dreday
-
Content Count
360 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by dreday
-
-
If a kid shot 2 running people at 200 meters with a M249 from the inside of a hmmwv moving at 40 mph it was luck (or most likely total bs imo).OPFR = good.
Joint Operations = bad.
BF2 = bad.
I expect Arma to be a mature game with mature gameplay, my observations were made considering the effort and time it would take to implement the feature and if the feature would actually improve gameplay or not...
It probably was a little bit of luck mixed with a good bit of excellent marksmanship skills. Â Overall, Marines were very successful at engaging the targets from moving vehicles... much more so, in fact, than their static/entrenched opponents! Â Unfortunately this tactic has worked for the insurgents as well. Â I remember hearing an account describing how a whole US Infantry squad was mowed down by the RPK fire from the passing vehicle.
Look, firing from vehicles is real and I don’t see why you think that the inclusion of this feature would lead to “immature†play.  BF2 had a lot of faults, but I don’t think that this is one of them.
I also don't see why it is such a difficult feature to implement. Â The vehicles are already fairly bumpy in OFP to the point that firing fixed MGs is already very difficult (as others have stated). Â Firing individual weapons would work much the same way except that they would be even less stable.
Anyways, it is obvious that this feature is not going to be in ArmA; so maybe we should move this to the Game 2 discussion?
BTW, whoever has said that the firing ports on the BMP are for static defense has absolutely no clue about the AFV design and usage.
Peace,
DreDay
-
It is already very hard to get good shots with mounted mg´s while speeding on bad roads, believe me. A spray and pray approach does only cause civillian victims and that´s a thing you don´t really want to have when already half-trapped in an ambush.I guess hardly none of that special forces teams really tunred back to see who their civillian/opponent kill ratio was, don´t you think ?
Well, actually they did. Again, I don't want to give away all the events that are described in the book, but those Marines did kill a lot of civilians, and they did take it very close to their hearts. However the main reasons for those civilian deaths were poor Rules Of Engagement that were set by their commanders, not the Marine marksmanship (which was actually very good).
Now in terms of ArmA, we will have very few civilians; and even if we do have a crowd of civies, it would ultimately be your choice of weather to fire or not. I still stand by my statement that this is a much needed option that would only add to the game play, while making it even more realistic.
Peace,
DreDay
-
For sure you can fire from vehicles with infantry weapons, but the point is that you don´t fire with your gun from the back of a truck crowded with other soldiers if you don´t really have to.The "point" is that you do have to fire from trucks and Humvees a lot of the time...
I agree with you that it is hard to implement, and it is understandable that BIS does not have time for it now. However, it would be a very welcomed feature in the Game 2.
I have only tried out a demo for BF2, but from what I remember, they had a simple and workable solution for this...
Peace,
DreDay
-
Firing from vehicles is unrealistic, totally. The argument about the boat being under fire from the coast line is dumb because the US military probably would not send it's landing troops in without some cover, OFP(so prolly arma too) is about combined arms. Plus i doubt it's too easy to implement into the old OFP engine (cause arma is still the same old OFP).It's not needed to suggest it for Game 2 either, cause it's already known that you can walk around in vehicles in G2, from this it's not a big stretch to assume that you can probably fire your weapon while walking around.
It would be a nice feature only for untrained militias who don't know any better and like wasting ammo, would give them a chaotic, undisciplined feel, but i don't think that's worth the effort of coding the feature into the old engine ArmA uses.
Your statements are not collaborated by reality. There are dozens of accounts of well trained forces firing from inside their vehicles. One of the best ones by far is in this book (BTW, it is a must read for any one who is interested in the "trench-line truth" about modern combat):
It is a well documented account about the actions of a US Marine Recon battalion as a spearhead for US invasion of Iraq. I don't want to give too much away, but the Marines spend half their time in Iraq blitzing through sporadic resistance in towns and small villages while firing from inside their vehicles (with deadly results). One description involves a young Marine hitting two running Iraqis (unfortunately they turned out to be civilians) with his M249 from more than 200 meters away while bouncing down a rough road in a Humvee that is moving at 40 miles per hour.
