gsleighter

Binoculars and Artillery. Lots and lots of artillery. I also like the helicopters, some good stealthy flying and an AT12 or Hellfire can be a game winner.

It's not supposed to simulate your eye blurring, it's supposed to simulate panic. You guys unhappy about this should at least try Insurgency, it does add a lot to the immersion when you have a visual aid for suppression. You can say the player should just react how they want based on their own response, but nobody is going to actually panic when they're almost shot in a game. The visual feedback does help to create a sense of immediate danger and also create a great incentive to get away from wherever you are at that time.

I prefer maxed out skill of 1.0, and .4 for friendly precision, .33 for enemy. I use Truerange AI, so I get some pretty nice long range firefights going.

I'm hoping for physx support, really benefits from my 8800GTX!

I recognize two of them pretty easily, I'll give you the names so you can look them up. Black Sabbath - War Pigs Bleeding Through - Love lost in a hail of gunfire

Jeez, simulation's thrown around a lot here, but I think you're misrepresenting what it means in the context of a game like OFP, Arma, or even VBS. It doesn't mean completely representing complex systems with 100 percent fidelity, that's not even the point of VBS1. The simulation aspect of the software stems from the software's ability to represent a combined arms combat environment to aid in decision making and teamwork. If you want a helicopter or tank sim, you'll have to go buy one. A good example is just the helicopters in Arma. A regular player can pick up the controls and fly a sortie, and they may not even be shot down and bring it back to land. But a player interesting in simulating a military helicopter mission can fly it as such, using terrain masking, following proper procedure for pop-up attacks and moving in cover. The helicopter itself doesn't need a high fidelity simulation in order for the player to have that experience, just the environment as a whole needs to come together in that meaningful way. So, it really doesn't matter that the GRID engine is going to give OFP2 "great physics," or Codemasters is going to (try to, there's not any actual proof of any of this) model armor penetration or realistically model an RPG's impact. They may get some micro details right, but Arma works as a simulation because it comes together as a bigger picture. Also, that 30 minute interview (Which I watched all of when it came out) didn't really provide any new information, and the developers pretty much dodged all the best questions from the Q&A session. And which part of those two in-game videos were supposed to convince us of anything? The part with the AI moving in formation in some smoke, the disembodied quake-style arms holding the weapon, or the (hahahaha) ACOG sight?

Works for Arma, might actually work better for Arma2. Less demanding shaders, especially on vegetation, and dual-core support. I have an older dual core that Arma chokes when it gets busy enough, but it should run Arma2 better if it supports multiple cores. And, the 8800GTX is still a half decent video card, until the GTX260 goes down in price some more.

Works for Arma, might actually work better for Arma2. Less demanding shaders, especially on vegetation, and dual-core support. I have an older dual core that Arma chokes when it gets busy enough, but it should run Arma2 better if it supports multiple cores. And, the 8800GTX is still a half decent video card, until the GTX260 goes down in price some more.

That size includes all the surrounding ocean. The actual landmass is much smaller. Also, the marker size was determined by measuring the Schmalfelden map by Nicholas Bell, which is 5120m by 5120m, or 5.12 km per side. The large grey marker is made up of 9 5000m markers, so the total area is 225km2, the reported size of Chernarus. So while the total map area is smaller than the 400km2 map of Sahrani, so much of that 400km2 is useless ocean and high relief terrain that we'll be getting a MUCH larger playable and useful area in Arma2.

It's quite a bit smaller, by my ruler. The markers I made for that picture were slightly smaller than Schmalfelden, which was 512 cells at 10 meters a cell, or a little over 5 km. So, the entire grey box was 15 km by 15 km, so it looks about 13 km from tip to tip. And, I've got to agree with second, but the center mountains of South Sahrani are unusable, as well as everything north of Everon, east of Obregan, and south of Masbete. Northeast of Eponia's pretty worthless, also the peaks north of Tlaloc and Hunapu. That doesn't leave a lot of actually useful misison area, especially compared to the more tame topography of Chernarus.

