Helmut_AUT

Akkutu, these three were enough? I'm surprised.

He meant a 1280x1024 19" screen. I can't go back to that either after 1600x1200 and now 1920x1200, but with A2 being such a shader hog, resolution costs a lot of frames. I still think it would be nice to have a Shader Model 2.0 implementation of the most basic functions ("Aperture simulation" and Lighting Engine), and to throw all the extra shading away in the graphics options. Oh, and at least some of the scopes seem to use additional shading effects, which explains why they drop performance.

Basically it depends on the wing design, but very few aircraft will get a decent turn rate if you just roll the wings. In most you add some pull in order to turn, and it's one reason why coordinated turns (exiting on same alt, correct direction and with a constant rate) are actually one of the first things you practice in real aviation.

So they dropped the ATGM ideas? I thought it was supposed to get something. Speed seems to be a lot better however, that and 30mm is still a nice punch against enemy APCs. Would be nice if the M198 howitzers had more of their real world range in game, right now the arty module restricts to only a few kilometers.

Gunner, always glad to read from people with first hand experience. I would have thought the ATs come along mandatory to offer some kind of long-range Anti Armor defense in case the recon run into something larger. OTOH I heard the Hammerhead mount isn't very usable on a moving vehicle, so if it's more a "static defense" item then it might not be that desperately needed in game. Frederf, good point, but given that a MEU loadout can be pretty customized... Ultimately I'd want them to have some mobile artillery that is NOT an Army MLRS system. HIMARS would also fill that role, doesn't have to be a mortar LAV. Anyone wants an AAAV? Still in testing I suppose, but really nice piece of kit. Good match for the BMP-3 and it's fearsome weapons loadout.

I think the OP and Frederf made their point pretty well: There needs to be a clear, easy user interfance for vote kicking, otherwise it doesn't work. It never worked in Red Orchestra either, since you need to push the vote into the face of other players, otherwise they will miss it or not know how to vote themself.

How about Jungle? I do like the idea of a true 'stan terrain type (rocky, rough ground, mountains, little vegetation - not desert) but the true calling of the Marines in WW2 was invasion of small Islands and coastal regions that often had tense jungle just a few meters from the beach. Similar to Uhao island, but much larger in scale. No need to reskin units - although arguable having a desert variant camo might be good for modder addon islands to use with. OTOH a tropical "jungle" island could offer a lot of intense brush-firefights, and would really highlight the special toys of the USMC - a desert conflict or mountain conflict has little use for AAV7. I'd like to see LPD and LSD ships modelled, as well as LCACs and the AAAV. That would be proper gear for some amphib operations.

The only thing they can do (and IMHO should have done) is to enable two AI modes: With Micro AI, and without (same AI as in Arma1). Depending on distance to player, they need to switch Bots between these two AI versions. Because if a player is not present to see it, it really shouldn't matter if the AI fights like it did in A1 - without using cover. A1 firefights weren't that bad, and we had NO micro AI. Only when the player closes in to engagement range, or at least close to visual range, should they swap in the "Micro AI" so the player will have the challenge. But if there's another two squads fighting somewhere far off in the north, let them do it in the A1 way of "go prone and shoot" - it will not really matter to the game feeling, but free up resources. Right now, WARFARE for example is completely unplayable for me at 15FPS - and my CPU even exceeds the "Recommended Optimum". I do not believe they meant to release a game which only people on systems 1 year old or younger can run.

Arma2 is seriously CPU limited. The regrettable fact is that BIS stuffed more AI in their mission than the average >1 year old CPU will handle. Either that or they really is a performance leak somewhere.

Interesting, didn't know the USMC had their own rocket arty. Binkowski, as I said I'd want these items as official included stuff, mods and addons ultimately make it very hard to distribute missions or keep an MP server on the same level.

Panzer, the problem is that the "Optimal Requirements" as written on the box are plain optimistic, if not straight out lies. I run an AMD 5000+, and I get below 20 FPS in the included WARFARE missions. Independent from graphic settings, it's obviously the CPU that causes the bottleneck. I did in fact test within the editor, and the difference between just me on an empty map, and me on the same map with 10 AI Groups is the difference between 35 and 25 FPS. No changes in rendering or where I look, the AI out of sight. Some of the included content uses much more than 10 AI groups so obviously frames plumet. So basically, BIS sold a game with an "Optimum CPU" requirement of a 4400+ Dual core, but has included missions which need a CPU less than a year old (as per the PCgamer benchmarks) to run at better than 20 FPS. Look at those graphs: The first CPUs to get 25 FPS (minimum I would call playable) is the Phenom II X4955BE and the Intel C2Q9650. Wiki says that Intel has been released late summer last year, that AMD in this year. Anything older will not give you 25 FPS when the AI gets heavy. I seriously doubt BIS wants to cut the potential market for their game down to people with systems less than a year old. The average gamer - not enthusiast - upgrades every three years, so they would be only looking at one third of the potential market. Conclusion: They need to optimize CPU usage. A lot. As long as other modern games run fine on the same systems, there's no reason why A2 should be allowed to run like shite.

