nkenny

New Beta? *Jig* Ground Branch is NOT cancelled, Sky Gods (a sort of prequel release) is. In its current form BFS seek to release a SP 'training beta' to let people get a feel for the game, then continue with larger Adversarial release, before finally going ahead with the full package. Atleast thats the last thing I heard on the forum. -K

Barebones AMD based Barebones Sort these by price. Frederf suggestion is also very good. Save that I'd suck it up and get a PHENOM series CPU. The suggested PC should be able to run ARMA2 on low-normal settings with passable Framerate. Most important in making sure you've got a decent motherboard will let you continue to upgrade for the years to come. So while it is possible to get a good PC for sub-400 dollars. If you can wait, or perhaps pick up some stray work/tasks around the house. You'll get a lot more for your money. -k

Good post, I experience it occasionally as well. I thought I was imagining things! * AMD Phenomx4 * 4gigs of ram * WinXP 32b * Nvidia 285 I run 'PlayClaw (FPS measure and TS overlay) and 'TeamSpeak' quite frequently alongside Arma2. My gut feeling is that it happens when I've played around a lot with the editor, alt-tabbed in and out a lot, then gone and joined a MP game. - k

Hmm.. Made the above post without really looking at dollar exchange rate. It is of course rather weak, it might not be the best time to be buying hardware. Anyhow, Neither really knowing the value of the dollar nor the quality of said store. I played around a bit on CompUSA.com (just to get a feel for prices across the pond) It would seem that the lowest you could really go is 420ish dollars. Ironically after messing about with some of the hardware CompUSA suggested a 'barebone' bundle which clocked in at about that. 420 dollars will give you something that will run ARMA2 with decent FPS. 450 dollars will give you something more functional. 500 dollars will give you a good foundation which you can continue to upgrade for up to two more years. -K Note: If you are a console kid, and you don't have any computer savvy friends nearby. A 'barebone bundle' of some sort might be a decent idea. Note also: AMD computers are currently fantastically cheap. More than 40$ discount on certain models of Phenom x4. In any case building the computer yourself will give you 'better' parts and a stable foundation of 'know how' when the time comes to consider upgrades.

solidsnake2384 It really depends how much you want to get out of the game, and how long you are willing to wait. I run my second copy of ARMA2(betas) on my laptop (2ghz dualcore, Nvidia 9600GS, 4gig ram) with acceptable 30ish FPS (in low-key missions) It should be very possible to build a desktop computer with similar stats but way superior performance. Also don't be afraid to look to AMD CPUs. Intel are definitely the leaders of the pack, but a decent tripple-core Phenom will run arma at decent framerate. * Get a motherboard with built in Sound card (practically all of them) * Get a decent 3d Graphics Card * Get the best CPU you can afford * Get at least 4 gigs of RAM * Get a PSU (power source) that covers your requirements * Get a Box you feel happy with. * If you are building a PC for arma2 solely, it might be worth it looking at SSD (Solid drives) They are quickly dropping in price, and can provide massive boost for Arma2. -k

This. I'm very enthusiastic to hear that Czech republic forces will be in OA. The great thing about modern ISAF type employment is that you don't need to model an entire army; just the unit and typical/unique equipment for that nation. I live in Oslo, Norway. -k

