dslyecxi

Two more things I was thinking of. One, the screen we've seen of the mission briefing (the part at ~40 seconds into the video) isn't necessarily anything more than a graphic made for the mission briefing itself. Meaning, you can't zoom/pan on it, and those arrows/shadings/icons aren't necessarily things that we can place through the mission editor. Once the player "loads" the mission, at ~1:45 into the clip, you see a more traditional map screen, and it's missing those arrows/shadings/icons. Now, granted, that could all change in the remaining months of development. I would expect it to, but for now, I hope everyone doesn't mistakenly get their hopes up for something that may not be what it appears to be. The second thing I wanted to point out was that, at 2:27 into the video, when the player goes to the AH-1, a bit of text pops up on the screen that says "Get in AH-1W as pilot". This is similar to the thing I mentioned previously, where text showed up at the feet of a dead soldier when passing close to it. Apparently this is a glimpse at how the "use" menu will be working this time around. More context sensitivity/ease of use, or so it would seem.

I edited my post after making it, once I realized what he was trying to say. Agreed.

There are levels of impact that features would have on realism. What you're citing here would have a very small impact, whereas adjustable sights have a much larger and more noticeable impact, in the form of much-improved sniping, the possibility to have proper implementations of certain weapons like AT-4's, M-203's, etc. Also, I don't know if you've ever seen expended brass on the ground, but it's EXTREMELY hard to notice in even short grass. After a string of fire on the pistol range in the Corps, we'd do a "police call" which is basically where everyone picked up all expended brass. In large quantities, it's noticeable, but once people got most of it up the last 10% was a true bitch to locate. This is with multiple people walking around specifically looking for it. Oh, and brass for military rounds isn't polished. It doesn't "shine" the way polished brass would, and thus implementing a feature like that would be fairly unrealistic. What? Adjusting sights doesn't adjust the ballistics of the round, it just changes where your point of aim is. The bullet follows the exact same ballistic path no matter what your sights are set at. It may end up being a bit "higher" or "lower" depending on what range you're aiming for (and having to aim the rifle "up" or "down" accordingly, depending on sight settings, but we're talking about minute differences here), but the actual path of the bullet, the ballistics of it once it leaves your weapon, are still the same. WWIIOL has adjustable rifle sights, and it works just fine. RO has adjustable weapon sights for the Panzerfaust, which works on the same principle as M-203's, Mk-19's, etc. This stuff is NOT impossible or even that difficult to implement. This is NOT one of the "limits on what can be acheived".

Crazy thought, I know, but maybe you guys should wait until the game's actually RELEASED before you start assuming that X and Y features are missing/broken?

Why jump to conclusions like that? It's entirely within reason and completely logical to assume that they're still working on transition animations. Some of you have so little faith in BIS, it's incredible...

I never noticed this before, but all of the soldiers are wearing holsters for the M9 pistols. They're empty, but I wonder if we'll actually see the pistols in the holsters if a person has one?

Why? Why do you think this? Let's imagine for a second that ArmA has wind affecting bullets (as in, throwing them off course in such a way that windage adjustments would be needed). This is what we call "realism". If wind affects bullets (which it should), it's only reasonable to have a way for a unit that relies on extremely precise shooting (such as a sniper) to compensate for such wind WITHOUT having to resort to "kentucky windage" or hold-over. OFP, ArmA, Game2... they're all going for realism, and for the "Total Soldier Experience" or whatever you want to call it. I play these games because, as ex-military, I have a desire for realism in my gaming. OFP gives it to me, but what it does is by no means the end-all, be-all of combat simulations. They need to improve, and I expect them to do so in ArmA (to an extent) and Game2 (in a serious way). If they don't, I and many others will be sorely disappointed. So... if someone picks up a weapon, they're going to have the sight settings the dead person had. This is a problem... why? I fail to see your point. Waste of RESOURCES? Are you kidding me? Do you realize how small of a thing an elevation/windage adjustment is to keep track of? We're talking about two things to keep track of... two seperate numbers. You think that's going to be a "waste of resources"? Haha, wow. Apparently I didn't understand what you were trying to say. You're right, CQB doesn't really require sight adjustments. Are we playing different games here or what? As a sniper in OFP, I can take shots from hundreds of yards. As it stands now, I have to do "kentucky windage" to get hits. In a perfect world, I'd have elevation adjustments so that I could zero my weapon to a given range instead of being forced to stick with whatever range the weapons are zeroed at by default in OFP. It'd be more than merely "useful", it'd make that weapon actually USEABLE in the game, the way it's supposed to be, and would open up the possibility for other weapons, aimed in similar fashions, to be implemented properly. Maybe it's just because I've fired an actual M-203, and ran a simulator (with "real" weapons, set up to fire lasers and use Co2 as recoil simulation) with things like M-203's, AT-4's, etc, that I care to see such things implemented. Your "waste of resources" excuse is one of the worst I've heard so far, sorry. There are hundreds of things in OFP that, by your logic, would be considered to be "wastes of resources". Strip all those "wastes of resources" out and you strip out most of the things that make me love OFP.

