Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

5LEvEN

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    280

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by 5LEvEN

  2. Posted

    But even if it were purely an assumption, it isn't an unreasonable one. As you say yourself, infantry are the best simulated element in the Arma series, and as I pointed out earlier the vehicle simulation is pretty basic for the most part. The logical conclusion is that the infantry have so far been the primary focus of development, so I think it's safe to go with that until a dev contradicts it (which hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge).

    Or it's that making infantry realistic is the easiest aspect to simulate. Think about the things needed to be done to make infantry realistic in something like COD. Not much really... Now think about the things needed to be done to make arma have realistic vehicles...

    A developer has not to my knowledge confirmed infantry is the main focus. And besides what else can you add to infantry to make it more realistic for a video game with today's technology. So even if it is the main focus, it shouldn't be anymore. As improvements to infantry are very minor and shouldn't take long at all. While vehicles are in need of huge improvements. And with arma 3 the larger improvements that we know about being made are really not infantry focused.

    ---------- Post added at 01:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 AM ----------

    Infantry has been the primary focus yes that much is obvious given how many updates they get, that said there is no doubt that there is expansion in mind with physX coming. While infantry are gaining ragdolls vehicles are also getting proper suspension and so on, RTT is another more vehicle priority focus unless we will be carrying mirrors into urban zones to look around corners without exposing ourselves to peek.

    While it would be nice to have fully interactable cockpits, advanced weapon systems, tracking systems, dynamic arming capabilities, very complex damage model and so on I just don't see that happening as it takes a LOT of time, that said simply giving us the capability would do well enough. When you look at the effects that come out of the capabilities the pieces fall into place to making things more complex..think about it.

    In OFP armor interiors were possible and did not interfere with the players sight other than what they were meant to, in Arma1 we saw that HDR caused intense issues when looking at the inside of the Stryker, and while HDR has been getting improvements we can still see, especially inside structures, that it would still interefere. Now what is another arguement for lack of vehicle love?..well what is the point they say. With RTT coupled with thermal imagery especially if (and I hope) environmental thermal takes a fairly high priority, we now have a purpose to have interiors where HDR would not screw with our eyes. It sounds useless but this increases immersion drasticly but also potential.

    In the end we all want Arma to be something different, two most distinguished sides want it to remain as is, the other side wasn't mistress-like hardcore, obviously BI can't please either party to the fullest but by taking things 'easy' and providing us the knowledge and abilities to use the upgrades to further our agenda's, in a way they can please both.

    Which updates to infantry are you talking about? Give some examples that improved the infantry simulation please.

    When a developer advertises a game in the mil-sim genre, there really is no excuse not to be trying to simulate more and more of the battlefield. It shouldn't be necessary to have to mod a mil-sim game to make it actually simulate what it was supposed to in the first place. IMHO if you're going to have vehicles in this game that is supposed to be realistic, don't make them arcade shit, or just don't add them.

  3. Posted

    It has always been said that the primary focus of the game is infantry combat, so the infantry simulation gets the most "love", as it were.

    Uh, sources for this statement please. As I have said to everyone I have seen say this, I have yet to see any actual sources to back this up, and I believe it to be a assumption from people. As infantry may be the best simulated, it would make sense people would assume what you just said.

  5. Posted

    I know for a fact that on hardcore flight simulators you can fly with M+K, but it will not be as easy as flying with a joystick....

    ---------- Post added at 06:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

    Some players are quite good flying aircrafts with mouse + keyboard - why should they be forced to buy/use anything more to enjoy A3?

    Just because few uberl33t flightsim-fans don't like to see those others good A2OA/A3 pilots who are using only their mouse+keyboard?

    Do you really care if a player is using the (latest) hardware flightstick/controllers to fly an aircraft?

    Or is it more important that the player is a good pilot?

    Why should pilots be forced with an arcade level simulation because people are unwilling to buy a joystick, or are unwilling to adjust their M+K setup to fly? You do know all vehicles are at arcade level simulation right now right? So people who fly good with M+K are only flying an arcade simulation, not the realistic simulations. This has nothing to do with the skill of the pilot. This has to do with making the aircraft more Realistic.

  7. Posted

    People also need to realize that Mac's don't need all the power a PC needs to run complex operations. Having a 512MB ATi M6770 is like having a desktop HD5800 series. I run an HD4890 1GB with an AMD Phenom II X4 2.8GHz on my rig and I can max out. The new MBP's come with i7 3.2GHz cores.

    Do you have any sources to back this up? I have used a Mac that is better then my PC in the hardware sector. What is funny is how my PC performs edits faster in photoshop then it....

  8. Posted

    I havent played warfare a lot, anyway:

    Well, since the US are so overpowered in terms of equipment, its actually pointless to play a gamemode where two obviously unbalanced sides play with the same objectives.

    Maybe the takis objectives and rewards should be different as they are bound to get their ass kicked most of the times, fighting on the same level of the US. And in real life it would probably be worse.

