Arma1 (I think by NoWonderDog), but couldn't be used in multiplayer (iirc).

not for me the odiern FCS is not more challenging because you have just to stay on a god spot,for example with a tank, and waiting for an enemy vehicle in coming by pressing like a crazy the TAB key.with the NWD FCS game could be more cool because you have to choice where you wanna look to find some enemies and if you dont look on the correct side of the map looking for enemies you can be flanked and killed from a smarter tank(pretty much like tank warfare).with the default FCS,basically not the smarter but the camper will win.and i don't tihnk is a problem of engines come on :) how a simple FCS

can be a problem for the engines game...even vbs2 light has a more realistic

FCS.

It appears to me that the game you want could never reach release.

mmm why,what im asking is not s ohard to implement,probably has alex72 has said the problem is that BIS is a little SH and maybe they have never

had these ideas,and probably(dont know but it can be a reason)they are not giving to much attention at the comunity.

i would to see just a realistic javelin,stinger/strela, more close mandoble missile sistem to lock on air target from a jet(not asking for a simulative 1 but something more credible..),FCS for tanks and choppers.

probably know someone will start to be mad but... i need to tell 1 thing.

if DEV TEAM for PR,with an old engine based on bf2,have implemented these things in a more realistic way,why BIS cant?

"this is truth but if i remember how many bugs were fixed with ofp patches and they were reappeared with arma1/2"

Might be true, I really don't remember. I came late to OFP and even if fully patched up, I thought it looked horrible :) Despite never being able to finish a campaign (I came from Unreal Tournament), nor enjoy MP (modem), something just made me come back - the editor.

oh it is.

and i gave some example 2-3 post ago.

pathfinding was fixed with opf patches and when arma and even arma 2 were out these games suffered again from a primitive version of it.

"i guess is time for something more than the TAB-left mouse click sistem"

Don't really see the big difference between laze-fire->hit and TAB-left mouse click->hit. Again, I'm not a tanker but infantryman. So for me, the FCS is "good enough" (naturally everything could be better).

mm the difference is huge i've already explained it. it completely removes

the opportunity to use a realistic tactic when you are on a cobra or inside a tank. TABBING like a crazy the whole match instead to search with your eyes an enemy is a bit different from me.don't you mate?

or well, they can leave the radar jsut for the apache longbow since you can easy find info o nthe net which they prove apache longbow has a radar.

but the cobra or a tank have not a radar...

My endpoint: If the work gets done in a reasonable realistic fashion (current FCS implementation vs WWII style "guesswork"), there is no need to go super advanced, risking scaring new people away that given some time might end up a good player. If a modder makes it super advanced later, then good. But BIS could spend that time on other things that many crave for.

i hope and im looking for a more complete BIS game which doens't need a mod to implement something that must be on the vanilla game.mod are great but also are a way to divide the comunity.more the game is complete and more people will play with an unique version.and hey i'm not talking about FCS which is a must for me but someone can even not agree...im talking about FLARES for example...

Fan boy, me? Yeah, probably. Some day I might even end up as frustrated as you.

i was like you..but im a bit pissed off now to be a fanboy.

p.s. i would to see if they will remove the space bar tactical visual function

with OA...

Edited April 28, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[maddogx 13]

@LegendKiller, you are making a number of false assumptions:

You assume that the ideas you are putting forward are new to us or the devs. In fact most of these things (for example better FCS) have been discussed on these forums for years, and it is highly unlikely that the devs missed them, or "never thought of them before". Fact is, BIS games are always designed to be moddable and dynamic - more platforms than games, really. Implementing a realistic FCS obviously seems simple to you because you're thinking of it as a statuc and unchangable system, when the reality is that people would expect it to be modifyable. When you consider that, it is no longer simple.

That's also why you cannot compare BIS games to something like Project Reality. The PR team modded a game to change it into something different, but static. BIS games are designed from the ground up to be dynamic. As someone who writes software for a living, I can assure you that creating a dynamic, modifyable and expandable system is infinitely more complex than creating something static.

[*LK1* 10]

@LegendKiller, you are making a number of false assumptions:

You assume that the ideas you are putting forward are new to us or the devs. In fact most of these things (for example better FCS) have been discussed on these forums for years, and it is highly unlikely that the devs missed them, or "never thought of them before".

