Sosna

I think this would be a good way to manage field of view: (Note: I don't know if the example numbers used are any good, just bear with them.) There would be a "base FOV" (i.e. not zoomed in or out) which is adjustable within a predefined range - say from 80° to 40°. Buttons would be assigned for raising and lowering the base FOV. Then we have the already existing functions of zoom in and out, however they would be modified so that zoom-in would subtract 20° from the base FOV, zoom-out would add 20° to it. (Not necessarily a fixed number, perhaps an exponential relationship) In this way the player would only need to adjust the base FOV to suit the particular situation. Zooming would be consistent and predictable throughout the range. Currently close quarters fighting is cumbersome due to the view controls - One can double tap zoom-out to keep a wider FOV, but zooming in will still shrink the FOV the full extent (which typically isn't needed in close quarters conditions.) With this method the player is given much more control over the FOV, and can adjust it to suit their preference. When playing ArmA I find myself wanting to switch FOV mods... Default 1.14 is good for long range engagements, while I find TrueFOV-original more useful at close range. The above would be a good compromise. That's about it... Comments and ideas welcome.

Having FOV in the options is a reasonable solution, however in-game adjustment need not be complex. It could be as simple as using a modifier key with the regular zoom keys. For example: numpad + zooms in, ctrl & numpad +, lowers the base FOV. I think keeping the system adaptive is a key point. The FOV requirements between scanning the horizon on an open field, and building to building urban combat are quite different. Not to mention switching from foot to vehicle. The idea is to be able to transition smoothly between these situation's requirements in-game

Haven't heard of any developments with Field of View controls - I still think the above system would be worthwhile to implement. I think it would resolve the moaning associated with FOV that emerges with every patch, since the devs would only set the limits - the players would adjust the FOV within that range to suit their needs.

Bug Report GUI compass has two East annotations, it's missing North.

Perhaps it's been fixed by now, but I would like to point out the inaccuracies of the AK-107 model: screenshot Firstly the cylinder above the barrel should be rectangular. (it's the cover of the gas piston system) Second, a vertical member joining the barrel and cylinder is required near the hand guard. (this is where the gas enters the piston) See reference photo. Third, the receiver cover should be smooth - no ribs (maybe one ). See photo. Also note that the very rear portion of the cover is different from that of the standard AK. I Hope this helps.

Check out their official channel on youtube (CodemastersGames) For the OFP2 trailer they use "ARMA" as one of the tags.

With a TrackIR/FreeTrack you can assign right and left panning to lean in that direction. In this case leaning is totally analog, i.e. you can lean as litle or as far as you want and at whatever speed. Arma 2 will likely support 6 DOF so it will detect banking of the head also.

Related to reloading, I think there should be an option under difficulty for ammo count. Cadet would show the regular ammo count in the gui. Veteran would show none, except in vehicles where it would be known.

DCS Black Shark was released today in the CIS. Looking impressive so far. (sceens) I guess some more screens and videos will start appearing soon, and perhaps an official purchase-download of the Russian version.

I'd say BI has the arsenal mostly covered by now, but I would just suggest the following. SKS rifles for the resistance faction. An M1014 shotgun (Benelli M4 Super 90) for the Marines. Kord machineguns mounted on Russian vehicles (T-90 for example), and perhaps a static bipod/tripod version.

One of the most common complaints about ArmA was with driving. Many found the automatic centering annoying (particularly when using the mouse). The reason for the auto-centering is that the input for cars is optimized for joysticks/analog sticks or a steering wheel. Try driving a car with one of the above, you will see that auto-centering is essential when using these devices. However, the auto-centering interferes when driving with the mouse. Similarly, with fixed wing aircraft there's auto-centering – in 3rd person view you can see the elevators flipping back to center position when mouse input ceases. You may have found yourself dragging your mouse across the desk  when trying to make sharp maneuvers. Again, fixed wing flight is optimized for joystick use, but it interferes with mouse users. Helicopters on the other hand are optimized for mouse control. There is no auto-centering. That's great for mouse users, but it makes flying with a joystick comparatively unwieldy. It seems that each vehicle class is set for only one type of controller - either mouse (relative control, no centering) or joystick (absolute control, centering).  It would be nice to see this changed for ArmA 2. While the problem isn't glaring, it still lowers the overall playability of the game. I do know that simultaneous relative mouse input and absolute joystick control is possible (It's definitely in other games/sims), but there may be something in ArmA's current engine which prevents it. I'm wondering if the developers have any comments on this.

I agree with the OP and Second... The problem with ArmA's terrain isn't a lack of hills, but that the surface of the hills (and plains) is too flat. Less occlusion is provided, with the end result being more predictable and less interesting gameplay as infantry. (Since it's easier to see and shoot the enemy) OFP proved that nice lumpy terrain was possible but for certain reasons (which I'm not entirely aware of) it had to be deducted from ArmA. Aside from that, one thing that was missing in the series is realistic rivers/streams. I would really like to see it in ArmA 2, but I won't get my hopes up.

Could be wrong, but I don't think some of these images have been posted here before. (The cut-out weapons and vehicles) http://www.gamersyde.com/news_7021_en.html New shaders have really improved the look of the weapons. The RPK in particular compared to ArmA's AK-74.

