Jump to content

Eda Mrcoch

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Eda Mrcoch

  1. I'm eagerly anticipating the same thing [AI that you cannot differentiate from real people]. In OFP 15, due out in 2095.

    According to bistudios, the AI of "nexgen game" was so good that testers could not differentiate it from human controlled forces. Is that due out in 2095 all of a sudden.

    I would like to see source for this statement. I've never heard this and I seriously doubt that there are "testers" when the game itself is probably not even within Alpha stage.

  2. am i the only one here to think that a too-hard-to-control chopper/plane would kind of ruin to fun of the game?

    no no no i am a realistic freaks but the facts that IRL there is much more things help you to fly bugs me up, i mean you cant feel almost anything(roll, pitch, etc), while sitting in front of a computer, you could only use your eye, and we are not talking about a UAV here

    Well, BI stated that flight physics is more realistic but controls are essentialy the same. And that the physics in fact gives you more maneuvering options. So if that comes with increased difficulty I have no problems.

    Advanced weaponry should be IMO more difficult to operate. It corrects the "everyone is a pilot with AT and sniper rifle" factor in MP. Maybe in lower difficulty settings helicopters should be easier to fly (for SP).

  3. I can read Cyrillic so I was a little surprised when I saw it. Makes sense though. Russia is one of the biggest markets for pirated stuff though I have no idea of their copyright laws. I guess they figure they can get away with it. The cover, literally transliterated is:

    Operazzia Fleshpoent 2

    and then, oddly enough, they have Armed Assault spelled in the latin alphabet....wtf.

    Interestingly, the original Flashpoint was distributed as "Operace Flashpoint" here in Czech, probably they translated "operation" in Russia too, so they're doing the same for the sequel.

    The "Fleshpoent" is purely phonetic transliteration, that is quite normal in Russia to use in case of foreign names IIRC.

    And I don't think they can get away with it. Sould someone enlighten me on case of trademark translations?

  4. I do not think that Crossfire have to be supported by application itself, it is rather a driver issue. And for example new Catalysts added Crossfire support for i965 chipset (the chipset itself doesn't have two 16xPCIe slots, so the second graphic might be hampered in performance, I'm waiting for some tests). The only problem is the price of "master" cards.

    Though when you want dual GPU now, you probably have the money and if you want to wait to use it as an performance upgrade in the future they gonna be cheaper.

  5. Great news - mission creators can attach addons to their mission-file. Rendering it alot easier to distribute missions using few addons over server protocol.

    Of course really big addons wouldnt be too smart to include, but its definately a great thing for small addons like flares, markers, weapons etc.

    Does that mean that we can integrate simple "config-only" addons for existing addon pbos (with models, textures, sounds, etc) into missions like I said on the previous page? This can solve ballancing different addons.

    Now only if the meta-tags for missions were possible and we do not need naming standards (to which no-one would adhere) whatsoever.

  6. My thought may be a way off, but I think that allowing missionmakers to change addon's config values (possibility to include mission's own config files within pbo or by tweaking classes in description.ext) could at least solve problems with unbalanced addons from different makers.

    It would of course bring a certain dubiosity for the players, for example in one mission the tank would withstand two RPGs in rear armor and in other mission four. Also, this might open some new ways for cheating.

    What should be standardized too is mission names :

    1-4_C_HeadHunter for a 1 to 4 players, Coop mission named HeadHunter? more? less?

    plus those who add "@" to be the first mission displayed...

    maybe ArmA allows us to determine an icon on the side of the mission name to say "coop mission" or "deathmatch"...

    Mission naming convention has of course been tried for Ofp, but not many adhered to it. As it would be with other standards. That is why I think my previous thought, even with its disadvantages, is better (for addons). For missions, maybe some tags by game server showing type should suffice. Rather than try to solve insolvable (forcing standards) we (I mean BI, this probably cannot be done by us) should circumvent it.

    Ofp mission naming convetion (from 2003)

  7. Name: Vojtech Novak

    Position: Designer

    has opened a blog and it seems he and another guy are discussing arma game2, and in steps the head of idea games and largest single share holder of BIS slavomir pavilcek(sp?) december is mentioned but in what context i dont know lolk . well thats my translation lmao, anyone here speak czech and can translate it ?


