Student Pilot

I think I may be misunderstanding you somewhere. You seem to present a contradiction. In your first sentence you say human and environment issues go hand in hand, which I do not disagree with. However, you say in your fourth sentence that nature will fix itself. If this is true, then humans should not have to be so concerned about the environment, and should focus on improving our standard of living using whatever technologies are available to us, green or not. As for melting icecaps and permafrost, and whatever other global warming problems there are, I do not disagree that they may be happening. What I disagree about is the cause. I do not believe the events cited by environmentalists are caused by man. I believe that they are caused by factors not under our control such as sunspot activity (though this may not be the only non-human factor). As such, eventually the earth's climate will reverse itself, permafrost and icecaps will freeze again, and the world's agriculture will be saved, all without our intervention. Almost every nation has resources available to it, it is just up to that nation's residents to exploit them for their own benefit. Even Africa has undeveloped resources. What about nations in the desert areas you may ask? Create glass factories... Your advocation of aid such as local-specific techniques and short-term medical I can agree with. Governance and crops, though, I think they can do without. Let them govern their industries themselves, and let them grow their own crops or trade for them. I would go further with this, but this topic is about climate change and further conversation on my part about African aid would be off topic. I will let you have the last word on this if you so choose in your next post. After this, aid and Africa is off my conversation list for this topic. -Student Pilot EDIT: About global warming leading to rising water levels and decreased agricultural output: This assumes that temperatures keep rising. I believe they will, and may already have, hit a peak and start going down. Therefore, these consequences will not happen. This again goes back to my belief for the reasons of climate change being non-human in nature. I understand where you are coming from. If I believed that humans contributed to global warming, I too would be worried as hell about the upcoming years. Thing is, is I do not believe that and have not seen evidence that fully convinces me.

But what is the cost involved? And does this relate to the majority of crops, or just a few? Some luxury crops may not require fertilizers and pesticides, but I dare say that commodity crops such as corn and wheat would do much worse without them. No we do not, and we should not. Agrictultural aid is already killing African agriculture, and if we do not stop Africa will never leave its stagnant state. These countries need to advance by themselves without our aid and money. With all of the money we have thrown at places like Africa, have you seen any progress? No, and this is because these places have not had the chance to develop their own infrastructure because of our "help". This debate about green technologies and the developing nations is where our differences truly come head-to-head. I do not believe we are harming the environment near as much as you do, and as a result fully support industrial revolutions which require dirty technologies as their foundation. You, believing the environment is being irreparably destroyed, cannot support such movements. The only problem is, we are being green at the sacrifice of billions of people, putting environmental issues before human issues. I believe the environment will take care of itself, and as a result we humans should focus on taking care of ourselves. China, India, Brazil, and the other developing nations will eventually move to greener technologies after their industrial revolutions are complete and they can afford it. If we force the issue those nations will not advance. -Student Pilot

Agreed, and that conversation would be off-topic here anyway, so I'll get back to OFP DR and agree to disagree. Question regarding the grass, that I do not remember coming across. Is it possible to disable it if the grass turns out to be a performance hit (or really, really ugly)? -Student Pilot

For theoretical terms, free markets and unlimited competition have worked pretty well for us so far... But...my point was not to compare our current economic malaise to 2001, but to show that BIS developed a revolutionary product which subsequently sold well. They had plenty of competition in the form of corridor shooters (remember that not all competition is direct competition), and they did well with it. I think when they created the genre, they became a monopoly because no one else created milsims, and saw their competition reduce considerably as a result. That was when it took 6 years to produce Arma, and now ArmaII, both which are nowhere near as revolutionary as OFP originally was. If BIS cannot come up with something to successfully compete with CM and other studios, despite having several games behind them, then it is their right to fail. Remember that they made OFP a huge success with fewer resources than they have now. Even if the milsim market is saturated and there is no room for a second game in this genre (which I disagree with), competition is still good because it forces studios to differentiate their product, whether that be by price, features, modability, ect. Even if one studio has to die because there is no room for them, the end result for us consumers is a better product. I believe that BIS will do well, though, even in the face of competition. They created OFP, and though their two recent offerings may not be perfect, they still have the necessary vision to create a worthy sequel to OFP. Maybe this threat of competition will simply decrease the time it takes for them to get it to us. -Student Pilot ...gosh, another long post. I need to stop posting just after I have my morning coffee.

