Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

dayglow

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1367

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by dayglow

  3. Posted

    Free :o

    I got anally raped paying €8.99 for a dlc pack with that same "free" content. My arse is sore.

    Not happy BIS :mad: This Dlc is a blatent rip-off, its got no content. I want My money back

    Seriously, what is with all the bitching for what accounts for less than 10 bucks? What do you spend that much money on in a day? Lunch, if you're cheap? I'd hardly call that being anally raped. If it is that much money to you, maybe you shouldn't be pissing it away on video games in the first place.

    Some people need some perspective.

  5. Posted · Edited by DayGlow

    Argument:

    "The community has always been allowed to edit other peoples addons."

    Fact:

    It is currently tolerated to look at other peoples work, not edit it. But every now and then something pops up where it has not been just looking. Just because something has been tolerated or allowed in the past doesn't make it any more acceptable. Humanity has smoked pot for thousands of years, is it legal now? White people used to haul people from africa to work as slaves, was that ever morally right or legal now? (Sorry I couldn't think anything about Hitler this quickly.. :rolleyes: But at least your counter arguments now have something to cling to.) And clearly people even in this thread admit that they edit and distribute (please take special note of the word AND. According to logical operations my argument is valid only if BOTH booleans are true) other peoples addons without permission for their own events and clans.

    Argument:

    "BIS shouldn't spend time, money or effort to develop this kind of system."

    Fact:

    They don't have to since it already exists and is being used with the already released BAF DLC and will be used on other upcoming DLC's aswell. The only question is about allowing the community to use this locking too. Also you did notice that BIS bought 3 other studios just a few months ago? That really sounds like a company that is going through economic hardship.

    Argument:

    "If you lock the pbos someone will just make a pbo unlocker so why even bother."

    Fact:

    This is probably the case. But the difference to anything that has been done before is that the only reason to lock a pbo would be to protect the content from unauthorized use, ie. DRM. Binarisation is meant to be a system to enhance the performance of the addon ingame and while it did provide some sort of protection for models until the 2-click ripping tools came out, protection was not its main purpose and in that respect would not be a rock solid ground for a law suit for example. Releasing a pbo unlocker publicly would effectively be a tool to circumvent DRM and a valid ground for a law suit for any such person distributing such software.

    Argument:

    "The Arma 1 MLOD's don't show you how to do everything and thus we need to be able to poke around user made content."

    Fact:

    Well you already have hundreds if not thousands of addons to poke around and learn from them. Giving the option of locking future addons does not magically make all the released addons disappear. Although it does escape me how you would learn to make a Scud launcher addon by editing the RKSL Typhoon for example but I guess it could happen too.

    Argument:

    "Modding should only be a fun project."

    Fact:

    For some people doing stuff seriously is fun (I for one and its my right to do so if I so choose).

    Argument:

    "You only have rights to your work if you sell it." or "Anything that is released for free can be freely modified by anyone any way they want."

    Fact:

    Wait, what?!?

    Argument:

    "I release all my addons with all my sources freely available to everyone and locking the pbo's would kill the modding scene."

    Fact:

    Giving the community the option to lock their stuff doesn't force you to do so. You still can freely continue to release everything the way it was.

    Argument:

    "Locking PBO's wont allow me to 'tinker' anymore."

    Fact:

    It is the right of the addon maker to choose if he wants to allow even tinkering or not. He could easily just pack the models as one locked pbo and the configs and scripts as one unlocked pbo.

    And now I will end this post with a small story!

    Once upon a specific coordinate in the fourth dimension, person A. created a script for an awesome game called fArma. It was a very good yet simple script that was included in a mission he had made for that game. Person B. was also making a similar type of mission and played the mission that person A. had made and found that the script was almost perfect for his mission too. Almost. Person B. tinkered and edited the script to suit his mission better and never included any credits for the original author of the script. For any number of reasons person A. never played the mission made by person B. Then comes along person C. who is making yet another mission of the same type (of come on! how many times do we have to blow up those Tunguskas in different places!) and this person (C.) only played the mission made by person B. Person B. being a great fan of sharing information freely on the internet provided a license in his mission to allow anyone to use any of his scripts freely and modified even without credits. Well, person C. being an honorable person decides to still include credits for "Ãœberscript originally made by person B.". A friend of person A. plays the mission made by person C. and recognizes the script and looks in the credits, informs person A. about this, person A. gets mad, calls person B. a liar and a thief publicly on the forums, a flame war starts, everyone gets angry and get banned and no one lives happily ever after. THE END.