    He is ex-BIS now. He says in one of the comments that he has got bet with someone that ArmA would not be released in this year after which SP (he will most probably be the publisher here) steps in and says that it would and it won't be in December.

    I suppose that Czech release will come first so it might be possible (if the game is in publishable shape). Who knows... icon_rolleyes.gif

  8. So, all immigrate to Poland or Czech rep. then?

    If they have a publisher there it's just a mather of exporting it, right? biggrin_o.gif

    Hopefully some polish or czech online store could send it here then :P

    Yeah, but the copy would probably be in Czech or Polish only, like OFp release here was.

  9. Well, about the publisher(s).

    Quoting Marek Spanel from this article.

    Quote[/b] ]There are two reasons for ArmA delay. Firstly we failed to negotiate in time with a big global publisher so we're preparing separate territorial releases along with Idea Games, which is more demanding thing in a lot of aspects. The second reason is in a developement itself: we were countinuously deciding to improve the game and engine above original plans, we focused more on graphic aspects and AI. These, albeit beneficial changes for the game, showed on the developement schedule.

    So thats it, people. confused_o.gif

    If I recall correctly, they've already got publishers in Poland and here in Czech rep.

  10. Does anybody know what are these two commands for?



    Does these allow us to change internal "vehicle" variables ? wow_o.gif

    Then we wouldn't need for example setDamage, we could just use player setVariable [dammage,<value>] . It then would be possible to mess with almost anything! Want to check or change number of rounds in magazine within inventory? No problem. Immobilize tank by damaging one or both of its tracks? No problem... etc

    I'm hoping it is something like this. inlove.gif

  11. Well, it might be that, but if you open current OFp game saves (with CoC BinViewer or something), you can see that AI centers are in fact instances of a class containing all the current AI information (what is the AI doing, position, known targets, waypoints, etc.).

    Don't burst my bubble! wink_o.gif

    But then again, if you look at the setTargetAge command - they are talking about "how the target is known to the other centers".

    Which led me to believe that this might be a new type of "AI Center"...

    That supports my interpretatation. It is like InfoAge in Editor, which sets when was unit last detected by someone from that side (in OFp this influence only enemy icons on map IIRC).

    Of course, I'm not sure, maybe some expert who fiddled with AI long enough can make it clear.

    These commands may also indicate that you can create & destroy sides dynamically. You can at least change who is friendly to whom:


  12. I find the concept of "AI Centers" very interesting: createCenter, deleteCenter

    I assume that means some sort of "main point of interest" for the AI, which would open up much more flexible AI behaviour!

    Well, it might be that, but if you open current OFp game saves (with CoC BinViewer or something), you can see that AI centers are in fact instances of a class containing all the current AI information (what is the AI doing, position, known targets, waypoints, etc.).

    I'm guessing that this will allow something like a complete restart of whole AI during mission for long MP.

    BTW: We can probably make new commands, like "move" or "no target" :



    Now to discover FSM files format. smile_o.gif

  13. @Ti0n3r; look


    Quote[/b] ]To create a more realistic flora, BI is using an only for that developed tool called "Linda". But it is not probable that this generator is going to be released publicly.

    In a contradiction, in this video (in Czech), one of the Linda's programmers says that they plan to release it sometimes, but are not yet certain what the licensing policy will be.

  14. One thing that fills me with hope is that there will be separated mag and weapon config. It will probably mean that recoil will be part of an weapon data, not magazine. It would allow for example that you can stick AK magazine into RPK and the recoil behaviour will change according to the weapon (and appearance as much, no more not-interchangeable warheads for RPGs7 with and without the scope).

  15. 7. Taking weapon from dead enemies is instant. There is no crouching and taking, just click and you have new weapon in hand.

    Arcade Shooter like huh.gif

    WIP anims, just like 4 and 8. It was already stated that anims are incomplete in press demo.

  16. Nice to hear that It'll be available for the public (in some way) notworthy.gif

    Degenerated geometry = bla bla (You'll be able to dynamicly destroy the trees). Just a wild guees.

    No that is meant for creating lower LODs (they are not using billboard/sprites like SpeedTree as Codarl feared). But dynamic destruction is a possibility.