OKO

my 8800GTS 320 OC doesn't agree with you

Just try very low terrain detail (the only setting where you can't see the grass layer), in solo (editing quickly something with 2 soldiers) And you will have the same thing I talked about, just above. my GC is a 8800GTS320 OC 1 year old.

I didn't knew that, I just verified and you are right about it ! thanx plaintiff1 So, I have another question : is it better to put all graphic settings on the dedicated server to the max (assuming dedicated server doesn't need to use it anyway ...), and will it be a problem for low configs in game ? Is this solution (all graphic settings to the max for dedicated server) will give some better look to arma on MP mission ? you make me feel much better, anyway, plaintiff1, with this answer edit : you talked about the terrain detail level, is it the only thing that is dictated by the server concerning the graphic settings ?

Hi all, I just verified one thing that makes me bad : If you are on "very low" setting for terrain detail, the LOD for grass just desappear ! here is 2 screenshots => with very low detail : with settings above (from low to very high) : As you could see, people using very low terrain detail use a kind of cheat, as they could see much more clearly the ennemi proning than people using other graphic settings. I think the grass LOD is an excellent idea, but should exist whatever your graphic settings, because its a great advantage for people using "very low terrain detail". I hope you will take care of that thing on the next patch. tank you for your attention, and keep up your excellent work !

mr.g-c, what I wanted to say, was just : whatever you do, you couldn't have the real feeling of a personnal weapon with ... a mouse. So, what is important is that your PERFORMANCE on the field stay close to the real thing. With the 1.08 and previous version of arma, recoils were tuned enought fine to reproduce real performance of weapons : - you need train to improve - when you are trained, you have same efficency as with a rel weapon. With new settings, everyone is a rambo after 30 seonds of game, that's just stupid for a simulation, it's only an arcadish feature. And I just cant' believe the previous EXCELLENT WORK at recoil (not perfect, perfection can't be obtained with a simulation) could be erased with this awfull simplification. I have really nothing personnal against you, and the only point I'm interested to talk about is : final efficiency of shooters. This recoil makes everyone a Rambo in some seconds, when to be an average shooter need time, IRL. Furthermore, this is just not more fun at all, this just feel robotic killer, bad sensation, and exagerated efficiency. Nothing to do with a simulation.

yes I do, I was in the army and fired some hundreds of 5.56 (with Famas) And also mounted 12.7 MG You don't seems to have this experience on what you said I'm afraid you really don't know what you are talking about ! With all respect to you. So, cause YOU are not using real weapons, except once you said, you better don't say anything about realism, dude ... that's just completly wrong. If you think you are able to fiire 30 rounds in a 50cm plate at 200m in less than 5 seconds, without any training, this just mean you just don't know what you are talking about ! Hand weapons need train to uderstand it, to find the best rate of fire (one by one bullets on distant target), to control the muzzle in automatic fire etc ... This need train IRL ! and not a little, some hundreds bullets to become a real good shooter ! And with the 1.08 and before recoil settings, this was the case, and the lurning curve was very close to the real thing. I made some trainings for my organisation (OFCRA => http://www.ofcra.org/ ) with specific assault rifle training, firing at 20 targets, distant from 50 to 300 meters, and I saw how training like these improved a LOT the skill of soldiers : At first you need about 3 to 4 minutes to complete the training, but after 10 to 20 tries, my best is now 1mn32 seconds ! that's just what you need : no unrealistic recoils, but training ! If you want to test it (its an alpha version .. ) : BLUEFOR training => http://okofree.free.fr/armastu....ara.rar REDFOR training => http://okofree.free.fr/armastu....ara.rar these training are made to be used with realistic balistics addon. If you also think you could fire a MG standing on your feet at 400 meters targets, you must really experience it ! It's far from the real thing, just an arcadish feature. 1.08 recoil are very close to the real thing, don't let your lack of training with it makes you believe it's to hard ! So here is the point : original recoils where pretty much close to the real thing in term of efficiency : same rythm of fire, same results on targets for all weapons. With original settings, you have to learn your weapon but if you do, you improve a lot, quickly, and you feel like you fire with a real one, and there is a real difference beetween trained people and not trained people. with the training above, you will see a real difference beetwen aka74 and M4, about 15 to 20% easier for M4 (15% to 20% speeder to finish the training) Something, finally, very close to the real thing, even the time you need to complete the training. A simulation, in one word ... Now, it's just a quake or counter strike, nothing to do with realistic efficiency, FAR more efficient and FAR less funny. Arma is an infantery simulation, If you prefer some arcadish games, there is an excellent one just released for you, named Crysis. And even Crysis have more realistic recoils than arma now ... a real shame ... BIS ... how could you do ...that ?? You really desapointed me for the first time untill 8 years This change is so awfull I still can't understand how you could have done that and put it in a public (even beta) patch ... I really hope you will correct that thing in the official patch, or anyway, we (our organisation) will release a public addon with original recoil settings for arma if you stand with the 1.09 ones. This change is a really step backwards.

