Get plane weapons right.

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

Stuff that doesn't work is a whole other issue. We're talking about stuff that doesn't look quite right.

And I thought we're talking about not working missile config settings ;)

As for the optics ... ok I can live with that what we've got ... modders can fix such things. But like Myke mentioned there're some things that are really strange inside the config files. Maybe those issues were dumped over the years because nobody took a closer look to it. But nevertheless, issues are issues. We can discuss our whole butt about it. Last words including fixing priority (if it'll be ever done) is up to them, not to us.

[whisper 0]

Btw, I overlooked the topic, but again, maxSpeed has no effect on actual missile speed, it is only meaningfull for AI, even though, yes, I mixed with maxLeadSpeed.

How did you measure actual missile speed?

[maddogx 13]

AA Missiles that fly with Mach 6....doesn't look quite right or serious issue?

And I thought we're talking about not working missile config settings ;)

Please check my post from one page back:

I get the whole complaint about missiles being too fast / flying backwards / not being properly configurable. Well spotted, that stuff needs to be addressed.

Guys, don't try and twist my words around. I already acknowledged that the bad missilie configs are a problem that needs fixing. Right now I'm talking about cosmetic issues - something else entirely.

[LJF 0]

The thing is, making the correct missile takes just as much effort as modeling the wrong one, so .... why not make the right one? I thoroughly agree with the OP.

[maddogx 13]

why not make the right one?

Good question. There could have been any number of reasons, most likely a simple oversight. But like I said earlier, it can't be changed now so... *shrug*

(EDIT: Well, of course the error can be corrected, but there's no way to change the fact that the mistakes were made in the first place.)

[[frl]myke 14]

Good question. There could have been any number of reasons, most likely a simple oversight. But like I said earlier, it can't be changed now so... *shrug*

(EDIT: Well, of course the error can be corrected, but there's no way to change the fact that the mistakes were made in the first place.)

Even when they realized (if ever) that the modelled missile doesn't match the displayName...hmm....openOffice has search & replace function...notepad++ has it too.....but sure, changing a L to a X in the stringtable would have delayed the final release for weeks......even months. :D

[maddogx 13]

Myke;1683373']Even when they realized (if ever) ...

Emphasis mine.

My guess would be that they simply didn't notice it. Most likely somebody knew he had to make, for example, a Maverick missile, googled for reference images and happened to find one with blue markings. A few hours later, weyhey, Maverick is finished and that's that.

Shit happens.

[The.Yield 10]

Wow, I had no idea that missile speed was so grossly inaccurate compared to real life. Mach 6!?

As a warefare player, this is a very big deal and needs to be fixed ASAP.

[WhoCares 0]

.... Most likely somebody knew he had to make, for example, a Maverick missile, googled for reference images and happened to find one with blue markings. A few hours later, weyhey, Maverick is finished and that's that.....

Nothing's wrong with the Maverick model - it's just that the config guy used the wrong parameters :p

With the next patch they will give it just pure kinetic effects - hey, I guess configs are much easier to fix than textures :D

[ziiip 1]

"the Sidewinder model is a AIM-9X (even marked as such) but in the HUD it is named as AIM-9L."

Grab the pitchforks, people!!

You take the love of authenticity to a whole new level.

[Montanaro 0]

"the Sidewinder model is a AIM-9X (even marked as such) but in the HUD it is named as AIM-9L."

Grab the pitchforks, people!!

You take the love of authenticity to a whole new level.

I think he was pointing out the laziness more than anything.

[[frl]myke 14]

"the Sidewinder model is a AIM-9X (even marked as such) but in the HUD it is named as AIM-9L."

Grab the pitchforks, people!!

You take the love of authenticity to a whole new level.

Better grab the insecticide. :D

Folks, sometimes i really don't undestand you. On one said, people can complain about a screw on a rifle not placed properly (naw, it should be 3mm more to the barrel and turned for 2.46345 degrees counterclosckwise, that would be correct) on the other side, completely wrong model? Pff, who cares.

Well then, time to release a perfect M4 which looks like a AK47. Hell, it spits bullets, it kills people, so who cares how it looks like.

Maybe you don't care about missiles and aerial weapons at all. But then...erm, allow me to ask...what are you doin in this thread?

[HyperU2 11]

I think most people don't care because they don't consider it a flight sim. From what I've seen online it's because they can't fly for shit.

