Balschoiw

It´s what kept OFP and Arma alive. A community dedicated to a realistic gaming approach and I guess most people are here for that very reason. If it´s not your game, it´s not your game. Is this an open call for software privacy ? Smart move. Noone knows how Arma 2 will be, afaik BIS tries to take it to a high level wich is much appreciated by a lot of people here. Bad-mouthing from single users will have little to no effect for people who are confident that BIS will do their best to deliver a game that they can be proud of. Using THEIR forum to throw dirt into their direction is a no-go. Prepare to be surprised. If they all share your personal spirit and attitude, I´d say it´s not a big loss.

No, I´m no moderator but it should be plain obvious that suggestions go into the extra-section for that. You want to bully because you made a mistake ? Nice logic there.

I´d say use the It might be a clever start to look in the Arma suggestions section.  Edit: Dual thread aswell ? Come on.

Better go for unrealistic lilliput perspective where every shot is posed to go straight into your stomch-respectively forehead with the perspective presented on that pic ? It looks unnatural and stupid imo.

dotarget should do the trick

No, it´s waste of time if you are too narrow-minded to get it. It´s just to clarify for anyone else that reads your nonsense that there´s more than picking a sound from youtube (with the accompaniing copyright infringements) and whoopididoo have a new soundmod. If you don´t get that sounds need good quality AND consistance with the other sounds embedded you´re debating outside your knowledge compartement. Period. Most of them use weapon sounds from other games, not YouTube videos. The Devs have already made clear that there will be new sounds for Arma 2 and I don´t think BIS will take YouTube sounds for Arma 2. It´s a bit more complex than that. Problem with most soundmods is that they sound wrong in different areas. While a gunsound may sound supadupa in urban surrounding it may sound totally off in woods or open areas. That´s where most of the user-made addons fail. As I already mentioned those sounds are partly taken from other games which is illegal for a software developer like BIS and therefore out of question, not even mentioning that the different sounds in mods most of the times do not fit together very good. There are exceptions to the rule, e.g. Goeth´s soundwork, but he will be certainly able to tell you how much work it is to get something like that going in a serious way. I guess you should come down from your high horse and for once accept that you are basically following the wrong path by principle if you seriously think that YouTube is a soundsource for a professional game designer.

What´s the point of bringing your personal wishes for ingame footage into different threads ? I´, sure there will be ingame videos, and I´m sure they will answer some of your demands. It´s BIS part to decide if, when, why and what. Leave it this way.

Youtube recordings are mostly no reference at all for real weapon sounds. The equipment needed to record sounds properly is not integrated in video-cams, therefore such videos do not reflect the real sound. Even live-recorded weapons on ranges have to be edited after recording as the typical sound of the range does not reflect reallife sound in open or confined spaces. There are companies that sell soundsets, but for professional use they are quite expensive and sometimes the sounds do not fit to each other, so in the end the result sounds odd. Read about weapon sound recording here. Forget YouTube.

I guess I´ve made my point quite clear. There´s no reason for me to debate if there is no sense in it. Again:

Myth busted ?

There are scripts that detect the maximum of groups and only spawn new ones if other groups are deleted/killed. It´s a matter of mission-editing to have them spawned reasonable. If they pop up in players sight it´s bad editing. I made some MP missions for OFP where I spawned objects and units on the fly to lessen server load when working with too many units at a time. It´s useless to have units running around on the other side of the map if the player will see them after 1 hour into the mission. That´s why the dynamic creation and removal does increase overall performance. In a FDF MP mission that´s pretty bigscale I even deleted a complete custom village to raise performance while the players do not notice that at all as they are already far away. Basically it´s about mission-editor skill and feeling to implement reasonable spawning/deleting. The limit makes sense, very much sense. If there wasn´t a limit people would complain that they are not able to place 10.000 units on the map without crashing the game and the editing forum and bugreports would skyrocket once again. Sometimes there have to be limits to keep people from doing stupid stuff

It´s representing the number of children that one created during the time of playing OFP and Arma. Or was it the hectolitres of beer consumed by the respective user while playing the games ?

I think the 144 group-limit is already at the upper limit and imo there is hardly a map or mission that would need more than 144 groups. If it does, spawn some. There are scripts for that  Exceeding the group limit may cause some trouble therefore I think it´s reasonable to implement a limit that is already placing 2304 grouped units on a map. I guess computers will have a really hard time chewing this number of AI´s. Oh...and I guess the second option in the vote makes little sense as it will kill performance. That´s why the limit is there in the first place

Shagadelic !

