Randy

Material penetration also has little to do with the feasibility of personal armor, vests, helmets and the like are a simple matter of hit-boxes and location damage.

It should look nice at a distance too though and I'm just saying that I even seen nicer looking dynamic skies, Morrowind for example.

The water still seems rather ugly in comparison to other games, the skyboxes look bad too.

I also hope that the animations are tweaked, yes many aspects so far are WIP, but you can never be too careful and it's best these concerns are voiced. The FPS view locked to the crosshair really bothers me, but that's apparently toggleable so I'll rest easier. Anyway my biggest concern is the 'cartoony' animations, I've never seen anybody ever run like that, soldier, civilian, fat guy, nobody.

Why jump to conclusions like that? It's entirely within reason and completely logical to assume that they're still working on transition animations. Some of you have so little faith in BIS, it's incredible... I don't believe there was a conclusion jumped to in this case. I merely compared the animations witnessed in the recent E3 demos to a game released many years ago and asked the question, why would they take a few steps backwards in terms of believability? Yes, I do give BIS the courtesy of my faith that the animation system is a WIP. But, against the possibility it is not, I am simply expressing my concern over an aspect of the game that is seriously defficient in light of other excellent aspects. There can be no arguement with this, for it is simply a statement of my intent and an explaination as to why I bring these things to light. In regards to the notion that a smooth animation transition system would make indoor environments non-negiotiable: that is untrue. The Rainbow six games, beginning with the first up until the present had very believable animations, smooth transitions, whilst retaining utmost control. Make no mistake, a believable, smooth and functional animation system is within the capabilities of even the smallest of developers and has been for many years now, I won't list precedents. I predict that some will read this and take it out of context, therefore once again: Yes I know there is 3 months left of development, the animations could be WIPs, but they might not be. It is best to express concerns while there is still time for them to be addressed, defending a flaw and labelling the concern invalid simply buries it and lessens the chance it will be seen to. It is non-constructive.

A lack of ragdolling has absolutely nothing to do with animation transitions. Like martinovic said, OFP had smooth and realistic looking transitions between animations. Why would Arma take a step backward and suddenly look like Unreal Tournament in the animation department?

Thats what everybody said about Bethesda with Oblivion, even after the general public complained very loudly for many years about Morrowind's animations. After the first video for Oblivion came out, people criticised the basically the jerky unnatural animations exclusively, even journalists took note of the bad animations. 6 months later, another video comes out, same problem, nothing had been done. I browsed the forums over the entire development cycle and that was one of the most brought up topics "please give us a smooth animation system". A game that has over 10 million dollars in funding, a massive fanbase and is sure to make a massive profit, with the utmost graphical standard. But it was sullied by a glaringly bad animation system. Talk about the pink elephant in the corner of the room. Anyway, the moral of this rant is: I do have a lot of respect for BIS, even faith in them. But I also had respect for and faith in Bethesda, for actively participating in the forums and even listening to the concerns of a majority of their fans at one point. I believed that yes, they arn't simply re-wrapping their game in expensive, shader model 3 gift paper, to dazzle the more impressionable of gamers. My point here, is that a believable animation system is what ties all the graphics together, it demonstrates a lovingly crafted game and a pursuit for digital excellence.

The transitions between animations were absolutely terrible! The guy goes from a brisk pace, straight into a full blown run within a microsecond and then manages to stop in the same amount of time and go into a crouch. I'll give BIS the benefit of the doubt and say that it's probably very much WIP, I fervently hope so anyway. It's good to hear that centred aim can be turned off. Everything else looked good except for the very bad animation transitions.

Scary I was simply using Dragon Skin as an example of the possibilities, some people are all too keen to pipe up and say that body armor is ineffective just for the sake of holding a different opinion. I really don't care to go over the semantics and technicalities of previous posts, I think I made my point a few posts back. It is understood by myself that body armor won't turn you into batman. Such condescending comments don't help this debate, like I said the issue at hand here is whether it's wise for BIS to model body armor on the soldiers if it has absolutely no bearing in the game. We've already established that it's better to be wearing body armor if your hit by a bullet, whether you'd wear it on a 40km patrol is not the issue. It goes without saying that there is a point where body armor is impractical, but in so many situations, it is practical. Now putting the completely pointless debate as to the exact effectiveness of body armor aside, the fact is it's already in the game as far as I can tell and it remains to be seen whether it will end up meaning anything. I personally hope that it will be life saving in the game, even though various comments hint that it is just an asthetic feature.

