AlexVestin

I found something that might be interesting, BIS. Steam f'ed up and put X anniversary on 90% off. I bought it 4 times! Anyway, that was not the point of this post, but that lead me to this thread. I've owned Arma 2 & OA for a longer time before my recent purchase. And the much recently re-install of my whole computer made me download the games through steam all over again. Altough I could not, as why this thread exists, launch OA without errors. However! Here's the interesting part: I did backup everything of ArmA2 OA before, just incase I needed it. Some of the solutions I've seen for these errors asks you to make ArmA2 OA launch the mod "Expansion" from your ArmA2 folder. The "Expansion" mod-folder is no longer in the ArmA2 directory for me. When I reinstalled the game from steam just now, it was in the ArmA2 OA folder instead. Has it switched places? As I said before, I did backup everything from the time when the error did not exist. I checked in my backup folder and there was no "Expansion" folder in my ArmA2 OA directory back at that time, but now it is. Is that causing problems, or should it be like that? // I also tried launching ArmA2 OA with a launcher. It was set to load ArmA2 OA and Expansion. Like this: "-mod=Expansion" ArmA2 OA loaded and brought me to the in-game meny with no problems. It must've loaded Expansion from my ArmA2 OA folder, cause that's the only place where it's at.

I'm sure no one will ever see it needed while they are actually playing the game. There are way to few who actually can run the game with 10km view distance and get any kind of advantage from it. You will not be able to tell what things are at the distance anyway if they truly are standing/walking/driving 10km away, even so 5km. The times you'd see that far of a distance, or would try to target something that far away, would be from a helicopter or a jet that does not need to worry about the curvature, so I personally don't see the point.

lol @ above. Oh, and I think that they talked about it in one of the more recent demonstration-videos. The ones at the airport where they showed helicopter-air-support. They talked about what kinds of round there were available as of right now I think. I might be wrong. I'll post it here if I can find the right one. Not sure if I'd call something designed for killing more unethical than anything else designed for killing. There's probably a few different kinds of more unusual ways now anyhow.

I had not seen that one! That's great work. Would you say it was difficult to achieve? Could it possibly be done in the current ArmA2 engine? Thoughts on it and ArmA3? :)

But they are. They're actually starting to get the hang of animations as I see it. No engine change is needed, since the basics of it all is supported in Take on Helicopters, and it's possible that they keep such features in the ArmA3 engine version. Crouching would be a great addition. Would be neat if it worked as always with the same button as for changing stances :)

Last thing I heard on the subject being confirmed are: "No singleplayer AND co-operative compatable campaign." Meaning if there even is (or will come) a co-operative campaign, it'll be seperate from singleplayer.

A simple animation replacement is not good enough, since all that's been done in the video is basically tilting the stiff animation around. If it were to be done correctly, it has to be done with inverse kinematic techniques. It's the only way to have a simple animation bend and twist depending on the players/AIs input. Having inverse kinematics work for mounted weapons too would mean that there's not really any kind of gun or weapon system that they can't get the correct animations for. I hope we get to see some more videos or atleast a few more pictures in the near future that could clear this up. It's not impossible to judge from pictures, but a video would certainly be the best. I know how you feel =] I'm sure there will be a rocket launcher weapon included. I'm really interested in what the possibilities and boundaries will be on such animations. Or animations for portable grenade launcher weapons, were there are several grenade-shell-slots to be loaded even if you only shot two out of six. As proven in the picture in the first post, there will be manned weapons too. That makes me fantasize on how reloading a mounted .50cal actually will look like now.

There's definetly NO inverse kinematics going on there. Static model and animation moving and tilting only, still looks tons better from the outside atleast! That solution even deals with the problem of them "hiding" inside the helicopter, even though they should have to stick their head out a bit to be able to aim as IRL. Now that inverse kinematics IS supported, you'd just have to stick the hands to the handles, and if possible, feet to two pre-defined spots in the interior. I am fairly certain that more than just the feets move in ToH. I believe the knees bends a tiny bit amount too when using the pedals. Thereby it should all be possible with the skeleton/animations to have both arms and legs bend. IF they decide to work on such details that is. I'd be thrilled.

I believe you're talking about this video that was released: Watch this part of the video: Only that is a HUGE improvement. It is possible to make it look a bit better than what BIS currently has, as proved. If they would take the time to do these things themselfs, this visual aspect of the game would improve a lot. Minor other improvements too.

Hey, Hogthar, are you planning something for ArmA3? I haven't seen anything confirmed for there being m4s straight out of the box in A3. The few base models + the attachments only are needed. Then you've got a hell of a lot of m4s that you can configure yourself :)

Stumbled upon it on an old page in the screenshots thread! :) I'm quite sure it was you who posted it.