I think what Iroquois Pliskin is saying (or at least what I am interpreting him to say) is that the push for climate controlling green technologies will necessarily result in a rise in costs and subsequent decrease in consumption of products necessary for continued life in developing nations. Attempts to ban things like fertilizers, gasoline-powered engines, and various chemicals will retard the growth of these nations into proper modern national entities. Such changes could in fact put these nations backwards. There are millions (edit: billions) of people that rely on "dirty" technologies for their basic survival, and banning these would result in millions dieing and the standard of living decreasing to unacceptable levels. This is why he says "almost any "developing" country would rather face death before even a thought of reduced consumption enters their mind." If this is indeed what he is trying to say, then I do agree with him for the most part. Western civilization did not get to where it is by using expensive, inefficient green technologies. We abused the hell out of the environment during the late 1800s up to around 1980-1990, using cheap oil, polluting factories, and harsh chemicals to increase our production and consumption of goods and services, especially argricultural products. The result was a fantastic rise in our standard of living never seen before that time. If we deny developing nations the chance to develop like we did, we could set them back for a very long time, and this is not in the best interest of anyone. I would especially caution the push toward "green" agricultural products. Before any nation can become industrialized, it must have a solid agricultural base. Expensive, inefficient green agri-food products raise the cost of farming and lower the yield compared to traditional "dirty" products. This alone can seriously stunt the economic growth of developing nations. -Student Pilot

Competition is always a good thing. By your logic BIS should never have had the success they had with OFP. My hope is that CM comes out with a great product in OFP DR, and that stirs BIS to make some truly revolutionary changes/additions worthy of an OFP successor. Let's face it, many in the community feel that BIS's latest offerings have been buggy and somewhat lackluster. This threat of competition may be what is needed to get the ball rolling on a true OFP 2. My biggest fear is that OFP DR is a flop and this niche genre dies out from lack of innovation. -Student Pilot

It was a scare tactic because you just threw it out there with nothing else to support it. Now that you have named some specifics, it has become a debatable argument. That's the difference. I cannot debate "so poison air is acceptable to you?". I can debate the paragraph of yours that I quoted in the text. And with that, I will not debate your argument :p I would have to do research into your claim and find evidence either way, and I simply cannot do that right now on account of life. Although, in parting, you will notice I never said I am for polluting technologies. I am just against inefficient, costly, "green" technologies. As you pointed out so well, even hydrogen is not perfect. I think we still need to wait until we find the next true replacement for oil. -Student Pilot

hmm, that is worrisome. I guess the demo will reveal the true hardware requirements once and for all. Just have to wait... -Student Pilot

I think now's a good time to repeat this: Seeing as everyone is talking about low poly count and graphics that may not be as nice as ArmaII, may I remind everyone that ArmaII requires the latest hardware to run well? If anything, CM's approach to OFP DR, at least graphics-wise, is somewhat like the OFP we all know and love. OFP's graphics weren't great, but darn if it wouldn't run on almost any machine. This is something I think BIS got away from with Arma and ArmaII. Now, I am not saying that BIS's move was the wrong direction, it is just one I cannot join BIS in taking. Maybe when I graduate from college and get a good job I will rejoin BIS in their perfection of the milsim. With that being said, we still do not know what the performance of OFP DR is like. If the graphics are anything to go by, it should run on even average systems just fine. If it doesn't, you can be sure I won't be buying it. -Student Pilot

That statement is not debatable and is only meant to scare people into agreeing with you. -Student Pilot

