Fredsas

Well I'm not sure if you guys have seen this one. It just came out to day I think. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/operation-flashpoint-dragon-rising-preview?page=1

lol are you guys serious.. He said he was in a group/clan who made mods for OFP not worked on the game as a dev... So I can't believe this is what it has come down to now. Personal attacks on the devs... Come on now guys.. play nice.. Anyway I just came by to give some info on a new preview of the game from Eurogamer, they seems to like it. Game is looking good so far. http://www.eurogamer.net/article....?page=1

So what? That makes no sense. Its a game for the home. So maybe we should not include M16s or Humvees, or T72's? That makes no sense to me. Yeah its a game for the home so damn, an AK74 should have 200 rounds in the magazine and not 30 ? Maybe MS Fltsim X Â has no right to be realistic because it's a game for the home? Hell don't even talk about Steel Beasts or damn an age old game by the name of M1 Tank Platoon 2 Think about what you are saying. Like I said previously, maybe you should draw up a list of what makes a game a simulation as opposed to an arcade the game, then start checking off. From another point of view how do you know the game is a simulation? Do you actually know anything about the ballistics or armour values of the real stuff as opposed to what they say is up to 90% simulated in the game? You say Arma is the most realistic game out there. Really? What makes it more realistic than Crysis for eg? or Farcry 2. The point is you don't know. Just cause a game doesn't move or look like Arma or OFP doesn't mean its not realistic. Just something to think about. I say what I say because BIS markets the game as realistic and that is why people will buy it. Check this games physics system out WW2 online: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BzpUVtVUBTI

In terms if games, I only play and make mods for simulations FIA GTR 2 Racing Live For Speed MS Fltsim X Armed Assault Operation Flashpoint I stopped playing Arma because my entire clan agreed it was a lot of BS, no attention to detail, a step down from OFP. Before Arma I used to play OFP (which by the way I have no problems with as those were different times for PC and technology) I've made full remake mods for Arma back when I used to play it. Including everything from Hinds to Bradley's to LAV25, BMP1 etc included in it. All with attention to detail and as realistic as the engine could go. including Armour vs penetration (with RHS vs Kinetic and RHS vs HEAT simulated) So when you sit there and tell me that these things can't be done in Arma and its not a NASA SIMULATOR then insult me, I know for a fact you are talking BS. I also know the limitations of the Arma engine. and thus I have a much better vantage point when criticising it than you do, unless of course you are a modder as well. in which case respect to you. However in keeping with the ARMA 2 vs OFP 2, it looks like Codemasters will actually try to make a decent engine for a combined arms simulator and not try to hold anything back. Something for reasons as I have stated above BIS will NOT do. In my eyes this is all very fake and predetermined by BIS, we know they can make a NASA SIMULATOR for the game, but they will not as they have either chosen not to from a technology difference they want to keep as a regard to the military VBS2 engine and those contracts, or they have simply been ordered not to from BI. With regards to it can't be done because of PC technology. What do you think VBS2 is running on? So open your eyes. PS - Making realism mods for both OFP and Arma involved a lot of research and thus has turned me into a bit of a military encyclopaedia when its comes to armour, penetration and other little features. So it is very easy for me to tell when a game is simulating and when its just doing BS. The phrase "It's based on a military simulator so it must be realistic" simply won't work with me.

Huh.. sorry, but VBS ain't even that good, and yes I have asked myself if Arma was good enough. and no it wasn't which is why I don't play it anymore. Its simply not worth my time. However yes, this is about Arma 2 as the topic entails Arma 2 vs OFP 2. A topic that encourages criticism jackass And since Arma 2 looks just like Arma 1 from the ingame footage, the points are very valid. With respect, VBS2 must have some pretty good features in it. Ironically pretty good features that have already been in civilian games for the longest while. For instance I hear they are adding nVidia's PhysX into the game. A civilian technology... a feature which a previous poster thought might be impossible to have in a combined arms simulator. So when it comes down to it. BIS has all the stuff that decent PC games have in VBS2 and charges $1500 for it and calls it a "Serious Game". Then builds a substandard engine which would be good 5 years ago for the civilian sector? All these things which posters have been asking for have already been put into the VBS2 engine. So what's the big deal with en-cooperating them into Arma and Arma 2 then??

