S!fkaIaC

Errm that was not the question. Just state what you would pay if you like. If BIS/BIA getting (I just assume) in average 1500€ for a single VBS2 licence but you sell VBS2 now in a wider area or you recycle the old+stable older VBS version and keeping the brand new stuff for the army or the other way around.....dunno. It is up to BIS what they do with the outcome of this poll - facing the fact that the statistical base is veeeery small. You just do not have nuff fantasy. They know the dev.-cost for the current engine. They know the cost for making this engine to VBS (if it is still the case that basic moduls of VBS are inherit from OFP/ArmA) They know the imcome + amount of licences sold for both game and VBS. Now I try to find out if there is a market segment between ArmA 2-bugfestival and VBS2 (maybe full of bugs too??) So WHAT IS WRONG with that attempt? The worst thing that could happen is that my assumption is wrong that there is a significant bunch of customers willing to pay more, even anually, for a much better product. You call me unrealistic, but you are a hopeless dreamer. That was their initial reason maybe, but currently they do hard business. Recognize: they do it for money - they are corrupt! :eek: :cool:

There is a simple relation: More trust in future income = more willingness to spend more money into development = more devs = better game (edit: more devs of course do not lead necessarily into a better game, but the chnace is higher)

Maybe we should convince BIS to do a little bit more if we pay more: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=80411 :cool:

Thats measurment noise.

WOW! I was looking for a command GUI like in C&C Red alert and you MADE IT! I am addicted to crCTI, but since the code got f*****ed up over the time and the amount of conversions it seems that there is a new kind of CTI at the market!! The cow-thingy as logistics-sim is brilliant! Anything against to make a classic CTI version of your master piece? Any chance to touch the mission?

An evolution with genetic defects. Since those defects are present also in ArmA 2 it might make sense to let that engine die and rather create a new from scratch. ---------- Post added at 02:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ---------- I hope, but I am afraid it is rather the survival of the fattest. Since I do not have insight to BIS I am not sure if BIS does not see the need to do significant improvement on engine functionality and quality or if they simply never had nuff money to make large steps. Doesn't matter, fact is that the first product that can somehow compete with ArmA 2 will blow BIS from the market if they continue like that. I can not imagine a future without BIS :cool:

Well, OPTIONAL. The core of the old OFP freaks do not want to have a ranking system. The sugar that the OFP/ArmA monkey needs is to go into battle, preferably with some online-mates, to accomplish a mission and enjoying that tactics worked out. For me personally the body/vehicle counter you reach with "I" is already odd. I use it personally from time to time for cheating. If you have a hidden enemy you press "I", check the numbers in your line, then you plaster the area with indirect fire (handgranades etc.) and you check from time to time the counter with "I", there you will see when you hit something. I feel ashamed for doing this ;) , already for this cheating risk I would remove that simple "ranking" that shows the wildest in-mission-killer.

I am feed up by - Hot-releases like ArmA 1 and ArmA 2 - Hot-beta-patches - hotfixes - hot-air of promises never becoming true What we need is cold-blooded quality managment

100% agree (seldom nuff :D ) If someone needs a ranking system, he needs to script it into the mission or BIS could provide a module doing this that could be activated for a mission. But I tend to do a provocative, brainless statement: Ranking system is for gamme-kiddies, not for serious milsim freaks. :eek: Sorry for being like that.

Stop reading it.

You should read rule #3 of my reply #5 in this thread again:

It is simply because BIS is willing, but not able to create "the most realistic military simulation". And they have a total different opinion about what a "realistic" warsim requires. Suma very often uses "it does the job" in the past when he was participating in discussions. As long as the decision makers in BIS will not change their mind about this and the issue with the low production quality we will get this bugged stuff. And again, I would pay even 150€ for a proper sim-engine, it is not much compared to the money you usually invest in rig and controllers to play this game.

It is raining like sh** ---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ---------- Look at his ava: Mindless Fanboy :D Me a mindless whiner. Perfect couple, I will marry MadDogX

BIS is on holiday :cool:

If they attacking M1A2 with rifles maybe because the loader can not bail in and hence they try to kill him with rifle instead of engaging the MBT as such with AT.

Most forum members are aware that they participate in a beta test. Unique is that BIS managed to let us pay for the honour instead of paying us for doing that job. Well, not unique, it is common in SW development. Listen to the song in my signature, it will tell you....

Not all I , "some", and some others returned and stated it is back after they thought it is solved. When I tested 186.24 I could participate in 2x warfarecrCTI at XR server, no receiving bug at all. Thought it is solved. But Next day........ That is why I wrote:

Nothing improved since OFP, AI + wheeled vehicle = nightmare. BIS, is it THAT difficult to calculate a path based on the capabilities of an wheeled vehicle (main limitation is the turn radius). And as soon as there are more then one vehicle is involved they hindering each other. I remember the advertisments "new cm precision for AI movement".....but what does it help? I see absolutely no improvement in ArmA 2.

Not giving advises, but my list in categories would be: 1st: all TTs related to BSOD, CTD, Receiving..., whatever is hindering from playing in general 2nd: all functional issues mainly requested by the modder/scripter/addonmaker 3rd: all those tiny configuration issues of objects and weapons. BIS could ask ACE mod for assistance, because if BIS is not fixing odd addonconfigs ACE would have to do it anyway :cool: and ACE always made the weapon park playable.

No, they do not, they think it is fixed, but few games later it returns for some.

Gents, I can f*** up my thread alone :cool: Anything else to AI pathfinding and pathfinding in wheeled vehicles in special?

??? I count only 2, or should I consider the "updated 1.02" as 3rd? And this naked number alone is not telling anything. But if you set 2 or 3 patched into relation to 445 trouble tickets and feature requests (mainly not new features, rather requests to change design issues) it looks totally different. http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cis/issues?set_filter=1 Assuming that out of those 445 tickets 50% are duplicated reporting/bullshit/solved we have still 200+ issues. Some issues are left over from 2001 OFP. Having that in mind the common list of the changes in those 3 patches looks pretty short.

Search for manuals. With SHift-Alt mapclick or so you open the waypoint managment and there you define the role of the recent mapclick. But "temp-wp" sounds not familiar to me.

Thank you BIS for the massive feedback we got so far. It will take us years to digest the amount of information we got so far related to that issue. :cool:

A beer? The complete damn Staropramen brewery! http://www.staropramen.com/