I have noticed the lack of crew-served weapons. No footage of any at all so far. And thank you, I was trying to remember what it was called. "Inverse Kinematics". I just couldn't remember. This area with animations might need some improvement, and not just only for the visual aspect of the game. Saw one of your pics, Smurf, that shows this problem (as noted, very small problem out of many with mounted weapons) quite clearly: I hope you don't mind me posting it here. It's, as an example, quite hard trying to hit one of these gunners when they're completely safe inside a CH-47, while they're still able to look around outside. Even in firstperson. If I were to shorten your list by removing all AI related issues, it's not as bad. Rest of it I see as AI related. Wounding inaccuracies are something I can't say I've experienced, but I can picture it happening. I haven't been so much into Take On Helicopters, but I have played the demo and I do know they've started using animations for getting in and also using Inverse Kinematics to have the pilots use the pedals, throttle and stick. Can it be modded yet with new helicopters and new Inverse Kinematics values for where what bodypart sticks to what pedal? One way to magically improve this area would be to have their whole upper body depend on Inverse Kinematics a whole lot more. The hands could stick to the MG, but the rest of the upperbody including arms could depend only on the head position. That way, TrackIR could theoreticly be used to move your upper body around slightly. Not just your firstperson camera. Since the body + head would move, you'd be ably to actually crouch down a little when using the roof mounted MG on a vehicle.

Why does it not seem so? They seem to have the technology now. They can even make characters grab the mag, pull it out, insert a new mag and cock the lever afterwards with their current animation system. There's no real elevation displayed in the pic, that's true, but I thought he seemed to be twisting a bit much for a static animation. Maybe not. Just speculations :) I'm quite sceptical about him actually moving his legs as he turns, but the arms should be possible. If steeringwheels can force the arms to stick, mounted weapons should be possible too. It has been done perfectly before as far back as in BF2. I know that's not a completely valid argument this time, though. About him floating. I think it looks slightly like he's just missing his shadow.

Probably the angle. Looks like that to me. Shot woth different kinds of FOV to describe it simply.

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/2928/a3city1.jpg http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/8531/a3city2.jpg http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9910/a3city3.jpg The video shows one town quite good:

Those photos are put together by someone who knows what he's doing, for sure.

Hah! The video i using the old A3 pic I shopped together along time ago! :) Let alone the silly bf3-ish version of it.

They're not the ones behind that list. Arent those just more successful guesses that the devs came in to confirm? If something there for sure gets taken out of the game, chances are you're not going to hear about it from the devs for some time. Maybe from a translated interview. No disrespect meant to the devs.

To be honest the community isn't always getting the info first hand. It's more common that there's an interview, then people have to translate it. Almost all the times when there's anything new said about how things are delayed/removed/changed. For example, nothing was said when the game got a long delay. It was suddenly just changed on the www.ArmA3.com website, then heard in an interview. Nothing here. They do know what the community want I presume, but there's a slight lack of communication between the devs and forums. Considering people check in here every day. I mean, the game is going to get bought, so why not list all the things like vehicles/weapons/objects that people are here for instead of making this place full of people guessing what they're waiting for? If one of the vehicles gets removed from the game, remove it from the list, then announce it. It's better to discuss what's being worked on, rather than discussing things that only maybe will be in the game. I might also have lost the point of this post, but there's still some logic in it I believe.

More CQB locations. When I say that I mean larger static objects/buildings/structures. First things that comes to my mind are a larger freightship and maybe an oilrig. Just getting into/onto them during a mission would require some planning.

Larger FOV, please. I often find myself zooming out a little. The default value is great, but can sometimes still feel a little too zoomed in. A slight increase as a default value wouldn't be a bad thing in my opinion.

I know the basic funtion of "render to texture (RTT)", and that is it able to in realtime render something like the view from an external camera on a vehicle. Could the current engine somehow render a players map/GPS the same way to a rtt screen? Is the ArmA map in the slightest rendered the same way? example of a blue force tracker inside of a hmmwv:

(lower quality below because of filesize) Ghosts are something I've wanted to have in ArmA for a long time. Mostly looking for comments and criticism. Be harsh if you want to. Everything is heavy WIP. I have no idea when this'll get finished. Maybe for ArmA3 at best.

ShackTac movement made it so you wont get stuck on a corner if you get too close. (not lowering the weapon but keeps some of the CQB clumpsyness away from arma) This idea in this thread is about making the player do a "lower weapon" animation if he gets too close. (lowering the weapon making it unusable while you're too close to a wall)

I will upgrade. Atleast sometime around when I know for sure what it'll take to run it smooth on high settings. I wont do like I've done for all other titles. Just stick with the computer I have and run it on "decent" settings even if it bugs me out. I want it all this time. ALL, I say.