That´s why I ended up grouping civillians to enemies of blue with a probability of presence 0. Apart from that the civillians seem to have a different FSM as they tended to run away from the fighting. This had to be overcome by several commands that hindered them from fleing and kept them focussed on the enemy, while the result still was not totally satisfying as the civillian faction are no good fighters with the different FSM (as I suspect).

The only problem ,apart from variety, I see is that the Arma death animations sometimes kicked in way too delayed, so that I had already put some extra ammo into that unit before I realized that he just has to finish some other things before he wants to go to pixel-heaven.

Wich is a shame imo. I liked that in OFP. When driving some tanks I sometimes only used the interior view to drive as it gave me a better feeling of the surrounding and hindered me from driving over friendly troops that were close to the tank. I´m not a big fan of the holodeck feeling in tanks without interiors. Just remember sitting in the Shilka and opening up that big fronthatch or watching the commanders feet in an MBT that were turning around when he was scanning. I miss such details.

Hmm the setfriend command would not really help if certain sides are bound to one category, so it would be VERY nice if the factions get single sides in editor. If not we´ll have to group units with probability-of -presence=0 enemy units again Not my favourite way of defining enemies and friends.

If there is a working train in Arma 2 consisting of linked vehicles wouldn´t this also mean that there could be a chance of towable objects like field artilllery, trailers, etc ?

Too bad I don´t have my Babelfish in my ear  English translation: English translation by Google Edit: Too late.

3D Editor would be nice, object placement and movement via drag-drop, including height would be very nice. Additionally an auto-tool embedded in editor that would allow Addons import with description.ext output would be nice and save us a lot of work when writing a description.ext for a mission. Another nice feature would be an imbuilt html editor with predefined segments for briefing as references for mapmarkers,etc. Another nice feature would be media - support for briefings, like embedding ogg´s for spoken briefings, video support for prerecorded target info or such. Customizeable windows, placeable by drag-drop to embedd video-window into briefings would be great. Same goes for a texture channel in the main engine to create media windows during the mission that would show reconnaissance footage from UAV, videolinks and sattelite data. Those are basically my wishes.

On Morphicon Publisher´s page it says May 2009 but release dates are often a flexible thing I wouldn´t place my bets on.

Two words: Stupid poll.

The sheer amount of smileys accompaniing the post makes it hard to decide or judge what you try to express. I guess it´s: "Hehe yeahh, so BIS should wait until the OFP DR Demo is out and until we gave our comments about what we want to have from it for Arma2" <- mystical smiley only to be interpreted by native Atlantis-citizens. Tbh I like the Codie approach. They come up with solid info now. Their community manager(s) keep posting solid facts about the game´s features even if that means limiting expectations. Way to go.

Errr...smoke doesn´t go through roof as far as I can see. Seems like particles now have a collision system, quite the opposite of what you say. Heh ? The sec-cam footage is b/w. Unless you got a crystalball added to your monitor, you´ll not really know what global and object shaders are in place and working. I know where I´m coming from...I spent the whole day to create shaders for a current project. It´s a mystery for me how you can see it in a washy sec-cam footage in greyscale. The ones you think about ? I guess BIS have their very own agenda, a professional one. I´m not pointing fingers at anyone now, but before you start fingerpointing it´s better to get your facts straight. Shaders are not meant to make something look ubershiny. It´s the textures and texture stages and channels that make the look. Global shaders like blur, reflection maps, etc are included in  the global channel of an engine that is rendering to the viewport while custom object shaders are object-specific to define specific materials, highlights and material depth. While it may be wanted that every object is rendered with a 3 or 4 texture-stages layout plus a unique shader it´s a really hard thing to get this to work in a game like Arma 2. For example a 128 KB jpeg tiled texture will end up with a size of 8 MB of gfx-card memory usage. That´s what I have learned when working with a 3D engine. Memory management is the crucial part with 3 engines today. Keeping this in mind the distance of the sec-cam to the cam-target indicates that the LOD-management is the deciding factor. Objects rendered in the distance will never have the full detail-set as objects rendered in close distance. This is only my basic knowledge from working with an up-to-date DX9 engine for commercial purpose. If I´m wrong I´ll accept it anyime.