Hmn. Did anyone else notice this in the video? At 11:12, when the player's running past a corpse, there's a moment where you see some kind of dialog show up at the feet of the corpse. It's too blurry to read, but could this perhaps be a new way to pick up items from bodies, and otherwise interact with things?

There are ways to do this on the battlefield. Look at rising smoke (from burning vehicles, buildings, whateveR), look at the puffs of dirt from bullet impacts and see how they move. Even without a seperate way to gauge it, those two things are already implemented in OFP and thus ArmA and would work in a pinch. The USMC trains out to 500 yards, but at the 500 yard line you're prone, with a loop sling, and firing at a full-size human silhouette with 10 minutes to put 10 rounds on it. Not exactly battlefield conditions, but it does illustrate that it's possible for a well-trained shooter to make hits on a target through iron sights at such a range. Throw in optics and a bipod or somesuch and you can see even lesser shooters making the same kind of hits. I agree. It also opens up the possibility to properly model weapons like the AT-4, M-203, Mk-19, and doubtlessly many, many more. This is something that almost has to be implemented in Game2 if they're seriously going to improve over OFP/ArmA.

Already mentioned. Snipers need them for a more realistic implementation of sniping. Right now it's purely hold-over based, and that's not all that realistic. Also, it'd be useful for machinegunners, and the implementation could also be utilized for sights like the M-203 and Mk-19 where proper sighting is absolutely critical to accuracy and CANNOT be acheived in OFP with the way the sights currently work. No, not really. There are plenty of games that have this feature already - WWIIOL comes to mind. In it, it's just two keys. Range up, range down. If you add windage, that's really only necessary for snipers to use, and there are key combinations that could be implemented to make this as easy and painless as possible. No. Once you've zeroed the weapon for yourself, sights can need adjustment for multiple reasons: 1. You're going from CQB to long-range shooting. For an M-16A2, you might toggle the smaller reticule and put your sights to 8/3 (small gap) or 400, 500, 600 yards depending on what range you expect to be shooting at. This might also be useful if you're defending an area and your area of responsibility happens to be a ridge 500 meters away, thus if you set your sights for 500 meters you can engage any enemies that appear on it with accuracy. 2. The wind has changed significantly. Windage adjustments would apply. For the purposes of OFP and combat, this is completely irrelevant. For the purposes of actual real-life shooting, this has little application aside from an initial BZO for your own weapon. No. You're missing the point if this is your argument against it. If by "better" you mean "it makes OFP a less realistic simulation", then I would agree with you. I don't understand the fixation some of you have with OFP's way being "The Way To Go" and refusing to acknowledge areas where the game needs dramatic improvement.

It shouldn't be pin-point precise, but it should be good enough to get hits in CQB and MOUT at ranges under 50 yards with multiple shots fired. I know you like OFP the way it is, but your suggestions are for things that will hinder the game's evolution towards a more comprehensive and realistic combat environment. Thus, you should stick with OFP if that EXACT style of gameplay is what you prefer. I want more realism, and the suggestions and comments I'm making are geared towards that effect. You're welcome to disagree. The behavior is what forces you to fire hasty, rough-aimed shots in certain situations; thus, it is by no means "irrelevant". Red Orchestra does that for the Panzerfaust, actually.

It's a sandbox wargame, nothing else like it in the gaming world.