Well that is cool for you Jakerod. You are a casual game player who likes bit of "sense of realism" as opposed to a sim buff who likes attention to details, and a general overview of everything in the game as having a place and function. However that makes you a bit unaware of the stuff that is actually required and wanted in a simulation game of any particular type. Arma attempts to cover a "Combined-Arms" type of simulation. So even if its simulation of "Infantry" was 100% perfect, that would not make it a decent sim. However if its simulation was 50% evenly across the board on all aspects of a Combined Arms sim, (infantry, vehicles, weapons systems, targeting systems and delivery, etc) that would make it a very good simulation indeed. If say for instance its infantry aspect was crap. no one would blame you and others for complaining and arguing for better stuff and more immersion. People from the vehicle side, the weapon systems side etc should be given that same respect and ability to voice their complaints, and as a result see changes and innovation. But instead what it happening is that everyone else is ignored. This is important because it has an effect of changing the game from what it stood for. In the general overview of things, a combined arms simulation that goes generation by generation to a infantry simulation is a Devolution, not an Evolution like some people would seem to think. In community terms that means it would probably lose a large part of its fanbase. Which in any event would be bad for BIS. A lot of people here don't like BF2 for instance, but to hardcore OFP fans, Arma infamously did a very impressive job of moving their beloved simulation game closer to BF2 than anything else. And really, that is just not acceptable.

Sorry mate quit making excuses for BIS. You can argue all you want about the game being a good simulation when obviously its not. Maybe you should list the points of no return for when a simulation game becomes an arcade game then we'll see how many of those Arma fails at. Some of the stuff here like vehicle weapons load outs, armour values and bullet damage have nothing to do with the limitations of the engine, so you cant use that excuse. Tell me, if BIS releases Arma 2 with an M16 mag having 7 bullets in it, and an AK74 having 10, would you call it a simulation? Well that is what they did for a lot of stuff. Like I said before the game turned into Ghost Recon with some vehicles thrown in for fun. That does not in any way make it a combined arms simulation. Just an infantry game with a couple of vehicles.

Well that and a whole bunch of others. I've kill M1s with the BRDM's 14.5 and 7.62 machine guns. When you see things like that happened you sort of automatically kick into a non realistic mood and that can't be helped. Deep down you know that is BS and this could not possibly be a simulation. So it ends up changing the entire outlook, respect and feeling for the game.

Hmm, sorry Jakerod, but hitting a tank in the flank and rear is a major part of anti-tank tactics used by infantry and indeed other armoured columns as well. Michael_Wittman is absolutely right in using tactics to destroy enemy armour. In the real world that is the ONLY way infantry can hope to win against a tank without having extra on call battle resources like gunship CAS elements or artillery support. That is exactly what real soldiers would do. Arma is supposed to be a simulation, and hence played like one. Like was said above the AI is not sophisticated enough to attack a formation's flanks and rear. In a Combined-Arms simulation game this little thing they "forgot" to include is a major part of strategy. You should NOT be making excuses for BIS. It is they who have to get the game right out the box and NOT the third party modders. After all they are the ones (compared to CM) with the real world military support and experience. Arma 2 will be the third generation of what was a great military simulator (OFP), and hence we expect to see a hell of a lot of changes and additions in the game (indeed a whole new game) when it is released. In comparison OFP2 will be a second generation game. I do not under any circumstances expect a second generation game to beat a third generation one. But like I've always said, I try to keep an open mind...