As I tought this recoil change with 1.09 is so catastrophic that it needs a specific thread, I made one and it was locked, so I repost it here, to discuss that thing => I think the new so called "gameplay" changes are very strange for a simulation like Arma. You are now able to put an entire magazine in 3 or 4 seconds in a 50cm plate at 200m with an aka. It's really not realistic, neither even fun. Why are ou trying to change a simulation to a "quake like" game ? Even Crysis have now a more realistic feeling with weapons than arma. Actual 1.09 feeling with weapon is just AWFULL. You made fantastic job, modelising recoils that felt like real ones, recoils which need to train yourself to the different hand weapons, recoils for a simulation and not for "counter strike" games, in Arma original version. And now, you completly changed with the 1.09 beta, giving us some absolutly unrealistic, not funny, and not understandable recoil changes. Who the hell give you this awfull idea to kill the simulaion aspect like this ?? And how couldn't you see YOURSELF how it is just a ridiculous choice ? Now, you also don't need to be crouched to use MG, tell me, did you already try to use a MG on kneel or standing on your feet ? You must be joking ... and it's not a good joke. So, specifically, the 1.09 recoils are something not only highly unrealistic, but not fun at all. It's a big mistake to try to change a simulation to a more larger public game with this artifact. You won't convince neither the simulation fan than the occasionnal gamer. Why don't you let the modders doing changes like this ? Why do you kill your work ?? I won't mention the other HIGHLY UNREALISTIC change about the BMP, that could survive to an AT-4 impact. You made me laught with that ... An AT4 could blast a 10 time more armored vehicule IRL (35mm of armor at best against 400 mmm of penetration ....) AT4 was made to fight MBT not APC ... An APC couldn't survive to an AT-4 impact, no-chance-at-all. So, haven't finished to read your change's log, I just tested at this time this dramatic changes, but this is the first time, for the first days of OFP that you release a soooo disapointing change on a patch. Fom this day, I was absolutely happy with all your patch, from OFP untill now, for 8 years ... and suddenly, I see BIS trying to make a bastard game, not really a simulation, not really a game, and this will NOT satisfy people who like simulations, neither people who just want a game. I hope this absolute and complete error will be corrected in the official patch, at least this is just a beta.

Hi all, Well everything is in the title. I think the new so called "gameplay" changes are very strange for a simulation like Arma. You are now able to put an entire magazine in 3 or 4 seconds in a 50cm plate at 200m with an aka. It's really not realistic, neither even fun. Why are ou trying to change a simulation to a "quake like" game ? Even Crysis have now a more realistic feeling with weapons than arma. Actual 1.09 feeling with weapon is just AWFULL. You made fantastic job, modelising recoils that felt like real ones, recoils which need to train yourself to the different hand weapons, recoils for a simulation and not for "counter strike" games, in Arma original version. And now, you completly changed with the 1.09 beta, giving us some absolutly unrealistic, not funny, and not understandable recoil changes. Who the hell give you this awfull idea to kill the simulaion aspect like this ?? And how couldn't you see YOURSELF how it is just a ridiculous choice ? Now, you also don't need to be crouched to use MG, tell me, did you already try to use a MG on kneel or standing on your feet ? You must be joking ... and it's not a good joke. So, specifically, the 1.09 recoils are something not only highly unrealistic, but not fun at all. It's a big mistake to try to change a simulation to a more larger public game with this artifact. You won't convince neither the simulation fan than the occasionnal gamer. Why don't you let the modders doing changes like this ? Why do you kill your work ?? I won't mention the other HIGHLY UNREALISTIC change about the BMP, that could survive to an AT-4 impact. You made me laught with that ... An AT4 could blast a 10 time more armored vehicule IRL (35mm of armor at best against 400 mmm of penetration ....) AT4 was made to fight MBT not APC ... An APC couldn't survive to an AT-4 impact, no-chance-at-all. So, haven't finished to read your change's log, I just tested at this time this dramatic changes, but this is the first time, for the first days of OFP that you release a soooo disapointing change on a patch. Fom this day, I was absolutely happy with all your patch, from OFP untill now, for 8 years ... and suddenly, I see BIS trying to make a bastard game, not really a simulation, not really a game, and this will NOT satisfy people who like simulations, neither people who just want a game. I hope this absolute and complete error will be corrected in the official patch, at least this is just a beta.

