Uziyahu--IDF

I know we had some Cobras in the United States Army that used steerable wire-guided TOWs. I believe you would steer them with the gunner's joystick, but I'm not sure.

It was great to see dogs in Call of Duty 4. I hadn't seen them posing much of a threat in a game since Quake. (The dogs in Stalker and Oblivion weren't all that dangerous.)

How about diarrhea and "the runs"? You guys forget that someone made a urination script for OFP:R. Personally, I think the need to get food to the soldiers would make for mission opportunities. There are many daily chores that need to be performed just to keep an Army alive out in the field. Soldiers performing those chores are often distracted from hidden opposing forces who are watching them, mapping their perimeter, etc.

I will probably wind up playing this on the 360 more than on the PC. I played OFP:E non-stop for the 1st year and LOVED it. The seamless multiplayer, voice comm, buddy list of XBox Live made it a dream come true. OFP:E was the OFP I always wanted to play, because it had mid-game joining. Even without all of the addons, it was pure tactical heaven. If ArmA II can get released well before the end of the 360's lifecycle, then we can really have some fun.

Man, a look at the feature list of ArmA 2 leads me to conclude that this War on Terror needs to end just so that OFP fans can have their game back. Looks like everything OFP fans want is going into VBS!

There's a sequel to Red Faction coming out... forgot the name... read about it in Game Informer... that's going to have such realistic destruction that they had to learn how to build structurally-sound buildings in their engine, because they kept falling apart. Sounds like it offers a large world with very open gameplay. Building destruction definitely added to the gameplay in Soldner, but that was pretty much a single-player only game. (The single-player was extremely poor.) I like the current system of buildings that collapse, leaving rubble. As long as 7.62mm + rounds are allowed to penetrate cinder block, that should enable troops and vehicles to kill those who are hidden in buildings. Each squad has a 7.62mm weapon, so no one should be able to hide.

Most UbiSoft Tom Clancy games have really good ragdoll physics. Ragdoll calculations are usually calculated client-side, and there could be something in the code that would decrease the calculations per second dependent on the number of units killed at the same time. The delayed death animations in ArmA really don't compare to the immediate ones in OFP:R, in my opinion. It's high time there was ragdoll physics in the OFP franchise. Some complain about unrealistic ragdoll deaths, but compare that to the stiff mannequin reactions of current animations to the concussive force of an explosion. The latter is awful looking.

Even CoD4, one of the most polished tac-shooters we've seen lately, had an update for download the very first time you connected to XBox Live on the 360. One of the benefits of playing games on the PC was that they could be patched. Obviously, Microsoft saw the need for patches for 360 console games, too. Your expectation is completely unrealistic. I thought it was a very informative and honest interview. It shocks me that people can accuse ArmA of being the same game as OFP, and ArmA 2 as being the same as ArmA 1. The landscaping that I'm seeing in ArmA 2 screenshots is the most believable and realistic I've seen in any game. I've had my eye on this franchise since before the release of the public demo. This game has come so far that people don't even remember how far that is. I remember when it was up in the air whether you would be able to walk through a forest or not. You should have been there when the Spanel Brothers delivered the news that they had figured out a way to provide us with forests we could walk through. What joy filled our hearts! If Codemasters makes a good product, good for them. I'll probably play it. When B.I. releases ArmA 2, I'll probably buy it for the PC and the 360. They have a tough act to follow, an act which was theirs. OFP blew us away because it was realistic combined arms warfare brought to the PC, something only approximated once before, in EA's SEAL Team. Everything built upon OFP is going to be refinement of the idea, not complete creation. If ArmA had been nothing more than Operation Flashpoint: Elite (i.e., OFP:R w/ mid-game joining) on the PC, I would have been immensely happy, but the community insisted on all kinds of improvements. (If OFP:E was backwards-compatible on the 360, I'd be playing it, right now.) With OFP, they criticized the trees. B.I. improved the trees, then the critics complained about something else. Is it really possible to please the whole community?

Vary those "poofy" trees on the slopes a bit and have areas with lots of bunches of man-height palms and bushes to hide in, like here in Florida? Otherwise, looking like it could be a fun experience.

Do you have it rigged so that if you walk away from the Claymore a distance more than the length of the wire you won't have the option to detonate? Also, if you reduce the # of ball bearings by 1/2, do you increase the damage of each ball bearing X 2? Looks like smoke goes out about 25 meters forward while billowing upwards mostly in the back. I'm not seeing any dust from shrapnel hitting the ground, so why not simply use a script to impose a random amount of damage on everything in the area of effect? (Too difficult to script the amount of damage that a larger object Vs. a smaller one might incur?)

