The_Captain

I think one reason Evo is more popular than PvP in arma, is arma pvp usually needs 10+ players to be any fun at all, while one can start evo with one or two people to a server, start having fun, and wait for people to join in progress. Any popular PvP map is going to need to be fun with low numbers of players, like CTI was for OFP (esp with the AI enabled taking control of slots without players). Arma's JIP makes people want to start their maps instantly, while in OFP people would usually wait for a full server before beginning the mission. I could also be off base, but this is my gut feeling.

I would like to see missions which are more of a "scenario" to give me the feeling that I'm fighting a real battle. The reason I'm playing arma is to fight battles against enemies, and the more immersed I am in the combat, the more fun I'm having. This could be done using any particular 'mode': tdm, coop, AAS, etc. Overall I'd like less 'gamey' features (such as ~instant, unlimited respawns; no way to lose the mission; focus on point scores rather than victory) that tend to break the immersion you get from a well done SP or MP scenario. My favorite missions in OFP MP were the capture and hold missions for 32 players on the Stoner's House of Pancakes server, and the best of those were focused on fighting individual battles: Fighting an invasion of the small island north of nogova, flying aerial assaults of the heart of kolgujev in "beautiful day", or having long range armored engagements in the nogova desert. These are the scenarios that I remember most strongly from multiplayer, and this is likely because of the immersion I felt during play. One knock against the "many missions within a mission" approach that modes like CTI and Evo provide, is that you lose the focus on and immersion in a single battle that can really define individual maps. When you're fighting in the same ten cities for hours at a time, over and over, the experience starts to blend together (overall) and you lose the intense feeling you get from a unique scenario. You're trading the detailed experience for a more freeform one, which has its merits, but I can't help but find myself longing for some scenario-centric battles. Because Arma gives us such an open platform to design our own styles of mission, I think we get too caught up defining and comparing the different game modes and styles of play. It's not the mode that counts, it's the missions that are made with the mode that people really look forward to playing. A well done mission that feels like a real battle, whatever the mode, is what I want to play. For the people that want to see less evolution played on public servers: Evo gives a well rounded, freeform experience to the player who wants to jump in and have a good time. A competing set of missions needs to provide the same. I believe that one way to compete with Evo would be to release a map pack with a dozen or so well designed scenario-based maps, using a simple yet entertaining mode, that emphasized arma's strength in fighting prolonged engagements. Give me intense battles, enemies to shoot, and real fear of dying, and I'll play the maps. (Of course, as an aside, it's hard to create compelling scenarios with a poorly implemented game mode, so a good mode needs to be the basis. I commend the 16th AAB for their simple but focused AAS mode, and look forward to the maps people create with it)

It's possible by having "dummy" units under your command, and getting an actual group to follow them. When you order the dummy unit to move, you can get the "expected destination" using the arma scripting command, and order the real group to move there, while at the same time repositioning the dummy unit to always be at the location of the real group. It would proably be doable with some workaround scripting. I had a similar script set up for OFP, but since there was no way to get the expected destination of a unit, it was pretty buggy. In practice though, it was hard to play, because it was difficult to control so many units and have any control over the battle. Once a squad or two was engaged, it was hard to influence their fighting in any way.. basically once you moved your groups into combat, it was like "wind em up and let em go" when you had 6-8 groups. They would either win a firefight or die before you could get them to disengage and move elsewhere... and even if you did, they'd usually die in the process. Futility! Still fun though.

That code could certainly be added to a mission for connecting pirates... The bananaphone room from Evo comes to mind.

In arma (and ofp), if you're partially standing in water, and the waves rise up to the level of (or over) your gun, you will be unable to shoot until they recede. Don't let the water get too deep when you see some bad guys...

One reason BIS stated they didn't use ragdolls is due to performance. Popular games that use ragdolls have to deal with about thirty characters maximum using ragdoll. Arma has no upward limit. I don't want my game to chug when I kill thirty or forty soldiers in a row, and they all turn their rag doll deaths on...

This sounds like technology they developed for the military simulators. Once they got it ironed out, I'm sure it made it much easier to make maps based on real world locations, rather than tile it by hand. (Plus, I'm sure they get to use the hyper-resolution military satellite maps...)

From what I can infer, I think trackIR would work best with the floating crosshair. From what I saw in the PCFormat video, moving the mouse rotated your entire character left/right instantly, including the head controlled by trackIR (analogous to WWII tanks, turn the body and the turret rotates with the tank). To me, this would still be a bit disorienting, compared to the "gun dead zone" that OFP has. With that, you'd be able to get fine aim with the mouse without turning your character for every little movement. I like the idea of being able to look independantly while tuning my aim w/out spinning my body around like a top. Call me crazy, but I've always liked the idea in OFP that I can wave my gun around to get fine aim while the stuff on my screen stays static, and not bothersome (moving the crosshair/upper body in the center of the screen). In any case, I just want my floaty crosshair back, as an option or not. It'll be off 99% of the time, but it's not the crosshair itself I'm after. It's the upper body/gun independant of the body turning feature I love.