I used a marker to measure Schmalfelden, which is 5km per side. I copied this marker into Sahrani, and made 8 more copies to represent the Chernarus map, and here's the comparison. The grey marker over the island is 225km2, or about the size of the Chernarus map. Even if the south and east edges are coastal, the map looks like it wastes little space with water in the promo materials on Arma2.com. So we're getting MUCH more playable space this time around, if the pictures of Chernarus are any indicator.

14 planes and 13 helicopters??? I can't wait, that sounds like my favorite parts of Arma are going to be well fleshed out! I can't wait to see an actual list of available equipment.

225km2 is only 15 by 15km, or three Schmalfeldens wide. So, it's the size of nine Schmalfeldens stuck together. Which is fine, if it's all usable. Sahrani has very little usable terrain, especially the north half.

I'll be getting a new processor after Christmas too, I'm going for a Q6600, it's quad core, with a 1ghz FSB, a good compromise on cost and performance. It's only about $180 USD. I wouldn't skimp on the GT series video card, either. I'd either go all out GTX or get the GTX260. It's much better than the 9800GT, and only a little more expensive. Also, RAM's cheap, why not get 4 gb? After Vista's little Windows ME repeat, I'll bet the next iteration of Windows is going to be much more well recieved.

Maybe just the 35 percent of Sahrani that's actually usable. The rest is rubbish jello mold mountains that are no good for anything in Arma. I'm really excited to have an entire map in Arma2 that's going to be usable, even if the total size is a bit smaller than Sahrani.

Thought you were talking about terrain maps. I'd like Nogova and Schmalfelden to be in Arma2, for sure. As for missions, any of the coops on the tacticalgamer server would be fine. There's been a lack of good single player missions for Arma, I hope that changes with the sequel.

Ha, if Arma was any indicator, I'll be buying the German version online as soon as it's available for download, and then the US Boxed edition when that's released, and again when the inevitable gold edition with expansion pack is released. You're welcome, BIS.

You can't be for real, right? Go buy a new PC gamer, in the hardware section you'll find a component list for an entry level pc, might run you 600 bucks, and you can melt down the one you've got now.

Some cases might work better, I think. My dual core Celeron D may be a smoother ride thanks to Arma2 being multi-threaded.

Some cases might work better, I think. My dual core Celeron D may be a smoother ride thanks to Arma2 being multi-threaded.

I think I might have the best answer to the question: Since 2001 when the first OFP unofficial PBO addons were released, I have not seen ANY reports of PBOs harboring malware. And I've been downloading these addons since Ebud's first US Army rangers retex of the resistance soldiers with boonie hats.

I think I might have the best answer to the question: Since 2001 when the first OFP unofficial PBO addons were released, I have not seen ANY reports of PBOs harboring malware. And I've been downloading these addons since Ebud's first US Army rangers retex of the resistance soldiers with boonie hats.

I remember that game, that game was frustrating! That was back in the day when you had 100 health, and that game had precious little health packs and all the enemies were marksmen.

Ahh, so you're a strict constitutionalist. I would argue that the founding fathers had the wisdom to craft a flexible document for a government that could adapt to the changing needs of a country. There's no way Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson could have foreseen manifest destiny, railroad travel, automobiles, air travel, the internet, or a nation of over 300,000,000 citizens. The federal government needs to have some authority, or else we'd still have areas of the south that would probably still be racially segregated. States also have power at the Federal level through elected representation, in the Senate and House.

I think those systems would be outside the scope of the game. A couple long range SAM batteries could cover the entire map, and there's no real way for a plane to realistically detect or engage enemy radars when your view distance is likely going to be any where from 1000 to 3000 meters for the typical gamer. It'd be nice to have a sim with Lock-On style air combat interoperating with ground forces at an Arma2 level of detail, but computing technology for the mainstream isn't there yet.