It doesn't run anywhere near playable - in some of the included missions, created by BIS - on a system that exceeds recommended optimum specs. The PCGamer CPU benchmark shows it needs a very new AMD, or an Intel not older than a year to get 25 FPS in some missions. If you need a system less than a year old to run the included missions at only 25FPS, then yes, you have a performance problem as game developer. Please don't pretend it's all user imagination, the benchmarks are available.

Use the Warfare functions for that - define a frontline and have only the towns on either side as goals. If a majority of towns is captured left, right or center, move that part of the front line over to the next few towns. You'd likely get away with 5 to 6 steps for each side, so maybe 20 different "front line states". Might also be good if Warfare can be "paused" occasionally, so there isn't ALWAYS firefights going on. Not sure you need multiplayer. Oblivion and Stalker do well without it, and the hours required to put into it make it prohibitive anyway (how often can anyone find a buddy or two to play the same character in an ongoing mission for hours?) JIP Multiplayer is right out anyway, since you'd need to store stats and character for each player until he comes back, and each new player would have to create a new character - indeed NASA stuff. Warfare as core module to simulate a fight between two sides, and the player able to fight independently for cash, or later join a side is a good start. SecOps works well as a random mission generator, it just needs some more templates. Guarding can also be done without writing your own module.

"Copy Stance" basically means you let the AI chose what to do, as opposed to "Stand up, crouch or prone" selections in the same menu which 100% force them. They should usually follow your example, but the AI in A2 is a lot more independent-minded than in A1 it seems. If you want to make them go prone, use Combat or Stealth mode, should help.

Remove the weapons, give it a waypoint with "Careless" behaviour immediatly at placement. Works for me.

Nice. I make a reasonable good suggestion for this aircraft and it goes under while someone (glynn) is busy stiring up a flamewar here. Sometimes this board can be so useless and petty.

If you can be bothered to do the extra work, please include some makeshift weapons. During the Balkan Conflicts in the late 90's, people down there got VERY creative in what to do with aircraft. Makeshift gunsights, rocket pods (maybe from standard RPG rounds), bomb racks. And if nothing else, a guy in the rear with a gun or throwing hand grenades/explosive backs out the door). Friend of mine wrote an article on those things - here it is. http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_305.shtml Most recently the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka proved the effectiveness of makeshift "warbirds": http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/feature1270/ This would great add to the possibilities of Guerilla and Counter-Guerilla missions in Arma2.

I'd like that feature as an optional difficulty setting, since for some missions, it makes them too easy. But since the button for it is still present after you die, it's obviously a bug.

Kind of makes it pointless to own a 27" screen size when you use only part of it, no? I really would like to hear from Suma - if he can find the time - if SM 3.0 methods are really needed for people who run with PostProcessing disabled. There aren't many shader effects left when you turn that off, and they seem rather simple in what they do (bright/dark, ,screen blur, bump mapping mostly). I totally can understand that stuff like the movement blur and DOF needs the newer methods of SM 3.0, but a "simple effects palette" using SM 2.0 doesn't seem such a weird idea.

I'm still looking for a solution to this problem, does anyone have any ideas? Summary again: I want SecOps present and synched so the player can use the support functions, but I only want it to start generating random side missions when the player activates it with a radio trigger. Killing the side missions in the init field of the SecOps module works, but I haven't been able to reverse it yet.

Thanks Suma, nice to have an answer directly from a Developer. But: If I deactivate all PostProcessing (which I currently do for performance reasons), what's left that is using shaders? Only the aperture/lighting simulation, no? Maruk has explained that HDR can not be removed since it's an integral part of the lightness/darkness of a scene, and the light calculations wouldn't work without it. But could HDR be done in SM 2.0, and all other shading effects disabled (maybe keep bump mapping)? That would give a nice speed boost, and is nothing advanced for SM 2.0 I think. Of course, for people who want motion blur, Depth of Field and other goodies you need to keep SM 3.0. These things are optional anyway since 1.02 patch. And I know from that test I'm shader limited, but I don't want to run lower than native resolution on my LCD.

Are you trying to sert Aniso trough your drivers? That causes some "christmas light" effects on trees.

I'm on an Nvidia 9600GT. While in A1 at the same resolution, 2xFSAA was barely noticeable with maybe 1 Frame difference, in A2 it's 5 frames - 30 avg down to 25. It is a bit more performance expensive than I thought, no clue why? Is it possible that the "LOW" is actually doing higher FSAA?

Yep, I know it's rather "rough" what we're doing here. Not sure I'll have the time anytime soon, but if I get to it I'll mail you my results. Thanks for helping.