    This short story is © 2010 by Sekra. All characters, games and scripts appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, games or scripts, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

    Well then person A seriously needs to get the stick out of his ass and stop being a cry-baby whiner.

    I mean, seriously, is this what it's all about? Wow. Some people need to let go.

    Back in 2003 I created an AI suggestion thread where I said suppression should effect the AI. I've yet to receive credit for that idea as it works now in ArmA2. I demand attention for my brilliant idea

    http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=26337

  7. Posted

    I have to have a simple direct response(yes or no) from BIS administration not some response involving some kind of ability phrase--that is extremely irritating.

    May I suggest you need a business contract for what you are proposing and an interweb forum is not the place for such a thing.

  8. Posted

    BI's own SP mission points this out so well. Played through Trial By Fire again and the squad that I was with (you play as a Automatic Rifleman, not squad leader) got ripped apart by the APC that shows up in town. So many buildings and other cover for the AI, but they stay in the open, even after by the mission design they call out the approaching APC and ask for air support. You're lucky if any AI survives this encounter. I think I've only completed this mission a few times with no more than 1 or 2 AI surviving.

  9. Posted

    A combination of the desecration of a brand name with a large hardcore fanbase behind it, and disgusting business practices, will always cause large amounts of anger, especially if they have the audacity to make a sequel worse in almost every possible way (even in pre-alpha form), and then repeat the same "mistakes" with a completely different brand.

    For me I look at it that even if this happens to be the most "popular" thread about the game (or games), then at least people will hopefully be encouraged to not stand for stunts that Codemasters and other developers/publishers are perfectly content on perpetrating nowadays. It's the only way the game industry will start improving rather than deteriorating; by showing them we don't want to be charged $40 for these mass-produced, shiny, play-and-forget write-offs.

    You know what did after the CM and BI split? I bought Arma and enjoyed it. Who cares what CM does with their own property (OFP name). The fact that DR isn't a game for me has zero impact in my enjoyment of BI's games.

    Now with f1 2010, who cares if it's made by CM. I look at how it plays and campares to it's contemporaries. I don't see any glaring flaws outside of difficulties all racing sims share. People complain about their design decision about AI qualifying times, well as pointed out it's contemporaries have the same issues with consistent AI timing when accerating or skipping sessions.

    As for on track AI from what I've seen it's competent. It knows I'm there and doesn't crash into me for stupid reasons. It races well.

    Really what I have seen is a real lack in consistent objective criticism of the title. It is emotionally driven for the most part.

  10. Posted

    u0BBTXpeGQs

    FPDR

    It's on their known bug list being an issue with how the AI resets onto the track after they crash off.

    Still I find it interesting how people really look for AI holes in this title when they are present in every racing game, hell every game with an AI simply because it is still not possible to model human behavior in a convincing fashion on a computer.

    I especially love the comments from people saying that the AI is fake here and will go back to racing rFactor/GTR2/Race 07, or whatever, yet have no problem with the AI glitches in those games? If the same effort is made in those games you will be able to expose all sorts of AI problems. Hell those games have waypoint files for the tracks so the AI knows how to drive around them, does that mean their AI is fake?

    My point is simply that people are really trying to put down F1 2010 by showing how the AI is 'faked' when it is faked in every game ever made since that is what AI is. Have people shown glitches and issues with the AI? Absolutely. Do these things need to be fixed? Of course.

    As I said earlier, does the design decisions made by CM around their game effect my enjoyment of it? For me it doesn't. I've come from being an avid Simbin racing fan that has dealt with the frustration of their AI glitches and spent many hours tweaking .ini files and downloading mods to get around them. I accept that at this stage in computer gaming AI is still very artificial and will not approach a human level of interaction.

  11. Posted

    I have been here pretty much from the begining and have seen the rediciously stupid flamewars between OFP and Ghost Recon for example. Myself, I enjoyed both games.

    I never bought DR because of the limitations, but I don't blame CM for making a cross platform game with all their limitations. If I was a game dev, I'd make a game for as many markets as I could as well. I'm disapointed that DR wasn't better as I'd love to play another serious mil-sim. I'm hopeful that RR will defy all predictions and is fun to play, but whatever.

    My experience with CM has been the original OFP and some of their racing games. Dirt and Dirt 2 have been great fun. Personally i don't give a rats ass if CM uses the OFP name, it has zero effect on BI producing their great games.

    Personally I hope for more successful games because that means more good titles to play and competition to stimulate innovation. I think there is anti-CM vibe in this forum and it makes me chuckle, that is all.