Like you said, you're not an experienced shooter. We're not dealing with civilians running around with guns they've never used before in OFP and ArmA/Game2, we're dealing (generally speaking) with trained soldiers. I'm a former Marine, and yes, I can think of situations where I would shoot while on the move. CQB is one of them, MOUT is another. Anything closer than, say, 50 meters would be a viable time to fire while moving. There is no "risk (of) a weapon malfunction" just because you're moving while shooting, I don't know what gave you that idea. Putting a lot of fire onto something acts as suppression, and suppressing an enemy while moving towards him is a good way to put him out of the fight for good. Now, bear in mind that there are TONS of variables to take into account when deciding whether to fire on the move or find cover/return fire from a fairly static position. However, it SHOULD be possible to shoot on the move in ArmA/Game2. I love OFP, don't get me wrong. It's easily my favorite game of all time. However, to say that OFP CQB "works" is silly. OFP has one of the clumsiest, least realistic CQB models of any game I've ever played, it's one place where the series needs DRAMATIC improvement for future titles. OFP shines at outdoors stuff, and to a lesser extent, MOUT. When you get all the way down to CQB it falls on it's face. If you want to keep it the way it is, please, just continue to play OFP. Those of us that are striving to get the best possible combat simulation around don't want to keep this clumsy, awkward, unrealistic OFP CQB for the next-gen game. I would be highly disappointed in BIS if they don't do a massive reworking of CQB/MOUT for Game2... the way it is now won't suffice. It was ok back in 2001, but these days it's one of the weakest areas of OFP and desperately needs improvement. I guess I'd have to make a video of the differences between a good 3d sight implementation and the 2d type that OFP has to really pound in the point I'm trying to make. You don't seem to understand that I'm not concerned with the actual LOOK of the sight, but rather the BEHAVIOUR when moving around.

For CQB, or general MOUT, shooting from a "combat glide" is definitely a valid tactic. In OFP it's crippled by the wacky IS movement issues. 3d irons would go a long way to fix that problem, as long as they can un-weld your view from a perfect sight picture 100% of the time regardless of anything else. Meaning, if I'm moving at a walk in IS mode, my irons should shift and move a bit due to my movement, but my view should stay steady. I can get good hits on a person at close range with imperfect sight alignment. I've fired AR-15's on the move more than a few times, and it's easy to get good hits while moving forward at a good rate ("combat glide", like I said above). Hell, I have a video of me doing it - advancing forward, firing at a rapid rate, crouching, firing some more, getting back up and firing the whole way. The movement depicted in said video is not possible in OFP, yet it's the kind of thing you would definitely want to use in combat (situation dictating). Standing is generally the most fatiguing position. There are ways to make it less so - such as doing a "hasty sling", that's great help for support and is the way we were taught to shoot on the rifle range during the 200 yard standing portion of it. I'm having a hell of a time finding a picture of the AA 3d irons, but from what I recall they were done fairly well. Regardless of what you think of the rest of the game, the ironsights in CoD2 are fantastic. This is not to say they're perfect - the fact that the game was developed for the XBox at the same time seems to show through in the size of the weapon models - but the whole package (the irons, and how they react when you move, and how the recoil is, etc etc) is extremely well done.

I just don't understand how you can feel this way. Have you ever handled a rifle in reality? There's a massive difference between having a steady viewpoint while moving (with 3d irons, where your VIEW can be steady while the SIGHTS move independantly) and having a jittery, jumpy, funky fixed-to-the-PERFECTLY-ALIGNED-sights viewpoint ala OFP. It's just.. massive. CoD2's 3d irons are fantastic, and I'd love to have a similar system implemented into Game2 if not ArmA. Anyone who honestly doesn't want 3d irons probably has never used a real rifle before, and thus doesn't understand how real weapons handling works. Edit: One of the reasons OFP's CQB is so clumsy and awkward is because of how they modelled the 2d sights. The jittery/jumpy thing is completely not at all realistic in any sense of the word, and it needs to go away as soon as possible. I doubt it'll be gone for ArmA, but I expect it to be gone in Game2.

You don't find 3d sights to be realistic? What universe are you living in? One of the benefits of 3d irons is that you can make it so that the player moves, and his sight alignment/point of aim changes, WITHOUT having his view bob and shake like crazy like it does when you move in ironsight mode in Flashpoint. The method OFP currently uses is ridiculous, as it implies that the player has his head glued to his weapon's stock, with a perfect, unchanging sight alignment regardless of his movement. It's totally unrealistic, and 3d irons would go a long way towards fixing it. If 3d irons aren't in ArmA, they had better be in Game2 - if not, I (and I'm sure many others) will be sorely disappointed. Games that do 3d ironsights well, off the top of my head, are... Call of Duty 2, Red Orchestra... hell, even America's Army has a fairly decent implementation of them.

