dslyecxi

It's not that it's "not good", it's more that they took footage from oooooold trailers, rehashed it (and not in the greatest of ways), and missed the massive potential present to make a really slick new trailer utilizing all the new features that have been implemented since back then. There was nothing new in that. The content from those original trailers was good, in context, at the time they were released. It's not acceptable now, though. It does make me wonder... edit: You know, that's not enough. They're not even trying. Somewhere along the line, somebody dropped the ball. There are people around who could have created a better trailer on request - I mean, someone had to make those original trailers, right? They could have asked them, or done a competition with the community, or someone from BIS could have been tasked with it, or Atari could have tried to make one themselves... ANYTHING. That shows ZERO effort and ZERO desire to promote the strengths of the game. It's insulting to the community that the publisher would care so little that they'd actually try to get away with piecing together a crap trailer like that. It's like fighting an uphill battle now. The community creates good PR in the form of videos, screens, etc, and they get a bit of exposure. Then, the biggest potential source of exposure there is - Atari - completely blows it out of their ass. What a load of crap. I would be steamed if I were BIS. Hell, I'm steamed as it is. edit2: Here are the two videos all of those clips are from. October of 2006, "US Forces" November of 2006, "Montage"

It's amusing that no matter what BIS does, someone always has to bitch about it. They release a beta patch that has lots of cool features, and inevitably you have someone make snide comments about it. Wonderful.

You might want to look into the guys over at Tactical Gamer, they're a good bunch that go for enjoyable, serious gameplay in a variety of games - ArmA included. I recommend them - the only server I play BF2's Project Reality mod on is theirs, and I hope to see their ArmA servers become even more popular in the future so that we can do joint ops with them.

Just because your preferred style of PvP is "too fast" does not mean that all PvP is too fast for this to have a noticeable effect.

I'm not going to get into the whole "adjustable sights" thing aside from simply stating that it is a needed feature and would be great to have. I do want to address this quote, though: Wargames League for OFP had this, and ACE for ArmA will as well. I'm sure CoC will do something along the same lines. Whether you sit there and dial the T&E stuff yourself is beside the point - the fact of the matter, and the main issue, is that you will be able to fire realistic mortars in both. It may be via a GUI, but you'll have it. Besides, real mortar fire involves a lot more than just "dialing the T&E", and I'm positive nobody will go and model in such (unnecessary) detail. Keep it simple while retaining a depth of functionality and you have the best of both worlds.

Well, you're wrong. It's a bug, and it should be reported as such. The fact that certain commands produce no sound is CLEARLY a bug, the fact that certain numbers are not said is also CLEARLY a bug. You can fight reality and tell me they aren't, or you can post it as a bug and potentially see something done about it. Also, if you can't figure out how to use Mantis for bug reporting... that's surprising. It is not a difficult system to use by any means.

What's the point of posting this here? You would do better to put it in the bug tracker. There's nothing to give feedback on here, it's a bug - post it accordingly.

Crytek has 151 employees. BIS has, what, 20-40? Even if they had the Crysis engine, they could never produce the art assets for it with a small fraction of the manpower. Enjoy ArmA for what it is, and look forward to Game2 for what it will be. By the same token, enjoy Crysis for what it is. Getting your hopes up or expecting BIS to suddenly go with Crytek and abandon everything they've done with the Real Virtuality engines is completely unrealistic wishful thinking.

Crytek has 151 employees. BIS has, what, 20-40? Even if they had the Crysis engine, they could never produce the art assets for it with a small fraction of the manpower. Enjoy ArmA for what it is, and look forward to Game2 for what it will be. By the same token, enjoy Crysis for what it is. Getting your hopes up or expecting BIS to suddenly go with Crytek and abandon everything they've done with the Real Virtuality engines is completely unrealistic wishful thinking.

in a config.cpp Don't get too excited by that, it probably refers to the PVIs - Peripheral Vision Indicators.

Please do not put such a cloudy blue tint to the EOTech HWS glass. The real thing does not look like that at all. The size of the reticule is also quite a bit too large in your version. Examples:

You're making a massive assumption as to what the ArmA animation system consists of and is capable of, as well as insulting BIS in the same sentence. Good job, buddy.

I disagree. I hate that it's a limitation of the animation system that we cannot have proper moving reloads. I know that personally I can move at a decent speed and do a competent reload of an M4/M16-style weapon. Hell, it was one of the things we trained - walking back and forth out in a field, doing reloads while moving at a tactical walk until our arms were about to fall off. It's completely possible. However, with that being said, I think this is one of those areas where if it was possible to fix it, they already would have. That's about all that needs to be said, really. It's a technical limitation, there is apparently no practical way to fix it, and it looks like it's going to be something we just have to live with in ArmA. While it would be great if we had a reload system similar to that found in Infiltration (with dry and tactical reloads, animations specific to each weapon, ability to move while reloading with appropriate stamina penalties, etc), it does not appear to be in the cards for ArmA. Ah well.