    Perhaps the gamemode is broken unless we have 2 equal sides (maybe we are getting them this time), or different objectives for each side, depending on strenght.

    If I remember this correctly, the opfor units get cheaper armor faster. So if played correctly, they could spam t-72's and cut off blufor armor and air support. After which opfor would get air support, meaning opfor is a mid game force, while blufor is an end game force. Both are about even in the beginning if you play correctly. You're thinking about warfare as a FPS only mode, it's also a lot of strategy and tactics, and you cannot play opfor like blufor and vice versa.

  9. Posted

    Well, one could have both if Apple opened their market for the GPU developers and their vendors to produce OSX drivers for all the gfx cards available to Windows users... but that's clearly not the scope of this thread or forum.

    Have you seen the prices for graphic card upgrades for the mac? You're talking about extremely over priced cards with average performance. I stick to my original comment on this thread...

    This http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127490

    verse this http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Apple/6615718/

    I chose the most expensive 5770 that newegg had btw...

  10. Posted

    Hi, wrong, i'd seen the comercials of that arcade; but the terrain that we're talking about on the ArmA3 is much much bigger than any BF3 or Frostbite 2 Engine terrain, the computer required for such thing is too big for have it at home if you plan to apply it to the ArmA3 terrain; that's much bigger than the BF3 maps all together.

    Other thing that i'd noticed of the BF3, is that you can't always make craters on the ground, only on certain (most) ground surfaces, but not on it all and only up to a point; on the BF3 seems that drop a bomb from a plane is as shoot three times to the ground with a MBT and that's all the deep that you gonna reach. The 1500Lbs bombs do 12m deep holes IRL; you don't gonna see that on any game. In comparison... the BF3 levels are very small at the side of the ArmA, ArmA2, OA & sure that the ArmA3 islands too. Let's C ya

    You do know the developers set parameters for the game right? For example the depth of craters. Also it sounds to me you are making a blind statement (you have no evidence to back it up). From my knowledge having a large landmass under the frostbite engine would only decrease performance because of the large amounts of objects it would have to load (just like arma). So I don't think size matters when it comes to distortion.

  12. Posted

    Unless you are a very very rich person who can afford to pay thousands of dollars for over priced hardware, and buy another one every couple of years, Apple is the absolute worst way to go for gaming.

  13. Posted

    The computer required to simulate a modable ground surface because weather changes or player/AI interaction is something that hasn't been invented yet, so the leak of it is more a hardware related thing than a software related thing. Let's C ya

    The frostbite engine has modifiable ground. So does the engine that runs COH (can't remember the name of it). So I don't think that is true...

  16. Posted

    I personally think what we have right now is enough. We can move our heads independent of our bodies, and when aiming down the sights you can move your weapon without moving your whole body. I really don't see a need to move my weapon around a corner without being zoomed in. To me it sounds like you're just going to blind fire (try to fire without using optics). Which I prefer to be as accurate as possible. Especially since I manage to go through a lot of rounds when watching them, and using single shots.

  21. Posted

    I just noticed that you had this in your post.

    Planes aren't going to made baby mode or removed.

    Also not sure if you noticed, but the game isn't made for casual gamers. It's marketed as a milsim.

    *cough* Are you serious? Planes in arma ARE already in baby mode... And the simulation for ALL aircraft is pure garbage... So what are you smoking? :j:

  22. Posted

    Why would players be killing players? Teamkilling is lame! We should just remove the message entirely and silently kick people that kill other players automatically. :butbut:

    Hmm... Guess you didn't know there are PVP modes. So it wouldn't be team killing (most of the time), it would just be killing reports from battles.

  23. Posted

    I agree with most if not all the things said. But don't complain about the lack of team work from players. It's not the games fault, it's the players fault (just as others have said). 90% of the time in the F2F server we work as a TEAM. And that's on domination, insurgency, and yes CTI. Trust me when you get a good group of players, even a mode like CTI is VERY fun.

  24. Posted

    It already is used in A2-OA but only for the ground, despite having the tech to use it the texture never appeared on surfaces of brick structures..possibly due to the performance impact to having it on so many things but this again is why BIS NEEDS to make video options more diverse.

    Wow, that's pretty impressive. I am going to take a guess here that it is also less cost on the GPU to do this?

    ---------- Post added at 23:28 ---------- Previous post was at 23:26 ----------

    I don't know f-all about Tesselation but the little understanding I (think I) have suggests this should be a high priority for ArmA. Wouldn't it allow distant terrain geometry to be approximated efficiently so that a smaller cell-size, yielding nice micro terrain features like ditches, wouldn't be so demanding performance-wise? Wouldn't it also permit much greater view distance so air units don't have to fly around in a fog? Or do I misunderstand its purpose?

    Tessellation is similar to LOD switching. Not similar in the way it does things, but it has a similar, but smoother effect. Really the best way to understand what it does is to watch videos of it in action. The tech demos by Nvidia are usually pretty good for this.

×