An M-16A2/A4 weighs around 8 pounds, fyi. Add a pound for a 30-round magazine and you've got a total of 9lbs, not 15.

Yes, I agree that MG'ers should be able to mess with elevation adjustments as easily as they would be able to in reality. I wasn't thinking of them when writing the earlier post, else I'd have mentioned them as well. You know, one thing I haven't seen mentioned is the proper modelling of M-203 sights and any sights that work on a similar principle. Meaning, you elevate the muzzle to line up the front sight post with whatever range you're trying to shoot for (which is indicated on the leaf sight for the 203, or if we want to get fancier, you could have the quadrant sight which is aimed in a different but similar fashion, without the use of the front sight post). I've yet to see a game which properly models M-203 sights, might as well start with ArmA or Game2. The same principle is employed for the Mk-19 aiming system, and I'm sure there are quite a few other weapon systems out there that utilize similar methods.

You'd more than likely not do anything like what you see in this (hopefully placeholder) sprint animation. When carrying a rifle or LMG or anything of similar size and weight, if you ran like you see in that screen, the pumping of the arm with the weapon in it would be extremely tiring considering the alternative methods you could otherwise employ. Most people will keep both hands on the weapon, held in front of their body, with the muzzle either angled up or down - not forward. The current animation (which, again, I'm hoping is a placeholder) is quite simply wrong. Noone would sprint like that, especially not US troops who've been trained other ways. Hell, even someone who's never sprinted with a weapon before would very quickly discover that that's an extremely poor way to do so, and an extremely fatiguing way as well.

The M-16A2 sight can be set from 200-800 meters, and it's not in increments of 100. It's in clicks, for instance... 300 yards is the BZO (battlesight zero) setting, you drop down two clicks to get a 200 yard setting. Also, the M-16A2 is quoted by the USMC to be effective for "point targets" out to 550 meters, "area targets" at 800 meters. Realistically, though, you get the most performance from the 5.56mm rounds when the target is close enough that the bullet is travelling above 2700 feet per second upon impact, as that's the velocity at which the round begins to exhibit the kind of dramatic fragmentation that has a massive impact on the wounding/killing capacity of the round. Depending on the length of the barrel and the bullet being used (M196 vs M855, for instance), this can be from 100 to 150 yards (or so, give or take). Speaking strictly about the M-16A2/A4/M4 sights, people don't adjust their zeros in combat. You do your BZO, and that's that. Anything up to 300 yards can be engaged with a good BZO, the point of impact/point of aim corresponds very closely from 50 to 300 yards (meaning, it'd be a waste of time and effort to drop to a 200 yard sight setting if you already have a 300 yard zero, it'd move the point of impact inches at best, and unless you're doing extremely precise shooting, you don't need that kind of precision). Sights like ACOG's and such have bullet drop compensators (BDC's) integrated into their reticule patterns, so it's just a matter of holding high on the designated line that corresponds to the distance of the target you're engaging. If elevation/windage adjustments are implemented, they should be intended for the use of snipers, not the "average" grunt. The average grunt should have an initial BZO that he sticks with for 99.999% of the fighting. On that note, all reticule patterns should be calibrated such that the mil-dots can actually be used the way they're meant to be used. Or the sight pattern, for that matter. I can't stand looking through a BAS ACOG in OFP and seeing the BDC completely out of scale.

I'm saying that, from a shooter's perspective, it's not at all noticeable due to being drowned out by the muzzle blast. The sound of the round travelling downrange is completely seperate from the muzzle blast (aka "bang") of the weapon discharging. The round going downrange either makes a "fwoosh" noise or a sharp "CRACK", depending on if you're listening to it from the receiving or giving end, and whether or not it's supersonic. This goes without saying. Anyhow, I'm going to drop my participation in this line of discussion at this point. I said what I wanted to say (at the start, when hoping that the supersonic crack is modelled), and further discussion of the aural characteristics of gunfire isn't a particularly interesting discussion topic. I've fired my fair share of rifles, I own an AR-15 and shoot it regularly, and I've been on both the receiving and sending end of them. I know what they sound like, and it's not theory, game- or video-based knowledge. I'd like to see the aural effects that I've personally experience implemented in ArmA, and if not that, then hopefully Game2... but, as I said at the start, I don't really expect it to happen. No games have done it thus far.