-AT weapons should have backblast effects (Quick flash, smoke and dust/clutter blown about). It should be lethal within few meters behind the weapon. -All optics should be made 3D, zooming ones in particular. Scope view should resemble this: -Binoculars should be treated as a regular weapon. Once selected they should be held at shoulder level, and raised with the regular button for looking through irons/optics. One should be able to move and look around as with any other weapon. -Night vision goggles should have a fixed field of view. Video shows what I mean: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=GoC-BfZZCpg -There should be a function added to cycle weapon optics mode. For example an ACOG sight has the regular scope, and crude ironsights on top for close quarters fighting. The function would be used to switch between these views. -Fluid or semi-fluid posture: There are many ways to implement this. The simplest I can think of is having an up and a down key. Holding up or down gradually shifts the players posture in that direction, double-tapping the key shifts the posture to absolute up or prone. -Saving: An optional autosave system would be nice for single player. For example every 5 or 10 minutes. I find a game to be much more immersive when I don't have to worry about saving

As an XP x64 user this would make me quite happy - but I would need confirmation from BI to believe it.

For a few reasons tall grass isn't really practical at this point in time. First is the performance hit, although this could be mostly removed with some optimization. Second, how to handle grass occlusion for distant objects - IMO sinking soldiers into the ground doesn't look good. Third, tall grass is a disadvantage for someone walking through it since it greatly occludes their view - more so than in reality since binocular vision means that at least one eye will see a distant object occluded by a blade of grass. Short grass with tall tufts is a good compromise, I think. As for appearance, IMO the most important thing is to have grass and the ground texture below matching. Both in shade/hue and grainyness. Otherwise there's the unsightly grass rings. Personally, I miss the lumpyness of OFP's terrain on med-high settings but I know ArmA handles terrain differently now. An alternate way to get the terrain to look lumpy, or the grass to look shaggy would be with bump maps (not sure, my guess) Example: (Mount & Blade) IMO this method makes mid range terrain look excellent. It would be a welcome addition to ArmA 2... Also, shadows need to be rendered at very far distances in ArmA 2, otherwise the surroundings looks very matte and artificial.

It's a Game 2 screen. It only looks different because it's a photo of a monitor. (click) The things I like about Game 2 visuals is the nice tonal range, and the more gradual shading. While Game 2 had lesser textures and mapping, visually it has more depth (in certain situations at least). So far BI seems to have increased the tonal range from ArmA 1 (on models), dark areas are definitely darker. However the shading is quite abrupt, which takes away from the depth of the object. I did a quick photoshop to illustrate what I mean: (original left, modified right) The lightest and darkest points on the hind remain more or less the same, but the shading in between has been made more gradual. This IMO gives the object more depth as in the Game 2 screens In the background of this particular screen it's easy to tell the difference good shading makes. The distant trees look very shapely and realistic, while the near buildings and trees look very bland - almost unshaded. Well, the latest ArmA 2 screens released are quite out of date, so I guess we'll see what the artists have been up to soon. Â

Excellent work, thanks.

Distant terrain already looks amazing... Looking foreward to more current screens.

Any news?

I've tried out the Colin McRae:DiRT demo... The graphical engine is impressive. Other than the way overdone bloom and HDR (which isn't optional), it looks quite realistic. The latest ArmA 2 screens don't look as good. It's the lighting that makes the difference, DiRT has a much better light-dark range than ArmA. Unless under clear daylight conditions, ArmA always looks terribly bland - nice textures and detailed models can't overcome a poor lighting engine. IMO a lighting overhaul will be needed to look anywhere near as good as DiRT. As for Performance, on my computer ArmA runs slightly better on highest settings (viewdistance excluded). It depends on the situation however, ArmA gets a huge fps hit when looking into trees/bushes - DiRT does not, and the vegetation looks natural enough IMO. A few details: In dirt there are no apparent "grass rings" like in ArmA (they seem to use grass LODs effectively). Also, the grass matches textures below quite well, unlike in Arma. The LOD morphing in DiRT is instant (like OFP), while abrupt, I find it is not as distracting as the gradual morphing ArmA uses. Shallow water rendering is pretty bad in both ArmA and DiRT, though ArmA does it beautifully when far out at sea IMO. Shadows seem to be rendered from further away too in DiRT - lack of distant shadows is a contributing factor to ArmA's visual blandness. As far as gameplay goes, if Codies don't stray from OFP1, it would be really difficult to screw up. With a quality campaign OFP2 will be a real winner. We'll see what happens, I guess.

My biggest gripe with HDR is that it overbrightens darkness. The inside of buildings, and dawn/dusk conditions for example. I think HDR is also (at least partly) responsible for cloudy conditions looking way too light and bland. Even when looking down at your feet hdr will brighten the view - Even after a year of playing ArmA, the first thought I get is "Oh, the sun came out from behind a cloud". HDR needs some tweaking for sure, a fix from BI would be nice. More parameters available for the community to tweak would be good too.

Excellent mod. Keeping this one for sure

I would appreciate the following modification to the nightvision goggles: See video: Currently, when zooming in with the goggles on, the goggles' field of view gets smaller, when in reality the FOV is fixed at ~40° So, the size of the circle of vision should be constrained to the level of zoom, as in the above video. This addon would remove the "tunnel vision" effect when running around with NVGs, adding more peripheral vision - and realistically so.

Just place the d3d9.dll and enbseries.ini into your Arma directory. If you are using the beta patch then the files just go in the ArmA\beta folder.