dslyecxi

can you specify whar theoretically can e made in Arma1 and what not ? I remember thermal vision was discussed - it was said there's no way (( A lot of my answers are going to involve ACE, and this is primarily because of how close I am to the project. There are other mods that can do various aspects of the VTK's featureset, but I'll cite ACE primarily. Breaching This could be done. We've had missions in the past where breaching is modeled to an acceptable gameplay level. Destructible Environment We know this will be in ArmA2. It can technically be done in ArmA1, it just requires an obscene amount of effort that isn't worth it. Updated fatigue/morale/suppression models Aspects of this can be done. For instance, ACE has an extremely robust stamina system that probably is more in-depth than the VBS2 version (though I will have to wait to check out the final VTK release to be sure). Suppression is a very likely aspect of the ArmA2 AI, and it may have even been confirmed already. Morale - need more details to know what to say here. In ACE, for example, morale can be modeled further by having units surrender based on various realistic influences. Handling of Wounded & Enemy ACE has "battlefield clearance" (dragging wounded), and it's just as good as the VBS2 version. ACE has POWs/surrendering enemies, as mentioned in the previous point. Realistic Inventory ACE has a weight-based inventory, but also takes it a step further and introduces volume. The weight has an impact on the stamina system. ACE has rucksacks as well that can hold extra gear, and the interface for it is very slick and easy to use. I know that there are some eventHandlers and scripting commands that make the VBS2 system a bit more technically advanced, but the ACE system is 90% the same end result. Thermal Imaging It's not possible to get a perfect solution here, but based on the VTK screens you can find, the VBS2 version of thermal imaging is far from perfect itself. ACE has a kinda-sorta thermal effect in it, but, as said, it's not anywhere close to perfect. It's the best that can be done for now. Armored Gunnery Enhancements We all know the answer to this. NWD's Tank FCS is a more robust simulation of gunnery than anything in VBS2. VBS2 has the commander override system, but that's all it has over NWD's mod. Non-Lethal Weapon Simulation This can be modded to a large extent in ArmA. A common example from public play would be the 'stun guns' in certain missions. NBC Simulation This could be modded/scripted in ArmA. It would not necessarily have all of the features of the VBS2 version, but for the purposes of gameplay, a similar system could be created if desired. Incident Response Simulation/IED An IED system can easily be made in ArmA via scripting and modding. I'm not sure how easy it would be to replicate the bomb dog functionality, but I would imagine that if someone really wanted to do it, they could figure it out. The hardest part would probably be the animations. Ok, those are the ones from their PR that stand out to me as possible in ArmA1. I won't even go into the subject of things that ArmA mods (particularly ACE) can do, that VBS2 doesn't currently support. Two perfect examples from ACE are crew-served weapons (which we have a full, working implementation of, better than the WGL version) and the robust medical and wounding systems of ACE. You can't currently find either in VBS2. Again, though - VBS2 is awesome for what it's meant for. I enjoy working on it, and the products we use it in (ie: convoy simulators, shooting simulators, aircraft simulators [AVRS]) are amazingly cool. However, I am not going to blow smoke and pretend that VBS2 is somehow the 'ultimate combat sim' worthy of a civilian to spend $1500 on it. I don't believe that's the case. If the price ever changes, my tune may change, but so long as it's $1500, it's not worth it for a civilian user. Take ArmA, add on some good mods, and you have a similar (better in some ways, worse in others) product for a tiny fraction of the cost.

Thanks for the suggestion, but that's not how ACE will be. You should be able to pick out many, many reasons as to why that is once the first beta is available to the masses.

It will be like WGL for OFP, except dramatically better.

It depends on how you define such things. The 'realism' of ACE is very high - I won't compare it to SLX, but I will say that it is a fantastic evolution from WGL in OFP and that the depth it adds to the experience is incredible. As to utilization of your own addons, the intent is to make ACE so compelling on its own that you'll forget about the other stuff.