Like it did at Mt. St. Helens, New Orleans, Pompeii, the large tsunamis a few years ago, krakatoa, countless mudslides all over, the creation of the Sahara desert, the dust bowl of the 30s, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, the Mozambique flood, the great blizzard of 1888, the many tornadoes that ravage the US each year, the many viral outbreaks (SARS, swine flu, black death, ebola), ect ect ect. ;) .....now that I have mentioned all of that, I am thinking we need to wage a war against nature. Take off the scrubbers, sell more hummers, throw nuclear waste around! -Student Pilot

That makes sense, and I absolutely agree with it. As I said before, I think demand for alternative energy technologies will pick up once the price of oil rises and/or alternative energies become cheaper and as efficient as or more efficient than oil. I also do not doubt that increases in the price of oil will happen, it is just a matter of when. My hope is the government does not force it by adding carbon taxes and hiking the gas tax. I think the transition to alternative energies should come about from market demand for them, not from government regulation and taxation. This is where my skepticism about man-made climate change comes in. If I were truly worried about a cataclysmic catastrophe, I would not hold this view. -Student Pilot

Is there really demand for these technologies? It seems the main pushers are political organizations and the government. I really have not seen the average Joe clamor for electric cars and alternative energies. I think for demand to pick up for alternative energies, we will have to see the price of oil go back up, and that probably will not happen for some time without government internvention. Hopefully, such intervention will not happen because of risk of political backlash.

Hydrogen is an alternative energy I can get behind. I think in the long run it is also the most viable. No matter what alternative energy we go to, infrastructure is going to be a problem. I would much rather we use hydrogen gas instead of corn, algae, electric (coal powered), or any number of the rediculous "solutions" out there that deliver less performance and are much costlier. However, I have a nagging suspicion that eventually, if we go to hydrogen, it too will become the target of environmentalists. What is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere? What is the byproduct of hydrogen engines? The answer to both questions is water vapor. @ch_123 I see where you are coming from, but I still have my doubts. Earth is a really big place. Either way, my argument isn't really an argument, just an observation that probably cannot by refuted or confirmed. -Student Pilot

Nice scare tactic. I am skeptical of global warming/man-made climate change. Here in Wisconsin (yes, I know 1 observation does not extend to the whole population) it has been unusually cold this summer. Back in the 1970s the whole rage was global cooling, until they had to change their theories when temperatures were increasing instead of decreasing. When it comes down to it, I have a hard time believing that mere man can have such a large impact on earth, which has a surface area of 510,000,000 square kilometers and a volume of 1,083,000,000,000 cubed kilometers. Anyone besides me think it's even a little arrogant and presumptuous to believe that we can have long-term destructive effects on this planet's climate? Do you realize just how large this earth really is and how small we are in comparison? Now, I do believe that the climate changes, but there are forces other than man at work. The sun, and its associated sunspot activity, seem to me to be the largest contributor. -Student Pilot

Strange comment about the vehicles behaving oddly. You would think that would be the one thing that wouldn't be a problem. -Student Pilot EDIT: I'm hoping the difficulty options can be set independantly of each other like in Arma and ArmaII. I would like to pick and choose for myself what aspects of the HUD remain, not have it decided for me in arbitrary "difficulty levels".

I'll decide based on the demo. The wow factor for me will be performance and properly working mouse control. -Student Pilot

I just did a test and compared OFP to Arma. I would compare it to ArmaII, but my comp really cannot handle it. However, it seems the mouse control hasn't changed. In Arma there was a definite lag of around 1/4 second or so. This means that I would move the mouse, and the pointer would begin moving about 1/4 second later. This may not sound like much, but it makes the game feel slow and clunky. Not to mention that the problem gets worse when FPS drops. In OFP there was NO noticeable lag at all. As soon as I moved the mouse the pointer moved. OFP feels perfectly balanced control-wise; it does not have the slow clunky aiming feel that Arma has. Here are my comp specs for those who may want to know: 1.80GHz Intel Core 2 processor 2.5 GB RAM NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS with 128MB memory Cheap little microsoft mouse with a sample rate of 200 reports/second Both OFP and Arma run fine on my system with little or no noticeable lag. -Student Pilot

