Second

Well yes. That just tells how badly deformed current MP is.

Okay. That sounds already totally different than what video showed. Sounds good.

I don't see suppression or fear reactions to near misses. I just see blur and trip after getting hit. I could be wrong thou. Brothers in Arms forexample throws various effects (like mud, grass or splash of air?!?!?! ) to screen and possibly character said something like "ouch!" to make clear to player that it was close. I'd be interested in something like that. Well interesting to see how BIS does it... And how fast someone mods it to more pleasing

Well i'm not either (when it comes to ArmA2). As it says: Blur and weapon shaking. Quite selfexplaining really. Under which conditions Insurgency's hippie fun-land effect kicks in? When being under fire or when getting wounded? Sounds stupid if, when body is preparing for ultimate battle for it's life, it causes individual to go hiiiigh

I think this goes too far for most players, me myself included. SLX also forces player to go down, but not many times and it's more like hint to player that bullet went just past your head (which i probably wouldn't notice otherwise). Heck i think it has saved my life few times in game, as i understand that "damn they actually aim at ME and that it went close by!" That i can understand as somekind strong survival instinct. As long as it doesnt' take control over player too much. Hitting dirt once while standing is okay, even good. Same on run for better cover is not. There's so much which my headphones doesn't seem to be capable to tell me, near misses mostly.

Yeah i think i have to agree. This should be simple to put in, AI already uses it's own built-in firecontrol system, so it's basically just for a player. Shouldn't be too hard.

Oh yeah! That is the one. I just dreamed that shooting thing.

No. It's was not. ArmA had weaker flanks and rear. True from front of M1A1 in ArmA is quite weak, from sides not so much if at all. Unlike in OFP. Whole vehicle aspect was wonky in sense that each vehicle turned out to be vehicleborne IED after it got some degree of damage. Sure BIS messed alot of things in ArmA's vehicles. It became too much infantry based. Armor higher in front, explosion rate lower, tweaks in ammo amounts. Those would have brought some good results. Ofcourse AI which can understand the fact that armor is much softer from sides would have been also good idea after that. It's generally bad idea to waste all platoons AT-weapons immediatly when tank is sighted or there was some changes (50% i believe) to score hit on tank. This was common problem in OFP, less in ArmA as tanks were so weak. The (tactical) simulation edge ArmA has over OFP in this is that it's tanks are far more dependant of infantry support. Like in reality, tank doing solo-job is a dead tank. No matter how tough armor it has on front.

Long time ago in different time (was it half year-year ago?), there was one such video. City street where men stood behind building walls, pillars and took shots at enemies. I would hate to doubt that it was scripted event. But i can't find it from youtube... Maybe it was just a wild dream Sadly new AI videos mostly just starts to jump from character to character.

Might not be Fade but basically same thing. Enough that it got people banned, i believe. Like i said you just dont' get it. I'm a wargamer i eat simulations as my breakfast, and after i'm finished with that i start farting tactics. MG seemed fairly well, targets usually didn't last to tell about it to their kids.

This reminds me something... Fade (copyprotection). Anyone? I remember alot people whining how they didnt' hit anything. When word Fade was mentioned they somehow didn't log in forums ever again Naah anyways he, that Fredsas, won't be responding to me, so i guess i'll pass... Naah, i'll try once more. I like to see ArmA (or OFP2, ArmA2 for that matter) where AI doesn't understand meaning of hitting to flanks and then sending hails of RPG-7/AT-5 fire at M1A2 at it's frontal armor, which can't be hurt by those Combined arms principle got just lost major part of it. Well like i said Fredsas probably gets just technical side of things. We can always debate M1A1 armor being too weak, which it was to some degree. But i'm lucky that M1A1 didn't become ultimate weapon, which it isn't in reality as it still needs to rely on infantry to cover it flanks. Oh yeah! M1 have been roasted by single rucksack catvhing a fire... Should OFP2 model ultiamte M1 killerweapon called US issued rucksack (is it Alice, i dont' care), as it's about uber realism of tech