:j::j:

seems like you dont want to read me:

but to be honest i can't post something new since i've saw alot of post asking to remove the radar on vehicles,to remove the

space bar function(shame shame shame...),to add FCS on chopper and tanks ecc.

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

That's also why you cannot compare BIS games to something like Project Reality. The PR team modded a game to change it into something different, but static. BIS games are designed from the ground up to be dynamic. As someone who writes software for a living, I can assure you that creating a dynamic, modifyable and expandable system is infinitely more complex than creating something static.

you have used a correct generic consideration to justify something which it cant be justified with your considerations.

is that the reason why PR has credible and realistics javelin,stinger/strela and FCS for apaches and arma has not?because arma 2 is a dynamic project on pr is not?no.or at least show me the link between these things.

Edited April 28, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[maddogx 13]

What I'm trying to explain is, PR just had to model the Javelin interface and make it work. That's it. They didn't have to worry about creating a moddable underlying system for it. For BIS on the other hand it isn't so simple to create the Javelin interface, because their weapon optics system doesn't support it (yet).

The whole thing has to be moddable after all, so BIS would have to create a system where all facets of such an interface are freely definable. At the moment weapon optics are fairly simple. Adding an enhanced Javelin interface would require a complete redesign of the whole weapon optics system. That's a whole lot more difficult than simply designing a single interface.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@***LeGeNDK1LLER***, using quick quotes:

"not for me the odiern FCS is not more challenging because you have just to stay on a god spot,for example with a tank, and waiting for an enemy vehicle in coming by pressing like a crazy the TAB key"

Oh that? Turn off crosshairs. With those off, you have to scan, find and aim at a target, then hit tab (I think I use right mouse button though) to engage the FCS which raises the aimpoint ensuring a hit at least for stationary targets.

"they are not giving to much attention at the comunity."

What? I don't think there is any other game developer out there with the same connection to their community, at least with this kind of game. Three medical based modules, which are very good but somewhat lacking in MP capability. Not 100% realistic, but would allow not having a medic on every team. The possibility to break out of animation when giving first aid - something not supported "by default", and probably for reasons I'm not going to understand. Check the Arma2 feature list, and find that many of the features are things we requested. Already I see that in OA we're getting features we have been missing for so long. My pet one is the highly insignificant one, in that y-axis map grids are finally reversed. We get answers from the devs, even how the engine works internally and why some stuff can't be easily modded/scripted. They are active on the forums and does seem to use the tracker.

In comparison. Where was CM when we started posting about OFP DR in their forums?

"i would to see just a realistic javelin,stinger/strela, more close mandoble missile sistem to lock on air target from a jet(not asking for a simulative 1 but something more credible..),FCS for tanks and choppers."

Are you one of those who refuses to watch videos and reviews from upcoming game, OA? I think most of us aren't asking for full simulation, just getting rid of the way-too-easy-to-use targeting systems we currently have. And to me, it's looking good, at least from what I've seen so far. Let reality modders deal with full simulation.

"pathfinding was fixed with opf patches and when arma and even arma 2 were out these games suffered again from a primitive version of it."

If OFP AI used bridges, then ok. Don't remember. Ok, I admit AI and bridges has been painful for me. I tend to not use maps with bridges anymore, since I can't control my own AI properly, and the AI we fight are just idiots around bridges. Hopefully fixed, but I'm not holding my breath.

"TABBING like a crazy the whole match instead to search with your eyes an enemy is a bit different from me"

Which is why ACE removes it in most circumstances. The "radar" we currently have (which again, I still think of as an automatic IR capability due to lack of IR) should have been redesigned how players see it (AI would still need the old way): HOT vehicles would be based on engine running instead of friend or foe occupying it. All HOT vehicles show up as red, the rest could be white. OR, only vehicles with engine on show up as white, the rest is not shown at all. AND, the marked HOT vehicles should be shown only in the zoomed in rectangle. You can tab between targets within the zoomed in rectangle, and the current NVG system gives you the power to visually identify the target as friend or foe. Except today most vehicles would be equipped with BFT and air units with IFF. One drawback is lack of "IR", in that you can't see through smoke (which too few uses anyway).

I'm hoping that this "new radar" is mod friendly, i.e. being able to define colors, graphics, overlay images etc. It's not realistic, but without it we wouldn't stand a chance against the AI who doesn't need to "scan for graphics".