Don't bargain with terrorists Sometimes it really seems like people let their fear of that mystical "bad player/jackass" guide the way they play their games. .Which happens to be counter productive to the very extreme. If you are going to let the overriding fear that someone might abuse your game experience... well singleplayer is the only way to go forth. Isn't online gaming supposed to be some sort of challenge? Won't we get a more enjoyable experience by pushing the limits? Learning to handle new things? Activating more players Lets say we introduce a game mode with a capture zone that requires four players to come together. Nay sayers might declare this impossible as public games "aren't that organized" RUBBISH I SAY. How long do you think it takes for a group of clever players to learn what needs to be done to advance the mission? How much better a GAME EXPERIENCE will you get when four people are FORCED to work together contra the usual single-player-alike-rambo-nonsense. Still impossible? Think of all the good men (and women?) who lug around Satchel charges on domination maps to blow radio towers and the like. Instead of the much more effective DMR/SMAW combo. Now certainly a good server admin, or a crowd of players that know how to 'vote kick' will go a long way. But at the end of the day, the missions we play determine the inbound 'rules' of our game experience. These are the constraints, tactical limitations, and fact we simply must adhere to. Ie: They form the basis of how we play a given mission type. Weapon Selection The weapon selection most players limit themselves to is directly affected by the typical mission scenarios we play. Both domination and warfare provide very similar tactical scenarios; hence a similar weapon selection. Were there more constraints on AT weapons. More soft targets like UAZs and URALS (loaded with squishies). More forced close-in work. More unpredictable 'ambush' scenarios. More penalties for making noise at inopportune times. We would see a quite different weapon selection going on. -k Edit: Interesting tweaks [GCA] Salah ad Din. Out of interest. Why not let Pilots choose exactly the vehicle they want to use?

I most heartily disagree. A mission can encourage teamwork by making it necessary in order to complete the map. The Example Take a chaotic public setting like Domination. Lets assume we can divide the various roles into three categories. Recon(SF), Support (pilots) and finally Frontline(various infantry). On a 32 server; 4 Recon, 4 Pilots, 22 Infantry slots, 2 other/various/leadership Remove Paradrop and MHQ Teleportation. Make transport helicopters worth their weight in gold! Transport Helicopters function as self-replenishing Ammo crates. Remove all AT weapons, except for M136 AT4 on BLUE side. Remove all ground and air vehicles, and all vehicle rewards. Keep the ability to 'spawn' various vehicles at target location though. Pilots may (through a special menu) create any type of western airship. Every pilot may have one 'active' vehicle. Pilots invariably respawn back at HQ and have no 'Alternative Injury System' active. Medics may deploy (and carry) Field Hospitals. These function as respawn locations for Frontline forces. If there are none, you cannot respawn.[Potentially give this to Team/squad leader instead] Recon Troops utilize the Sniper Ghillie suit model, and uniquely carry the laser designator. Recon troops respawn at base, but are the only ones permitted to HALO parajump. Enemy should consist of primarily of greater numbers of Infantry, with a splattering of Lightly Armoured vehicles. Reinforcements are Heavy Mechanized or motorized forces. Ensure that enemy AA and patrol elements stray FURTHER from the town center. Better still make AI actively hunt through local forests. More side missions at Main Target should require a prerequisite number of frontline soldiers 'present' in order to capture. Say 4-6 Economy of Death At mission start, limit the amount of available respawns. Say around 40 respawns. These are shared by the entire team. Any time a Frontline soldier or Recon trooper respawns; one of these are consumed. Anytime a Recon trooper 'HALO' jumps from HQ; consume another respawn. Every time a location is 'conquered' add 10 respawns to pool. Pilots always respawn at HQ and they do so 'for free'. Instead each time a pilot 'spawns' a new vehicle (presumably because the first is destroyed) the Main Target >one is reinforced by an additional 'heavy' element. MBTs, Shilka/tunguska, Mechanized infantry or worse(such as fighter planes). Conclusion and Result Boom. Suddenly there is a very real chance of failure. Also the different elements are 'forced' to work together. Because ground forces have little to none effective AT available, they must coordinate with the airforce to take out hard targets. At the same time the support element is incapable of 'clearing' out a target zone, and only grunts can effectively hunt down dangerous ground based AA weapons. Finally the grunt is also dependent on the support elements for transportation and rearmament. Recon provides an expensive but fast way of providing just that. Reconnaissance. The role of recon is VITAL. It is their job to make target assessments and to coordinate the intial LZ, and mark targets of importance for the air force. Left alone Recon troopers are hopelessly out gunned and outnumbered. They simply cannot clear a zone alone. Their value lays in eyes and ears. The Support element is not only saddled in the most important logistical tasks. Pilots have the most powerful weapons available to them, but they come in the most expensive and fragile wrapping. Loosing an aircraft is a terribly costly affair, the lives of the GRUNTS are at stake! In the end it is a battle of the grunt. Call it the war of the media, or public relations. Victory produce willing volunteers for the prestigious army. Body bags does the opposite. The mission fails if no grunts are living, and no respawns are available. -k

