S!fkaIaC

At least I expect feedback if AI "can't get there". It is partly like that, but I would like to have a readable status for a unit so that I could animate map markers. Red flashing could mean "Can't execute order - expecting new Yellow = executed order waiting for new The single sidechat is usually lost in the heat of the battle, especially when you play CTI/warfare it is hard to keep overview. In addition I would like to have the possibility to take over the control of a certain AI temporary at any time while it keeps the position in the CoC. If I see as "General" in CTI/warfare that the map-marker is flashing red, I would like to jump into his body and solve the issue and returning after that. Also the C&C kind of grouping would be nice: select at map OR in an unit inventory (tree view to show the CoC, unit type filter view and maybe others should be supported) and drag+drop it into another squad/division... I guess from scripting point of view it is possible since OFP to assign a unit at any time in game to another group.

At least I expect feedback if AI "can't get there". It is partly like that, but I would like to have a readable status for a unit so that I could animate map markers. Red flashing could mean "Can't execute order - expecting new Yellow = executed order waiting for new The single sidechat is usually lost in the heat of the battle, especially when you play CTI/warfare it is hard to keep overview. In addition I would like to have the possibility to take over the control of a certain AI temporary at any time while it keeps the position in the CoC. If I see as "General" in CTI/warfare that the map-marker is flashing red, I would like to jump into his body and solve the issue and returning after that. Also the C&C kind of grouping would be nice: select at map OR in an unit inventory (tree view to show the CoC, unit type filter view and maybe others should be supported) and drag+drop it into another squad/division... I guess from scripting point of view it is possible since OFP to assign a unit at any time in game to another group. Also Highlighting of units at map according to some criteria would be nice like unit type, damage level, ammo status.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=157672 So lets see how it will be this time. I guess that review brought it pretty much to the point.

I could cry when I see this. Long time requested - and we were always told "impossible". No blocking between the units visible, a dream! In ArmA a few infantrymen in front of a bridge or a small door can never agree who can go first :D Is it possible to utilize their code in any game, even in ArmA 2 ?

It is rather about the rumour that in the T&C of NP it might defined that the NP API is the only one existing in the product if licensed. But NOBODY knows at the moment if it is really like that. IF such a phrase exists it would lock out all other supplier for such similar product. IF freetrack should be supported by BIS assuming that there is NOT any phrase suggesting that NP is the only one, I agree with Myke, it is up to the frretrack makers to provide a API, it's description to BIS first

BIS can do whatever they want, we just have to make them aware how we see it - maybe by a poll. IMHO it would be pretty much stupid if BIS signed an agreement with any company that makes a proprietary protocol/API the one and only to be used. If they did already for ArmA 2 - bad luck - learn for ArmA 3. My vote: keep your engine as open as you can.

While standing still in a desert environment looking at a stone? Or while running with 50 others through a wood? You have to ask him for the environment else his statement won't tell you anything.

It is the Borg thing: Question is who is assimilating whom. I find it rather a good idea to tease those "foreigners" with missions in BF style and bring them later to more serious missions. And even if I like things like CTI, Shacktac like missions I loved in old OFP time those brainless "Nogova Bridge" missions. Both side had a bunch of respawning vehicles and you had to cross the bridge to score. Pure fun without any military relevance (except the faster you are, the more difficult it is to hit you).

You forgot the fact that a lot of peps simply do not like the "serious gaming" and will never like it. Even if you could make missions in ArmA which doing exactly the same like other games, it won't attract them, they simply want to slaughter something and in the end they want a high rank/score.

Amen! So let's hope that the "easy gaming nerds" stay where they are and stop flooding the ArmA gaming servers ruining every session. They should come over in small, digestable portions so that we are able to teach them real combat behaviour (whatever this means in a simulated environment :D ) Somehow I am sure that the CFO of BIS is not sharing my hopes. :) After release of both OFP 2 and ArmA 2 we have a nice situation: we can show the good things in one game to the devs of the other game as an example. It could be a driver to listen more to the community (not majority of actual and possible customers), but it could go wrong (for the MilSim freaks) if CM succeeding in the mass market with just another shooter and BIS decides to earn money the same way.

