Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

POTS

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    370

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by POTS

  4. Posted

    I'm talking about IRL not quake style running around with 10 weapons. Sure you can run fast with all that gear on but not as far as you would with just one rifle.

    So? Why can i blitz all-around ArmA battlefield with carrying Javelin and why i shouldn't be able to do that with 2 rifles huh.gif Weight penalty = good thing. But i just don't get that how in hell's bells i can't carry rifle, when i can carry either JAvelin, RPG, radio, AT4 along with my rifle (each of them weight more than rifle). You tell me that, with good reasons. And maybe it's cease my crusade. tounge2.gif I just doubt that there are any.

    POTS:

    Quote[/b] ]Yes there is, I would never battle with more than one rifle. You must carry twice the load on your back, and have twice the amount of ammunition to carry aswell. Not to mention the ability to switch between them in the heat of battle. Also twice the maintnence. Then it's twice the cost per soldiers. There are two many drawbacks for regular infantry to handle this.

    You know what. Many hunters carry two weapons, shotgun and rifle during hunts. And have had not special training for that (well imagine that!wink_o.gif, they just take two weapons (which they handle) and start to hunt. Is it rabbit? Takes shotgun. Is it deer/moose? takes rifle. Aim, sqeeze the trigger and go collect your price.

    We are NOT talking about just standart issued equipment (or logistics or price of weaponry) here, but option to take your killed sniper/marksman's rifle and carry it along with assault rifle.

    I admit that it's not very important matter really. But arguments against putting it into game are just silly. Best argument i can figure against it, is probably strain to developers, while they could use that time to improve something else.

    hunting is not battle; i hope you don't think it is...

  6. Posted

    The battlefield has always been too silent. When these guys go down wounded, there should be some screaming/moaning/calling out to help appreciate the gravity of the situation. It doesn't have to be anything fancy, just have the design team yell 5-6 random screams or wimpers into a mike at the end of every day for two weeks and you would have it. I can just hear it now:

    "I'm Hit! I'm hit! Oh my God! ARRGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

    "Oh no...1 is hit... 2 goto 1...and...put him out...of his misery."

    "This is 2 going to 1."

    Blam.

    I seriously hope the whole 2 and 1 thing is gone. Give the guys names, they don't have to be consistant, you can even use the same ten names over and over again, it will still sound more immersive than:

    "This is 1...taking command."

    Rick

    They use numbers because it is battle simulator.

  7. Posted

    just watched the hd-trailer...yet I can´t be whining about the face models.

    They still look like lifeless and "plastic"...like slightly different clones of each other.

    See for yourself, or is it just me...

    ARMA2: (attack of the clones)

    http://www.gamersyde.com/pop_image.html?G=9275&N=9

    and

    OFP2: (face models, couldn´t find decent ingame face screens)

    http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/head1.gif

    http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/head2.gif

    http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/head3.gif

    They said they were still working on face models in some other thread in the general section.

  8. Posted

    Basic infantry and not trained to handle more than one rifle. Therefor the military does not fit them with one. Navy seals and other special forces are sometimes trained to handle them better. This means there should be some sort of penalty for normal infantry.

    Seriously man, is there really some secret and demanding training phase to learn the art of two rifles? Regular soldiers have one weapon because two costs more.

    Yes there is, I would never battle with more than one rifle. You must carry twice the load on your back, and have twice the amount of ammunition to carry aswell. Not to mention the ability to switch between them in the heat of battle. Also twice the maintnence. Then it's twice the cost per soldiers. There are two many drawbacks for regular infantry to handle this.

  9. Posted

    Basic infantry and not trained to handle more than one rifle. Therefor the military does not fit them with one. Navy seals and other special forces are sometimes trained to handle them better. This means there should be some sort of penalty for normal infantry.

  11. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]onvinced that they have optics/aiming systems to engage with accuracy at ranges above 1500-2000m

    Are you a T90A or NATO tank gunner, aren't you?

    Of course not...but I saw a documentary about 1st Gulf War and m1 gunners said they engaged at 3.000m whyle iraquis did at 1.500m Numbers soid that Americans lost 3 or 4 tanks and the Iraquis more than a hundred.

    If you go to the military market you would find that russian tanks are quite cheaper than the western tanks...that can give someone a clue about quality.

    I think  that russian military doctrine is to put massive quantities of med-quality tanks instead of putting fewer of high-quality tanks...one of the reasons why they won the Great Patriotic War.

