The_Captain

A few things come to my mind that haven't been mentioned too many times already (I think). 1) Weapon animations: We've had them since OFP, and SLX does a pretty good job with animating the bolts on rifles and slides on pistols. I *really* would like to see my pistol slide kick back, and lock back when it's empty as in SLX, and I'd like my AK's bolt to blow backwards. Tiny little details like this would be really appreciated. 2) A complex morale model such as close combat which takes into consideration the emotional state and stability of soldiers. (As well as governing their reactions, such as shouting/communicating/screaming). Make the robots a bit more human seeming. I don't want them to simply size up every situation robotically; I want them to sound and seem stressed, to crack under pressure, run away, cower in fear, go berzerk, etc. 3) LAV-25 for marines. VBS has it, and Arma 2's marines need wheeled recon that can transport infantry (I have an affinity for the 25mm bushmaster cannon too). The aavp7 is too clunky to be more than a big amphibious taxi. I haven't seen this vehicle yet in any screenshots, but it's an important part of the marine force. I'd rather have an LAV than yet another helicopter for BLUFOR... 4) Missions that aren't just force recon, special forces style in the campaign. One of the best things about OFP for me were the missions where I was a grunt in a squad. Special forces missions are okay, but I'd like some big setpiece battles too...

I think OFP2 will have more detail and polish. They have a huge team of people, and can burn time and money on nit picky items (like their touted 5000 poly frag grenade). I think OFP2 will have a more tuned "low level player experience" (moving, aiming, shooting, driving, flying, etc) without much of the clunkiness we're used to in the BIS engines. I think it might have better MP out of the box. I think CM is really gambling that OFP2 will sell another million+ copies, and are betting the farm on it by putting lots of resources into the development. I think Arma2 will continue to have the more open engine, with much better capabilities for mission makers (esp having access to quite a bit of the game code) and addon makers. I really doubt that OFP2 will have enough commands and options for mission designers to script new complex gametypes within a map, or create sophisticated addons and vehicles. Arma2 will likely give more possibilities to players, such as more vehicles to drive, weapons to use, different styles of gameplay, etc. Overall, I think OFP2 will be more polished and immersive, but Arma2 will give players (and map makers/modders) more options. Level of overall realism will probably be about the same... and WAY better than anything else on the market (save Red Orchestra and a few others). Personally I'm looking forward more to Arma2, but I'll probably buy OFP2 as well. (Bias note: I like making/coding maps). Hopefully arma2's level of polish will be about the same as Ofp2.

I would also like to see tank-fired ATGM's on the soviet tanks. It would help offset their comparatively poor sabot rounds...

Thanks for the translation! It's great to know how the devs actually feel about the game in a good video interview like that. @ofpforum, were these the scans from pc gamer in 2005? http://tj-www.kicks-ass.org/ -> "OFP2 news" They talk about Arma2 and have a graphic showing a dynamic campaign.

I don't know about those specific controls, but I have been able to kill the arma map (which also kills compass, watch, gps) by closing one of the dialogs. I forget the ID, but I found it by opening the map and running a loop until it closed... I would assume if you could get the control ID's you could hide specific controls in game too. Warning: when doing it, you have to not close 46 (the main game) and one or two other ones (you can kill the main menu by mistake as well, oops...). I know that once you kill one of these dialogs in game, I don't think you can bring it back, so perhaps a hide control would be smarter. I want to find the dialog ID for the scoreboard at some point so I can hide that regardless of server option.

Since warfare is best in MP with a large number of players, and it's hard to get the proper addons to all of them, I would recommend having one version with only the CWR content (the other could have the custom addons). That way there's a version for people to play who only have CWR installed or loaded... Best of luck

Nice addon. The quad 12.7mm seems a bit too powerful: a few short bursts will explode another hind, and about 150 rounds will destroy a ramahdi building. It also seems to have heavy splash damage. Might want to decrease the power slightly.

TDM and DM are very specific categories of PvP mission. There are many different types like capture and hold, CTF, etc. It would be good to make a separate PvP category to hold all of these types of missions.

The author of the script I posted above estimated the drag coefficient to be about -500 / 1000000 when plugged into the simplified deceleration equation of 'a = v^2 * k', k being the drag coefficient for an artillery shell (k/mass of shell). The actual implementation is in his readme file and is very helpful for making your own artillery calculations.

One artillery mod, released on these forums, actually fired shells from the guns using AI in a correct trajectory. To figure ou tthe correct angle the author had to calculate arma's air friction coefficient. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=68597 I believe that was the arty addon. You might have to poke around in the scripts for the math but maybe it'll give you some ideas. EDIT: This other arty addon includes a superb tutorial on using linear regression parabolas to create indirect fire: http://www.armedassault.info/index.php?cat=addons&id=180

Awesome scripts! Downloading now. I've always wanted more of a psychological model in Arma...

matt - No need to get the halo out of Domination. Domination uses "AA Halo" which should be in the addons board somewhere. Should be easy enough to install...

Sounds like some good changes. Question though, what's the parachute bug? Is it MP only? Ded-server only? I want to avoid that in my own mission...

Just the map I have been waiting for to port my mission to. Now all I need is P85 and the germany terrain.. I lived in germany for a year and find that quite authentic! Great job!

Damn, I didn't think it happened with the map control too. If you add a camera view underneath the map control (best if the dialog is full screen) then you might override the driver move to behavior? You could also try to stop the behavior as it happens with EffectiveCommander, SendSimpleCommand and ExpectedDestination...