You are being far too defensive in all of these points. You are disregarding the point that if Dragon Skin made claims of no penetration after multiple muzzle velocity hits from an AP assault rifle, they probably wouldn't be around because the first time this claim was proven painfully incorrect, they wouldn't be a company anymore. On the effectiveness of body armor in general: I'm very aware that penetration is not required to kill. But a majority of those who have been hit while wearing body armor suffer only bruising. Therefore a minority suffer worse injuries or even death from blunt force trauma. Then the point still remains: are you better off being hit with or without body armor on? More on the defensive and possibly aggressive nature of your post: this is supposed to be a debate, not a personal battle, the implications that I have a "copy of Jane's and a Pinnacle Armor press release" if it was even true, is irrelevant. I also wasn't claiming that you havn't mastered marksmanship, I have a suspicion that you tossed this in simply to state that you have, because if you read my post I was reffering to the broadest range of people. Any military force/person, militant, hunter, mountain shepherd. Now I'm not a soldier or a professional in this regard, so some of my technical assertions are probably innaccurate, but I make the strongest effort to cross check everything I put forth as fact. And all this time, the most important fact I have been pressing is that good body armor will probably save an unlucky soldiers life, as I suppose you'd have to be a little bit unlucky to be shot. If this is not the case in real life, then it is most definetly the case in OFP. Many enemies and comrades have been downed by torso shots that would have been stopped by armor in OFP. I am most definetly not going to try and make an entire post of every arguable technical innaccuracy you put forth, or make assumptions and unfounded assertions about your person. So, please if you are going to post a retort to a point of mine: oppose the point I make, not the subtle nuances and errors of every sentence, let slide anything in my post you percieve as wrong and stay on the issue at hand. Because these things can go on forever. To refresh the point I am making is this: Body armor is too significant a factor to be added simply as a visual feature in Arma.

Good thread, very handy info thanks.

Your point about armor being quite possibly penetrated seems to disregard the previous few pages of this thread, that has been covered. Beyond reasonable doubt, the integrity of state of the art armors such as Dragon Skin is proven, even battle proven. Body armor, is extremely effective against most hand held rifles and assault rifles, even AP rounds. The testing conditions include multiple muzzle velocity AP shots from various assault rifles, none of them penetrate in the case of Dragon Skin. Soldiers do aim centre mass, not killzone. Killzones include the head and neck, soldiers do not aim here. The chances of missing increases too much where you have only a relatively small area to hit (the head). My brothers who are in the army can testify to this. This principle of aiming for killzones only really applies to snipers. Also, a first shot hit from 40 metres away, on a firing range is quiet achievable. On the battlefield is much different. The targets on the firing range don't run, don't hit the deck when fired upon, do not seek cover and most definetly do not fire back. In fact marksmanship is not so easy to master for most people in comfortable conditions, not even mentioning when your breathing heavily, on uneven ground and under fire. In regards to internal damage caused by an armor halted round: Yes in inferior vests this can and often does occur. Modern systems deal with this effectively, private contracted workers in Iraq (who are thus equipped with the best armors) in many cases have reported not even realising they have been hit from an AK round. Conclusion: Body armor of acceptable quality is often the difference between life and death for a soldier. What piece of equipment could be more pivotal in a soldiers inventory then, apart from his firearm? Good body armor can also be the difference between having several men down, killed and/or wounded in enemy held territory. And that is disasterous.

I'd like the AI to freak out sometimes like in AVP or UFO. If a half a marines team gets ripped to pieces and he can hear all sorts of hisses and snarls coming from a dark hallway he will freak out and shoot at everything that moves. Sometimes mowing down his remaining comrades. The way it could be applied here is if you ambush a squad in a forest and kill them in quick succession, the remaining troops might fire into the foilage, a chaotic effort at defense. A troop could freak out if he sees some of his buddies blown to pieces by a mortar. He might fire wildly, run in panick or just cower, sobbing. ^^Unlikely situation of course, soldiers are trained to not freak out. But then again, soldiers aren't trained to see their friends pulverized in bloody screams and be powerless to save them, or themselves. Related to this aspect of AI, some soldiers should surrender if the situation looks to be impossible. Dropping weapons and coming out into the open with their hands up.

Bullets don't have the kinetic force to knock somebody over, no hand held rifle in the world has that capability I believe. If it did, simple physics dictate that the gunmen would be thrown back with near equal force. The lethality of a bullet is connected with the hydrodynamic qualities of human flesh and the way in which a small high speed projectile displaces it. The concussive shock of taking a bullet to the torso despite having body armor on, can and does ground soldiers. If hit while wearing conventional ceramic plate insert body armor, you may be winded and be unable to continue the fight for a time. However the principle of reactive armor, or kinetic force dispersion across the entire armor piece, utilised in state of the art armors, ensures minimal harm to the wearer. While initial shock may cause the victim to slip over or stagger, no damage will be done to the wearer.

Eh? Roads improve the speed of all vehicles in OFP. Going offroad makes it all bumpy and slows you down. So the system is already there.