"i hope and im looking for a more complete BIS game which doens't need a mod to implement something that must be on the vanilla game."

I'm split on this one. Yes, some features needs to be addressed in order to make them more challenging, i.e. stuff like 2 second setup, tab-targeting, fire, kill, on a Javelin. We seem to be getting that in OA. Also included seems to be some kind of BDC for sniping rifles, making sniping more challenging and time consuming. It seems simplified though, just setting a distance instead of using MOA and range cards. Do I want to go this far in vanilla even if it is more realistic? Actually, I'm not sure. Might scare away future players, at the same time I'm fed up with so called "snipers". I could name several ACE features that I'd like to see in vanilla, but there are also several that I actually don't want to see in vanilla but more than happy to see in a mod.

"p.s. i would to see if they will remove the space bar tactical visual function"

I agree but it would have to be a difficulty setting, the ACE (point to see name) or Domination (floating names) method should replace it, and the sthud addon (restricts distance) should replace the green diamond indicators. Extended map info needs different settings for friendly, hostile, neutral, unknown forces, and map objects. Although the space bar distance readout is an instant range finder, it is a great tool for learning to read distances. As for identification purposes, the idea is nice. It lets those not being able to run at extreme resolutions and AA settings be able to identify a possible target. Eye resolution far exceeds that of a monitor. But due to the problems with it (scan behind bushes), it should be possible to force it off, like the tags. Luckily there exists ways in mods to get rid of it (ACE), and by mission scripts (Block Space Bar) like implemented in Domination. If ONLY friends showed up, and only within reasonable distances (300m max for ground units, 600m for vehicles, and 1000m for air units, modified by available light, not NVG?), even that would be helpful.

[galzohar 31]

The problem with the spacebar is that it is available to some degree on all difficulties, rather than being available on low difficulties and completely unavailable on veteran/expert.

[Defunkt 431]

Yet very easily disabled if the mission maker doesn't want it.

[Inkompetent 0]

Heck, for people begging for ultra-realism, making ArmA a study-sim like DCS: Black Shark or Falcon 4.0, it would SCARE PEOPLE AWAY. Yes, some of us would *love* a study-sim, but to need two hours of manual-reading and studying just to be able to just the FGM-148 Javelin, and dublicate that for every basic system, and make it 10x longer for anything remotely advanced, and make it 100x for complicated system like tanks and airplanes and helicopters?

The community would be very, very small, and ArmA2 wouldn't have been released until 2019 due to the development time. Oh, wait. It would never have been released since no one would want to put money into the project since it'd never sell enough for them to get the development money back, even less make a profit.

Yes, there are many things to improve, and OA shows a lot of features that we've been asking for (like FLIR and ruckacks).

There were some mistakes in ArmA2 like the spacebar-scanning. And agreed that sounds can be improved. BFBC2 does indeed sound more awesome, but then again... it's limited to 24 (console) or 32 players (PC), i.e. a very limited amount of sound sources. Even if the sound engine in ArmA2 could be improved I wonder if much could be done about the sound quality without bringing even the most awesome sound cards to their knees.

ArmA2 has come very far from OFP in terms of immersion. Some things still would need improvements like a tank FCS similar to that in ACE2, which is easy to use and still 'realistic enough', but we *are* getting there. Just looking at the video of the remote controlled UAV with the manual aiming of the laser is a huge step from the standard tab-targeting.

One thing I think the game needs is some more multiplayer missions from start. Both adversarial and cooperative ones. ArmA2 certainly was better than ArmA1 in that regard, but it can still become better.

I'd even dare say that the game has most basic functionality now. We're missing some things like slingloading, shooting out of vehicles, and that extra immersive feel with dust in the eyes and tinnitus sounds and so to bring you into the body of the soldier.

[galzohar 31]

You can always have the arcade features only available on the lower difficulties, but the core mechanics would obviously still need to be realistic so that when playing on the higher difficulties you will get a realistic experience.

[Inkompetent 0]

Suspension of disbelief. ArmA2 is designed to FEEL realistic while still be gamey enough to be easy to play and get into. Who would pay the additional 10-15 programmers at BIS that would be needed to create the super-detailed features when they'd lose on the causual gamers by either making it too detailed, or losing development-time by having to make scaleable fidelity?

