HyperBart

just played around a bit on the demo... my specs: AMD 9750 Phenom Quad Core (2.4 Ghz per core) 4 GB RAM @ 1066 ATI HD 4850 512mb I play at a modest 1280x1024 resolution. The benchmark mission gave me 28 FPS with details at normal, and 27 fps with details at highest settings (with exception of the terrain detail) I have a few problems with that. First it seems the graphics don't influence this game for shit. Having a good graphics card won't improve your performance. The second problem is that I still hate the fact that in the Arma community we still settle for 30 something fps. It's even worse, we think it's great if we get 30 something fps. That's just not right! FPS should be 50+ and preferably around 70-80. 30 fps just isn't cutting it in modern gaming in my opinion. It was my primary beef with Arma 1, and it seems despite all promises it'll not be much better with Arma 2. My last problem is that despite setting all settings at (very) high and managing the 30 something fps, I still see buildings, units, vehicles etc change to the ugly LOD's off and on. Objects that are actually at a very modest range. If the visual settings aren't influencing my performance one single bit, then why degrate the visuals of objects at distance this much?

what i wonder if this view distance bug that's gonna be fixed will have any effect on a feature that bugs me most in ArmA. that is, that if I push RMB to look more closely or i look down my scope or crosshair, all trees and stuff are being retextured. they tend to get bigger/smaller with each zoom in/out. i guess this has to do something with view distance so i wonder if this bugfix will fix that too?

coming to think of why the story is so thin... today i tried to find a nice plot for some missions/campaign that i could make. now, when you look for a plot, you want something that kind of hints toward reality. so you can look at different conflicts, like Afghanistan, Iraque, Africa (against some rebel armies or something), maybe an imaginary war against Iran or North-Korea. but when I looked at all those posibilities, none of them made sense. this is part of the strange army the SLA is. their uniforms are too modern to be some kind of african rebel army. their tanks, armor, weapons and vehicles are russian. now you could fight the independant army, but this looks like some silly army like the pakistinians or some other underdeveloped goverment army of the middle-east. and when you look at the map, it is part desert, and on the other end very lush. it gives us a nice island, but it really doesn't give us a chance to really place a conflict in the right place. i still can't figure out what vast plot i can come up with, with these rare armies and strange terrain. at least OFP was clear, you were fighting russians and that's it. this is more complicated

Exactly. 90% of the people on this particular forum crying how the missions are crap because...: 1) they are not very easy 2) you need to THINK to complete them instead of just beelining to a waypoint and then expect good results 3) you need to try a couple of times before you get it right ...need to go back to playing HL2, Doom3 or whatever they usually do. Sheesh. that is a load of crap! reaction to your 3 points: 1) indeed they are not easy, they are insanely hard and very unrealistic! 2) what you are forgetting here is that I can choose not to lead the squad. I like to follow orders as a soldier and feel te be part of a squad instead of leading one. but this usually means that the AI will take the given approach (beeline to waypoint indeed) and die. you should be able to play these missions without leading the squad... it doesn't make sense that the mission really needs the player's craftiness! an operation like in these missions is carefully planned so it will take minimal casualties, so the mission should be made that way! no way will the american army choose to clean out a village of enemies if it risks the lives of at least 4-5 special ops... if that is the case then they won't commence the attack at all! 3) for some missions i need about 20 times at least, that's insane!

how can people love this mission? sure it's well build and all, better than campaign and gives you good CWC feel, but besides that, it STINKS! this mission should really have been cut up in at least 2 or 3 separate missions. because now the sheer size of the mission makes all kinds of triggers and stuff go wrong, it makes the mission slower (more units to load) and more complex to build. keep it simple, just make it a small mini-campaign of 3 missions! then, the mission is totally unrealistic in the way that it takes like dozens of times trying to complete this. okay, i may not be that good a player. but in big assaults, lots depend on how the forces are balanced. when attacking the airfield, i cannot help my the M113's being shot to pieces by a single BMP2 because those stupid teammates who carry the AT cannot take the damn thing out. also AI still seems to make 1 shot kills all the time. stupid shit. well planned attacks by US military take minimal casualties, taking on a force that is simply put TOO strong is far, far unrealistic. mission designers should know that. and about that sniper gun bug, i got something similar, when i reload the gun has a muzzle flash in the scope. anyway... stupid mission

you're right kirq this campaign lacks any kind of realism. i'm just trying to figure out if this is because of poor AI or because of poor mission design...

a good mission designer knows that it is open and adapts to that by triggering out events that shouldn't happen. i know for sure they did that in ofp... it just feels like they haven't paid enough attention to it. i finally got this mission... some other bugs beside the whole bridge drama was the canons back at the batallion that are too far behind the sandbags so they cannot shoot the tanks (you can aim at them, but you'll only shoot into the sand bags right in front of you) and not a single soldier back at platoon that carries an rpg with him, so you're kind of all alone up to all the tanks left, which was 4 in my case... 1 man against 4 tanks? that REALLY takes a few tries. and it's not that realistic i think! now i'm in the sanitation mission, which is very simply set up. and the stupid part is, that both the foxtrot teams and the bravo teams most of the time get whiped out completely. maybe one of them survives with you, but that's it! again very very unrealistic, these are special forces fighting some poorly trained bums who are sitting there. special forces should whipe them out with one SF casualty at most.

bohemia really should've taken more care in making their missions because this sucks. this mission is buggy, but the missions before that weren't even impressive. real bummer compared to OFP

thanks for correcting me... actually I'm glad I'm wrong, because it means a lot of people are doing their research properly!!! but my question again: what is the size of the sub we can see on the pictures? it looks as big as that aircraft carrier (an add-on that I do not recognize, so I do not know how big that ship is either) it's all looking great! keep up the good work!

ok to everyone that is asking about subs launching all kinda missiles, I may not be an expert but this is what I know: from what I understand this is an Akula class submarine. and Akula class is a hunter-killer sub, designed to search and destroy enemy subs... NOT to launch any "sea-to-land-guided missiles" (or whatever you call those, cruise missiles ) so if we want a sub that would launch those missiles these guys who did an amazing job at this sub, would need to make us more and different kinds... at least if you want to make realistic mod... and it would be very stupid to have a russian sub shoot american cruise missiles (tomahawks) btw Buzzard... ICBM means Inter Continental Balistic Missile and there is NO sub in the world that fires those things. ICBM's can only be launched from land based missile silo's, and I think only the USA and Russia have missiles that can fly as far as over continents. the missiles you mean are SLBM's (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile). for more info on all missile and nuclear stuff check: http://www.armageddononline.org/nuclear_warfare2.php anyway, it would be cool to have different kinds of subs. I am curious btw to the size of this akula in the screenshots, how big is this? it seems nuclear subs are far more bigger than hunter-killer subs... last: CRIMSON TIDE RULES... not seen this movie? go watch it!

tnx a lot guys... that gun by gonk meets my goals... i'll use that config cpp... tnx again for your quick replies...

hi there, we're making a flare gun ww2 style for the axis to have them shoot flares... this gun however was a sidearm, it would be awesome to have this gun as a sidearm... we're not at the coding stage yet, but will it be possible to shoot flares with a sidearm? i think it will give us some problems, since ofp flares always go to the standard ammo box, not the sidearm ammo box... do we have to make our own flare ammo? and can we actually make a gun designed to only shoot flares (not like a grenade launcher thing, just a flare gun)... anyone who knows about this, tried it before or whatever, plz tell me what to do...