[maddogx 13]

Myke;1683530']On one said' date=' people can complain about a screw on a rifle not placed properly[/quote']

Of course, people whine about all kinds of things. But you may have noticed that the people who complain about stuff like that normally aren't taken very seriously? ;)

[Kristian 47]

I understand Myke, such a simple thing to fix, why not fix it? :j:

I mean, if there was M16a2 named M16a1 in the game, the forum would be a warzone allready

[[frl]myke 14]

Of course, people whine about all kinds of things. But you may have noticed that the people who complain about stuff like that normally aren't taken very seriously? ;)

Aye, but let me tell you that i'm not only complaining, i try activelly to improve it as far as i can:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=99023

Replaces AIM-9X/L with AIM-9M

Replaces AGM-65 traininground with AGM-65 with live warhead. :D

Beside some other finetunings.

A little hint for the flyboys out there: don't try to engage ground targets with missiles further than ~3400m, missiles will fall short. :p

At least the AGM-114 and the Ch-29 do. AGM-65 i can't tell right now but i guess they'll fall short aswell.

Impressive for weapons that can reach >20km, isn't it?

And just to confuse you: missile range is not the same as lock distance ingame. :rolleyes:

[TangoRomeo 10]

I´m positive some mod will rectify some, or all issues you metioned.

[whisper 0]

Ever considered that despite its amazing scale for a FPS, A2 is definitely not suited for true to life air operation? The area depicted would just large enough for a post take-off regroup. We're not in the league of realistic engagement ranges at all. Imagine what it would mean : take off, and you're already in the engagement enveloppe of you're weapons. Are you seriously talking about realism and asking for 20 km engagement range? Check Takistan map again. This would lead

to unrealistic situations far more destructive than adapting numbers tothe game. So yes, this engagement range may well be done on purpose, to fit with the world. An using real numbers means far more than just changing 3 config numbers. It would mean building a map far far far larger than the current one. I hope you have a clue of what it means in terms of workload.

If you really want realistic number crunching, play another game.

It doesn't mean you should not report glitches, but please sometimes accept compromises. Being sarcastic about air weaponry ranges is really mossing the ppint of the game.

[[frl]myke 14]

Ever considered that despite its amazing scale for a FPS, A2 is definitely not suited for true to life air operation? The area depicted would just large enough for a post take-off regroup. We're not in the league of realistic engagement ranges at all. Imagine what it would mean : take off, and you're already in the engagement enveloppe of you're weapons. Are you seriously talking about realism and asking for 20 km engagement range? Check Takistan map again. This would lead

to unrealistic situations far more destructive than adapting numbers tothe game. So yes, this engagement range may well be done on purpose, to fit with the world. An using real numbers means far more than just changing 3 config numbers. It would mean building a map far far far larger than the current one. I hope you have a clue of what it means in terms of workload.

If you really want realistic number crunching, play another game.

It doesn't mean you should not report glitches, but please sometimes accept compromises. Being sarcastic about air weaponry ranges is really mossing the ppint of the game.

So, you say having a AA missile that travels with Mach 6 on those small maps is better for gameplay as the realistic Mach 2.5?

And your post shows me clearly you didn't understand half of what you readed...if you've readed. Having larger travelling distances doesn't mean you can lock on targets further, it just means that if you have a lock, probability that it will also hit is bigger. So gameplaywise it wouldn't change anything, just the fact that you know a locked weapon can reach it's target.

So don't confuse "travelling distance" with "engagement distance". I am speaking about the first.

[frederf 0]

The thing is, making the correct missile takes just as much effort as modeling the wrong one, so .... why not make the right one? I thoroughly agree with the OP.

I make this distinction all the time. And it's a very important one. If BIS models 10 different cars and they all share part X or texture Y for less workload then that's fine. Even if it's not 100% correct it was done in the interest of efficiency and expediency. But to quite go out of your way and expend 100%+ of the effort of doing it right into doing it wrong that's something that deserves to be ridiculed.

The AIM-9L/X I think is an example of the former. I think that the AIM-9X is converted from an earlier missile type (ArmA 1) when it wasn't the X and they didn't go through the work to remodel/texture it. Despite the naysayer's comments, the visual difference is actually pretty noticeable.

The Maverick having training markings clearly falls into the latter category of just plain wasting time doing it wrong. They got the AT4 bands right, they have a military adviser on staff, it's not beyond our expectations.

[royaltyinexile 175]

In regard to the fixing of 'cosmetic' problems, I can understand some degree of frustration, bourne from the game's label as a 'simulator'.

Indeed, BIS seeks to raise the bar itself and pushes the expectations of its community higher; yet, sometimes this will result in having a higher bar to from which to hang yourself when things aren't 100%.

I think a quote from the FAQ is important to bring forward here:

[...] This often comes up in threads where a user expects an EA (huge studio) like team of 150 programmers trapped in cubicles to tackle some issue they are having [...]