Shooting from the moving vehicles is difficult, but certainly doable (especially when you consider the alternative); and the elite forces rely on it just as much as anyone else.
Peace,
DreDay
-
To be honest  if BIS have time to enable it in certain situations then go for it, you wont lose much realism by people firing at an enemy in a combat situation, since thats wat happens anyway; if BIS dont have time to spend on it im sure MODs will change it to their taste whenever, however.bootneckofficer
I agree with your other points, but this particular feature can not be modded; that’s why we have not seen it in any OFP mod. We are pretty much at BIS's mercy here, and it does not look like there is time for it...
Peace,
DreDay
-
Last time i drove a car around everon i thought about this... i think firing from stationary/parked vehicles (like a ural truck) could be ok. From a moving car... not really. From a flying helicopter... not really. Worth implementing? Not really...a) You wont hit anything.
b) Firing a rifle from a confined space where other ocupants might be present
.b.1) They would go deaf.
b.2) Brass injury.
b.3) goto a).
I have GTA SA
, i dont see what would be so great about having this feature.All of these are valid points, but none of them seem to matter too much when your vehicle is being riddled with bullets. Â I am pretty sure that bass injury would be the least of your concerns if your HMMWV was trying to escape the ambush spot and you had to lay down suppressive fire from your seat...
The point being... firing from moving vehicles is a valid technique that is utilized by well trained units (US Army and USMC) and poorly trained insurgents (Iraqi resistance) alike.
IMHO, the only reason that this feature is not in the game has to do with the developers not having the time and/or budget to implement it. Â Fair enough, but let's not pretend that it has anything to do with the concerns about realisms.
Peace,
DreDay
-
I still do not think that OFP was too realistic for people.. That is if you're saying it didn't sell well because people were put off by it. I think the game just was not advertised enough, especially in the US. Still yet, it sold over a million copies.--Ben
Exactly. From what I understand, OFP and OFP:R enjoyed great sales despite the limited advertisement campaign. OFP:E might have been less successful, but the market demographics for game consoles are quite different than those for PCs. In fact OFP:E might in fact have been too realistic for the console players.
That's my understanding, but I would love for Placebo to correct me if this is not accurate.
BTW, other than this I agree with Garcia's points. I think we are pretty much on the same page, just looking at it as half empty vs. half full.
Peace,
DreDay
-
SOBR[1st-I-R] @ Sep. 22 2006,06:09)]No comment on my "armour value" post ??
It is a good suggestion, but hardly an original one. This has already been discussed on a number on occasions. BIS has said that they have improved the damage modeling for tanks, but it is probably less elaborate than you (and I) would want it to be.
Peace,
DreDay
-
And if you 2 was enough for BIS, I'm sure they would make it as realistic as possible, but for most other, ultra realism still doesn't sell. If BIS wants to attract new players, and not just have to stick with all the old buggers, then they need a game that is balanced, not too arcadeish, but still not so realistic that it makes the game boring...Realism is a relative term. I don't think that adding more realism to the weapon handling our vehicle damage model could possibly hurt this game (and subsequently its sales). At the same time too much realism in mission design (where 90% of the time you would not see any action, like in the real life) would be unacceptable for most players.
I believe that most of the people on this board are smart enough to realize this when they make their suggestions for improvements. Even if not, BIS is sure as hell smart enough to realize this. That's why I think that it is silly when people (I don't mean you specifically, I know that you have made good suggestions in other threads) point out the obvious by saying that "You can have too much realism". Sure you can, but as of now there are still plenty of outstanding realistic additions to make that will only improve the game play.
