Second

this simulator/shooter/simultion thing is driving me nuts. I already thought that i handle this stuff after "studying" it for few hours, and Walker comes in and kicks me right into nuts (sure i deserve it). So simulator isn't just related to vehicles? And it's same thing as simulation?

Yeah. I can see that forexmaple COD4 would work as a (poor) simulator even when it's mostly just shooter (like ArmA is too). It has little part of vehicle control, that UAV-part. Right? Simulator = focuses on vehicles. Flight sims as main exmaple Shooter = focuses on infantry. OFP was tactical shooter too, and ArmA as well. Simulation = Not tied to being either simulator or shooter. It is own genre, prime example are wargames in computer gaming. Basically it needs to be suitable product for experimental and teaching use. In this ArmA is better than COD4 or Quake, thanks to it's mission editor.

Happy and successful year 2009 for BIS from me as well. Eh. Maybe you could add something like rocket light show to ArmA2 skies as a "happy new year"-feature? Like we had christmas trees before Yeah i know again one new feature request

Well it simulates cycles of day, area's position in coordinates also has effect on light levels (i made one map which location was in norther Europe and results were somewhat correct, altough i don't remember were winter days as pale and dark/gray as they should or were summer nights as "nightless" as they are porbably not, but i can't check as i sent that map to great unknown after i finished it and tested it bit. Atleast i quess Walker ment something like that. BIS by my understandment actually is more interested to deliver immersive and as whole world as possible or atleast build/improve their engine to that direction... I could be wrong thou.

Yes it does. You think too much about flat asphalt field. ArmA is supposed to have all kinds terrain, forests with such heavy undergrowth or trunk densitity that moving can be considered to be from somewhat to very hard and time consuming. You can't keep rifle steady there if moving. Same goes for rocky terrain. I find it major immersion breaker if i can move in that kind terrain with speed while keeping sights steady. I dont care about MOUT so much, ArmA for me is forests and jungles. Well, I read you Second, and I realize you absolutly do not know what you are talking about. Did you already serve in army ? Did you already walk and aim with real weapons ? I am sure you did not because what you write. I agree with you, aimpoint may move, I say again: may. Because with experience you reduce so much that aimpoint movement. May I remember you we are talking about the weapon's butt movement, roling in a strange movement in ArmA. Like I said, and like every ex-soldier and real shooter knows, when you aim, you get your weapon on your shoulder. To say again in other words to avoid your confusion again, you push your weapon's butt on the shoulder ! Your weapon's butt is then like fixed on the shoulder, and do not move, never, impossible ! Now, start ArmA, pick a rifle, aim, and walk... What do you see ? You see aimpoint moving, that's correct for inexperimented soldier (but we are supposed to be marines or SF). But you also see the weapon's butt rolling ?! Weapon's butt is rolling in a strange movement absolutly not realist, absolutly not credible for who already handled real weapon. You are talking about all kind of terrain... Sure, if you fall down because a log on the ground your weapon butt leave your shoulder and move, hehe. You are also talking about move in that kind terrain with speed while keeping sights steady ?! You definitly do not know anything about soldier behaviour. First, soldier never aim when moving fast. Why ? because it is not possible to move in high speed while aiming. But try into ArmA, move, then aim... what happens ? you get back on slow speed automaticly. Second, when you run, you run fast into cover and do not aim. Maybe you think I am rude but it ids truth. Buy a rifle, train a bit with it, then come back into ArmA and aim... you will understand what I am talking about such an absurde weapon's butt movement. Like I said in my first post: when you aim, you block the butt of your weapon on your shoulder. Your weapon is then like "fixed" with your chest ! The weapon's butt DOES NOT move, never ! (except if you fall down because a log on the ground, hehe) The aiming point may move, but only if you are unexperimented and if you do not control it correctly. But we are supposed to be marines, even SF in ArmA, aren't we ? ArmA is a simulator and should be immersive for who already handled real weapon. We are not in CoD or quake, but in Armed Assault. So, the only thing to be real, credible, to get an immersive simulator, is the aiming system. A software is not reality but it is very important, the most important, to get a realist aiming system. Else, what does ArmA looks like ? Again, no offence Second, but truth. Cordialy, Andre. I'm soldier, former active nowdays just active-reservist. So yeah i have quite a lot of experience, almost 10 years... Infantry, mostly interested querilla/light infantry action now days. So enough of that. I don't care is it butt or barrel swaying in game as long as i don't get too steady weapon in terrain where i shouldn't. I'm more interested about things actually affecting battle dynamics of game... Which i think soldiers should pay attention to more than slightly cosmetic small things I do see your point, it's just that i couldn't care less.

