dayglow

One of the areas of confusion in the game is your team calling out contacts that they shouldn't be able to see. I know that a lot of the time they are reporting what they hear with their superman ears. A lot of confusion would go away if the state, ' I think I hear a vehicle/tank to the west or in x town' I know map icons are displayed where they guess where something is. When the ai isn't sure about a location they should voice that different from a confirmed spotting. 'i think I saw a man to our left' or just 'movement left!' would help get rid of a lot of the accusations that the ai cheats when really it is guessing.

I'll have to check, but when I plug in my xbox controller it already has mapping for the PC, so the core gameplay should be fine. The issue of the editor would most likey not as it probably would be dropped or greatly simplified to wizards for the port. I never played OFP:Elite on the original xbox, but people say that was ported fine.

Most controllers have 14 buttons and 2 analog sticks. Also most buttons can detect how hard they are pressed so a soft press can be different from a hard on. There could be some intersting context sensitive schemes designed. The big hurdle would be control of your squad.

should commander and maybe drivers have access to the FLIR as well?

Don't think accuracy is that off. How far away is the rounds when they start to dispurse? Probably over a click through the air From the sidebar of one of the videos you posted doesn't seem to dispurse any more than ArmA does, as the distance across the valley is probably quite large.

and physics=math, which has zero to do with graphical rendering. All the ballistics can be caculated without being rendered. Falcon 4 did a wonderful job of this for it's campaign of the whole Korean theather. Thousands of aircraft and ground units all caculated behind the scenes, but at at battalion/squadron level, only to be aggrigated down to individual units when they entered the player's 'bubble'. Could wish the same applied here. Large battle on the other side of the island could be caculated at the platoon level without rendering as the player will never see it. I don't think anyone is arguing that render distance of units needs to improve. But most people don't agree that you need to push the viewdistance past the current 10km as it's impossible to obtain it now.

I've added it to the bug tracker. If it's a wireless controller, turn it on before you enter the game and it will remember your controls. As soon as you enter the game without it on, it will forget the controls.

Yes I think we need to define jump vs dive. It is realistic hit the deck, even over a short obstical vs jumping 5 feet in the air to clear it.

Set AI to safe and they will keep up.

I would, but I have no clue what you are trying to say

I think BI has already done a good job on this front without going over the top. I remember back in OFP I was playing a user mission and a AH-1 supported us and shot up a URAL. When I appoached it was quite eerie. Their faces were a bloddy mess and one was blow half way through the windscreen. That's enough for me.

Personally I think it's something we have to accept with devs were English is not their language.

As much as GRAW did many things wrong, it probably had the best HDR lighting effects that I have seen.

as long as it's part if a customizable option for the HUD I see no problem with options to make everyone happy

because it isn't feasable within a rendering engine. Why do you think it hasn't been done, either here or in any other flight/combat sim? Terrain mesh has always been a very hard balancing act from the development standpoint of any sim. May I suggest if you are looking for a better simulation of armoured combat that you look at Steel Beasts; for helicopter DCS: Black Shark; and for CAS aircraft you will probably have to wait for DCS: A10C Simply, consessions for time and money have to be made. I'm sure if BI had unlimited funds and no timeline they would create the ultimate battlefield simulator, but as we have it they have always consintrated on the infantry side with simpler representations of larger weapon systems. For myself and most others, they enjoy the angle that BI has taken and hope that they continue to increase the terrain fidelity. I agree the render distance for objects has to be increased, but that is aside your continued harping about the 'sub standard' view distance of the terrain itself. It can already be pushed to 10km now. I don't see a need to push it farther when no system today can have a playable framerate at 10km with any amount of detail in the terrain.

wait, you just posted that without complete simulation of vehicles that ArmA is 'just another shooter' and that other games would already have it beat then. Speculation of another game coming out, which I hope is really good mind you, has nothing to do with what you posted. Why shouldn't you say anything good? Because without mentioning what you like it seems you are whining that the game is crap because it doesn't have these outlandish features that you keep going on about.

because the game will change your stance unknowlingly when you access your map, etc.

Really, what other shooter has a good 3-5km draw distance and offers as good infantry-istic play? You can use combined forces, it's just the simulation of the vehicles is lower than of the infantry side. I'd love to know how this constitutes it as a simple shooter and others beat it out? Just because it isn't a battalion level sim with 20+km view and perfectly simmed vehicles does not make it a bad game.

I agree it's impossible to build a multi-simulator pefectly, but you are ignoring the fact that from OFP has been an infantry simulator first with vehicles added into the mix. Every compramise has been made in the vehiclure level. Personally I play ArmA2 for the infantry tactics, etc. If I want to fly an A-10 in depth, which I do, I'm waiting for Eagle Dynamics to release the A-10C module for DCS. Infantry combat is ArmA2's bread and butter and it needs a lot of work, starting with terrain realism. We should not go backwards to simple flat planes were infantry cannot hide so that you can rip around in an A-10 sim.

no point in having an increase in view distance when the terrain doesn't even come close to representing real life. I'd rather they concentrate on better terrain fidelity close up so that real world tactics such as suppression and flanking matter as the enemy can keep their head down instead of lying down on a flat plane.

it has to be a bug because in A1 I can remember seeing smoke from gunshots before hearing them.

As someone that likes to split his larger squad into smaller teams I really wish that I can assign formations to the smaller teams. It would really help to facilliate different tactics. Right now formation commands are global and the men maintain their overall fomation position relative to their teammates. So if red team is made up of say soldier 1,2, and 9, they stay in their positions as if they were part of the larger 9 man team, so there are large gaps in the formation.

In OFP it was very east to spot enemy combatants at 500+m because of the lack of detail in terrain, and static lighting and shadows meant they wouldn't blend in. A2 really improves on it and has a lot more static objects that provide cover and the terrain is a lot more varied. I agree it's a far cry from reality, but I'm saying this is the area that should be improved vs pushing the render distance past 10 km.

I find the follage (not the grass) that is rendered beyond the grass line much thicker, and the terrain is much more varied than OFP. It isn't perfect, but much better than the past. I can move my squads under cover to a contact point vs OFP where you were in a 300m firefight lying on a flat plane.

so you want this, but with a 15-20km view distance? There is so much more to realistically creating a battlefield beyond pure view distance. Proper visual representation goes beyond eye candy, but allows for proper tactics. I don't care if I can see 10+ km if I have to run 500m across a lifeless field that offers no cover or concealment. A2 is approaching offering a proper visually build battlefield that you can use the natural undulations of the terrain and foliage/clutter as cover/concealment to move. Really, the terrain needs probably 10x the detail we even have now to properly model it, and I think that is far more important than being able to see 5km away. Smart map construction would mean a lot of small valleys to fight and move in so that a smaller visual range cap isn't as much as problem. Also other graphical improvements such as lighting and shadows make camouflage a real option. To go back to OFP rendering for longer view distances is a major step backwards.