As for realism not selling... I personally don't believe that. I think that realistic games sell just fine, provided that the game offers the players more than just realism (i.e. the graphics, sound, UI are all top notch). All else being equal, mature gamers want more realism not less. That is why most military games that come out these days tout themselves as being "authentic", "realistic", "designed by military experts", etc; even though in most cases they fall short of their promise. Obviously realism is a big selling point; otherwise they would not base their advertisements around those claims.
The real reason that you see so few realistic games right now is because the developers lack creativity and determination to do their research and make realism work (same reason why you see so few realistic war movies). However, on a rare occasion when the development team is willing to invest their time (original OFP development took more than 5 years) to make a realistic game that does not neglect graphics, UI and other game elements; such game enjoys great success with the consumers. OFP: CWC is a clear example of that.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Actually view distance in the game doesn't simulate fog, but it is technical limitation of game, maximum distance where game draws objects. In OFP, if view distance is set for 1200m, for example, you cannot see longer at all, even if you are looking through hubble telescope. That's realistic, huh?
I don't mean only scopes/binocular, but also vehicle optics. For example from Apache or Kiowa you can clearly see apple in the tree at much longer distance than you can recognise elephant with naked eye...
Tylerdurden,
Good points. You have explained your position well.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Too often game companies forget their main audience and pander to the kids who want more of an arcade game. The game is therefore quickly forgottten and the fans feel betrayed. Sod the other segment of the market and listen to those who really matter.Those are the golden words to go by, tear... In fact I think they should be tattooed to the forehead of every gaming company executive in a mandatory order!
Peace,
DreDay
-
i can still dream of battling zombies with a baseball bat... Â
don't worry DreDay i think Bis works on the a.i more than on adding  mele weapon attacking.. Â
LOL! Thanks for the reassurances Commando84; now I can sleep at night... unless of course BIS decides to implement commie zombies...
Peace,
DreDay
-
Quote[/b] ]BI have always maintained they are going to add/improve the AI, maybe they still will...?Indeed, and that AI would be one of the last sections to go in.
I still have faith (or is it hope?) that BIS will pull off a miracle and implement an appreciably improved AI in ArmA. Â However, as Project Manager with many years of software development experience, I have to point out that it is a terrible decision to wait till the last moment to implement such an important game play component. Â Then again if anyone can pull it off, it's BIS...
Peace,
DreDay
-
Talking about AI. Yesterday Ive played GRAW OGR coop for several hours. And damn, AI is impressive there...they get behind cover, and don't run around like crazy. Meh, I guess it's too late to demand AI makeover. Â
Some of us were actually demanding an AI makeover from day one, while others were insisting that the developers spend their precious time on including the knife fighting (hint.. hint..) Â
Peace,
DreDay
-
scope looks improved yes, but does someone actually use scopes in CQB if the ranges are less than 50m
Absolutely yes! Unless you are playing (cheating) with the enabled crosshairs.
Peace,
DreDay
-
yeah i think they should defefinatly put in some way to change the soldier model you are playing as or change clothes or something like that. Would be kick ass!
im thinking cold war spy mission, switching mustashces and clothes and stuff between the objectives and stuff. Could make for some intresting game play.its a soldier sim, not the sims
+1
-
The speed isn't too much of a worry to me, if you watch something like the Javelin vid that's been around a while, that seems to billow out in a pretty similar way... maybe a little quicker.The real things that bug me about the explosions are the really obvious patterns in the smoke and debris trails and the fact that there's no huge fireball in the initial blast (again, compare it to the vid).
Jaffo,
Please keep in mind that the T-72 that was used as a target in this video was packed with C4 explosives in order to emphasize the on-target effects of the Javelin. This is not how the real tanks behave upon penetration.
If you don't believe me, just search the google for discussions of this "test".