There is a very, very large tactics guide for ArmA coming out before the US release of the game. Expect to see it in the latter half of April - I'm guessing you'll find it helpful.

I may be nitpicky but this clearly isn't the same : A) Complete previous objective to unlock next mission B) Create a point ladder to unlock new weapons. It may just be a way of formulating the PR statement, but option A is the definition of any structured mission/campain while option B sounds like an attempt to reach BF2's fanbase (which is not meant as a bad comment, on the contrary actually, but a marketing analysis). Do you get the difference ? Oh, I see. You think it's going to work like BF2 as some sort of MP unlocking ladder? I find that hard to believe, but I guess you'd have to ask the devs for the official word. Haha. Man. If you think that changed anything about my views on OFP or ArmA, you're mistaken. Perhaps if you knew more and assumed less you'd be able to form a more substantiated viewpoint here? In any case, it's beside the point.

If you want to discuss personal matters, take it to PMs. You seem to be working under some false assumptions at the moment, but I'm not inclined to discuss it all in this topic, considering what it's supposed to be about. Your view, not shared by me. So the fact that I'm not fond of watching people take something cool (a new vehicle, and new functionality in the form of the Library) and turn the thread into a complaint department suddenly means that I've "turned 180 degrees and become so biased I won't let anyone make a criticism"? There are plenty of complaints that can be leveled towards ArmA, but I do not think that this is the place to air them out. It comes across as pretty jaded in my eyes. Thanks I guess, but I don't see the relevance here. Clav, do you not see the difference between these two quotes? The first one is neutral, the second one is hostile. Had you posed the first, the response would have been different. My point, which you are ignoring, is that the two are not mutually exclusive. I don't understand how this was surprising to you. ArmA has mission unlocks to begin with, after all. The second half of the SP missions must be unlocked by beating the first half.

Thanks for the heads-up, but that was cleared awhile back.

Please tell me you're aware of the fact that new vehicles/weapons/etc can be created completely independent of bugfixes and stuff, right? You don't seem to understand the separation between programmers and artists. If by "lure BF2 and Arcade fans" you mean "make it easier to try out weapons/vehicles/addons without having to deal with the mission editor", perhaps. I don't see the problem with this. Sounds like a good way to quickly showcase the game's equipment to new players.

These screens are from E3 2005 (May). Then BIS first time (and last)told us about GAME2. So, (soon)it will be 2 years after first press release. Check the date: GAME2 press release By the way, I let for small offtopic: Did somebody see the dslyecxi's desktop? Mysterious dslyecxi's desktop Full resolution Hmm... Uh, how is that mysterious? My job involves VBS2.

I don't know, let's ask the screenshot! Seriously, could you try to be a little less jaded? BIS has clearly been improving the game with each patch. I see no reason to think that the A-10s won't take out ground targets just fine. It's sad to see that the reaction from some people is trivial nitpicking or jaded cynicism, that must be a gloomy perspective to live. Better to be one of the people who sees something like this and thinks "Hey, that'll be fun to use!".

Three out of four have their flaps out. How do you account for the fourth with this "theory"? Maybe they don't want to ram into their flight leader?

Enhance... enhance... enhance... Doesn't look like a WIP cockpit to me.

You're completely wrong. The rig I run ArmA on is perfectly capable of running it at 1600x1200 with good details. It looks great. There are plenty of other people who can run it just fine. DX10 means little right now. I've run ArmA on Vista with zero, repeat, ZERO problems. Dual or quad core support would be nice, but it's not a huge deal, and there's always the possibility of getting it in a patch in the future. 4GB of RAM shouldn't be a requirement for any games right now, I don't know why you even brought that up. Uh, no? Some sounds could be improved, but saying they should all be exchanged is so unrealistic and impractical that it's just a pie-in-the-sky "Golly gee, wouldn't it be swell?" naive thing to say. I don't think so. 50%? You're using a quite a bit of hyperbole to attempt to get your "point" across. You know, I got to this point and wondered why I was bothering with a reply to you. If you honestly believe that a physics card solution is even remotely practical, you have a complete lack of realistic perspective on computer gaming. I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here aside from that you seem to want unrealistic gameplay in a game that is supposed to tout itself as a realistic experience. Not really. DX10 means little right now, same with Vista. You're far over-exaggerating things again. I would imagine it has something to do with being able to use them in a year or so when hardware has reached that level. Since the life cycle of ArmA is unquestionably longer than a year, it seems like a pretty logical thing to do. OFP was the same way. I can't believe you're complaining about forward-thinking, scalable visuals. The fixed view distance stuff is fantastic. You should be happy to see it, and not just come in here and try to use it to springboard your way into a complaint post about the game.

Here's a video of what it looks like flying a Harrier around with a 6km view distance. http://ofp.umbr.net/videos/mar13_6km_vd.wmv

If that's the case, I guess 8800 users will have to wait and see. Hopefully it's addressed in the next patch, assuming that the community has made BIS aware of it.