axure

dreamweaver, that's a very cool screen indeed :) I'm growing to think that someone in BIS actually took a look into this issue, they've discovered that this problem is rooted in some very fundamental assumption in the game engine design, which would require a serious modification with negative implications for other functionalities, and so they decided to pretend that this problem does not exist. Way to go, Bohemia, way to go! I guess, we should all advise other people not to buy this game before they try out the demo to make sure that it actually works properly.

Do vehicles (ground and aircraft) use up their fuel? Is it possible to refuel? Is it possible to blow up enemy's fuel supply and immobilize his vehicle fleet? :D

I totally support what Fredz said. Maybe except for the OS: It happens not only in XP, I can personally confirm that under Windows 7 RC it's exactly the same. (And hence most likely in Vista.)

Placebo, you're right, I was too quick to shoot at you. Sorry for my "yell at the helpdesk guy" attitude. ;) There's so many pages, I went really quickly through the last few. That said, I think it is the highest time that BI actually do something about this problem. Perhaps you could use your Moderator powers to bring this to their attention? So that they actually treat it with certain priority (because it ruins fun for quite a few people) and not just add at the bottom of bugs/improvements list... Because that would mean we're screwed for months.

Well, maybe Arma2 simply has much higher requirements than advertised. That is: it may well give you bearable FPS on low settings on older hardware (within min reqs) - but due to some strange mouse implementation in Arma2 it may produce a noticeable lag. (BTW, it's not 100 vs 110 FPS, it's more like half a second.) I have a ThinkPad T61p laptop with a Quadro 570m graphics card, which is basically an equivalent of GeForce 8600 GT, and it runs Arma2 terribly. Even in lo-res, even with lowest settings, I still get a lag that makes playing impossible. (BTW, there's been another guy with T61p who simply gave up and decided to sell his game.) Now, you would think that maybe my laptop is simply not up to the task, but doesn't seem to be the case. With a 2,5 GHz Core2 Duo and 2GB of RAM, the weakest point would be the Quadro. Except it actually fits within the minimal requirements. And more importantly - I've had absolutely no problem playing Crysis for instance (lowered res, med details, no AA), which is a very demanding game too. What Placebo tells us here isn't very helpful. He assumes the usual helpdesk attitude: "Lady, I just did what you said on my computer, and it works just fine here." Of course, it doesn't matter what works for him, because this is the Troubleshooting forums and what matters is what the users experience. If it were just a handful of people with some weird hardware configurations (like mine), I wouldn't blame him. But there's a lot of people and there's already 21 pages of head scratching, which shows you that there is a real problem. EDIT: Tried setting pre-rendered frames to 1, with no visible effect.

Ok, so from this video it would seem like the damage mechanism in Arma2 is not exactly working right... A guy is able to shoot down a Ka-52 with an M14 rifle. To me it's quite obvious that: a) armor should prevent low caliber weapons from inflicting any damage (how big caliber is needed to penetrate armor would obviously depend on how much armor a vehicle has at a given hit spot) b) when damage is inflicted, it should cause certain functions of a vehicle / human body to fail, and not decrease the amount of "damage points". I thought Arma2 is not an arcade game? Shot in leg - you can't walk (and loose blood). Shot in engine - you can't go. Shot in fuel tank - you explode or just loose fuel. I know some of it works, but it seems like there's also a "hit points" rule, since the Ka-52 was shot down just by shooting sufficient number of times.

I was just thinking... If a human player drove the first vehicle in a convoy, would the bots follow nicely, or behave just as stupidly as left alone.?Another wonder: How on earth was this game released with bugs as obvious as this one? Because it really seems like either it wasn't really testet thoroughly (major negligence) or the problem was simply ignored (with intention to patch in incoming months). Either way, this is an unfinished product. (Obviously, driving is not the only AI problem - seeing through walls was mentioned many times. Or seeing in pitch dark without NVGs.)

Are you suggesting UAVs can be only programmed to patrol and can't be piloted in real time from the ground? BTW, waypoints are the most basic thing for an autopilot, I can't believe there's no such thing.

I've got a bit request to you guys who already have ArmA2. I would like to know how much two cores are actually used under XP (Vista also appreciated, but XP is what interests me). A screenshot of a Task Manager's processor usage graph (like this one) would be great. Obviously, first you need to fire up the Task Manager and select the Performace tab, then play ArmA2 for at least 30 seconds to actually put some pressure on the CPU, and then Alt-Tab back to Windows and take a screenshot of whatever was drawn on the graphs. Thanks in advance!

Wow, I'm impressed!

mr.g-c, that really bad news. This is pretty basic stuff, I thought they'd get the AI right this time. Well, I agree everyone can make mistakes and correct them. The question is how long will it take BIS to patch these very silly and game-spoiling mistakes. If it's like 2 weeks, then I guess it's OK. If it's two months, I might get upset. If it's 6 months, I just won't be interested in the game anymore. OFP2 will provide an alternative. But then BIS won't make a penny off me.

