Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

dm

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    5184

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by dm

  1. Posted

    Even ArmA1s predecessor, Operation Flashpoint (now known as ArmA Cold War Assault) had Lovely tank interiors.

    No it didn't, they were low detail, low res and pretty useless - nothing inside was actually functional, you only had a few faked periscopes (and not as many as you should have had in most cases). Pretty strong case of rose-tinted memories here.

    No need for super fidelity

    Really... And you're trying to tell me that you wouldn't be first in line to complain about the "shoddy workmanship" and "poor quality" of low detail interiors?

    but tanks need this for immersion

    Not really...

    Periscopes would be too low res to be useful (they would be better served as an array of optics, giving you screen-size vision in all the relevant directions)

    Any digital maps would be too low res (you'd need to go into a scripted version of the map to get any sort of readable info from it)

    The amount of effort to make any of the indicators/screens/readouts actually useful is HUGE, and for the amount of info it provides (vs what can be shown in a well designed ui in the optics) is really not worth the effort.

    Interiors are a HUGE amount of effort for such a tiny little gain as to be completely not worth it. Not to mention trying to get reference material for it...

  2. Posted

    Oh, and before there is any confusion, I'm sure you know the difference, but maybe others might not, but the SA58 I'm shooting is a civilian designation and isn't related to the SA 58 or VZ 58 you're referring to. Mine is like a civilian version of the FN FAL.

    Hah, I guess thats like M1's, so many different things with the same dang designation.

    Anyho, yeah, so that pic is a vz.58, with no flash hider == big flash.

  3. Posted

    And heres a still from a video of me firing an vz.58 with no flash hider

    sa58.jpg

    Its video footage, so not ideal, but the first hand experience agrees with the size and brightness.

    We also had one (vz.58) with a birdcage flash hider (not sure of the specifics) which reduced the flash to sizes more comparable with your video.

    The quality of ammo you fire makes a big difference too.

  5. Posted

    come into these threads and do not add anything useful to the discussion.

    I dont think there is anything useful to add to a "discussion" about the game having links to its community social sites built in?

    Clearly BIS thinks its a good idea, and judging by the amount of activity on said social sites it is. So I doubt they're going to change it because a handful of people dont like having facebook or twitter ICONS on their menu screen...

  9. Posted

    Just a quick question, wouldn't all those ERA blocks be filled with explosives?

    In theory, yes. But one can never know the production "quality" of Soviet equipment (there are lots of cases of the Soviets putting extra layers of fake ERA on their tanks in order to make NATO think they were better protected than they really were).

    If they are full of explosives, that place is a disaster waiting to happen...

  11. Posted

    Yeahh and while you say it... in the Gamestar E3 Video you can see they shot-away the tail-rotor of that little-bird.

    So thats some sort of partial damage system already... hmmm....

    And like I said, this is nothing you cant do in A2 already, the damage model on the E3 MH-6 is exactly the same as the damage model on the Take On light helicopter (because its the same model)

  12. Posted

    P.S. We're discussing the buoyancy of this SDV, not whether or not it has a hatch to seal once the crew has boarded.

    I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about:

    Or the fact that when you open the hatch it gets flooded with water, when you get in? Well you can drain it later! ;D

    I simply pointed out that the SDV does NOT have a hatch to open, and that you can NOT drain the water (because you cant seal it in order to prevent more water flooding in).

    I never commented on the bouyancy, simply because it is patently obvious that the SDV is designed to be capable of operating with the crew compartment fully flooded, purely because there is no way to seal and drain it.

  14. Posted

    How so? Is there a broken seal between the crew area of the SDV, the engine, ballast tanks, all of the electronics et cetera? Perhaps, a manufacturing error?

    What part of "the crew compartment does not seal" is so hard to understand?

    Its not a sealed unit, there is no hatch to close, you cant drain the seawater out from it, it is always wet.

    It is designed to operate this way. Are you actually this dumb, or just intentionally trying to be?

  15. Posted

    I may be wrong here but don't most tank drivers sit in a very low profile cupola?

    You are indeed wrong.

    Most tank drivers sit under a flat hatch and are provided with 3 (or more) periscopes, giving them limited (but not as limited as in ArmA) view to the front ~90 degrees.