Some people don't seem to be aware that revolving wheels and propellers often look like they stop or go backwards when viewed through a framed media.

Do pieces of debris start out flying at about the same speed and vector as the vehicle that was destroyed, slowing down as they lose propulsion and encounter air friction?

The feel of combat in ArmA doesn't remind me too much of OFP:R or OFP:E, because the FOV (field of view) setting used to increase peripheral vision makes targets appear much more distant than in real-life. Those who are adjusting recoil values on their weapons need to keep in mind that you're probably aiming at a target that is only 100 or 200 meters distant (50 meters is like point-blank range to an M16), not one that is 300 to 600 meters distant. In other words, recoil values based on perceived muzzle flip (barrel rise) in relation to a distant target need to be reduced. And I'm not even sure that the disparity between perceived size in-game and in real-life doesn't increase with distance in the game engine. It would seem that at the point of the avatar's eyeballs, everything is as it should be, but that as one moves farther away the disparity increases. The current view seems to be somewhat of a fish-eye lens effect. America's Army's qualification range had the apparent size of 250 and 300 meter targets just perfect. As I remember it, the 300 meter target was about as wide as the tip of the front sight post on the M16. If you find that a 300 meters distant target is about 1/4th the width of the front sight post on the M16, then it may be that recoil values that seem realistic at the avatar need to be toned down by 1/4th.

Okay, how did you do that? The bottom is what I'm aiming for. Will the bottom view become the new baseline, so that all zoom views are even more zoomed in?

What I would like is to achieve negative zoom so that distant targets are as big as they should be.

I don't know if the AI "knows about" a weapon when they identify an enemy's class or hear the weapon discharge, but perhaps the scan range could be greater to acquire "knowledge" about the weapon, with a smaller scan range for "moving" to acquire the weapon or ammo. Soldiers should always seek out weapons and ammo used by their SIDE, if they can't find ammo for their own weapon. If they can't find a weapon used by their side, THEN they should opt for OPFOR weaponry. Also, will the A.I. compare what it is carrying with the current or impending threat and what is available? For example, if a squad of infantrymen see tanks coming their way, will troops run to acquire the needed AT weapons that are available, so that the squad increases its number of AT soldiers? AI always interests me, and I think far too little emphasis is placed on this most important aspect of gameplay. I wonder if, when coupled with the jamming script, the soldier will dump the seized-up weapon and acquire another? All of these great AI additions really need to be put together in one addon...something like a new ECP.

Can you make something that allows changing of the FOV anytime?

Last patch? Are you kidding? Is this because effort is going into a SOON(I hope! to be released ArmA 2? *goes off to test whether support waypoint is working correctly, yet*

I'm finding the A.I. more alert. Was surprised when an RPG soldier fired one at me as I was sniping from a distance. Very nice. It's about time. Also, the RHS Hind used his nose cannon on me liberally, not bothering to waste rockets.

Enjoyed the new patch and the CWR demo. It's the first I've tinkered with (yes, not played) ArmA in a while, because I've got a low-spec video card. Kegetys low-plants addon seemed to help. Has anyone thought of importing that OFP Demo Nostalgia pack, I think it was called, that The Avon Lady compiled and distributed? It was a collection of hacked OFP demo missions that the user community altered with hex-editors. Someone enlarge the MP5SD! It's too small. The model looks great. It just needs to be bigger. If anybody wants to know what U.S. Army soldiers in the mid-80's were wearing at various degrees of cold weather, just message me. Seems like that may need to be addressed for Winter Kolgujev. The RHS Hind works great with this addon. No complaints.

I wonder if every member of this forum is going to report in to give their personal negative opinion about an added gameplay feature that they aren't required to download. No one cares how elite you think you are. 1) Some players want a health bar. 2) Hedcrusha took advantage of the powerful ArmA engine and catered to the needs of those players. 3) The only responses we should be seeing should be those that either: A) Report bugs, so that it can be made better. B) Express thanks, so that he can know his work is appreciated. This because your silence is already taken as lack of approval.

That's one mean looking T-72!

I'm not sure what Frostbite's complaint about the "M16A1M203" was, but I carried one when I was in the Army, so, yes, they did exist.

He released a G11? Where, where? Thanks for releasing these, though the textures look a bit dull. Your choice of weapons is ub3r-s3xy! I hope the AS Val and VSS Vintorez have correct ballistics. If so, I'll be happy.

Is this another "Red Hammer", made by the publisher, not B.I.? What's with the dude dismounting from the Blackhawk on the left? Looks like he has a baseball cap underneath a backwards steel pot.