arma2disapointed

Totally agree with Mr Cadmium77 there.

You dont have to belive me or take me seriously. Just try it, and tell me the difference and we will se if i belive you and take you seriousley.

Thanks for the understanding, 4-5 simulators simply have to chare one. And if Arma2 is just a shooter, like some of us want it to be. The competition with other shooters is already lost. Like i already explained, take a old pentium 3 Ghz CPU and try to have as many units as possible on the map, then try the same with a new CPU and tell me how many more units you could have. The difference is the speed of the evolution on CPU´s. Use Operation flashpoint to make it easier.

At least it´s the truth. So be happy for that. ---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ---------- What bis need is some competition. And eventually maybe, who knows.

I´m republican hawknose.

With todays lack of computer power, the solution is sliders. with them you could create different senarios. And different missions. What i could see OFP was first to have entrable vihicles. It´s even has been sub addons to OFP. All the talk of this i suposed to everyone tought that CPU would have reach higher levels by 10 times then 8 years ago, sadly it has not happen mutch in that area.

Try to explain that to him here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II Look at his charakteristics, and think what should be done to get it as realistic as possible. Without decreasing the speed and feeling that this guy can add to the game. Have a feeling that you did not get it´s hard to make it equally to every unit. Compromise need to be done, think at it as foure or five simulators in one. ---------- Post added at 08:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ---------- It´s maybe better to start from scratch and use the IL2 engine for this simulation. Really dont have a clue, or just accept that´s impossible to combine everything in one using compromises. Have never looked on OFP as a shooter and maybe i should start to do that. In that case i cant complain in Arma2.

I could live with those textures and models yes. Specially if they improve FPS and increase the number of units and add view and drawdistance. And dont forget it´s other units than soldiers on foot running around. that should be equally playable ina realistic game, Arma2 has gone over to the soldier´s on foot side more than OFP did, i dont want a pure tank sim, just realism and equal balance between all unit types including artillery without favoring any type of them. Then you could say it´s a war sim not a shooter. Arma2 is more a shooter than OFP, and OFP is more a sim. Hope you get it, i cant explain better than this.

Was about to ask you the same.:j:

If there is things that are negative, it´s not a solution to pretend that they dont exist. And what it look like, im not the onlyone thinking Arma2 is going in wrong direction of what it could go. The other FPS games is locked to theire enginelimitations, what Arma2 is doing is to lock it self in that position and only use 20% of the possibilities. In some way it´s sad, and i dont want to see it happen.

And there also is nothing to stop you to play a little BF project reality, and leave Arma2 to be a strategic and tactic game. Do you really need one more BF reality?

Thanks for the edvice. Hope i could be a loader in that clan. Now how different is Arma2 from the other FPS? Was it really nessesary to made it just like every other game, or was there to few of the others out there? What are you trying to say onoonoono? And what did i forgot...... What is ........ suposed to be?

I would not expect to mutch, it just the experiance i have saying me that.

:DArma3??:D I dont even want to see that shit, the way the evolution is going.

:D Have you seen what you could do with terrain settings in OFP? there was some long sliders there:D And those settings could make every new todays mega computer lag. Core duo or core marine core super mega core. Without grass

Yes it´s war on lag, unfortunatly made by eyecandy, on the otherhand look on the models how nice they are and even the commanders anus moving when he is shooting. It´s a very high price to pay i say, you cant use many things in game, redused viewdistance, redused drawdistance, less units simultaniusly. What warefare could it even be talkig about, it´s somthing else, i really hope all those graphics maniacs did get what they wanted.

Now i remember, that was the story. Those engine capabilities is still present, and really i expected somthing more with this third game and "compleatley new engine" That still if you remember was "engine 1,5" in arma1. And still was acceptable for that reasone. Bis chould be shamed like a dog. New engine!!

I think it´s futuristic.;) Modern warfare.

Could this question be linked to physics?

Every addon i tried with detailed models, lag like hell. look at the barrel on low settings OFP vs ArmA2 on the tanks, OFP have 6 polygones ArmA2 have 12. And it really is the answer and confirms everything i tried. Polygones and animations thats it to at least 90% unless you could prove somthing else. Pleas do. Well the gun is just one thing, look at the wheels, there will be somthing like 6 in OFP and an uncountable number in ArmA2. Arma 2 should be able to have more units and more render and viewdistance than 9 years old OFP. It goes hand in hand together:cool: Instead the view and render is almost the same, and the number of units possible simultaniusly is 100-150% less, if not more. Behind this is the animations and model detail. As i can see it has been some work to get around this problem, but it´s far from enough. The interessting point is that work could bee used to add maybe 50% more units to OFP:j: And it woul be like 200% difference in number of unit. Really really low settings could be the answer to this problem, thats more sliders. ---------- Post added at 07:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 AM ---------- Thanks, somthing like that yes.:bounce3: Change everything but the ground, and 20x20 m squere´s will be like 40x40 meter. That is just if there are some game engine limitations to just increase with longer sliders, maybe it´s possible to have 40x40 anyway, dont know the engine limitations. Hoestly i dont think there is any limitations like this, it just about willpower, and the lack of it. Maybe i´m wrong, in that case, just resize the units 100% to put it shortly.

Maybe it´s diferent on different tanks, some reserch should be done. Cant be the same everywhere.. Maybe the loader in the abrams can stabilize this for the realism in it.:D For those that didnt know, it has one.

Well they don create less lag if it´s the same number of polygones. It´s just a way to work around the simplest way. 1 meter will be 2 meters. without the need to increase render and viewdistance, just have to edit some numbers. To be realistic.

Add more sliders

An idea would be too make everything twice as small to achive both viewdistance and less lag, more units on map. It just one way to do it, not the simplest. A pixel would become larger. Just a tought.