JayMeal

Hi guys, theres a mission I'm thinking of in OA where you parachute in and try to destroy tanks undetected, if detected the place lights up like a xmas true and the ai search for you, well im making a similar style mission, where a player has to destroy some grads, but the ai is very lazy is there any way to replicate the OA mission to some degree so we can get some action going?

Ah, the only plus other types of games like BF3 have over the ARMA series is their ability to construct beautiful detailed urban environments http://i.imgur.com/kUZ2z.jpg >100kb! i really don't see how something like that would be possible in the ARMA series but its a nice fantasy, just to have one major city with all the bells and whistles.

The only validity I see in the OP's reasoning is the game becomes less playable, when you have to factor in AI, and complicated controls. Commanding other units is such a hassle, in theory it's a few menus, but hit one wrong key and you're starting over. Realistically, commanding a unit would be verbally, every point you get across would be easy, succinct, and effortless. Working with AI in ArmA2 is a total hassle, I'm sure a lot of you mastered it - but anyone can master even the most awkward of maneuvers with time and practice, that doesn't mean it's optimized though. A lot of actions we would do in real life would be effortless, and in sims, they take conscious thought and several actions so in my opinion anything done to reduce redundant actions, and make the gameplay more of finding your targets, getting from point A to point B, ambushing, defending, etc, rather than spending minutes working with complicated controls. I hope they update their menus too, they look very similar to A2 as of now. Just make them look more user friendly I guess, navigating through them just reminded me of a windows 95 start menu. I also - like someone else mentioned - rather stay prone for 10 minutes planning my kill than the MW3 type games, they are no-brain-power point and click games. I like playing them though (yeah yeah big deal); but this to me is a different genre which I like more, but to make it out of the box easier, and more familiar is not a bad thing.

Now this is a map. I love it, It's very realistic. But what's your opinions on one central paved highway. From what I know about Afghanistan north, sound, east, and west are all connected by a highway system, that curves it's why through the valleys of the huge mountains. This would add a nice dynamic to the map, being opfor and waiting for a convoy to come for an ambush, or having to deliver supplies to a US outpost avoiding IEDs and ambushes. I see there are dirt roads to connect villages which is nice however it's hard to keep track where they are. And I do think swaths of level land in the valleys particularly would be beneficial. Very nice though very nice.

Impossible ?

I was wondering if it was possible to have two individual squads follow a single waypoint together (as if being one squad but not really) or do they have to be on individual waypoints. I would rather they all get there at the same time and kind of work together to add to realism.

So I was wondering what the highest amount of AI you've gotten in one map. Using the editor I just got 1,200 AI with detail on very high, but there was some significant lag of course :p How much have you guys tried so far?

Yeah one of the most accurate sims IMO, but still not perfect. My suggestion for BIS is to atleast increase the amount of damage the trees take before they topple over, and for fences, when you're going 40mph, you should fly through the simple fences around the map, but it brings u to a dead halt n then pushes the fence over.

Using the demo I literally got 4FPS on the benchmark, but the game runs very smooth in game, when i do missions, using the editor, etc. so i have no clue about that :P but just run the demo play the games, i never got lag playing.

Thanks for the welcome. You're probably right, I would imagine it would require several new models for each vehicle, but a nice crash is always nice. The helicopter "crash lands" are just silly to me though. I mean here's a real life video of when a heli goes unstable arma2 physics are very similar but what it lacks is the rotors crashing and breaking causing a catastrophic failure, which would probably require a nice model animation.But like I said it's just so darn out of place seeing all the smoke and carnage of war, then see your heli dance on it's nose, lol.

seriously there should be areas where its LESS or more bare, i mean come on. but one thing you can do is roll all over the grass like a damn fool for 5 minutes n ull get a semi flattened area.

Hey guys, still messin with the demo of the game, it's one of my faves already without even using the full version. But theres a few things, that make me LOL more than am concerned about. One thing I noticed, is with basically any car/armored vehicle, if you go a moderate speed and hit any type of tree, no matter the size, the trees just topples over, with no damage to the car. Now..I've been in a car that's hit head on with a tree, and i can say there wasnt so much as a scratch on the tree but the car was totaled, so i dont understand the logic of like 20mph hitting a tree and it just falls. Another thing is the lack of damage to vehicles, not just the car vs tree thing, but even helis and im sure planes, the most "damage" ive seen to wheeled vehicles is the glass shattered, but thats about it. i havent even tires to shoot out tired, but i think there should be damaged even just basic dents or glass shattering when you hit objects. And when i take a heli and i come down at a moderate speed, nose down, the damn thing will just stand on its nose till it comes down, sure enough not a scratch on the heli even though usually its not operational afterwards. So theres some aspecs of arma 2 that are SUPER realisitc then these quirks that seem so out of place in a realistic sim like this. Anyone agree or is it just me

Yea strategically nukes serve no purpose but political, that's why we have enough to destroy the entire world about 100x over. But the superpowers of the world stupidly adopted policies that if say; Russia ever sends a nuke to the US, the US will return with a nuke of its own. So they aren't about winning wars. You know Japan surrendered prior to the nuking of it's two cities, but the cold war had already started basically so the US wanted to scare russia. Sad way to lose 200,000 people.

Yes I agree with Foxhound, I'm a long time web developer and own many sites, including ones that host videos, you will have some users that upload upload upload all day long. It's a fact, and if people like it, everytime they view a video it's "bandwidth", so imagine them streaming a 100mb video from your site to their PC, imagine each video getting 100 views a day, that's a lot of bandwidth. The very least you need to start with a Virtually Partitioned server (VPS) or if you have around 100 a month to spare, go for a full dedi. But you have monetary solutions. -Donation Buttons -Pay accounts (for more upload room) -Advertising (although with the economy ads earn crap right now) There's a lot to factor in here, that's why it's beneficial to stream videos from other sides like youtube, and the other major sites. Search engines will pick them up if you have content on your page it will be crawled. My suggestion is to allow both options, but make the limit for a direct upload small, then you can make money if they choose to upgrade to a pay account, or let every upload away at other site's expenses via a stream option from major sites. And don't overestimate 100mb. Because people record in such high quality now, a video only like five minutes can be from 500mb to 1gig depending on the video quality and codecs. Anyway, the best host I've used is wiredtree.com. The support tickets are responded to within minutes, and they install things on your server for free. If I had a small problem they'd simply ask if I wanted them to install certain things. No charge. If your current host is cheap.. you may be a victim of "oversellers", the hosts that promise 1000GB of B/W and 100GB of space for a few bucks a month. They are all shared hosting (i.e. you're on one dedicated server thats split up between 200-300 different sites) so if you do the math if they promise everyone big GB of space like that, its physically impossible. I know a lot of people who were forced to upgrade because their sites were to resource heavy, and it slowed other sites down. Which they can do per their TOS. And a video site requires a lot of server load. Video site + Shared hosting = No (unless its small with not a lot of visitors)

Why would a war simulator give a soldier the option to nuke an entire city, hence destroying everything in it. You may as well end game there, this game actually teaches responsibilities of war as well as having fun.