Peace,
DreDay
-
All the green camo. Looks like the Marines turning up for the last bits of fighting in Northern Sahrani.Those are BDUs, not MARPATs; I am guessing they are still Army (although, I am sure there are still some USMC units that use BDUs). It's just that ACUs tend to stand out too much against the green/forested backgourd (in game and in the real life), so it makes sence to use BDUs instead.
Peace,
DreDay
-
just checked on Wiki, aparently there are two types of IR, Near and Far, Far being Thermal Imaging, Near being an extension of visible light.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision
GBee:yeah, sry, hehe
24Gamer, I saw your original post as well... No problem here! Like I have said, I myself am far from an expert on this...
Now shouldn't we get back to discussing how all of this could be implemented in ArmA?
Peace,
DreDay
-
I see no such discussion in that thread, and I don't see where those guys disagree with me and agree with you.You might want to reread the part that explains that  thermal imaging should not be confused with the passive IR image intensifiers even though it is passive and is using IR.  Alothough to be fair, I have seen other sources refer to thermal as passive IR. Like I've said before, it is just a matter semantics... Â
Peace,
DreDay
-
Plantiff1 and Frederf,
Thanks for the detailed explanations. Â Obviously my knowledge of physics is quite lacking in this area.
What I can tell you for a fact though, is that there are certain classifications of night vision devices that are used in the military literature. Â Within those classifications there is a distinction between passive IR/passive night vision systems (which are used for vehicles, not just NVGs) and thermal imaging.
I guess those classifications are scientifically inaccurate. Â I gladly accept your corrections on that. Â
BTW, here is a good discussion on the differences between scientific and military calssifications of passive IR:
Now in terms of ArmA, ideally there would 3 different modes of night vision: active IR, passive image intensification(can we agree on that term?) , and thermal. Â In reality, we would probably have the same night vision as in OFP.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Night vision amplifies visible light.Passive IR (thermal imaging) detects radiated heat (infrared light) normally invisible to the naked eye.
Active IR illuminates the surroundings with an infrared torch and uses a camera sensitive to IR.  The same as the “night vision†modes on modern mobile phones.
I hate to argue about semantics, but here is how I see it:
Night Vision is just a general term used to describe a wide spectrum of devices that can enhance visibility at night
Active IR - you got it right
Passive IR (aka image intensifiers) amplify both visible and IR light
Thermal Imaging (FLIR) picks up the heat. However some do refer to thermal imaging as passive IR. I'll give you that.
Peace,
DreDay
-
..
.
 also, to nitpick at DreDeck, the NV goggles in OFP aren't IR as far as i know because if they were any source of heat would show up as brighter than the cooler surroundings; they simply simulate the magnification of light.
I don't mind being nitpicked (unless it's physical), but I am DreDay not Deck, although in this thread I might change my name to DreNight...
Also, the kind of light amplification that you are talking about is precisely what's known as passive IR. And yes, that is clearly what OFP night goggles represent.
I agree with your other points.
Peace,
DreDay
-
i thought passive IR was like those cameras you see on"World scariest police chases" hehe
(where cars and people appear white (IR Heat) etc)
i thought OFP had just plain old Night Vision (i.e. light displayed as green which is a better visible spectrum)
btw i think it would be sweet to have IR heatlights and as someguy said it doesnt make it a disadvantage cuz passive IR would pick up the heat off the BMP ANYWAY!
I am not an expert on night vision devices. But from what I understand, passive IR amplifies the moon light in order to illuminate up the night. The color spectrum may vary from one device to another, but green is the most common. It is used in more expensive cameras, while active IR is used in consumer cameras.
The devices that pick-up heat (like those that you see on Police helicopters) are thermal imagers (aka FLIR). Older Soviet vehicles were not equipped with them.
Peace,
DreDay
What do you *HOPE* will be in ArmA?
in ARMA - GENERAL
Posted
WOW... I can't even tell if you are talking about the game or real life. Either way it sound like the most ignorant thing that I have ever heard on this forum. Please tell me that you are joking!
Peace,
DreDay