@Sirex1 But did you try it? I agree a soldier in a CQB environment should always point the weapon where he is looking. Do not think of this as removing that ability, think of this as enhancing this by PERMITTING a soldier to “snap†his head around quickly if needed. Compared to disrupting your mouse movement this is a far less intrusive way of handling it! @Mr Centipede and Carl Gustaffa While some tweaks may be in order to fully take advantage of the feature. I firmly believe that the game offers a reasonable performance from the get-go. As Mr Centipede notes, clearly the animations support it. Even if it is a piece of left over code from earlier games, the potential ‘feel’ has too much potential to disregard. I do however have a sneaking suspicion that weapons act this way by default for users of TrackIR. Perhaps someone can comment? - k

Planting a satchel on a Tank? Thats pretty heroic stuff. Heroic stuff that it doesn’t sound like a conscript (who is just about to quit) is up to. Real heroics is up to the fearless player, not the AI. -k

Sounds like a real shit server. Whenever I'm on the TS-required-for-flying servers I frequent the VOIP is always alive with chat. Mind you this is a modified domination mode where airships are one of the few precious resources. Ie: the team cannot afford to loose them, therefore must utilize teamplay (and voip) to get the best mileage out of them. THATS THE LESSON HERE. More maps and missions need to formalize the "economy of death" If a mission permits players to work single handedly they will. Thats the nature of this community. Public Game vs Clan games I'm part of a semi organized group of players who periodically play organized games. Its great. Its fun. I really wish it happened more often. The root of this thread and the many others like it is this; Why can other games manage to get teamwork even in public games? Sure, no one expects perfect coordination with strangers. But basic teamwork? Why the hell not? -k

I would also like to express my interest in this mission (indeed brand of missions) -k

@Mr_Centipede and Shataan Try it. While some remaining vestige of Operation Flashpoint style freelook, this isn't the same. @Kju Yes, it would be possible to create a video. Albeit without close scrutiny it would be hard to tell what the actual difference is. People experience hand-to-mouse coordination differently, prefer different sensitivities. It really must be felt to establish what I'm trying to communicate. Having said that it is painfully easy to test! The next time you are playing ARMA2 glance down the ironsights and hit your freelook button. Do this with two different weapons, and you are done. Mechanical Difference Let us make a few definitions. Your point of aim; is where your barrel is currently pointed. Your point of view; is assuming zero free look the centre of your screen. (where your mouse is pointed) Default Arma2 Ironsights: Your point of aim and point of view is one and the same. Weapon dexterity is attempted emulated by introducing "lag" on your POINT OF VIEW. Wounding or winded stances affect your POINT OF VIEW. This makes the aiming 'feel' laggy and affects your mouse control. Operation Flashpoint Style: Your Point of view remains uncontested. Your POINT OF AIM will drag behind (depending on weapon weight/dexterity rating) Wounded or Windy will affect your POINT OF AIM, but not your POINT OF VIEW. This makes controls "crisper" and more "responsive" . ie: Your mouse input isn't affected, your weapon is. -k

The classes would be better served as: Online Warrior:Medic ability, DMR + SMAW +M107 in backback. Veteran: Medic Ability, G36/M8 w/drum magazine + SMAW Newbie: M4 Aimpoint, Hand Greandes, and 9mm pistol Now do this for both teams. That be balanced right. :rolleyes: [/remove tounge from cheek] -k