thermal sight is designed for night and day target tracking, no to see when its dark, but to pop up target with different temperature than environment, in any situation nothing to do with light amplification or night vision. The most problematic situation to use it is when it rains. We don't need a very sophisticated modelisation (no need for a specific radiation for each unit), but, at least, a clair contrast for target finding, and, if possible, a quite large difference of performance, depending on weather. This is the main tool of so many land warfare, a real simulation can't avoid to modelise it. And this shouldn't be too complicated to do if I believe what I saw on different simulations like T-72 balkans or Steel beast pro, nice simulation but far from the graphical sophistication of Arma. Arma just couldn't be a real simulation without this feature. Arma really deserve a thermal sight system.

there IS a 3D sighting, read my post and look more carefully the weapon, you just have it under our noze, but I admit it's not so evident when you don't know it. Look just above your left inch with aka. ... yes here, you found it ! Now you know ... As great, accurate and realistic as it have to be. The one for M203 is less accurate, only for distance (very accurate for direction), I admit this, but with training, it's just the same. you just have to fire about 50 to 100 of them and you will be very accurate from the first round. And anyway, you better use a marker, then fire for effects this is a simulation isn't it ? So ... we don't need artifact when we already have the real thing. Next time, just take your time before saying things like "If you guys would play in Veteran Mode ..." ... or don't be surprised if some real (old) vet play a bit (in a friendly way) with you

if you, Buliwyf, were really playing in veteran mode, and tried a bit to familiarise yourself with it, you will knew BIS GL sight are very usefull like this. More, the GP-25 is absolutly accurate from 75 to 200 metres, at less than 10 meters with a bit of training, and even less with more training, the M-203 just need a more practice to be as accurate. I personally play veteran, ALL options desactived (when I say all it's all, not even one activated) from the first day of Arma, and even from OFP, an organise large scale battles with this settings (www.ofcra.org), with realistics balistics and other realistics addons. To use the GP-25, use the sight, just up to your left inch, in iron sight view, with grenade launcher. Juste train yourself, then come back to say you are sorry to have miss this fact Because you sounds like you really didn't knew that, huhuhu Same with M203, just have to train to know elevation, in GL iron sight mode, a matter of some dozen of grenade used, one session is enought to do that. the process is : one for marker, and fire for effects. When you are trained, your marker is always quite close to target and the fire for effect will decimate a complete squad beetween 75 and 250m in about 30 seconds a veteran tip for you, Buliwyf I didn't said the optical is not accurate, I just said it's not realistic and neither necessary. You have exactly the same accuracy without it if you know your gun. It just kill your circular sight, that's all. I won't use this addon with the unrealistic optical sight, and I could see I won't be the only one ... If you just have to select this with some init, this excellent addon will be used by the most exigeant players (the one who only play in veteran ...). Either, it will be used by only some occasionals gamers ... This will be a shame for a so usefull addon !

I second this, excellent addon but I rather perfer to use the original sight on both US and russians weapons (especially at the russian GP-25). So I won't use it with the optical sight Could you give the choice of the sight to the user in some init field ?

I second this proposition Thermal sight is something could give a really huge progress in the realism, without killing the gameplay. Actual "radar" could be left only to real radar systems, and thermal sights only to tanks and combat helos. One good example of thermal sight is T72 balkan in fire. Weather dependent, but not too sophisticated, nevertheless close to the real thing, very usefull tool, and very realistic. I don't think there is any real technical problems to implement thermal sight to arma2, if I refer to what I saw on T72 and Steel beasts pro, but this could be done only by BIS, not an addon. I'm sure, if BIS do that, it will be a fantastic feature, very appreciated by all, and veterans or rookies will love to use it. This thermal sight is one of the last cruel miss of arma (and even before with OFP) at this time. With it, arma2 will be not only an infantery simulation but a real modern combat theatre simulation, one step beyond.

I would have said, maybe 2 versions : one for basic arma (standard version) one with realistic settings, sized for NWD realistic balistics (realistic version) should be only a matter of small and easy changes, and this addon could be used in both "game" and "simulation" situations. I hope you will find a solution for realistic settings on APFSDS

I just tested some minutes, but this was very impressive. On my tests, with NWD realistics, the only strange thing on your excellent addon was the APFSDS use : near completely ineffective against an Abrams, whatever the side aspect. HEAT and missiles seems to have correct effects, only sabots are much under effective. Should be a "quite" easy problem to solve isn't it ? This superbe T-64 is a much better counterpart to the M1A1 than the original T-72, and he is looking very good, great work ! Maybe a little work on textures ... even if they looks fine at this time. as soon as you will solve this problem, we will use your addon on our missions, here => http://www.ofcra.org/forum/index.php (~100 soldiers -40 humans- on realistics maps, 2 to 3 time a month) So, we wait impatiently the V1.0 of this excellent work