    Those iraqi tanks, lol old t-72's (the good ones by iraqi standards) and t-55's should not be compared with the M1A2, the t-90 is much superior in many ways, including it's defense system, distance travel capacity, and agility. Yes, the m1a2 is probably better at extremely long range, but that doesn't matter in a non-desert (the majority of the world) environment. M1A2's are so inefficient they must be refueled in the middle of battle sometimes.

  12. Posted

    Well trained units dont get that often blurred and tunnel vision during combat. Would be very bad if all soldiers get such "automatic limited vision" only because of bullets passing by. Sorry but in most shooters its overdone and more people like to switch it off before they get motion sickness and tinnitus. Someone could say: "If missions arent that good by design add such stuff and some more kids will love it."  whistle.gif

    Seeing the world through you own eyes its a bit different than watching through an camera lense. Imho many developers forget that part and like to programm features closer to (action) movies. Lets see if BIS finds a way to implement such features in a proper & less (mainstream) shooter oriented way. At least have an option to switch it on and off.

    I think it should be server option in multiplayer

  14. Posted

    nice to see this vid is pretty much the game itself bar some shaky-cam and soft focusing here and there.  In the OFP2 trailer it's quite hard to distinguish what is actually game-play.  That is very honest of BIS, laying their cards on the table, so to speak.  

    I'm guessing that OFP2 will be more like BF2, COD4 in it's presentation.  But hey, we play this series for the depth  and adaptability, not necessarily the looks.

    I hope that BIS keep the feel of OFP & ARMA.  By that I mean what some would describe as clunky and slow, and some of us would regard it as what gives the game its sense of realism and timing; i.e. having to stop moving to reload, length of time to change weapons etc.  All the OFP format needs is bigger environments with more stuff in them, as our PCs grow and the programming gets better.

    I think ARMA may have been released as a work in progress to raise some cash or something, and ARMA2 being the finished product.  If that's the case, and if the engine is more efficient, after all the glitches, lousy and occasionally unrealistic missions that drove lots of us round the bend in ARMA, BIS can be forgiven.

    Promising video.  Interesting location. smile_o.gif

    I agree with most, but reloading is possible on the move, soldiers and police do it all the time. It's just impossible when you are sprinting full speed, which BIS already took care of.

  16. Posted

    On the ArmA II website it says " Expected release date 2009" im not 100% but didnt it say before Q1 2009? i just wanted to bring this up, dont know if it means anything at all.

    I remember recently hearing that it will be february 2009, but BIS ultimately calls the real release date.

  17. Posted

    Russia is one of those countries where a technology change happens slowly throughout their military.

    you are ....

    i will not say

    who first had Shtora/Arena ? active system protecting tanks ? does american tanks have such system that fires vs. flying rocket ?

    who had first ERA ?

    etc.

    Russian tanks were better than western

    heh

    you have no idea about Russia (not worse and cheapest T72 sold to Iraq and known from last wars)

    Wikipedia says... oh my god

    have you seen single T72 with DSHK huh.gif

    have you seen T64, T80 with DSHK huh.gif

    every russian tank can fire AT rockets

    Abrams, Leopard do not fire rockets

    for example in 1987 Russian T80 could destroy any west tank from 3 km by 9M119 which 20% little weaker than TOW

    do you know what is Shtora ?

    is there any west tank such modern like T80U ??

    Abram, Leopard can fire and effectively destroy Russian tank by sabot from 2 km

    but russian tank can fire rocket from 4 km

    and when TOW is lauchned vs. T80U, its systems fires something like preventing ERA explosion, that causes rocket destruction 2 meters before touching T80 !!!

    if T90 has DSHK, please BIS mount M1919A4 on Abrams !!!

    please cut M16A2 barrel and call it M4, if AK74M with changed pipe is called AK107

    Do you know how many t-90's vs t-72's they have? Do you know how many of their t-90's have shitora? Do you know how many t-80's they have? Do you know how many russian soldiers actualy use all their new weapons?

  18. Posted

    These sort of effects can enhance gameplay in some situations, such as getting caught in an explosion, simulating shock etc.

    But, there are enough 'hints' in combat (even in arma1) to tell you you're been shot at ffs. All the developers need to do is multiply those effects. Remember what it was like in OFP1 when the Shilka opened fire on your position? 'Frightening' is an bloody understatement.

    More smoke/dust/particles/thuds/dings/cracks/ricochets/noise = "DANGER", that's basically all you need to tell the player ' If you move right now.. you are fecking toast mate'

    The gun sights shaking would be reasonably acceptable when pinned down, but the blurred vision is about as realistic as Michael Jacksons nose.

    Somebody said it's possible for the shock wave from the bullet to make your eyes blurry if it passes really close.