I’m too young to die! Second touches on another important point. Operation Flashpoints AI might be severely underrated. Not because it was so amazingly brainy, but because it delivered an experience. I’m okay with Operation Flashpoint not having an effective way of organizing fire teams, or perhaps less than brilliant MOUT tactics. Why? Because the setting of Operation Flashpoints implies a 1980s conscript force that are more interested in going home and listening to the Clash than they are fighting a war! They aren’t the modern day professionals we know from today’s Iraq and Afghanistan. Arma2 does not give us the tools to really conduct modern combat. Which therefore breaks immersion. Gamedesign Operation Flashpoint did not only offer a better planned campaign, operation flashpoint seemed a genuinely better designed GAME. Kju really says it all and also happens to be one of the most knowledgeable developers to boot. -k

Have you actually selected a soldier? Press F2 then try to go into the sub menues. -k

I find Operation Flashpoint to be a better designed game albeit not necessarily a better game experience. Arma2 is however what we've got. Arma2 offers many tremendous improvements compared to Operation Flashpoint... but JIP, blended animations, and really pretty lighting... are all sort of underwhelming. Other games has managed to do this since BEFORE operation flashpoint. However sneaking in at the edges are cool stuff like 10km view distance. A plethora of military vehicles, for better or worse micro-ai, and much much more. My only regret is that the faults in USER INTERFACE are never improved upon. THAT’S the direction I want to see BIS go. - k (.02 cents)

Multiple reasons. Like you note a plethora of Domination servers spew out the equivalent of “Fast food†game experiences. Delicious and readily available but leaves you fat and lazy. Arma2 suffers from a remarkably low level of internal communication. Very few tactical messages are written using in game text. That the VOIP system is despised by so many server admins doesn’t really help either. None of the most popular game modes really encourage teamwork. Project Reality, or even Battle Field 2 are rifle with game mechanics that encourage (force) team play. The vast majority of “public†arma2 players seem perfectly content to move around using unlikely combinations of DMRs, SMAWs, and sometimes MGs. Every human soldier is therefore more akin to a force of nature and perfectly capable of dealing with any real threat by himself. All in the name of freedom. Few servers/map really take ‘Death’ into practical GAME DESIGN account. Norrins revive script has the potential, but few public games design their mission around dying. The Solution? I’ve been thinking quite a lot about this topic lately actually. I’d be willing to pay (in part) for a server hosting short, sharp and sweet coop missions. With a focus on high replay value and unified design. 15-20 minutes per map. Well designed and varied missions. (that don’t need to emulate MMORPGs) What I have in ideas, I lack in research. Are there mission designers willing to make missions like that? Has it already been tried? Are there already servers like it? The only thing I’m certain of is that threads like this pop up every second week; there is bound to be a crowd for that sort of thing. -k (PS: Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy domination. WBG server is excellent at it. Warfare is fun, evolution not so much. My personal preference is just as valid as someone else’s. I prefer coops (or TDMs) with asymmetric teams and varied strategies. )

I think ACE1 had it right. Sights were more stable while moving than default Arma. However as recoil was slightly exaggerated and the ballistics code less forgiving. It was harder to make follow up hits. This meant that making the first hit count was important; and that you couldn’t just spray and pray. (as you can easily do in ARMA2) I felt this was a highly entertaining balance between game-feel, realism, and learning curve. Someone who spent some time with the ACE weapons could become deadly proficient, often to a truly impressive degree, yet not overwhelmingly so. In terms of ‘suppression effects’ I must express the same sort of scepticism Galzohar to any blatantly artificial “suppression†values. - k

So... I see it mentioned that ACE2 will focus on the US vs Russia kind of things. Any new and exciting hardware for the russkies? -k

Wouldn't the simple solution be to vary sensitivity not only by unit, but by ROE/Mode? It makes sense that units set to CARELESS or SAFE are less concerned with spotting things, than basic. Units set to AWARE (the basic patrol roe) should have the default one. Units set to DANGER or STEALTH should have a slightly increased sensitivity. (illustrating their heightened state of being, and how they've sacrificed mobility for stretching their senses) Combine this with a slightly tweaked ai_dispersion.rar values and we should be seeing some really entertaining firefights. -k