No problem, good luck! I'd rather see them turn out well in the first release, than have them come out and have people complain. (Because people do) I do like the detail on the SF units, and I'd like to play some real intense recon missions like the ones you've laid out!

Something like them, but not quite. From what I saw in the promo pics, the reciever is still based off of an M4A1 and a few details are off. That's why I posted the XM pics. Both need to lose the brass deflector, the detachable carry handle, the pistol grip nub, the A2 model rear sights. the "Car-15" (early model w/ triangular handguards) needs to lose the forward assist entirely and the bumpy parts around the magazine release. Those bumpy parts were to prevent one's gear from tripping the magazine release, and weren't added until later models. The XM177E1 needs to lose the triangular handguard retaining ring, and needs a different shaped forward assist (long and flat instead of circular). The folding stock looks oddly short. I'm not quite sure if the flash suppressor is making it an E1 or an E2... looks off. The longer barrel would make it an E2, while a shorter one ending just in front of the front sight would make it an E1. I know this would take work since you're basing these guns off of an M4, but these changes are necessary if you're to end up with authentic guns. Good job so far though.

Here's a reference picture of an XM177E1 and XM177E2 for your model for the Unsung. I was looking around the internet, but couldn't seem to find any good profile pics of the gun. (These are my replicas).

Will the XM177/Car-15 be authentically modeled in the SF release? I know these are just WIP pics.

To revive an old topic: We're discussing/working on a Seal team campaign in the Vietnam The Experience/ PMC Tactical forums. You can put in some input or help out over there: http://flashpoint.nekromantix.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1130458022 Seal team was one of my favorites a few years ago when I got my old 486 up and running. I managed to get the full boxed game and printed manual off ebay for $10 back then too.. quite a steal. Great manual, which you can also find in PDF format if you look around. I didn't know you could get the historical texts from the str.lib! I'll go try that now. I've been working on and off on a grand Seal game in ofp for a few years now (ever since NP1!, but I've scaled things back to get something more manageable done. The "Seven Mountains" map in VTE is a semi-faithful reproduction of the Chau Doc region of south vietnam, complete with a great mangrove swamp and other goodies! Ai have severe trouble on the rivers with boats, but then, don't they always? The undergrowth and object usage is the best I've seen yet, but there's still a problem with AI shooting through bushes at long range. Also, CSJ has been working hard on a Seawolf pack with many many variants to supplement his Huey pack, and also made an ATC (Or, HSSC as the Seals called it...). The Seawolves are in a nice dark color scheme with a *lot* of weapon options and a big white NAVY on the tail, and helicopters can even land on the HSSC roof! Lots of great stuff being cooked up for Vietnam Seal ops. The SEALs: UDT/Seals ops book has been one of my 'bibles' for a while now. Glad you guys are enjoying it also.

You included the chernobyl pack, but you spelled it wrong in the mission.sqm. You need to fix the mission spelling for the mission to work, and figure out the other two missing addons I posted.

More freedom doesn't mean 'no goal', it means giving the player more options and choices to reach a goal. This goal can be getting more money, or beating all the quests/missions, or killing every enemy they see before they die. The goal doesn't have to be chosen by the designer, it can also be chosen by the player. But the important thing to note is that the game needs goals; a way for the player to 'win'. Otherwise, it's not really a game, it's just a playground.

From another viewpoint, I would say the 30 minute time limit isn't a bad idea, as there are only about 30 minutes of gameplay in the map in the first place! To keep the map going longer would only frustrate th eplayer.. as there's not much beyond killing a few enemies and hijacking a few vehicles. If they can only put 30 minutes of gameplay into the map, no reason to let the player play longer. However, I would have enjoyed some sort of goal or objective, as the only thing to do is wander around...

haha, it's ok. I'm just doing a find/replace on all the bft addons so I can play the mission for now Edit: Once again, a briefing and a markers once entering the zone would be nice, or at least a border... it would be nice to know what to do or where to go.

I agree with all of pablo's points. Translation needs a bit of refinement, diary and notes are needed, and xplain where the player needs to go, for sure. I had a lot of trouble with the first sector, since I always play on veteran! I had to search this topic until I found out that I need to play in cadet. Overviews would also be a good idea. Maybe for veteran players, you could add 'start' and 'finish' markers on the map, or allow the player to have GPS so he knows which grid he's in? Also, I think some of the weapon choices should be standardized. I noticed some BIS weapons mixed in with the pack you're using, as well as some JAM ammo mixed with the weapon's native ammo. I would recommend rereleasing part 1's campaign when you release part 2, with updates and fixes. I'm a huge fan of non linearity, but I have to say, this was the first non linear game experience I've played in a long while that I've actually enjoyed! (Notables: HL2, Doom 3, F.E.A.R., Far Cry were all too linear for me. SWAT 4 was nice though..) I really enjoyed the first part, and I'm looking forward to this demo! Edit: I get 'cannot load mission, missing chernobyl_pack' when I try to run the demo. I'll try unpbo'ing it.. Edit again: Looks like under required addons in the pbo, "chernobyl_pack" is spelled without the Y. When that's fixed in all three spots in the mission.sqm, I get a problem with the 'elektro' and 'zabor' objects...