We can't forget BIS is a company that need to earn money, and they need to make a product that sells. It is a compromise that has to be made. Even if they WANT to make it much more detailed and realistic they have to be realistic in their own goals, or who will else pay their salary?

Heck, take the tank FCS and damage modelling of vehicles in ACE2. Is it realistic? Somewhat. It setDirs the rounds fired to fly where they should instead of actually turning and elevating the cannon, uses the default optics, has no backup sights, doesn't support rapid reloading in tanks with muscle-loaders (who generally can out-pace an auto-loader during the first minute of combat) and merely has an added laser rangefinder display, with pretty much randomized damage.

Does the tank FCS *feel* realistic? Very much so! We get the desired effect with range and lead compensation. We get vehicles that don't explode despite being knocked out by sabot rounds (or we get a catastrophic hit and make the enemy tank completely disintegrate on the first penetration), we can blow off ERA blocks on tanks and it is virtually impossible to destroy even a T-72 from the front with HEAT rounds.

OA seem to be taking a good step in that direction with section-destructable buildings, the new targeting with the Javelin and so on. We want to feel like we use that cool equipment for real, without necessarily needing to read a 172 page manual about how to operate it.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Inkompetent

[*LK1* 10]

pfffffffffff we know that we can turn off the space bar with vet. mode but,since this game want and mostly is realistic,isn't the case to remove it?

the worst thing with that is that you can spawn enemy soldiers vehicles even if you cant see them and you can even use the space bar as a range finder.

do you guys know how many times you were killed even if you were in a good covered position just because someone used it?well we cant know but it have a fkin suspect about it..sometimes happened and i dont like it.since you have to find me using your eyes/binoculars not the space bar.

there is no reason for a space bar in a simulative game and ,for me considering how much is lame that function,is not making this game more friendly for newcomers but is just an option to the haters of arma 2 to whine about the game.

and is curious how the "funboyz national guard" is not able to tell clearly "oh yeah that a bulllllshit"as most of the people with common sense thinks.no!the first thing flew in your mind guys is"hey you can turn it off":rolleyes:....can't you guys simply ask to remove it since there are no credible reasons for such arcade option?

hey BIS give us an aimbot you know why?because is very difficult to shoot over miles away,make the game more friendly for newcomers.and give us the opportunity to switch off if we dont want to use it.

---------- Post added at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 AM ----------

omg...

such amount of factionalism is discouraging.you guys are the biggest reason why this game take years to evolv seriusly.till you have a good numbers of integralists able to minimize your defects and to maximize the merits you don't need to drastically improves your games.

Edited April 29, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[whisper 0]

Fun how the "realizm national guard" (the new breed that appeared since ArmA) totally refuse that some people out there may play the game even slightly differently that what they want it, refuse the open, free nature of the engine, and want to dictate others their view.

More options == spirit of OFP

The fact we can have Star Wars, Lego Warz mod, WWI, WWII mods, is to me faaaaar more important than sticking to 100% realism features. Sadly enough, above-mentioned mods are mostly found in OFP of old (game which was incidentally more popular than the current engine version we are playing).

ArmA2 vanilla, in terms of realism, is far above OFP vanilla. Yet I can't say it's as popular. Somehow, something doesn't compute in the "ArmA must be a full milsim realism game and nothing else" theory...

[*LK1* 10]

Fun how the "realizm national guard" (the new breed that appeared since ArmA) totally refuse that some people out there may play the game even slightly differently that what they want it, refuse the open, free nature of the engine, and want to dictate others their view.

More options == spirit of OFP

The fact we can have Star Wars, Lego Warz mod, WWI, WWII mods, is to me faaaaar more important than sticking to 100% realism features. Sadly enough, above-mentioned mods are mostly found in OFP of old (game which was incidentally more popular than the current engine version we are playing).

ArmA2 vanilla, in terms of realism, is far above OFP vanilla. Yet I can't say it's as popular. Somehow, something doesn't compute in the "ArmA must be a full milsim realism game and nothing else" theory...

oh yeah because asking for a SPACE BAR remove make me a sort of

"realism national guard" right?though was just a common sense request.since the SPACE BAR has not justifiable reasons to exist.

[jw custom 56]

Yeah keep asking for a space bar remove in here that will help!!!