Yes it does. You think too much about flat asphalt field. ArmA is supposed to have all kinds terrain, forests with such heavy undergrowth or trunk densitity that moving can be considered to be from somewhat to very hard and time consuming. You can't keep rifle steady there if moving. Same goes for rocky terrain. I find it major immersion breaker if i can move in that kind terrain with speed while keeping sights steady. I dont care about MOUT so much, ArmA for me is forests and jungles.

OFP AI is just the same as in ArmA if talking abotu guard waypoint spiced with guard trgger, if someone can report you location they will come at that location. Hmm infact i dont' know is Guard waypoint's logic somehow messed up or tweaked to be much more inaccurate in ArmA, or something else. I've seen that my leader (having guard waypoint and guard trigger) has got target/attack marker at what it starts to move at, marker shows that target is 3 kilometers away in north... While target really is 500 meters to south. I dont' understand how it can be like that. I can't remember OFP having such strange things, position of target was much more correct, at least guiding AI to general direction of what they are supposed to go at. Sure in Arma they eventually got right location of target, i think. It's not just very funny to see reserves starting to dash at opposite direction than from where gunshots are comming, and knowing that there might be bit of a problematic situation at hand and reserves are going to be needed right now. Â

Hard to say about flanking, they do flank but so did OFP's AI. It is also able to do just the same thing as OFP does, sending individual AI's to suicide frontal assaults without anykind support. In ArmA this might not stand out as much as AI can fire it's rifles to much longer distances (and with deadly accuracy). Lone infantry guy sent to frontal assault might not stand out as much as there loads of lead comming at player forcing him either to die, shoot or hide. And AI sees also better, in OFP it was pretty blind. I remember in vanilla OFP shooting AI at about 500-600 meters with sniper rifle, while it didn't seem to have a glue what is happening where they get shot at and what to do (few tried to attack me frontally after spotting me but i naturally killed them). Killed over 40 of them with that. Tried that in ArmA, died in 5-10 seconds after first shot. I can't say are they flanking more than frontal assaulting in ArmA. But i'd speculate that it's terrain wise, and process how path to target is defined happens just like in OFP. Forexample ArmA demo offered area where flanking is very much possible by using forests and such.

I don't know anything about porting PC-game to consoles, but would think that it's better (and only reasonable possibility) for BIS to release ArmA2 first for PC and then port it to consoles. Ofcourse this kind publishing strategy necessarily isnt' best way to sell game well for both platforms. The one which is published (much) later tends to flop. But can't say that i know much about this either. Could it be possible that PC-version of ArmA2 is completed already

Screw the snow, there will be T-34 on pedestal !!!!!Â

Interesting

Can i carry multiple of those disposable weapons   That is my real-life experience. Ofcourse another is that i can set sights to range which i desire, like 100 meters or 200 meters. that isn't present in ArmA, so if trajectories are realistic then AT-weapon itself is harder to aim to various ranges. Ofcourse launchers with optics or M72-like front sight (plastic plate with scale markings) are different matter as they have range's marked in to sights.

I don't understand either why BIS made RPG-7 as so strange weapon. But hey, BIS hasn't ever made realistic AT-weapons. Trajectory is always way too flat. Experienced gunner could take out armors from 400 meters in OFP as well with something like M72, probably needing one spotting round. In ArmA that distance is pretty much nothing. 500 meters for AT-4 is quite simple, if player knows that he should cover target with sights and not aim with pole of front sight. Provided that target doesn't move. Then again ArmA's terrain allows vehicles to use far too great speed. Tanks could move 60 km/h in any flat terrain (well not in forest) if i remember right, and AI gunner doesnt' have much trouble at keeping it's target in sights and score hits. So compensation in AT-weapons in that sense is more understandable.

Commands like halt, open fire, find cover, move to that place etc... should be behind as few key presses as possible (preferably just one). Rest commands not requiring such blitz issuing speed can be dealed in more time consuming HUD. I can think that would be proper middle road taken. Like one general said, things demanding fastness needs to be well training, less fastness requiring actions can be left to smaller training. I think that applies also to this issue. Fast things needs to be accessible fast, slower things can be done slower.

