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

    Thats awsome, when my gaming computer comes back from the dead (everything died xcept gfx card) I will definatly have to check out the battlefield games outside of BF2 for consoles and the BC spinoffs.

    I think you are a little confused. BF2 Modern combat was the console version... It was a lot different then the BF2 for PC...

    I honestly don't get why the community rips on BF... I bet 90% of the community actually plays it... I personal enjoy BF. Cod 4 I also enjoyed when it first came out (the fact they keep remaking the same game is why I don't like cod any more...).

  3. Posted

    The accuracy is quite good now, you try taking an accuracte shot or even hold you weapon marginally stil after a run. It's hard enough when you aren't tired if you haven't got something to lay your weapon onto.

    I have... So unless I am the rare exception...

  4. Posted

    A-10

    - CCIP sight for iron bombs/CBUs maybe add AD(arming delay) and BA(Burst Altitude) although not a show stopper to not have these settings.

    - rocket/cannon sight requires a range indicator for accurate straffing.

    Maverick sight MFD- requires WHOT/BHOT view, zoom ground stabilise and lock.(like LGBs view)

    - Sidewinder missile

    CCIP for bombing runs, is basically the dive bombing method... The A-10C can utilize CCRP which is where you can fly level and drop your bombs accurate. It helps to avoid AAA fire. Rockets can use CCIP or CCRP. CCIP for rockets is the same as CCIP for the gun. While CCRP for rockets allows you to fire at longer ranges, although your accuracy will be diminished. To use CCIP for the gun or rockets you must have elevation data for where your target is. The gun also has three other sights it can use, each one requires you to know the distance from you to your target (this is where the lighting 2 pod is very handy). With the A-10C and the lighting 2 pod there is no need to find and lock on with the MAV sensor alone. The MAV sensor is very low resolution, so it is not hard to target a friendly vehicle on accident in a battlefield like arma... Sidewinder missiles, like the Mavericks can use the lighting 2 pod to locate and identify targets. Sidewinders have a circular sight on the HUD that you must line up with the target, you will hear a growl noise when in AA mode on the HUD, and while hear a higher pitch growl when you have a lock with a sidewinder... Also in the A-10C it needs a 3 minute calibration/warm up time for the lighting 2 pod, and mavericks... So even on a big island like lemnos, the CAS A-10C is not really going to work all that great, unless they fix the speed of the A-10C... The only way it would work is if people would fly out into the ocean, and after some time turn back to the island to provide CAS. Basically the armaverse is horrible for fixed wing aircraft, jets would be even worse...

    Just to clarify some things for people :p

  5. Posted

    People do not expect to run at max, but they do expect to have it playable at some settings, problem with Arma 2 was there seemed little difference between low and max, it still ran poorly at lowest settings while games like crysis 1 pushed the max it still ran great on older machines when you turned down the settings.

    While even now with hardware that came out after arma 2 it still doesnt run all that smoothly, your graphics card for example the 430gt came out more than year after arma 2.

    Actually my bottleneck for arma 2 is my CPU... My GPU handles it fine... Also my GPU is a low end GPU... The only reason I bought it is there is certain things I do which needed the dx11 capabilities, otherwise I would of bought a 9800gtx as it is much better and same price. Basically what you said does not support your argument... As a low end GPU handles the game fine...

    The graphics seem about the same, because you can only change post processing effects, aa, af, textures, and hdr... Most people here should be able to have af on max and textures on max... So you really only have three options to increase graphics... And those three options make a difference, but not as big as say shaders...

    EDIT:

    Forget you can also change resolution... Which obviously makes a difference in how it looks...

  7. Posted

    yeah man you're right, it isn't just an infantry sim, but IMO might as well be due to lack of detail in all other aspects, although if this could be changed in arma 3 I would happilly pay extra for the game :D

    DCS though is quite hardcore and I don't know if that much detail could be put into a game in one year of developement for EACH plane, helicopter and een ground vehicles too, IMO.

    I agree DCS is a bar set too high. But things like a simple start up procedure, functional counter measure systems, FCS, and MFD/MPD's should not be to difficult to add in a year...

    Look what it took to make DCS A-10C at its current level of simulation. It had betas with very good testers with a decent amount of knowledge about the aircraft and a very good amount of knowledge about flight mechanics. The dev's for DCS update even the little things for realism... For example the lights on the panel that shows warnings for systems (can't remember the name :o ) where blue, someone noticed that in recent pictures of the A-10C they are green, they posted a forum about it, next update they are now green. Same with the warning light for the APU generator during start up... And it is still being updated for realism... So yeah, every single aircraft is WAY too much...

  9. Posted

    OA already features the basics required to get it up to a realistic level of employment. The missing pieces are simple features like ground stabilised image, 3d clickable pit, working MFDs. As it is we can already buddy lase etc. Plus there needs to be CCIP sight in the HUD.

    ---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------

    Is it possible with Mando missiles to model a good CCIP sight for the HUD for accurate delivery of bombs and CBUs?

    I believe you are leaving out the CCRP sight :)... Keep in mind this thread was started for helicopters though...

  10. Posted

    The medical system in AA3 is FAR from being too complex or tedious in my honest opinion... The only difficult part of it is memorizing what you need for the indicated symptom, which is VERY EASY to do. If you are unwilling to spend five minutes memorizing something like the medical treatment for a wounded soldier in AA3, then I have no idea how you even manage to play arma with all of the waiting for combat... Here's what you do, print out a sheet of paper with the necessary info on it, and while your moving towards your objective look down and memorize things on it every now and then... You will maintain situational awareness, but also memorize what to do... See problem solved...