Most footage from Iraq/Afganistan are somewhat false testimonies as they don't put men into head-to-head situation where they have clear or even partial visibility to they target. Mostly just blind firing at something by both sides. PvP and warzone ain't the same thing. Hard to say what reality with human being would be when he is put into PvP-like kill-or-be-killed situation where his only way to prevail is to shoot fast+well and he is aware of it. I'd say that majority of trained (or even untrained) humans are capable to steady their nerves. Weaponhandling skillz then tells are you going to hit or miss. Mostly panicking seems to be when one isn't sure about his role, or don't know what he should do. I believe that about 10% of human kind are those how just are prone to panic even if they have knowledge/training or even motivation to act... But then again that is far from hand's shaking and blurring. As it's more related to run or fight attitude (in game would cause cover seeking or shooting back reaction) Ever see guy who's car trips to ditch, or something else happens. If he is smokers, watch their cigar and hands. If they are not smokers ask their autograph and watch pen and handwriting Adrenaline probably rushing thru veins in heavy enough doses. Reason why armies (usually) train their men shooting so that weapon's steadiness relies as little as possible to small muscles, as i'would guess they are more prone to uncontrollable shaking. Hard t think that anyone would be immune to it... but there probably are people who remain calmer under same conditions. Experience probably is one key factor as well: inexperienced guys are prone to get more scared (=adrenaline) than veterans, so they might react to something which doesn't present danger to them, like bullet cracks from long distance. I hate to play as sharpshooter, it feels good in games that i'm not immune to it. So because of that i would welcome it. In PVP scale what i've mostly seen it' probably won't affect much. More misses at long distances and from less than 100 meters it might not have much anykind effect (as target is so close). So i'd say we are not talking about very drastic effects. Think how fatigue affects in accuracy. Btw. How Brother In Arms' multiplayer worked? I never actually tried it in MP.

First of all: in what aspect ArmA fares worse that OFP in simulation front?  OFP has it's bright sides, but really in simulation? Go ahead and rock my world. How come military will dumb down game developers?  They get what the see is suitable for them (if it available), as a return they bring wealth to business and like one can be seen in ArmA2 dev-team may have option to take something from work they have done for VBS2 and put it in their commercial title (i personally didnt' believe that was possible). And in simulation front military, with it's wishes/demands on features, brings knowledge to developers as dev-team will code them in to product. Nice try to turn VBS against ArmA.  Only problem is that it strains resources from developing commercial title, then again that brings money which can be used to hire more workforce. Your point of view in engine is valid. Engines gets old and grumpy at some point of time. Then it's time to do something about it. Will ArmA2's be such, no telling yet. But i'd believe it doesn't live at edge of it's lifespan yet. Mod-teams have reached quite good results in various aspects also in simulation front... How come dev-team wouldn't be able to code them into game with new engine  Why they won't implement it all is because not enough money and time (and maybe for pride too, who knows). Sadly ArmA returned to square one, however that doesn't say that ArmA2 would, it seems to start from where ArmA was left. This is merely touching the simulation aspect of game. Sure i get that you wish to have 100% realistic working planes. Well we will see who will be able to deliver that holding also 100% tank-simulation and 100% infantry simulation.

Yeah. British army as example

To my understamdment they are more for show thing. With monitor's resolution and field-of-view they really are not very usable. Worst case scenario is that they don't speak their orders. And it's really hard to get it right, so guess they are not that much used... At least i hope so. Not very nice if leader AI (and rest of team) keeps swinging their hands while they should keep firing at enemy. Restricting it to aware-behaviour might be good idea.

Oh damn  At minute i saw man throwing handgrenade into building and pulling back while other team member was at other side of door covering made my poor heart beat. It's really unhealthy. I even tried to play ArmA and enjoyed it. I think i need services of exorcist.  (go away cursed spirits! ) ... But yeah. Few promising news, hopefully more will come Â

How come it's not okay? Should people jump into walls, cry and joy talk about how great it will be, slam each of other to back to congratulate how lucky they are to live at this ground breaking moment of mankind... And when it's released about 20-30% will start to cry how BIS cheated their money away from them as feature X wasn't there (which probably isn't right reason, but it's hidden so deep into they sub-consciousness that they need consulate psychologist to find out why). I think this way is better. Last time was heavy whiners vs fanbois... Interesting to see what it will be this time. And will i choose my side

How come? ArmA and VBS2 are said to be very close to each of other by those who have played both. You ask simulation, here you have one of most sucessful militarysimulators in almost 1:1 presentation. What are you waiting for! Go and enjoy! Oh... You are not? Maybe you just understood that simulators don't bring happiness? Ricbar89: To be honest most things can be said about ArmA too. And yet OFP2-devs just talk, more interesting would be to see actual videofootage from game. And see how they perform those tasks. and how things are modeled.

I think the US vs the Chinese is a much more modern and better scenario. The Chinese capabilities are more of a match to US than Russian stuff especially when it comes to tanks and helos. If the game is to be modelled on real stuff then they can put equivalent units on each side to provide natural balance to the game The irony is that the Russians have called for US help against the Chinese. I can't wait to see a US M1A2 go up against a Chinese Type 99G MBT Your all about fancy tech, i rate you as a n00b as tech is all you talk about. Me stomps on your eggs. I find Mosin-Nagant/Tokarev armed VC-units (Vietcong that is) very satisfying opponents (against my M16/M60) to deal with if they have smart AI coded in... Oh yeah: No proves of what OFP2's AI will be  Sure it's must be touching to see M1 and T-99 taking swings at each of other. Other probably will be superiour and that is probably it: it faces inferior tank, destroys it and moves on... Jee-haa i'm so exited! ... Wait a minute, that is like i order T-72M1 company charge at M1A2 platoon.. It's a freaking mayhem. Smartly placed/moving/used inferior tanks trying to reach flank shots is completely another thing, like forexample T-72's have to try to do if wishing to win M1A2s. Then again that requires AI  EDIT: All in all. I really don't care about RHAs and stuff if AI can't handle it. At the point when i see tank's crew react to exposed flank and score hit to it i will be much more impressed. If it can't do that then i really don't care if system is hit-point based. It's even better as it forgives AI's dumbness.