I quess i'm able to press e + d at same time. But i mostly steer with mouse, instead of running sideways. I use ctrl as another shoot button... It looks great in command view when looking at my playing character and firing LMG's belt empty at the same time (left mouse button doesn't work as shooting button there)  it makes beautiful corpse too. Oh i ment to write shift + a/d as lean and roll. And no shift + awsd as walk... I'm not dumb, i'm not just very smart, that's all  Double shift as walk toggle is problematic in these issues (too many times it's toggled on/off when should not), but i can live with it. I don't use leans much anyways, those are ment for n00bs only (did i already mention that i leave pretty corpse?) I do use zoom quite much when observing, but as hold breath is bind also to v i mostly use just + in keypad when scanning for long duration of time. If i need to be able to do it fast i use v. z is just fine, i basically reach it as easily as q key. Yeah it probably ain't optimal setting (yeah this is perfect excuse to tell when i get my ass handed to me in PvP ), but i find it most pleasuring system for me. I've tried various other things in ArmA but they just don't work.

First ones are standart shooter controls i use. Brackets were for OFP/ArmA. Yeah it became bit confusing So here hopefully better list. For ArmA i use this. awsd - movement e - sprint douple shift - walk toggle shift + awsd - walk shift + e/d - leans and rolls no bind - crunch toggle (i use stand-key for it) q - stand z - prone space - firemode right mouse button - scope v - zoom & hold breath b - reveal

X, Y and Z all can be checked by 'getposASL' of AT-guy and tank. Relative angle can be calculated, if you mean position of both and calculating angle which target is facing relative to shooter. Vector of target also can be found to discover how tank lies on ground... If i recall correctly. I haven't used it ever, just setvector command which sets X Y and Z vectors of desired object. Front usually points to direction what 'getdir' offers. Of course someone can introduce vehicle-addon where these two don't match (or can?), but i don't know is AI able to even use that vehicle. I dont' remeber can turret's direction be found, haven't much messed with vehicles with scirpting... Well it should because there are lots of scripts using smoke launchers in tanks (ad direction where they get hurled is defined by direction of turret). Pulvizer's suggestion does work as far as i can gather. Not pretty or optimum solution, but doable alright. AI handles the targeting/shooting by itself, so when criteria of flank shot is met (with high enough exposeness of flank), he gets his AT-launcher mags and rest goes by built-in AI. Which defines on it's own can it hit tank and on which part (turret, hull or both). Problem also comes from fact that if wishing to keep script addon combatible (or provide new "flankshot.PBO" file with every addon), all new armors and AT-weapons should be included to find out does AT-guy need to wait for flank shots. Ofcourse flank shots are always valued more than frontal shots because their change to kill or immobilize tank are better... But i don't know does that need to be included if keeping penetration model simple.

I believe biggiest differences to ArmA/OFP are: -Shift+W for sprint (i like to use E in OFP/ArmA) -Z,X,C as prone, crunch, stand buttons. Can also be Space and ctrl. (In OFP/ArmA i use Q for up and Z for down) -Q and E as lean. (ArmA/OFP has Shift+A and D) I quess that is the main difference. ArmA was first game where i needed to remap lots of controls to get it enjoyable, i usually play pretty much with controls what game gives me.

I changed ArmA controls to like OFP has them by default and game is much better. Well i play OFP with little tweaks with sights (right mouse button, V is lock and reveal) and binoculars (K-key), but rest is default. It's funny that my regular fps controls (works well in other games) don't work in ArmA or in OFP. Don't know reason, maybe it's animations?

ArmA/OFP like control panel is neat in such way that when one has got used to it (not easiest thing) he can do his stuff (running, firing while issuing commands. 30 seconds? No. 0.5-1 second when command is simple. However ain't ArmA2's GUI going to get improvements to more common way? I sure hope they keep old one, as it's very powerful and complex tool. I like forexample how fluid Brothers in Arms' system is. Something like that would be welcome addition, but only if they keep the old. I dont' know how BF2 GUI works, but i really hate when i need to halt my action to issue something. When that happens in tight spot it's either me issuing commands for my squad to take cover etc and remain exposed to enemy. Or then i take cover while leaving my men exposed.