There are a number of features cited in that PR that come from ArmAII. Additionally, there are many, many features cited in it that can be done in ArmA1 via scripting and mod development. Some things, like the RTE, AAR, etc, are out of the reach of the ArmA1 community and unlikely to show up in ArmA2 (from what we've heard). Still, at the end of the day, even with all of these improvements, I cannot see how anyone who isn't military could justify spending $1500 for VBS2. $1500 for VBS2, or $30 for ArmA + tons of community content. Also, bear in mind that there are doubtlessly many features of ArmA2 that have not been made public yet, and the whole "grass is always greener" thing definitely comes into play with regards to ArmA vs VBS2. My job involves VBS2. I use it daily, and while there are many things I like about it (particularly in the way we use it), and it works very well for what we do, there are many good reasons for why I turn to ArmA when I actually want to have a good gaming experience with actual human beings.

I'm sure it will be out before ArmA2. Any other guesses aside from that are speculation at this point and non-productive. Further down the road, ACE will be ported to ArmA2 after consideration has been made regarding what needs to be changed to accommodate any ArmA2 changes.

Make sure you have this in your server config:

An uparmored CROWS HMMWV could be pretty cool.

It's not irrelevant - the point is that this "dynamic destruction" currently (again, AFAIK) only takes place on a small map with special buildings. It may be on more buildings in the future, and they may do the same thing in ArmA2, but the point was that you cannot say that "VBS2 has " without clarifying to what extent they actually have said feature. I have yet to see a screenshot or example of the "ground deformation" improvements. Anything said about the system's influence on gameplay right now is pure, unfounded speculation. It has nothing to do with that, and much more to do with a reality check as to what VBS2 actually has, versus what you think it has or assume it's capable of.

Here you go: Dynamic destruction in VBS 2 picture 1 Dynamic destruction in VBS 2 picture 2 Deformable terrain is also included, aswell as thermal imaging. You misunderstood me. My job is VBS2-related, I use it every day. The current released version of VBS2 is 1.18, with 1.19 as a work-in-progress. 1.19 is supposed to have such functionality on some buildings, but, again, as I said, I haven't seen it yet. I seriously doubt it will be as impressive as some seem to think. Those screens don't change my mind any, either - the terrain that they're showing is a tiny little map that's maybe 500m on a side, consisting of buildings tailor-made for that map. Seeing a building being destroyed in such a fashion in it doesn't really mean much to me. In any case, VBS2-style destruction will likely be the same or even inferior to ArmA2-style destruction. I suppose time will have to show that to be true or not. I seriously doubt it will be any different from ArmA2 in the "dynamic" nature of it.

Possibly, in a more limited fashion. It won't be the same as the GMJ_SightAdjustment method. It's not a high-priority development item, either, so don't expect this in an initial beta. Yes.

Please explain to me which of the following is "not entirely true": 1. Doing full dynamic destruction is very difficult 2. It is even more difficult for a small independent dev team to accomplish #1 3. Having full dynamic destruction work over MP with ArmA-level playercounts is almost completely out of the question with modern bandwidth requirements

This topic is full of a wide range of suggestions that span the entire spectrum from "reasonable" to "hilariously inappropriate". While your two suggestions (first: reasonable, but unlikely - second: unreasonable, extremely unlikely) may not have happened, a quick look at the first ten or so posts reveals quite a few things that were infact changed in 1.11 as compared to 1.09. Whether they were changed because of the posts in this specific topic, though? That's a different question...

Make sure you delete the contents of your current ArmA\beta\ folder first, you probably have an old version of the 1.07 beta in there.

I enjoyed PR prior to .7, but the type of gameplay I got in it was very, very different from what I get in ArmA. PR was what I went and played when I wanted something less intense and less demanding/hardcore than ArmA - I think that pretty much says it all. It's nice, but it doesn't give anywhere near the same experience as ArmA, at least compared to what I typically experience in ArmA. After .7, though, I've given up on PR. I disagree with quite a few things that they did design-wise in that release, and unless they address various issues, I can't see myself going back to it. PR was doing great right up until that release.