I'll explain what I've heard from shooting AR-15's/M-16's/AK-47's. When you're on a firing range (in this case, a USMC 200/300/500 qualification range), you can hear the BANG - BANG - BANG of the shots. Loud, satisfying, wonderful sounds. The "fwoosh" of bullets flying downrange isn't nearly so loud, and you don't really "catch" the noise if you aren't paying attention. When you're on the receiving end of the fire (in this case, pulling the pits [targets]), you hear a very loud, very sharp, and very dry CRACK every time a round passes overhead (for your target, and the targets next to you). Rounds that pass overhead, but not directly overhead (like, say, four or five targets down), from what I recall, sound the same just a bit less pronounced. I've never heard the "hiss" that people talk about when receiving fire but not having it directed on them (but still close). Or maybe I have heard it, but I didn't think of it as a hiss. Now, when it comes to suppressed/silenced, that's a different story. When there's no loud muzzle blast to contend with, you're going to hear the rounds going downrange much more clearly. I believe that's basically what I said in my last post. I didn't say you couldn't hear it, or that they didn't make any noise, just that it's hard to notice compared to the noise from the muzzle blast. I can't recall ever distinctly hearing that noise in any situation aside from on a Marine rifle range, where shooters are spread out laterally over a good hundred plus yards on either side of you and are firing at a fairly consistant rate. Also, I could be wrong here, but if this "bullet flying" sound is what makes rifle shots sound like a "protracted thunder clap", then wouldn't a shot sound significantly different if the bullet stopped shortly after leaving the barrel? Like, for instance... if I take my AR out to the range, stand ten feet away from the berm, and fire, do you think it's somehow going to sound different than it would at 50, 100, or whatever yards? Barring the effects of standing close to the berm itself, which would obviously alter the sound a slight bit depending on the composition of it. Do you mind if I ask how much personal experience you have with firearms?

Of course. Thus the me being surprised if it actually showed up. The sound of a round going downrange, from the shooter's perspective, isn't all that loud due to it being obscured by the muzzle blast. The only time I can recall clearly hearing the "whoosh" of rounds going downrange was when a lot of people were firing at the same general time in close proximity. It is a "whoosh", but as I was referring to the sound of *incoming* rounds, that's a moot point. I'm aware of this, I've heard it many times in person. This is what I want to be modelled the most. As to weapon fire being heard from a distance, I'd like to see them get the same effect as Red Orchestra - it does a fantastic job of making the weapons sound distinctly different from a distance. I'm sure they did it as two seperate sound files for each weapon, so it'd be nice if BIS could implement something a bit more elegant than that, but even if they only did it in a basic way it'd be a nice thing.

I would be extremely surprised (in a pleasant way) if Armed Assault (or even Game2, for that matter) had the proper sound modelling of supersonic bullets. No more of the "whoooosh" "whooosh" you get from OFP, instead you'd have the "CRACK" of a small sonic boom each time a supersonic round passed nearby. That's something I've wanted to hear in a game ever since I first heard that sound in reality... it'd put a whole new intensity into getting shot at. Do I really expect to see it? No, but I can still dream, can't I?

By "desert terrain" I'm guessing you meant to say long-range engagements? I'm quite familiar with the M-249 SAW, believe it or not. Not in the "Well, I read this in a book, and played a game once where it did blah-blah...", but rather in in the "I've fired them 'for real', and I ran a simulated range that had them featured" sense. I'm not trying to get in a discussion over how various types of machineguns are used in various combat situations.. that's beside the point. My gripe is that you went and took something very small (minor difference in barrel length) and then tried to appear "weapon-wise" to another forumgoer by acting as if that minor difference would make you "triumph" in a theoretical SAW-vs-Para fight. I'm calling you out on that. You can quit with the armchair-commando "But if the Para was the greatest thing ever, THEN EVERYONE WOULD USE IT, duh!" stuff whenever you'd like. It's irrelevant. You're acting as if the Para is noticeably inferior to the SAW, and the simple answer is... no, it's not, and it's certainly not in the way you said (implying that one would easily triumph over the other in a versus scenario).