  19. Posted

    That dog in the beginning kind of freaks me out whenever I watch it. I really like the ending after all the logos though when they're in the warehouse.

    Did anyone notice the pond behind the house when Team Razor gets in the UH-1 and takes off? Does that mean that water can be at higher elevations now?

    That house seems to collapse a bit too fast.

    That part with the slow motion bullet kind of makes me wonder why the two guys next to him don't move.

    Even in ArmA1 they move, so I think they told them to not do anything at all times.

  20. Posted

    DSHK on T90 :/ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    since T72 DSHK is not used !!!

    it is 1938-1960 machinegun !!!!

    AK 107 has wrong model, it has in real different gasp-pipe mount and corpus

    BIS made AK107 like it was AK74M with different gas pipe

    not true !!!

    AK107 has different sight mount too:

    http://club.guns.ru/images/ak107-6.jpg

    I already pointed that out, the cosmetic difference isn't enough to warrant anything. And the dshk, they use it in and out. Russia is one of those countries where a technology change happens slowly throughout their military. Thats why their prototypes are really early dates. Besides, the m2 was made even earlier than the dshk and us americans still use it on everything.

  23. Posted

    The one thing that will stop me getting ARMA2 is the AI at this stage, seeing as that's the guts of the reason this sim exists ... having and enemy to fight. I would deffo need a demo before I actually get the game to check out the AI.

    ..but, but... they have DOGS! ... and HALO para jumps...  Isn't that why we all enjoy playing games like OFP and ARMA?

    In all honesty, I totally agree with you.  The trailer looked nice, but I saw absolutely nothing in it that will influence my decision on weather to get this game or not.  

    Peace,

    DreDay

    What about the improved campaign, moving over low obstacles, nicer graphics, and improved animations?

    Personally, I find those nice to have; but only secondary to the main issues that had plagued OFP and made ARMA a bore for me - poor AI, poor team management, poor weapons handling, lack of fortified positions, lack of MOUT tactics/commands, etc...

    For me, even the best grafix and sounds in the world tend to get very tiresome unless there is some intellectual challenge to the game as well.  At this point in my life, I have much better to do than simply running around the virtual world than just running around the virtual world and blowing stuff up with little regard for troop deployment and tactics.  Personally I just don't get any seance of accomplishment from that; besides there are games that do it much better than ARMA.  I think that realism was always the strong suit of the BIS games and I am dissapointed not to see any major improvements in that area.  But hey, to each his own...

    Peace,

    DreDay

    You should join a tournament! 30vs30!

  24. Posted

    The one thing that will stop me getting ARMA2 is the AI at this stage, seeing as that's the guts of the reason this sim exists ... having and enemy to fight. I would deffo need a demo before I actually get the game to check out the AI.

    ..but, but... they have DOGS! ... and HALO para jumps...  Isn't that why we all enjoy playing games like OFP and ARMA?

    In all honesty, I totally agree with you.  The trailer looked nice, but I saw absolutely nothing in it that will influence my decision on weather to get this game or not.  

    Peace,

    DreDay

    What about the improved campaign, moving over low obstacles, nicer graphics, and improved animations?

  25. Posted

    I'm a bit worried about the trees though, I have terrible performance inside Sahrani wooden areas with everything turned down or off

    A couple of questions to the devs, if they have time:

    3. Will they switch to GL grip in the final version when they fire GLs? But to me this is a very minor glitch anyway, concentrate on the really important stuff first.

    4. Although HALO doesn't "look good", it's nice to see it as an internal feature. Hopefully parachutes will be steereable as well? wink_o.gif

    They said that the performance will be much more stable throughout the gaming experience due to optimizations.  That means that your frame rate will be constant, rather than up in some areas and down in others.  If you want to be a real cynic about that statement, it means that performance will be crappy everywhere, not just in forests.  I believe them when they say they've optimized everything, but I still think that ArmA 2 will be harder to run than Arma, and so you should probably anticipate upgrading your machine.

    3. They apparently already have that issue dealt with.  In some screens they show it with the grip fixed, in some they don't.  I don't know what that means but they said that weapons will have the capacity to have custom animations for them.

    4.  Earlier in the thread they said that they are still working on the animations for parachuting (hopefully this also means falling).  In another interview?, I recall them saying that special ops guys will have steerable glider type parachutes and regular troops will have non-steerable, standard type chutes.

    Did you listen to the radio interview? I directly asked him if the performance with ArmA2 will be better than ArmA1 and he said it will be much better, allowing 8600gt's (or popular cards) to run the game very well. All thats required is dual core minimum.

×