Right, that's understandable. However, we're not dealing with average vehicles - we're talking about up-armored HMMWVs, which weigh a great deal. There are IED videos of explosives going off directly beside such HMMWVs without causing them to slide across the road. Those explosions undoubtedly put more force onto the vehicle than the recoil from a single Mk19 round being fired. I think someone may have heard a bit of an over-exaggerated claim from a mil guy. It's not uncommon.

Interesting, I don't see that post as "forcing an opinion" any more than any other post by anyone else ever written in these forums. That's cool, I believe I have that right as well. I'm sorry if this offends you for some reason, but I have opinions as well, and I'm entitled to post them. Same as you or anyone else. I guess you could just skip my posts if you have an issue with reading my opinion. Don't worry, it won't hurt my feelings any. You can find plenty of footage of Mk-19s being fired in Iraq, Afghanistan, on qualification ranges, etc. They simply do not behave the way that you see in ArmA. There is nowhere near enough recoil to move something as heavy as a HMMWV. They can be put on tripods - they're crew-served weapons, after all. If they had enough recoil to move a HMMWV across a lane of road, they wouldn't be controllable on a tripod.

Server admins: If you are not running BattlEye, make sure you have this line in your server config file. If you have had trouble with people connecting to your server, try that. I can't say that it will resolve the issue (it may very well not), but it did resolve an issue we had with the public patch.

Those three little things you mentioned somehow make the patch a joke? You have an interesting perspective on things. The ShackTac server has not ever been and never will be open to public play. It's a private server for good reason, and it will stay that way. Members-only. This isn't ArmA2, this is an ArmA1 beta patch process. They've already said they're working on a Linux server. It'll be out when it's ready, same as everything else. Your post isn't going to change that or suddenly make them magically pull out a finished, bug-free Linux server for 1.11.

Great to see this released for public testing now. I think people will find a lot of cool things in this version. The VON in particular has come a loooong way since 1.09's beta and has provided us an enormous amount of gameplay enhancement when utilized properly. Thanks go out to BIS for continuing to support ArmA the way they have. It's very much appreciated. What we have now is worlds better than the initial release, in gameplay, stability, and performance.

I'm well aware of that limitation. However, the end result is 80% the same. Point being, even if it's not official, it will still be an option from the mod community.

Unless they completely overhaul their animation system, this isn't going to happen. I wouldn't get my hopes up about a fluid posture system.

Let me say it like this. If BIS doesn't put this into ArmA2 by default, we (the ACE team) will have it available for ArmA2 in no time flat. ACE in ArmA1 already supports this kind of rucksack system, integrated into the gear menu. This includes being interfaced with the ACE stamina system - each piece of gear has a set weight, and the more you carry, the quicker you will tire out. Volume (ie: ruck capacity, and the volume of items) is also in the process of being simulated. The system works great already, it's a big step above what the WGL rucksacks were like. It would be cool if ArmA2 had this kind of functionality by default, but even if it doesn't, we'll have you guys covered.

It's a track from the new Nine Inch Nails "Ghosts" instrumental album.

If you can explain how GeoMod comes into play here, please, feel free. I've played Red Faction and if you think that the simplistic method they use for destruction somehow qualifies as a "fully realistic and super authentic awesome-o dynamic destruction system", we have fundamental differences of views. I haven't seen it in VBS2 yet. Saying that "it seems to work" is a bit misleading when there is no release of VBS2 currently available that supports such a feature. It should show up in the future, but who's to say that it's going to be all that great? Who's to say that it won't have all sorts of issues that, while acceptable for a military sim, are unacceptable from a gamer's perspective? This whole argument is completely academic at this point, in any case...