TangoRomeo

Daytrip to Xanten Archeological Park

^ I like the second one. Some clumsy efforts of mine with a cheap-ass Powershot A-510 My wife, err, i mean, bike. Bike Tech: When normal people sleep, i sometimes go out for a ride:

Hmm, i´d gladly exchange leaning for overheating barrels. The latter would add more immersion and gameplay value to me than leaning does. No wait, i´d like to see both in Arma².

You could have also wrote "...past any concerns for cpu overhead". There are pro´s and con's to each. :) I agree that uncompressed audio yields the best possible quality, but codecs these days evolved alot - just think of flac. People without a trained hearing and audiophile equipment won't be able to tell the difference, this is true for the majority of people playing computer games. What i don't agree on is working without a RAM budget. More RAM for audio means less for other assets. Just the same as with cpu cycles. Dependant on Hardwareconfiguration and Software demands this means more frequent swapfile usage, which in turn causes a quite noticeable performance impact. I.e. i´m redoing some ingame sounds; uncompressed the package has a size of ~70mb in 44100hz, Quality VBR compression gets it down to ~11mb. If adding this up for all sound emitters ingame, we`re at several hundred megabytes just for audio, if not cutting on either quality or length, to minimize repetition and having sufficient duration. As far as .ogg quality is concerned. It´s better than most other lossy codecs. On a P. A-109 via MDR-V700 or MS Avant 902, i cannot make out a difference. Though this is certainly no audiophile setup, it's more than what the average user has hooked up to his comp.

Don't know about .mp3. Arma accepts .wav, .ogg Vorbis, and .wss - BIS's inhouse format. I´m using .ogg Vorbis when changing sounds. Small filesize. Good audio quality.

@ Betsalel, thanks man, but it's just an audio mod :D Hope NonWonderDog ports over his Ballistics and FCS mod to ArmA². This would be the level of immersion i hope for regarding armor deployment. @NodUnit, i have some squeeking on the treads currently, it's mixed in the tread sample itself. It´s not that prominent. However, if possible i would like to make the squeeking a seperate sound entry in the .cpp. So while driving, there would be samples playing for tread-surface interaction, engine, acceleration, noise during rough maneuvering/ cross country, and tread squeeking. @nikita320106, i need help with the config. soundEngineOnExt[] = {"\TRSM_Tracked_Vehicles\Antrieb\MBT-Turbine-Ext-Engine_on.ogg", 1.0, 1.0, 400}; My take is the first value (1.0) standing for loudness, also relative to other sounds playing at the same time. Q: What is the base reference, 0dB, or a certain sample entry? The second value (1.0) should be pitch. The third (400), audible distance. ============================================================ limit = 0.15; Don't know what this is? ============================================================ expression = "engineOn*camPos*2*gmeterZ*((speed factor[1.5, 5]) min (speed factor[5, 1.5]))"; Speculation here. "engineOn" used as based reference for loudness, the first value, speed factor (1.5), transition time, the second one (5) loudness? min= minus / min= minimum? ========================================================== cone[] = {1.2, 2.8, 1.8, 1.3}; ? ========================================================== Thank you in advance. If it's of some help, i can also send you over the .cpp.

Yepp, it's quite annoying in real life. Inside a tank it's extremly noisy, the M1 has been meassured with sound levels from 93 dB Tac. idle to 117 dB, when travelling at 40 mpH, that's louder than a chainsaw, or jackhammer. Crews are required to wear hearing protection, either sufficently integrated into their helmets, or additional earplugs. The whine you hear is radiating from hydraulic pumps operating the turret. If you have an AI crewmember manning the gunner station, there will always be "the annoying sound" :D, as it is turning the turret constantly while you maneuver the vehicle. I can't find seperate settings for volume regarding Commander/Gunner and Driver stations, but i can of course turn it down, if it's too annoying. @nikita320106, thanks for your offer :) Going to post a couple of Q`s later.

:) Taking the M1 out for some mudding, buttoned up ambience. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJFBdsbIiYc

Using v1.01 Can someone verify that it takes about 2-3 Hits with an RPG-7 on the vehicles side armor (aiming point turret ring) for a catastrophic kill, as opposed to 1 hit with the SMAW? I´m not saying this is wrong, just want it confirmed.