  12. Posted

    Why does it sound fishy? They explain their reasoning, you can agree with it or not, but why would they lie about it? For me its reasonable as I have experienced the qualifying weirdness with accretion in Simbin games. I think that says something when a highly regarded driving sim developer has a game with these very issues because their AI does physical laps that get distorted by accerated time.

    But whatever, I'll enjoy the game for what it is, a driving game with a good balance between arcade and sim behavior, with rich visuals, challenging AI to race against and a interesting career mode that you can rise through the ranks if the teams as you improve.

    It may have some bugs, but nothing glaring or show stopping. Personally i think if people were as critical if BI as they are of CM this forum would be full of hate towards Arma and all of it's quirks. Thankfully it isn't, and I enjoy playing both games.

  14. Posted

    Myke;1760692']I agree that at the very end it is computer calculated times. But it is one thing if times are more or less randomly generated based on a database or if AI driver actually go out of pit' date=' follow the track (including making mistakes which is part of the AI routines), influenced by other AI or player drivers ontrack.

    Again, this has be done 14 years ago on consoles of that time so there is absolutely no logical reason why it couldn't be done on todays consoles, not even speaking of PC here.

    And about the thing of AI qualifying much faster than you....well, the cars are different, perform differently on each race track, handle differently with differing tires and so on. afaik F1 2010 has a career mode, so well, thats how a career usually starts, starting in back of the grid. Your skill should determine if you get a better contract offered or not.

    At the very end, everything comes down to program a proper AI. F1 2010 has none.[/quote']

    In the end I accept their explanation that they choose the feature of being able to warp to different parts of the track over having the AI running at realtime around the track. In the end it's a design compramise to the features they want. Some agree with it and others don't. Every game has them. In the end my approach at looking at is, 'does it adversly affect my gameplay experience?'. No it doesn't. I find qualifying a challange and as you mention depending on my constructor team and AI skill level setting I realistically qualify in the field. From there the AI is consistent from the qualifying to the race. As an added bonus you can skip or fastforward the qualifying session without adverse effects. To play a Simbin game if you do, it will really throw out any logical qualifying time of the AI.

    I would love to hear someone logically explain how this compramises the gameplay of the game other than that they don't like it.

  15. Posted

    That's like saying "I don't care if bullet physics aren't simulated properly because no game can make it just like in real life," or "I don't care if dedicated servers aren't included because no game has managed to eliminate lag entirely." I'd rather have something done close to how it is in real life, or to how it should be, rather than not have it at all.

    People like to rip on Codemasters because they are liars and cheats who do not appear to care about their customers. It cannot be denied that they have lied to quite a high degree with both Dragon Rising and F1 2010. Sure, many companies lie about their products, but it's rare to see one that does it to the degree CM have done in the span of two game releases.

    I've yet to see any outragious results from the AI quilifying. People are bitching about their method of determining times vs the actual times posted. How the AI arrives at it's times will always be part of a computer process that is faking real life. Be it behind the scenes or in real time. My point is that any racing game the program determines the AI speeds. You can ramp up the AI level in a Simbin game so they post times well beyond what is possible in real life and even the physics of driving. Do people complain that the AI is cheating then? Has Simbin lied to people because the AI can outperform even what a race car is physically possible to do?

    For me I have found that the AI posted times in qualifying is an accurate representation of the skill level of the AI in the actual race. In other race games there is a real problem with qualifying times being way faster than race times making it very hard to have a good game experience. Either you crank up the AI so the race is competitive, but you will start at the back of the field as they will qualify much faster than you can drive, or have realistic qualifying session, but in the race able to fly pass cars that should be vastly faster (GT vs NGT cars)

  16. Posted

    I think people like to rip on CM for any reason. I don't think F1 2010 is bad. It sits very nicely between arcade racer and a heavy sim. Right where they said it would be. I have no interest in playing a hyper realistic F1 sim as I would like to be able to complete a lap.

    They have nailed the experience of driving. Is it fl fidelity? No, but it doesn't have to be. Is it fun? Hell yes.

    As for the AI issue, if you read their explanation it does make sense. I can warp to any sector on the track during practice and qualifying. How would you work the AI around that? And how soon people forget the AI in other games. Simbin games, GTR, GTR2, Race 07, etc all have their problems. Their qualifying AI is faked as soon as you accerate time or skip a session. Also there is thir famous inbalance between qual and race times. I could qual in the top 1/3 of an NGT car, but in the race I could lap the GT's because they were so much slower. Then there is the race slowdown issue itself. The longer the race the slower the AI gets because the constant bang into each other damaging their cars to the point the ate significantly slower.

