Ezekiel

Ye gads no, not the complete list by any means! Just the ones that have been seen and confirmed in pre-release screenshots/videos. I'm almost certain they'll include and LAV (it may already be in a screenshot but no one's mentioned it). Plus almost certainly an AAV, if not then only because they've done the EFV instead (aka AAAV). I wouldn't count on an M1A2 though, they'd be a lot more complicated to implement - thermal sensors, digital maps, radio interfaces... they're all little electronic improvements made at the expense of the commander being able to fire his .50 from inside the turret (commanders of A2s have to turn out to fire them, but its justified on the basis that his extra gadgets mean he should be spending less time firing it anyway - not as fun in a game).

Hmm, isn't it just a great big white texture that shows up only in FLIR more? It certainly looks good. I'm wondering how far it can be pushed without trashing performance? Like say, realistic heat signatures for vehicles - cooler hulls, warmer suspension, hot engine block only visible from certain directions etc. Obviously it'd be over the top to make a full IR system with all the terrain and objects showing up at different temperatures (which would dramatically go up and down like a tank's will as they heat up and cool down), but some sort of way of making the IR signatures of vehicles blend in better might be cool, people are generally big white blobs but vehicles all have hot and cold bits that you can use to identify them. Course SF forces with IR blocking skin paint might also be a good idea. EDIT: Oh yah, also at the moment do vehicles show up when their engine is off?

I'm not a scripting genius but surely you wouldn't need a script constantly running checks to see if it's in or out? Drawing and holstering your pistol is a one-off event so surely you'd just script it to add the model into the holster by default, remove it when you switch to sidearm, and replace it when you return to primary/secondary. Course if you don't have a primary weapon... or you do something which takes all guns out of your hand like going prone with an AT4... I dunno. But there were games which actually animated the drawing and returning of a pistol long before stuff like GRAW or COD4, and I'm pretty certain they weren't constantly eating up resources checking whether it should have a pistol model visible or not. Anyway I dunno why I'm even saying it, I couldn't care less. Again, nice work Jonny.

I think weapon proxies would be unlikely, isn't that kind of a core engine thing? The way they do all their animations, weapons models etc would have to change.. But at least if this sort of system was integrated into the editor and loadout screens (you could take it as far as changing tank and uniform textures while you're at it) then it would add a much needed element of polish to the game. I think everyone can agree that if BIS want to compete with other games they need to spend a bit of time working such things into the first release. And who knows, maybe it will inspire people to believe said proxies will show up in a patch/addon/Arma3.

Lol just what I was thinking 2 pages in. Beautiful work Jonny, thanks - these ones are going in right next to your marines and the 1st Inf addon.

Actually don't quote me on this but I think one of the devs said that boats won't be a major part of ArmA2, which won't be so bad considering the game isn't set on an island this time. Maybe.

We're getting a carrier plane, we're getting large boats (or an aircraft carrier at least by the look of things) and there's always been supply trucks to move supplies. I'm not saying ignore the 'logistics' side of warfare, just consider how exactly this will affect the way you play the game. I don't think 'supply trains' will ever be a big enough feature to justify spending time on them, that sounds like a job for community modders. Military supplies don't just zoom around the map in trains on autodrive, you're not going to see an island populated with zippy little trains and you fly your helicopter around. At best they'll be a target to attack or defend in a one-off mission and the ocassional bit of ambient decoration which has no real affect on a battle.

Why even bother arguing over which platform is better? It's going to happen, the only think I'm interested in is whether BIS go for a multi-platform release or spend some time between versions tinkering to get the most from each platform. The latter to me sounds more desirable, since we know BIS won't get all their intended features into the game anyway I think it might be shooting themselves in the foot to try and release them together (cos we'll end up with a straight port rather than tailored versions, they don't have time to do one then the other and release them at the same time). So far we've already seen some concessions to consoles - the squad control is being cut down drastically. You won't control more than your immediate team. I LOVE this idea and I'm glad that perhaps the console release is what allowed them to rethink a fundamental flaw to the game. Giving orders is currently clumsy and unintuitive, which makes it unrealistic and contrary to what giving orders is supposed to be (to enhance the normal actions of a unit, not to just allow it in the first place). If the best way to make order giving work better is to cut down your control of units in the game, then great. I never liked having to scroll through pages of radio commands and unit selections anyway, you can let the AI do that and get on with playing your own part in the conflict.