[...] At the moment, the total "head count" is around 70 people, working on 3-4 different projects and games simultaneously. The core Arma 2 programming team is composed of 5 programmers; overall, around 20-50 developers were working on Operation Arrowhead.

As many poster's above have explained very well, the game's ambition is epic on many levels; errors are a natural product of trying to push the simulation as far as possible, as are oversights.

It's not necessarily an excuse in itself - this is a professional company bringing a serious product to market, and any mistakes should ofcourse be minimised. However, working with a small development team also means that choices need to be made regarding the allocation of time and prioritisation of tasks.

On that note, the tools and extensibillity of the game itself allows the community to model its very own creations, and make them as realisitc as they like, laregly motivated by passion for the game and the subject.

While I fear this has turned into a large post, and am wary of it becoming a rant, I feel for anyone interested, Ian Bogost tackles the subjects of 'Simulation Fever' with a great degree of clarity and insight.

The collection of essays is 'Unit Operations: An Approach to Videogame criticism', and if you will forgive me, i will post an extract from a great review which looks at this particularly (http://www.gameology.org/node/1066)

In working out this idea, Bogost develops an insightful analysis of simulation that results in identifying a core problem surrounding all discourse related to simulations. This he calls simulation fever.

Modeled in part after Derrida's archive fever, simulation fever reinvigorates the role of the subjective participant in producing the experience of the simulation:

Quote:

If the experience of a game takes place in the player's mental model of its unit-operational rules, then game criticism would do well to give voice to these mental models and the ideology they communicate. (106)

To this end, Bogost arrives at the following definition of simulation; "A simulation is the gap between the rule-based representation of a source system and a user's subjectivity" (107). [...] In other words, simulation fever creates a gap in Huizinga's Magic Circle through which the unit operations of ideology and bias move between the game world and the real world

It's a great (if academic) look at the fundamental concepts and - if you like - philosophy of gaming, and comes highly recommended.

[TRexian 0]

Hey, I gotta give props to any good Huizinga reference! Well done, RiE! :D

Overall, though, I tend to agree with Myke, in that some of these things either deserve to be fixed, or at least better documented to allow the community (or just Myke) to fix it. :)

[whisper 0]

Myke;1683649']So' date=' you say having a AA missile that travels with Mach 6 on those small maps is better for gameplay as the realistic Mach 2.5?

And your post shows me clearly you didn't understand half of what you readed...if you've readed. Having larger travelling distances doesn't mean you can lock on targets further, it just means that if you have a lock, probability that it will also hit is bigger. So gameplaywise it wouldn't change anything, just the fact that you know a locked weapon can reach it's target.

So don't confuse "travelling distance" with "engagement distance". I am speaking about the first.[/quote']

Talking about reading, care to point me where I ever talked about the missile speed issue? Never in my post, I was addressing your wish of seeing the game having exact real numbers regardless of the theater depicted.

In term of travel times, ballistics, etc, yes, keeping all numbers as real ones is impacting, thank you for trying to dumb me down.

The only comment I made earlier about missile speed was asking you how you made your measurement.

[[frl]myke 14]

Talking about reading, care to point me where I ever talked about the missile speed issue? Never in my post, I was addressing your wish of seeing the game having exact real numbers regardless of the theater depicted.

In term of travel times, ballistics, etc, yes, keeping all numbers as real ones is impacting, thank you for trying to dumb me down.

The only comment I made earlier about missile speed was asking you how you made your measurement.

You've talked about that realistic values (in this case, travelling distance was the topic) would ruin gameplay. So i just showed an example where the actual unrealistic values actually can ruin gameplay.

About the travelling distance, due to the lack of documantation which missile can reach which distance ingame, i (and also others) will stick about info they have (or might find on the internet) about the real things. And when i see that a missile should travel about 12km, i don't expect it to fall short after 3.4km. I count this also as ruining gameplay as the weapon does not what it is expected to do and we have no info about that it is expected to fall short.

And still, that a missile can travel 12km does not mean that a plane can lock it from 12km, so this aspect would have near to none negative impact on gameplay. Planes remain as short-sighted as they are actually.

Measurements where made with this script: http://pastebin.com/z62M1YHj

It is ugly scripted, just throwed it quickly together to have some data displayed.

And again, i'm not talking about 100% accurate settings, but something better than AA missiles with Mach 6.

[Curry 10]

If you excuse this, you excuse lazyness. Not less and not more. Everyone is whining if a adjustement screw on a G36 is not modelled 100% accurate but here...wrong missile model? Who cares. Wrong markings? Nevermind, no one will notice.

You're right but a "wrong" word is worse, it doesn't have to be a screw... trust me, I know from experience! :D

Totally agree with you. This is minor stuff, still needs to be fixed, if they want get it right.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Curry