@DreDay, agreed, didn't consider possibility of projectile deflection and failure to detonate, would be cool to have it modelled in Arma. I´m no expert on this, but i would think that if a HL charge goes off upon contact, there's a good chance of it penetrating a vehicle with the armor thickness of a BMP, despite the angle. This is a caption of Bundeswehr munition tests against former NVA equipment. In this case a HL charge penetrated the gun barrel of a T-72M1 completely at an extreme angle. :eek: The projectile type is not not mentioned, i would think of either 120mm DM12, or PzFst 3. Both having similar armor penetration capabilities.

@Flanker15, true. My main concern was MP, and the red side not having an equivalent to the SMAW. Just ran a quick test in the Editor, for different RPG warheads. [setup] Target: Bmp-2 Distance: 100m Orientation: 90° Aiming point: turret ring Hits required for a catastrophic kill PG-7V (RL Penetration ~330mm RHA) - 5 PG-7VL (RL Penetration ~550mm RHA) - 3 PG-7VR (RL Penetration ~700mm RHA) - 1 Results of the second run were consistent with the first. I guess it goes without saying that any of these warheads would penetrate the BMP series vehicles from any side or angle mentionable, but i also understand that it doesn't automatically mean a catastrophic kill.

Thanks alot! :) Really trying hard to approach the audio ambience of what it's like to drive in one of those vehicles, or observe one from the outside. It´s somewhat difficult, as i never drove any RU or US armored vehicle, nor do i have the possibility to do some field recording on them. Sighting dozens of videos for usable source material, processing it, and trying to get it all together via the config.cpp seems to be alot more work than i originally anticipated. :D Especially the config gives me a headache and consumes most of the time. I guess there's no tutorial available yet on possible sound paramters and their description? So trial&error for now :confused:

Hmm, a forum moderator sharing his personal opinion - i cannot see the relevance it would make to my decision on whether to buy it or not. I am playing Arma2 currently, i havn't checked out DR yet, simply because it's not available ;)

The "foot" AI seems to have improved in 1.01, i´m observing AI suppression and flanking moves more often. Having the AI drive a vehicle is however, as bad as ever. Small AAR using the latest build:

If it was only road signs ... :D

Unless the firing position is located in an area with very low ambient light, it´s really unlikely to spot most small arms muzzle flashes during bright daylight without optical aids, especially at the distance and background settings involved in the video. The AI reaction showcased there is not comprehensible to me. I´m all for a challenging game, but on equal odds. If i can't see through grass, bushes etc., but the AI can, that's no joy. If i don't get a benifit from wearing a ghillie suit and hugging the dirt, while having a hard time acquiring even standing AI soldiers in standard BDU's against certain backdrops - that's something that might be worth another look.

If i'd want to speculate i'd try a weather forecast, for the next 25 years :confused:

Doesn't sound like single shot to me. With increasing distance AI bursts just get shorter. Noticeable muzzle flash against the sky during bright daylight? That's just not right.

Looks more like 200-300m. The AI pulling off an almost reflex-like full auto shot at a prone target in a ghillie suit, at that distance, is quite a stunt. It took the AI about 3 seconds to locate and line up the player, who was attacking perpendicular to the AI´s movement direction. Reminds me of :D

True. If only Arma would distinguish more between cover and concealment. What works in Arma as cover, wouldn't probably do so in RL. I know there are computational limits to the engine, and also hardware, but it has been done before. Back on topic i have to say i´m not surpised about AI accuracy, since i also played OFP and Arma1. :D In Arma² i experienced 2 extremes, either the AI is passive to the point where you can get within 1m without being shot at. The other extreme being AI with pinpoint accuracy while returning fire, even at several hundred meters.

System C2Duo E6750 @stock 2gb DDR 800+ R4850 512mb X-Fi Vista 32 SP2 Since performance detoriates to unacceptable levels on my system when going beyond 100% fillrate, and IQ gets blurry below, i´ve also set 100% fillrate manually in the Arma2.cfg. Render dimensions = native res. My current settings are Res 1680x1050x32 anisoFilter=0; (8xAF forced via CP, results in better IQ) TexQuality=1; TexMemory=1; useWBuffer=0; shadingQuality=100; shadowQuality=4; soundEnableEAX=1; soundEnableHW=0; sceneComplexity=1000000; viewDistance=3000.0002; terrainGrid=6.25; Looks stunning with these settings, as in Arma, i get some performance drops inside woods.