And just for the record, LHD doesn't mean Wasp class amiphibious assault ship, it means landing helicopter dock (an amphibious ship that can use helos, VTOLs and landing craft). Same way, CVN doesn't mean Nimits nuclear carrier, it means just nuclear powered aircraft carrier. USS Enterprise, which is not Nimitz-class, is also a CVN. AussieTerry84, not really. Just because it carries a handful of VTOLs doesn't make it an aircraft carrier. It's all about the main purpose of a ship. LHD is about landing stuff on the shore (with helos, LCACs, what have you). CVN is about flying fighters and strike aircraft (and a few other types). Last, but not least, I'm sure you can create a carrier for Chernarus as a mod. :)

Is it possible to easily plug other kinds of devices? I might want to dust off my old 3Dconnexion SpaceTraveller manipulator. Nothing beats full 6 degrees of freedom under one palm. ;)

I realize that ArmA2 is meant to be a ground battle game, but in modern warfare it is impossible to ignore the air component. From the website and trailers I know there's gonna be quite a few types of aircraft. The question is: What happens when both sides have attack jets and both decide to use them at the same time? It's obvious that every symmetric conflict should start with a struggle for air superiority. The one who commands the skies can pound the enemy quite freely. So how would a Su-34 vs F-35 fight look like? Are they limited to heat-seeking missiles? (Would seem so from website.) Do they have radars? Are the aircraft physical qualities (aerodynamic properties, thrust power, weight) simulated to allow for a fairly realistic dogfight? Again, I realize this is no flight simulator, but this stuff is just too important to ignore, so I had to ask. PS. I know there's an aircraft thread already, but it is related to helo handling, not air combat.

Of course! Isn't ArmA series all about multiplayer?! I know there's also single, but I would rather consider that a training experience. ;) Incorrect. To be precise, it's a fan in the fore of the fuselage and a vectored jet nozzle at the aft. As opposed to a Harrier that uses small vectored jets in both places. Again, my whole point is not about making it fun to fight in the air or making it amusing to look at from the ground. It's all about the fact that a petty combat in the air can have a huge impact on the ground. If gaining air superiority is basically an arcade game of who clicks first or of pure chance, then it's a great pity, because that means a very short duel of a handful of players can ruin the whole game for dozens on the ground. (How? Already explained: prevailing aircraft will probably be able to pulverize enemy forces with near impunity, especially armor.)

Yoma, Squint, I do know there are SAMs an Shilkas, but all these have limited capabilities. There are no medium range SAMs (PAC-3, S-300) for the same reason that there are no BVR AAMs. So while those short range weapons can be probably pretty threatening, a plane or helo should be able to take out tanks with a laser guided missile quite safely. (BTW, how is laser guidance done? Do planes have targeting pods, like LITENING or SNIPER-XR? I'm pretty sure I've seen an infantry-carried laser marker somewhere.) Yeah, I'm sure there will be tons of missions with no aircraft at all. I was talking in generic terms, where you have a big battle of relatively similar forces, including infantry, armor and aircraft. In such a full-fledged conflict, air superiority should be decisive. OK, but how is it done by default, if I don't want to write my own scripts? Also, how was it done in typical missions in ArmA1? Wow, you should be paid for your advice. I always thought they send flowers to each other. Why around? And what happens when I do an Immelman? Do different planes have different aerodynamic parameters? 'Cause you know, in real life big Russian fighters bleed energy fast in tight turns and that puts them at a disadvantage if you just "fly around". Not sure, as it uses a fan for vertical thrust. Not really. You're thinking F-22. It's not about looking or about whether there's any "cool stuff" going on in the air. It's about three planes being able to take out a dozen of your tanks and APCs. Or in other words: three enemy players easily making your whole team (30 people, for instance) loose in a blink of an eye. Now, surely you'd want it to be hard for them to blow your stuff up from the air, and thus you'd want it to be hard to win air superiority. What I'm worried about is that air combat is going to be so simplistic that you'll be able to game the system easily or that it will be a quick arcade game - with dire consequences for the very elaborate and complicated battle on the ground. Even more than slightly - but for that we'd need at least a 100x bigger game world. But that's off topic.

I agree current number of air platforms is perfectly sufficient, as is the small range of a2a weapons for a 200sq km world. But that doesn't mean air combat is not important and not having AWACS or tankers doesn't change anything. The problem is - if I can deny your planes access to the battle field, then I get a big advantage because I can take out, for instance, your mechanized units (tanks, APCs) at will and there's little you can do about it. Thus, just a handful of planes (like three) can totally tilt the balance and give an easy victory. (BTW, how is aircraft rearmament done, after I deployed all weapons? Is there airfield staff that literally puts missiles onto planes, or do they appear automagically after landing?) Now, assuming that in the beginning both sides were given equal chances (like Blue have 4 JSFs, Red have 4 Su-34s), it becomes very important how fair and sensible is their fight for air dominance, because the winning side has the upper hand in the whole battle, as explained above. So I don't care if it's just heat-seeking missiles and guns, and just two a2a-capable platforms on each side, as long as the struggle for air superiority isn't resolved in a very silly "arcade" manner but one that fits well in this very impressive war game. BTW, in the end I'm gonna buy ArmA2 anyway, it's just so great and gives so much freedom that I won't be able to resist it. :D