    Many tanks are now being fitted with front, rear and side cameras to improve the drivers view, but all-round vision from inside a buttoned up tank is terrible.

  18. Posted

    So just moving and driving for 10 minutes before even getting to proper combat is OK for E3

    Since said movement was meant to demonstrate new anims and physics, I'm going to go with "yes"

  19. Posted

    Performance issues are ALL speculation.

    Processor core use issues are ALL speculation.

    Damage model changes are ALL speculation.

    Nikiforos said he wanted "old physX" and since a build of any BIS game has never been released with physX, there is no such thing as "old physX", only new physX (2.x) and newer physX (3.x). Neither of which have been performance benchmarked within the community, so to claim that one may be better than the other at this stage is ridiculous. Lern2English and 2Logic.

    The ONLY thing Marek confirmed is that they're using physX library 3.? rather than 2.X

    And again, you dont know anything about how the implementation works, so are making assumptions about what he means when he says

    Also, physical libraries only do part of what is needed and in no way guarantee that everything is going to react as it should: a lot of work on simulation, tweaking, testing, tweaking, AI routines, tweaking, fixing, testing is required with any type of physical simulation and in case of game this complex it really takes a lot of time and effort.

    Ballistics need to be tied in, AI behaviours need to be tied in, the actual physical behaviour needs to be tuned, networking needs to be addressed. Its not just plug and play, and is a massive amount of work.

  20. Posted

    Cruel. Why show us that graphic of some sort of indoor waypoint system (relating to the E3 floorplan) then offer no information on it?

    Ever think it was just to point out where the booth was?

    Carrier Command had an identical graphic, just themed for CC: Carrier Command graphic

    Pretty big assumption to think that everything must mean something...

  22. Posted

    I'll reserve judgment for now, but that tail rotor did fall off! :D

    Didnt fall off, it hid, the same way it is already capable of doing in A2.

    I'd say sorry for the OT, but I'm not. It boggles my mind how big the assumptions you guys can make from the littlest details...

  23. Posted

    This is exactly what they're doing

    Actually it really isnt. Marek does not mention changing art assets at all. If you knew anything at all about the physX implementation you would know that there is a huge amount of both engine and configuration work needed just to get vehicles to move, let alone have chunks blown out of them. Then there is AI and networking on top of that...

    All their (fictional) armour/aircraft models suspiciously have compartmentalised layouts of components: engines, turrets, cannons, radar dishes so forth.

    I'm amazed you can see this from the screenshots and videos presented. You must have super eyes to be able to see how the visual parts of the models and fire geometry (which is not visible anywhere in the pr material) are constructed.

  24. Posted

    Physics topic and Outerra were 2 different discussions.

    Hmm, I don't remember it, you should PM me a link...

    Which brings us to the next point: this limited system has become obsolete and seeing as a proper physics engine is in place, I can already envision vehicle components flying off in explosions left, right & centre.

    PhysX doesnt automagically mean that everything will have destructible components, soft body physics, or anything for that matter.

    PhysX is only tied into the ballistic simulation in a very limited way (kinetic energy from direct impact or explosions will move targets, but thats about it). You would have to completely re-work ALL of the artwork, so that it was constructed in such a way that things could actually be blown off (you would have to re-work the fire-geometry to match), you would then have to implement systems so that these things interacted with the physical world and the ballistic world (so far there is no confirmation that physX will handle the ballistics ingame), and on top of that it has to be network compatible. Everyone seems to think that all you need to do is plug physX in and it will do the rest, but its really not that simple...

    If they were planning such extensive changes to the way the damage model worked, I'm sure Ivan and Jay would not stop talking about it...

  25. Posted

    Don't be a clown, DM - I've had the same discussion with you regarding physics last year and see where that got you?

    You mean the "BIS should switch to the outerra engine" thread? The one where you failed to grasp even the basic definitions of simple technologies? Yes, because the engine change happened...

    Iron Front may have a nice scripted system, but its so buggy and broken that I'd rather go back to A2's more "limited" system. And, as I've said, with some careful configuration, the damage limitation is already possible.

×