Though crews could have either IRL, I vote for the XM-177 for magazine compatibility and general usefulness in combat. I think regulars (non reservists) were more likely to have an XM-177, but I could be wrong. (speaking of tank reservists... man, I'd love an M60A1...) Great stuff, guys!

as far as I know, playmove is seen on all clients, switchmove only on the local client. I think, in addition, one client cannot perform a switchmove on a unit that belongs to another client (as the unit is not local to his machine). You may be forced to use playmove instead on the local client...

I'd rather see soldiers disintegrate when hit by a sabot/lgb/satchel instead of flying through the air, more than I'd like to see a ragdoll implementation. You can fix this with a scripting workaround that detects a signifcant change in velocity upon death (and deletecollections the soldier, replacing him with a particle effect), but it's somewhat iffy in MP. I'd rather see this improved at an engine level.

Very happy to see USMC style markers and group ID's in the high level command interface, as well as the satellite map underlay. Would be nice to see the group ID's properly incremented as I noted in my suggestion thread. (1-1-A > 2-1-A instead of 1-1-A > 1-1-B)

Not sure if this has been discussed in context of Arma II before: In the latest PC games Arma 2 video, I noticed that the unit groups were referenced the same as in Arma: 1-1-A, 1-1-B, 1-1-C. This was apparent both in the 'high level command' video as well as the group chat log. As far as I know, the US military group designations are in the following format: Squad-Platoon-Company. So 1-1-A would be 1st Squad, 1st Platoon, Alpha Company. Arma automatically increments the 'company' field when assigning group designations instead of the 'squad' or 'platoon' fields. This leads to new groups having their company designation incremented, and the game loops through all 26 letter combinations before it increments the squad or platoon fields. (Basically, it's backwards). IE, 1st Squad, 1st Platoon, Bravo Company; 1st Squad, 1st Platoon, Charlie Company, etc. The developers may want to consider reversing the automatic order to increment squad and platoon first, before company. It's possible to reassign group ID's manually (as I have done in my own mission), but in a multiplayer environment it can be difficult to synchronize the new & dynamically created group ID's for those who are not proficient scripters. Proper group ID assignment can lead to easier communication between groups and quick knowledge of a unit's place in the chain of command when viewing it on the chat log or on the map screen. I can't comment with certainty on russian ID's, but I think they are in a different format. As another 'nice to have': it would be *very* helpful to assign a group ID in the mission editor, both so mission editors can easily set a group ID to their liking, and so the group ID is displayed in the MP mission setup screen. Best, The Captain

switch case is a command that checks the input against each case. In this script, it's looking at the key input and only executing the code for that 'case.' So if you want to add more keys, you can just add new entries to the switch-case. These scripts are local to the player as they are only firing on the machine that pressed the key. They will not trigger for all players/clients. Good luck!

I like the focus on infantry combat and 'micro-ai'. Since this campaign seems to parallel the Russian insurgency in Chechnya, the true test for the improvement in infantry AI will be how well they can fight armored vehicles in built up areas. IRL, infantry can enter buildings and find places to hide to ambush armored vehicles, turning a column into a death trap. In Arma, armored vehicles tend to beat infantry in urban areas, as they can kill infantry in tight areas before the infantry can bring AT weapons to bear. meanwhile, infantry tend to have the advantage against armored vehicles in open terrain, where they can ambush armored vehicles with long range, accurate anti tank fire before the vehicles can react. If the AI & ability to enter buildings or take cover improves in Arma II, I think we will see this balance reversed.

Ragdoll creates difficulties with MP play. Most games with ragdoll simulate the ragdolls clientside, but as players never interact with bodies (only dropped weapons), it's not an issue to have bodies in different places on different computers. In Arma, players interact with the dead bodies directly, which means that bodies must be in the same position after death on every machine. This means that the ragdoll position would need to be synchronized across all machines; the position of each bone would need to be transmitted. Currently, only the animation state & position are transferred, which is a much lower network load than if the ragdoll position were transferred. Ragdoll animations also give a CPU hit, and though this is less of an issue with multi core systems, I don't want my system pausing when 10 or 20 soldiers die at once and all engage their ragdolls. If ragdoll were implemented without a significant bandwidth or CPU hit (and were properly done, like in RO as opposed to BF2), I would support it.

Scariest/Most atmospheric: AvP1 (as marine) Why? The aliens hunted you through the levels, navigating through the vents. That means you couldn't pause anywhere and relax, as you always were worried an alien was going to pop up anywhere and kill you. Most games with scripted enemies or closed environments never give me the same feeling, as I know once I have killed all scripted enemies in an area, that I can leave the PC, go eat dinner for a few hours, come back to my still living character, flip a switch on a door and immediately be attacked by newly triggered enemies. This predictability, for me, kills the suspense. If you leave the PC while playing AvP for a few moments, you will inevitably be hunted down and killed. That's what makes the game frightening for me.

There's a box on page 2 of the PC Games article that talks about patch 1.12. "Mehrspielermodus" caught my eye, so... My hasty attempt at google translation led to: "Already in March, the next software patches. He has a lot to offer, in addition to performance improvements of up to 100 percent shines patch 1.12 with bonus material as a new Multiplayer mode. These players are like in a real-time strategy game their own bases, and try to buy strengthening the camp of the enemy marketplace. This mode was inspired by a mod way from the community." Looks like 1.12 will have some sort of CTI included! Since this says it was inspired by the community, and makes no mention of the original BIS CTI map.. I wonder if this CTI is closer to the old-school MFCTI? In this screenshot, the map title on the briefing appears to say CTI beta v#.##: http://games.tiscali.cz/reviews/arma2brddojmy/img12.jpg