Quote from Jakerod "Technically the "invincibility" of the Abrams was never shown in OFP and thus wouldn't have been dumbed down from OFP. Even if it was that is one example. Where are the rest that you claim there are?" ------------------------------------ Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier Jakerod. Actually OFP did. If you can remember it took basically 2 Hellfires to destroy an M1A1 in OFP, in spite of OFP apparent backwardness, (forgive me here. but I can't find the exact words to describe what I mean by that) it was actually a very good simulator in terms of armour vs penetration If you shot up the tank tracks they would get all blacken and stop working. They didn't falloff but the fact that they stopped working was more than good enough. For the time... Even though the tank was effectively disabled, it wasn't dead. And could still take a good beating. That is what heavy armour is about. The ability to take a beating and then give a damn fine one right back. The T80s on the Russian side weren't too bad either. In Arma however, all heavy tanks were effectively turned into light armour. It took like 7 or 8 RPGs to kill an M1A1 in OFP. Which I would have at least wanted to see in Arma. it wouldn't have been so bad if they had just copy pasted all vehicle config into Arma. but instead they effectively halved the armour of the tanks and then further more totally screwed the weapons loadout in them. eg. In the real world the M1A1 usually carries about 11000 rounds of 7.62mm ammo for the M240 coax MGs, 900 rounds of 12.7mm for the M2 and several different types of ammunition for the 120mm main gun (Sabot, HEAT, & MPAT). In contrast, Arma says an M1 must carry 1200 rounds of 7.62mm and 300 rounds of 12.7 and carry only Sabot and MPAT They couldn't even get the tank loadouts right.. Would it have taken so much more time to actually try to find out what an M1 loadout entailed?? Sometimes I can't understand BIS. It's like they are speaking a totally different language (maybe Czech)

I tried to earlier, but its all cool now. That's the story then and there

Hmm, it seems like I was wrong about the circumstances of the M1A1. Cheers for continuing to argue about this so I could look it up and correct it Plaintiff1. Turns out it wasn't stuck in a ditch. Here's the story about it During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoilless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. The tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick and two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles were fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Remarkably, the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior. Source: Zucchino, David: Thunder Run: The Armored Strike to Capture Baghdad. Grove Press, 2004, pp. 20-30, 73

Wrong buddy, you said: That is a bold heads up statement, and a distortion of the facts toward to justify your argument. Â The fact that you say that the turret armour means that an m1a1 can't be penetrated at all makes it even more ridiculous. And toward your other argument, that being that they 'had to' fire a maverick missile plus 2 hellfires in order to 'destroy' the m1a1s... If I want to wreck a building, so I set a bunch of fires with 20 gallons of gasoline, and then set off a 50 lbs of tnt to make sure it's destroyed, does that mean that it took 20 gallons of gasoline and 50 lbs of explosives 'just' to destroy the building? Â If I fire 30 bullets into an intruder in my house, which one killed him? Â Or did all 30 kill him? Â And if all 30 killed him, does that mean it took 30 bullets 'just' to kill him? It maybe be bold like you said, that is your opinion. But it is true. Obviously you know the tank has 1300 on its turret. so if the Hellfires didn't penetrate then mostly likely hit the tank on its turret didn't it... of course we are sim buffs so we know that Hellfires are top attack weapons. Hmm I guess it flew under the Tank?? Pots seemed to figure this out when he talked about the RPGs hitting the Challenger 2 Tank on it's strongest points. Quit being so argumentative

That might well be true. M1s have been known to catch fire due to the high octane fuel being ignited from very hot surfaces around the turbine engine. I think they corrected those vulnerabilities, if I'm not mistaken. But that's was M1+turbine specific problem though. Most other tanks use diesel which wouldn't catch fire as easily

This reminds me something... Fade (copyprotection). Anyone? I remember alot people whining how they didnt' hit anything. When word Fade was mentioned they somehow didn't log in forums ever again  Naah anyways he, that Fredsas, won't be responding to me, so i guess i'll pass... Naah, i'll try once more. I like to see ArmA (or OFP2, ArmA2 for that matter) where AI doesn't understand meaning of hitting to flanks and then sending hails of RPG-7/AT-5 fire at M1A2 at it's frontal armor, which can't be hurt by those Combined arms principle got just lost major part of it. Well like i said Fredsas probably gets just technical side of things. We can always debate M1A1 armor being too weak, which it was to some degree. But i'm lucky that M1A1 didn't become ultimate weapon, which it isn't in reality as it still needs to rely on infantry to cover it flanks. Oh yeah! M1 have been roasted by single rucksack catvhing a fire... Should OFP2 model ultiamte M1 killerweapon called US issued rucksack (is it Alice, i dont' care), as it's about uber realism of tech  lol wow, you really don't like simulations do you.. Arma doesn't have fade. Fade is a Codemaster's proprietory copyright protection system. Ok Second, now get in an M1 and try to shoot something at 300m with the very accurate dual axis stabilized M240 Coax, and tell me about the dispersion.