Hi, If I remember correctly, his M16's/Car-15's were based on M16A2's/M4's, and have an A2 style rear sight. I only checked an older release, though. I would much prefer if the M16 and XM in VTE use an A1 style body. Also, if you guys are using JAM, please, please replace/override the 5.56mm machinegun sound as used in the pack. Sounds absolutely awful, and ruins the Stoner for me. (It's much, much, much too meaty for a 5.56. I can provide video of a stoner upon request to whoever on the team needs it.) (<-- Big stoner fan) Best, ~Steve

I see some ilo undergrowth objects in those pictures. I really hope they'll have view/geo lods and work well with AI. One of my main problems with some 'Nam islands that I've played with is that there is sometimes an overuse of those 'see through' undergrowth objects. In my experience, the player thinks they're behind concealment, while the AI sees right through it and nails you in the head from hundreds of meters out. While I understand that these reductions are usually to combat lag, gameplay suffers. If there are too many AI problems, I'll probably go back to Ia Drang like I usually do. It may not look the hottest, but it has the best playing 'vietnam jungle' battles so far in my book. RE The 'invisible huts': When you were fighting a village battle, AI could target/shoot you from one side of the hut to the other, without LOS. It made village battles more than a little annoying. If you do include the old huts/hut objects, I'd love to see them fixed. Really looking forward to all the new units, vehicles, and weapons. I'd love to see some old NP2 weapons updated with higher quality models and textures. The M16A1 is getting a bit long in the tooth... Here's to a new 'king' of vietnam islands/mods, ~The Captain

If you guys are using a new Ia Drang, it would be super if you could add huts that weren't invisible to AI, jungle lods that don't have invisible sections, and the config fix that allows the ambient sounds to play during the daytime. I think STT had some of those fixes already done, perhaps you could coordinate with him on that. (I remember him saying that the updated Ia Drang jungles were to be the tonal ones...) Not sure if you guys are planning those fixes already, but those are my wishlist. Ia Drang is still my favorite Vietnam island due to its overall playbility.

I have a model of this helicopter, and was going to scan the box the last time I was home for the holidays, but sadly, I forgot. :-/ It does look like it's a really dark OD, almost black. Shame you can't get it right in game without it looking a bit blotchy. :-/ Perhaps I can take a look at the chopper cpp to see if I can get it to play the new cargo animations? Also, if there's anything specific scripting wise that you might need help with, just mention it to me and I can take a look at that too. email: thecaptain_ps@hotmail.com For the bushranger forward guns, you *could* spawn bullets out of the muzzle every time you fire a dummy weapon, but, since it's a minigun, that might lag a bit

Oh, wow, CSJ! Thanks for the work going into the seawolves! Now I can finally call for seawolf support and tear the crap out of the VC below... If you need scripting help, I'd be happy to take a look at whatever's giving you trouble. Also, re: the B models and cargo capacity... I know the engines on these puppies were weak, and the lift capacity was mainly dependant on weight.. is there a way you could scale the number of cargo troops between 4-8 depending on the armament of the model of B or C huey? That way a mission designer could have a 'slick' version that could pick up a whole team, or a gunship that couldn't pick up very many.. Just a thought ;). As of the last version I think all C models could only carry 4 guys... Offhand I'd say you could get 8 in the slick, 6 or 7 in the lightly armed B models, 4 or 5 in the medium armed ones, and 1-2 in the super heavily armed models. That's all just guessing though. Snypir's support pack had a pretty good rappel aniamtion/script. I don't think it's a problem if you borrow it and give the credit... As to the cargo animations, I'm not sure... Never done that before.

Hi, I've found some great archives of seawolf photos at: http://www.seawolf.org/ (Pictures, then detachments (lots in there)) and http://www.seawolf-hal3.org/gallery/ There are a few different types of color schemes in there, and some of the photos are a bit washed out. Nonetheless, most of these guys look to be converted army UH1 B's with flex guns and 7 rocket pods, and for later in the war, craploads of miniguns and toys. It looks like some seawolf choppers have the normal OD scheme with NAVY in black letters instead of the normal ARMY. However, the standardized seawolf color scheme seems to be the dark blue on the body with the huge white NAVY on the tail. (Supposedly, tht was to lead enemies to shoot at the tail boom instead of the main body...) Personally, I'd like to see aircraft with the dark blueish color scheme and either flex guns, M6 7; miniguns, M6/7; minigun in the door, rockets. ;) ...Now all we need are some up to date seal models, though Ebud's still stand the test of time and look pretty good...

Is there any hope of Navy Seawolf chopper textures in the next release? They used the UH1-B with the M6/7 rocket arrangement (in the early war, at least). Big white NAVY lettering on the tail, and a dark blue/grey color scheme... If we had that, then we would have all we needed for Nam SEAL missions.. ;) If you are interested, or need reference photos or help, I have both in spades ~The Captain