No, I think what you've done is a fair compromise. Battlefield pickups aren't that common anyhow. Leaving Machinegunners, Automatic Riflemen, and AT soldiers crouched is also a clever way of differentiating them from the rest of the squad. Cool stuff. -k

@Rogue Blade – Engage at Will Firstly like any ROE choice, you need to look at the tactical considerations. In situations where my soldiers are liable to be left alone; Engage at will can save their lives. Personal initiative on their part can actually save their fireteam/element. When conducting an organized assault or planned ambush on the other hand. It is often better, vital even, to keep your formation intact. The AI has a tendency to lock on targets, and attack with fearsome aggressiveness, only to get blindsided and shot to death. In short. Anytime I feel I cannot feasibly provide overwatch/cover for my squad. I might put them to both DANGER and ENGAGE at WILL. Then you’ll just have to trust in their personal abilities, and make the best out of the situation yourself. Armoured Vehicles and Engage Vs armoured vehicles the rules of the game change somewhat. Not only do armoured vehicles represent an incredible dangerous threat to your (soft) squad. But the AI is poorly equipped to handle it! Therefore the best approach is to carry some AT(anti tank) weapon yourself. Your own ability to make long shots, pop in and out (using cover), or just plain old intuition makes a human AT soldier significantly more effective than any AI. If that is not possible due to roleplay considerations or perhaps terrain and situation. There are two avenues of approach. An AI armed with AT weapons will automatically attempt to aim and shoot any armoured targets. If I feel the situation merits it, I may use the targets-‘2’ menu to manually assign the TANK as a priority target. If my formation is hiding or overrun and I feel that the amount of enemy infantry is at a manageable level; I might use the Targets-‘2’ menu and order a ‘3-4’ Engage. In my experience this is rarely effective, but sometimes you just might get lucky! Also I try NEVER to send a single AT unit against an armoured vehicle. To Summarize If you cannot see what your element/squad is up to. Engage at Will. If you will or cannot move; use Danger mode. If attacking armoured targets; use ENGAGE only when confident infantry threat is dead. The main advantage of your AI allies is: Gives the enemy someone else to shoot at. Just MIGHT save your life in close-environments (more eyes). Is often thematically exciting. Never forget that the personal initiative and deadliness of a human player; is the focal firepower of any squad. -k

Button might depend on international keyboard. You can also easily configure it in control edit. Use next to your "RIGHT HAND SHIFT", Leftside. The two buttons left of that again toggle between the different channels. Global: all players Side: All players on your side Command: command chat group: all within your group(squad,team,whatnot) Direct: all players close by

I should have specified. With ironsights I meant "3d model" encompassing both Aimpoints, eotechs, and traditional 'irons'. My bad. However as I've also expressed earlier some regret at the poor implementation (user interface) of Ironsights. Certainly better than some games, but still a long shot away from Infiltration. I did however specify 'busy' servers. Its an all too common occurance on active Domination-type servers that the AI, completely oblivious to what happens around it, essentially freezes @ long range encounters. A high volume of reasonably accurate shots produce sufficiently effective fire to kill. As you also note, the chief benefit of the ACOG (or any type of scope really) is in FoF recognition. That is Friend or Foe recognition. Having a weapon pointed at a potential enemy is inherently practical too. --- Yes. Effectively engaging the enemy at ranges beyond the AIs ability to respond is a win-win scenario. But is it fun? and once the shit hits the fan and you are stuck in a dangerous CQB situation. That is anywhere when you've potentially got less stuff to jump behind, need to act quickly, and keep multiple objects in sight. The aimpoint & Ironsights show their merit. Ultimately its largerly a matter of preference. ACOG/scope is unquestionably better for long range encounters. But I find Aimpoints and Ironsights superior when tackling that most dangerous beast. MOUT/CQB operations. Also the current implementation of both leaves something to be desired, to say the very least. -k