...I'm beginning to think this community is no better than the CS kiddies everyone scoffs at. Some (many) of us have a genuine problem but are cast aside because mouse lag is apparently realistic and those of us who refuse to give in just don't have the leet haxor skillz necessary to handle a realistic simulation. Those of you with this attitude are just as frustrating as this problem is... Here's hoping BIS isn't as short-sighted, arrogant, and insulting as many in this thread have been. -Student Pilot

I thought the video looked ok. Didn't really notice the grain until I looked for it. It would be nice if we could disable it. Thought it was a little too bright for nighttime. The color of night didn't bother me, but it seemed slightly too bright. Other than that, I thought it looked fine. Grass seemed dense enough, and character and vehicle models seemed adequate. No complaints about the view distance. As for the storyline, I thought that the team was assaulting the checkpoint and had to wait until the convoy passed so as to not be outnumbered and outgunned. They were spotted by a PLA soldier and the mission was compromised, forcing them to pull back, where they were surrounded and presumably captured. Seemed plausible enough. Though, honestly, who really cares all that much? It's a trailer. It showcased the terrain, some character models, and some vehicle models, like a trailer should. Some of you criticize I think just because it isn't BIS. I would like to hear specific complaints/criticisms about the game itself (like the complaints about the grain and color), not just "it suxors!" and not just about the storyline of the trailer. Some of you are really observant, and catch things I never would (like the color of night). -Student Pilot

I don't care whether the rifle takes time to move and even moves a little past the mouse position because of intertia. I understand that such a feature is realistic and was even present in OFP, particularly with the rocket launchers. What annoys me the most is I do not know where the rifle is heading once I move the mouse. A simple mouse cursor, like the one in OFP, that displays instantly the precise location of the mouse should be added to the game. This, with the mouse lag corrected, would clear up the issue for most people, IMO. Without a cursor the player is constantly trying to guess where the rifle will go. And while this may be ok for close-quarter combat and walking around, it does not work when you have to make precise movements. Right now, ArmaII's control system (and also Arma, while we're at it) is not user-friendly, nor is it realistic. And just for full disclosure, after trying the demo I found out my comp cannot really handle ArmaII. It can handle Arma, though, and the controls are very similar, if not the same. However, when I play a FPS I always choose OFP because the control system is much more user-friendly. If BIS does not do something about this, I will not buy ArmaII when I get a computer that can handle it. While I want a realistic gaming experience (and no one exceeds BIS in this regard), it should not be frustrating, and right now Arma and ArmaII are frustrating. -Student Pilot

Check the options menu. There is a way to disable it. I cannot remember exactly where, but it is possible. -Student Pilot

Mouse control is the one thing I wish BIS didn't change from OFP. The mouse control in OFP was perfect, not broken. Why it got fixed I don't know. One thing that might help the matter is a cursor (like there was in OFP) which showed the current position of the mouse. The cursor moved instantly while the gun took some time because of intertia. This gave us players a really good visual on where the mouse was and where it needed to be. Why not have an option like that for ArmaII? And for those of you who are going to yell "realism" in my face, when you are holding a gun and have to aim, do you know where you are moving your weapon? I do. But in ArmaII once I move the mouse I have no idea where that weapon is going until it stops. The combination of no visual cue and mouse smoothing (or whatever it is) is really not user-friendly nor realistic. -Student Pilot

Hm, took more posts than I thought it would for someone to complain about the demo (or lack thereof). It will get released when it's ready, just be patient. richiespeedisback's videos have certainly intrigued me as well. They give me hope that maybe, just maybe, my system can run Arma II ok. If his can handle 2,000+ units, surely mine can handle 20-30?:rolleyes: -Student Pilot