This is just my memory talking, but i believe that Suma mentioned that ArmA2's campaign will probably focus on squad and smaller scale. Or then he just spoke of not improving existing "supersquad" feature. Well that is like one year ago, so plans might have changed.

Well, a wise man said its not a discussion until someone disagrees. I'm just trying to understand what Second is saying, not starting ww3 I didn't say such thing, however i'm not natural english speaker, so it's possible that my writing refers to other thing that i ment to. Heck my progress in college (sort of) halted because my Swedish was filthy poor, i'm only one i know to have such personal "record". And i studied quite hard it as it was my weakness. Â (ofcourse demanding teacher with demanding exams didn't help me. My english was average) Correction: I said that i would believe workforce behind ArmA2 would be more like medium than small, however i can't offer solid facts. Wolle: Sorry for taking this BI(S)'s size into discussion. I believe i'm to blame. I just had horrible urge to try to tone down few cliches which seems to live (without criticism) in these forum. Other being that ArmA2 being a niece game for small amrkets and other being that workforce behind ArmA2 is so tiny that one can fit it in matchbox and put into his pocket. Workforce then again relates to ArmA's possibilities in markets. So i believed that wouldn't be offtopic. There is no such term. If character is mostly human then it's shooter, if vehicles are in main part than it's 'vehicle borne simulator'. ArmA is bit of both, but forexample OFP gets pushed to tactical shooter genre. Maybe because it's not nearly complete as vehicle simulator (high level of arcade and simpleness) as it is as shooter (which is pretty complete). Simulation then again means different thing, i quess. Forexample wargames are simulations of how battles works out focusing on equipment, tactics, (quality of) personel, terrain and enemy. I don't know can ArmA be called simulation, well atleast BIS did... It has mission editor and by that it suits for experimental (teaching) use. Lwlooz: Howcome ArmA is not instant fun? Mostly i play SP mission or two, while session lasts about half hour then i return to desktop. Mad 10 minutes in Clean Sweep then bit of Battlefield or Rat's Nest (until i bite the dust).

So HOW MANY copies did ArmA sell? Don't you read what i wrote? I think ArmA scored averagely about 80 maybe bit more. OFP scored way over 90. OFP: Elite is more unknown to me, but i'd believe not better than ArmA, possibly even worse. I've seen one review, by magazine which insight i mostly appreciate, scoring it lower than 80. Notice the pattern here. Now: If ArmA2 scores over 90 ... I leave it up everyone to decide what that means to sales. ck-claw: i read from game-box of OFP GOTY that CWC itself sold million that would suggest that those were bought in side year of release (however how reliable that info is?). And games tends to reach their peak pretty soon. I believe i've read that average main sale time is just weeks (even days) from release and that includes mega-hits as well. after that cash-flow starts to grow smaller and smaller. Lou Montana: Thanks. I've never got this BI and BIS axis. Just how seperate they are? How much do they work on same stuff (= ArmA2). Or is ArmA2 mainly just BIS's projects. If 5 men is most workforce ArmA2 has, then... Damn, they are small.

Where all those million(s) of sold copies of OFP then went? Did BIS and 300 BIS-fans buy them? I just don't understand what is so hard in this? Someone care to explain? OFP wasn't first game which was unknown title but from it's release it "skyrocketed" and earned it's name... And sold quite well too. And it is not last of that kind either.

maxqubit: Do you remember how well OFP sold  I wouldn't call that niece. Sure xbox might be different, but Elite wasn't most hottest game from reviewer's standpoint if i remember right, and that somewhat means that it doesn't get name and it doesnt' get sold. But in PC markets changes for good sales for excellent game are big, granted not in scale of COD as EA can muster with it's marketing-skillz and -powerz to sell game which was like a lot by reviewers. But i could think that BIS doesn't even expect that (but hoping it ofcourse). I don't know single shooter which would have got high scores but yet be doomed to remain as a niece game with low sales. That is problem of more marginal game-genres. Infact i wouldnt' call even ArmA a niece game. We don't know official figures, but i'm prone to think that it sold reasonably well. Not superb but definedly not bad. It's said to be still sold with relatively big price for it's age (i've seen this in few stores, every time i'm surprised how high price it has), which suggests that game still has value. Not that i would know damn about what defines game's price, but some seems to think that this is the case. One fascinating myth to bust would be smallness of BIS. I tend to think it's more medium sized than small sized, but all i can do is guess.