Amen! So let's hope that the "easy gaming nerds" stay where they are and stop flooding the ArmA gaming servers ruining every session. They should come over in small, digestable portions so that we are able to teach them real combat behaviour (whatever this means in a simulated environment :D ) Somehow I am sure that the CFO of BIS is not sharing my hopes. :) After release of both OFP 2 and ArmA 2 we have a nice situation: we can show the good things in one game to the devs of the other game as an example. It could be a driver to listen more to the community (not majority of actual and possible customers), but it could go wrong (for the MilSim freaks) if CM succeeding in the mass market with just another shooter and BIS decides to earn money the same way.

A body control as shown in the video was many times requested, but usualy ignored by BIS. Only exception is that BIS introduced "leaning" with ArmA1. Living with the 3 possible positions makes OFP/ArmA kind of a joke: window frame, sandbag-barriers, any-kind-of-cover must have the same height. Cmon. I do not think that the problem that BIS did not changed that already lies with the more complex control - that is easy to do. I assume that the animation solution simply does not support a kind of endless amount of positions and it is hard to distribute to all clients the actual position. Nevertheless this feature is a MUST HAVE!!! without it simply feels wrong - especially if the emphasis should be on infantry simulation. Please make a poll out of this thread or create a new poll if not possible. Edit: "ignored" might be not the right wording, it is rather a missing answer if they ever go for it. I am sure such a feature improves the touch and feel of ArmA 2 or later A LOT. Edit2: Related to next post :D "usually" is how it looks from outside BIS, do not know if it is ignored by BIS "usually".

Forget that we benefit in ArmA 2 from that toying which I did not expected anyway. It is not dramatic as such, even in ArmA 2 we can live with those sometimes strange effects for a while. But IF BIS is going for ArmA 3, I do not think that they can serve the same physic simulation again. It is hard to digest now in ArmA 2, almost impossible to sip it down in ArmA 3.

What are the side effects?

Since it is obvious that ArmA 2 will not meet my (always to high) expectations I hope there will be a ArmA 3. With a revolutionized engine. What a dream....

Really? So "stay sharp" tells me I should look for the new introduced girls? :D

Trains should be easy, but the alignment wheels/track would look pretty odd, sometimes the wheel dish would be outside of the rail. I do not know if BIS scripting allows to simulate a vehicle on a path with a tolerance of less then 1 virtual cm. If possible, it is just a question of "which modder will do the first train".

Well, could mean all or nothing. It was 2 times in the change logs for ArmA 1 and it was not significantly improved. OK, BMP-soccer was not possible anymore, but if ArmA2 is an evolution of the ArmA 1 engine....I rather concentrate my hope on ArmA 3 :)

Share your drugs, wanna have the same dream

It is clear that we will not have floating water, but the consequences are to odd: A dam, what a strategical target, BUT indestructible since floating water is not supported. Will it be possible to make the impression of a river by creating a water surface not horizontal, rather like a slope and without wave effect? That would be already good enough for me. With that, you still cannot really simulate the break of a dam, but at least you have rivers with their strategical and tactical implications.

Forget it. If you think 100 years about implementing a technology it is very likely that you implement something outdated. IF BIS might develop an ArmA 3, only IF, then there will be the next chance to implement a total different technology to simulate physics. I have the strong feeling that we will see all the oddities known in ArmA 1 again in ArmA 2. Meanwhile I can live with it, ArmA 2 suddenly without the previous mentioned effects would feel "wrong":D

..or even for no reason! What will happen to the water then? :eek: :butbut::868:

The general ability is available now as long as in the mod pack all possible combinations are present. It is then up to the mission maker if he allows to modify waepons in the field which is unusual for some fittings.

It is clear that I will settle in the North.

I guess it is on purpose technically dry since there is no other way to show the capabilities of ArmA2 + TrackIR. But I am somehow sure that Dslyecxi will make also movies with more cineastic content. And btw, the Mi24 flight is already cool nuff.