I agree with Dslyecxi on this... Actual moving trains, fully implemented, would be a hideous waste of time. We all know that no matter how many cool things could be done with the engine, there will still be great features that don't make it to the final release. Having trains fully implemented but not having something more fundamental like units able to cross bridges properly or poor performance looking at foliage would be a fatal mistake for BIS at this stage. They've done the right thing by putting in a train network - It's realistic, fits with the industrial settings of the new island, and will make a good navigational tool for players using the map. Static trains will also add greatly to the atmosphere when fighting around docks and depots, and if we're lucky they may even be destructible. But moving trains... the only use I can see is a one-off 'bomb the train behind enemy lines' sort of mission, which wouldn't even be that realistic considering it's much easier to just sabotage a line or leave a mine before the train even turns up (or these days more likely, just bomb/shell it from the air). In terms of NoRailgunner and the argument about how we need trains to realistically portray heavy cargo movements in a war - who really cares? Seeing trains with tanks or gun crates loaded up moving around is not exactly enhancing the gameplay much, and we can all just assume the supplies were brought by train before the mission began so it doesn't ruin the immersion. Again, the only real gameplay use of them is the old 'bomb the train' type mission, and you don't really need to use a train to get a great mission of that sort. The only other use is if you want to see people loading and unloading crates, which quite frankly I could go down to the harbourside to watch. :P

Just a small thing, but how easy would it be for BIS to incorporate some kind of modular attachment type thing for the units and weapons? The whole system of having a hundred individual weapons just so you can have the option to put a silencer, aimpoint, ACOG or M203 on an M4... well. It just seems a bit archaic when games have had a 'select gun then select attachments' system going on forever. Same goes with units, their uniforms, weapon platforms on vehicles... It'd be nice to be able to simply 'attach' slat armour to a vehicle as a modular thing in exchange for, say, a small loss in speed. Even if the engine treats it the same way it ever did (ie swapping an entire 3d model for another), implementing it in the actual *interface* as a modular thing instead of having hundreds of weapons and vehicles and people in the editor would be cool.

Any chance of considering adding the ability to 'become' any unit from any side? I've recently downloaded a ton of mods and addons and for the purpose of testing them out it'd be unbelievably handy.

It'd be lovely to have new styles of reporting.. the most depressing thing for about buying ArmA the second it hit the shelves was the way the radio chatter was *exactly* the same as OFP (followed swiftly by my AI swerving the HMMVW off the road and hitting the wall with a strange clunk sound, then driving on like nothing had happened). How about a 2 step thing? First, a soldier shouts 'infantry/armour/chopper etc, x o' clock' Then a pause while they count (in their HEAD), then 'I count 6 riflemen, 2 T72s' or similar..? You could even wire it to a 'report' command for the leader so he can prompt his spotters to give exact counts of the enemy composition without having to struggle with coding their AI to talk smart without repeating what they or the others said. Whatever happens, I really hope BIS come up with something new and outside of their box, cos it's actually painful to listen to. I haven't shown the game to a single person without them laughing at the constant "MAN! At..! 2 o clock!" and "OHNO! two. isDOWN!" stuff going on.

I wanna keep the OP list up to date, so if anyone spots new stuff appearing in screenshots or confirmed in interviews then feel free to post.

Uh, that bit about them making sure it's a PC game.. ArmA is going to be a console game as well, innit?

It's a brilliant idea, SO handy for those that just downloaded a weapon/vehicle addon pack but can't be bothered tooling around in the editor adding hundreds of playable units or adding lines of init script. Anyone that claims it's nothing but a (quote) 'cheating tool' obviously doesn't use addons and mods...