Yes it can, especially with the latest armor, read the whole thread. The torso is the biggest part of the body, most likely to be hit. Soldiers aim centre mass, that is, for the torso. Shooting at someone from a distance, you are most likely to hit the torso. The torso. The torso is the part with the armor. Statistically your chances of not being killed by the next bullet to hit you, improve dramatically. So, what are our chances of death when the enemy takes aim and fires from say 40 metres. If he aims for the head he will most likely miss the head. He will probably miss you with the first few shots, if he hits you, its most likely the torso. The torso is the bit with the armor on it.

A great fall in combat effectiveness is a given: it's been said and agreed upon more times than I can count now in this thread. It would be a great convienience to still be able to overburden ones self. For the reasons I've previously stated, such as moving bulk equipment in preparation for an ambush or relocating a temporary supply camp to higher more concealed ground. I don't know about you, but in OFP, some of my multiplayer missions would go for hours and hours. Also, like I have already said, running to the thoughtlessly placed ammo crate for a resupply is what will get you killed. Fact: Nobody in real life would have their supply crates sitting in the open. If they were, perhaps having been unloaded by a truck, they would be moved quick smart to a better more secure location. With the current system this is impossible to do in any practical timeframe. To recap: The combat effectiveness of a soldier carrying too much equipment is not in question. Please shape further responses into something other than "A soldier never ever carries anything except standard issue into combat." Yes, agreed and understood.

Thats just how it should work.

If it is body armor I'm seeing, it seems pretty senseless for a literally life changing, live saving, possibly career defining piece of equipment to be a visual 'bell and whistle'. As sure as an M1Abrams will make short work of a T50, a soldier in the latest protective gear will probably live to go home and even fight on (depending on armor) when hes shot in the chest. The kalishnakov wielding militant on the other hand will lose a significant portion of his chest. My points earlier in this thread sum up the critical role of body armor for any soldier anyway. It comes down to this: Why bother modelling something which has a huge effect on the life of the soldier and his squad and a great effect tactically, when it's treated simply as a superfluous 'gloss' feature in the game, contrary to all intuitive logic and reason. It's like seeing a massive heavy machinegun emplacement, fully stocked just screaming to be used to mow down that advancing infantry collumn intent on killing you and the village you defend. But getting to it and discovering it's just a scene filler.

Still doesn't get over the unneccessary inconvenience of having to ferry equipment when your trying to set an ambush or any of the other hundred reasons you might need to haul a bunch of crap.

The ironsights look worse than they did in OFP, the actual gun model's ironsight's should be used. This is the most effective method as proven by Deer Hunter 5 and Smod for Half-Life 2. It also appears that the view has been locked to the crosshair as numerous people have mentioned. Yes it is an old video, but why would they add these things that degrade the game, if OFP already had a superior solution? I'm hoping they're just trying these things on and have discarded them many months ago.

I know body armor isn't going to effect anything in the game as already established, but the most recent slew of screenshots with the even newer models show soldiers with body armor on. Why go to the trouble of modelling the armor if they're just gonna die with the first measly round to the chest? Or is all this stuff just combat webbing?

Yeah it's pretty close, though I think everyone should be able to choose to overburden themselves, with no weight classes between different characters if you know what I mean.

The ability to carry multiple weapons, lots of equipment and heaps of extra ammo should be in ARMA. Of course it would slow you down somewhat and to move at speed would reduce the distance you could travel. But to not include this would be unrealistic. There are times, like in the ambush mission in OFP multiplayer, when a player has to run back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, ferrying mere handfuls of equipment. There are plenty of situations where the ability to carry realistically massive amounts of equipment would be far more practical and beneficial than always being stuck with 'standard' amounts. Some firefights can be drawn out, some missions can go for hours. Often it's in relocating that you get killed, trying to grab a few more clips from that crate in that painfully exposed position. We need to be able to lug a bunch of crap into a building, dump it near a window and let loose. Likewise, if you need to make a getaway because of an approaching tank column, ranning back and forth between a crate and a truck is not practical. Grabbing armfuls of equipment, stuffing your pack with supplies is.

Armed Assault is a pretty poor name. Like someone said way earlier in this thread, it is one of the most redundant names I have ever heard. Armed Assault, as opposed to Unarmed Assault, or Suicidal Assault. Operation Cannon Fodder could work also. Now I've seen it said countless times, 'the name doesn't matter'. Well of course it doesn't matter to you, your fans and buying this game is a forgone conclusion for almost all of us. But for those who might see 'Armed Assault Review' on the internet, the title doesn't hold much promise because as someone said, its generic and it sounds like a bland silly shooter. For BI's own good, I'd suggest a name change. Armed Assault is okay as a name, but a title has to be more than okay for people to not simply dismiss it. Also, I'd imagine it's not too late yet either, no publisher is confirmed therefore everything in the game could be considered work-in-progress, title included.