Bigstone: OFP2. Marines vs Chinese military. Some island in pacific. ArmA2. Marine's, i believe insurgents (probably various factions) and probably Good Ol' Russians (i dont' know does it depend of how campaign is played). Heck maybe i even can turn my coat and play against US. Â Fictional island in Europe which is said to represent terrain in Check-republic.

I disagree on your claim here. I think the stuff i posted would have a impact on gameplay - thats why i posted it not to forget that its about time after ~ 10 years to get rid of stff like hitpoint system, don't you think too? I as a customer should normally not care about the "bigger picture" or BIS Manpower, don't you agree? Do you care about GM market situation when buying a car? I do not. Yes. it is going to affect to gameplay, better or worse? Probably both. But which one will weight more in scale. One thing is disposable AT-weapons, there have been several strong points risen to support current system over the years. While there really aren't much convincing material other ways, other than that they are disposable in reality (which doesn't mean that several of them can be carried by same person). So this would require inventory system's overhaul. If that is going to happen then introducing disposable launchers would be good idea, but not sooner. Another thing i'm againt is that 'technology should not be nerfed'-mantra and 'forcing things to be in balance should not be there'-mantra. This will have major effect on ruining ArmA's combined arms principle. Should tanks be able to rumble over couple of platoons of infantry on their own? Should choppers average lifetime be 30 seconds in battle (or even less)? There are hundreds of thing AI doesnt' and can't handle. Be it pop-up attacks, shoot-and-scoot, hit-and-run, waiting for flank shots, adapting into situation, creative thinking, hiding from thermals, getting prepared for armor's visit, getting out of harms way before it's too late. Dig-in. And more. This all leads to something called armor (M1 Abrams to be exact) dominance, they see well because of their thermals, where they kill everything from several kilometers, they will be able to withstand about almost everything threw at them. Result is: Armor doesn't need no-one, it has tons of technically high-tech stuff and tens of tons of steel and composite materials. Everything aiming for it's optimal survival in battlefield. Now this is easy to do correctly in game... How about well though infantry tactics which aim's to fight against tanks, and which can counter advantages of tanks? These are very hard to do in game. Yet to present somewhat proper combined arms ruleset you need to patch these lacks somehow, one way of many is to reduce armor's threshold for damage, another is to make them more blind than they are (with player as gunner aside with AI gunner against infantry opponent this is very visible). Hit point system is oldish i give you that. But if BIS keeps it and instead of changing it to 'penetration -> damage'-model puts in some advanced AI-behviour, like advanced morale modeling and/or basic infantry tactics. Which one has more important gameplay value? If BIS introduces 'penetration -> damage'-model to vehicles then forexample AI's antitank-code needs to be written, or infantry performance drops huge step. Or then infantry has to always wield just AT-weapons which bites thru armor's frontal armor, even if that is against TOE and reality. These are few possible problems. I can't say which ultimately will be right path to take, probably any as there always will be pros and cons. Various points of views. And (yet) limited resources.

From which steep mountains took quite huge chunks. I dont' know does someone get interesting missions idea's situated in mountains, but atleast i have severe problems in using that space.

Nice. I never really payed attention to it, because there was hardly any indirect fire in native OFP and ArmA. I just remember those hand grenades, that would kill everyone in the same house, regardless of room or floor. So I just thought when explosions get really important with mortars and artys, there needs to be a good damage system for that. Yeah buildings were deathtraps. I don't know what made FDF's trenches (which were buildings) so special. Slope walls, indestructability or something i don't know. I dont' know how engine handled explosions but to me it seemed that explosions force is somewhat directed upwards, lying down man could be much closer to explosion and survive than standing man.

hmm... Two. If counting in Vault 87 then three. Your last question i don't completely understand. If you talk about getting kids from Paradise Falls to Little Lamplight then i can't help you, i used my speech skillz to get thru gate. Kids are still rotting in Paradise Falls.

This has been in from days of OFP, hitting dirt has very positive effects on survival from explosions. Better yet while using very high or high terrain detail you actually could find very safe spots (=pits), into which shell literally has to fall to be able to kill you.