    Simbin games are still very good, but the point is that the people that are ragging on F1 aren't comparing it to what is realistically possible. I like the feature to jump to a section so I can practice that area that I am the slowest. I don't care if qualifying AI isn't simulated in real time because no game can do it properly anyways.

  17. Posted

    I run an Eyefinity setup as well and I leave the NVG scope as is. It is a realistic representation of the loss of peripheral vision when using the equipment. It is really hit home when playing on a triple screen setup as you really feel how narrow the FOV is with the night vision on.

  18. Posted

    I'm playing through a user-mission where I have to clear some villages. I have a HUMVEE, the one with the MK19 on top and a GPMG for the front passanger.

    I have a total of 5 men, so I have 3 in the HUMVEE on the weapons and me and a gunner on foot. We got ambushed and taking some fire around us. ( I have AI set to around 70 awareness and 25 accuracy) so I bail out of the vehicle with my gunner and put everyone in danger. Well the guys on the heavy weapons didn't open fire at all and eventually died after 20 seconds of taking fire. :mad:

    The enemy was in plane view and I dropped a few and the gunner was letting it rip with his SAW, but the MK19 adn GPMG were silent. Isn't that the whole reason of taking along a vehicle like that? To have a heavy weapon platform?

    So far I find the AI useless using them like this.

  19. Posted · Edited by DayGlow
    expanding thoughts.

    We read about it every day: "Gun fight lasting several hours, at least two dead". Arma version: "Gun fight lasting 20 minutes, at least three hundred dead". I'm sorry but it's just not my idea of "realism". I know mission design (me) will have to take some of the blame, as I have played better missions where some of this is reduced.

    So for me any means designed to prolong firefights is a good one. Reducing our ability to shoot quickly, accurately, and fast, would be one such mean.

    That has a lot more to do with fear for life and rushing shots vs actual weapon dynamics. People fire a lot of rounds down range to keep the enemies head down and keep their own head down because simply, they don't want to die. I don't like the idea of porking weapons with cone/fire and or recoil exaggeration to mimic another aspect of the battlefield. I remember Brother In Arms was the worst for this. Nothing sucks more than to get to a good firing position, line up a great shot and have it fly off somewhere because the designers wanted to force a style of gameplay.

    How do you put a fear for life into a player? No idea, it's one of those things that you can't translate into a game. It's up to the players to play within a certain style vs forcing it through game mechanics.

  21. Posted · Edited by DayGlow

    This has been the bain of the simulator community, from flight sims, to driving and now ArmA. More difficult does not equal realism. There are things that you cannot properly 'simulate' and having recoil such as this defeats the purpose. I didn't realize how bad it was until I was a SAW gunner and had a group of OPFOR at around 100m and I was crouching. I don't expect to have laser accurate shots, but from a crouch the recoil from the first round pushed the barrel a good 2-3 cm up on screen, which equaled about 30 feet over their heads at that distance.

    Now maybe if I was holding the LMG very loosely and relaxed and had no idea if I was firing it may push up that level, but in game I hope I'm a trained soldier and understand the mechanics of a proper shooting stance. I don't expect my rounds to hit the same spot at 100, but I should be able to put a sustained burst right into the group and at least suppress them. I tried pushing down on my mouse, but I ran out of desk after a fraction of a second trying to keep the weapon level. Really I would expect some climb, but much more muted and controlled. I would expect the barrel to jump around a little, so that at that distance rounds would be landing around the group, but right now burst fire from a SAW is useless.

    For the people arguing that actively fighting the recoil with the mouse is realistic may I suggest that you also ask for independent front and rear sight alignment, as that is the most important thing, and if difficult=realistic, then auto alignment is much worse than recoil compensation.

    ...edit

    Went back and it seems only the new SAW version for the British troops is porked. I played around on the US range with their SAW and it worked the way I thought it should

    My experience with the new recoil coincided with my downloading of the British troops and I played the first SP mission where you are the LMG gunner. That weapon is screwed up compared to the other ones. A single shot causes the barrel to climb like crazy.

  22. Posted

    It's a pita to open the map constantly. I often have my men grouped into 2-3 teams and leap-frog them and flank. It is much easier to do so from the 1st person.

    But there is nothing more annoying than to point to the corner of a house 20m way and have the move order come across as 'move to that machinegunner 200m'

  23. Posted

    I want to order my men to move, but when the large cursor has some object near it, it will order my men to move to that object which is frustrating. IE I want them to move 25m forward, but an object such as a fuel truck or an enemy soldier is near the large circle cursor, so when I click to have them move they instead move that other object which is 100's of meters away.

    Is there any way to have a more precise move order?

×