  11. Posted

    ^this

    DCS is awesome but too specific and too much work for BIS to make in an infantry sim IMO.

    Please give me a source for where BIS said arma was an infantry simulator? I have not seen it in any of there advertisements, nor I have I seen it in any statements made by them... As I have stated before... I think people believe arma is an infantry simulator because it's the best simulated part in the game, but I have yet to see one developer state it is an infantry simulator. I believe arma is more a general combat simulator (based on advertisements, features, content, and game play), which is it's flaw...

    Nothing in the game is not in need of improvements to make it more of a simulator... Aircraft and land vehicles are the worst simulated by far... Which is why you see a push from a lot of people to increase it's simulation... Also since arma already has great infantry simulation with just minor improvements needed, I do not see this at all as too much work... It should be one of the main focus's for arma 3 (increase simulation of land and air vehicles)...

    Honestly what in the world do you think will take them a year to do involving the simulation of infantry? Revamped animations are not necessary, but is wanted to make movement more fluid (so don't try saying animations as something)...

    Am I the ONLY one thinking like this????:confused:

  12. Posted

    Communication among AI needs to be improved. HC is a great way to do it when a player(s) is present in the group. As of right now if I set up two AI squads some distance apart, but not too far, and attack one of the groups. The group I attack will respond, while the other group will continue there patrol. I think the second group should come and help out defend against the attack. The same happens when they are both in the same HC structure, with a single commander... This would also allow non scripted diversions to take place much easier...

  13. Posted

    It's a dedicated PC game... So don't expect to be running it full specs on release. Optimizing for a console is much easier because everyone is running the same software and hardware, where as optimizing on the PC is completely different as almost no one has the same hardware and software... Same concept for each, just for the PC you will be optimizing for many different configurations.

    On my PC (yes its very old) I can run arma 2. No not at full specs hell I barely run it to be honest, but I do make it work. I have a 4000+ cpu, 430gt, and 4gb of 800mhz ram cas 5... My settings are view distance minimum(500m for inf, and 2500m for flying), Post Processing effects off, textures very high, memory default, res 1080p, aa off, af very high (16x), objects very low, terrain detail very low, and hdr normal... So tbh it kind of makes me mad when I see someone complaining about the performance of the game on there 20x better then mine system... Yes I will be upgrading soon :)

    Do NOT expect to run it at max, expect to run it... If you cannot run it at at least 25fps with very low to low settings and meet recommended requirements, then by all means complain, but if your complaining because you cannot run it at max with at least 25fps then please STFU.... This is PC gaming, expect to have to upgrade every now and then just to run a game... As a PC gamer I EXPECT AND WANT my games to push my system to the limit and force me to upgrade eventually.

  14. Posted · Edited by 5LEvEN

    Huh, could of sworn it already maps the controls out that it can in arma 2 to your controller... Either way, I remember it already having support... Also arma is NOT a game you can play with just a xbox controller, there is just WAY too many controls...

    EDIT:

    Yes, please be respectful of others preferences... Keyboard/mouse is good for some but NOT all games... I found that I personally have much more precision with movement of my character with a controller then I do with a keyboard... TBH there are a LOT of games I can actually aim faster and more accurately with a controller then I can with a mouse... Its all about preference, and what game you are playing. We're not clones...

  15. Posted

    5LEvEN unless you have done that in combat, I seriously advise you to not argue about this.

    Sure, it's not that hard to believe you can do that, anyone in partially good shape can, but try it in combat with full gear (Huge difference.) also having the stress of comrades dying or you getting killed.

    Yes, I could understand if my guy was being shot at (which already effects accuracy in game), but I am talking about when I jog to an objective and manage to get the drop on the enemy. They have not seen me yet, and no bullets have been fired. I am talking about outside and before combat. So unless arma is just trying to simulate my guy being scared... It needs to be tweaked down a little...

    ---------- Post added at 03:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

    Okay... your point still isn't clear though. How do you suggest aiming inaccuracy should be tweaked? How long should a player be allowed to jog, in your opinion, without losing aiming accuracy? Indefinitely?

    I don't know anyone that can run forever, and not have to stop for a break, especially in full gear. I think after running x miles your guy should have to stop for a break, or slow down to walking pace. Obviously if your guy takes fire during this break period, he should be able to run to cover, as in real life I am not going to stand there and get shot... The current system is fine, it just needs to be tweaked down a little, and to have things like adrenaline and having to stop for breaks added... As of right now I have yet to find a distance that forces my guy to stop for a break... It also appears that after 1600m my aim does not get any worse in game... So I could jog for 5000m and my aim would be the same in the game... I do not know how long there limit should be, as I do not know the average soldiers limits, I only know mine and some of my friends...

  16. Posted

    Just saying... ;)

    You weren't that specific in the original post. It sounded like "my aim should not shake after running, period". There is of course a distinction between jogging and sprinting, but both should carry some kind of penalty.

    Also, I don't agree that aiming a rifle is as simple as just pointing "something of similar weight" in a certain direction. On a rifle you have to line up the sights, which becomes more difficult when you're not entirely at rest. This is what aim shaking is intended to simulate. It's not perfect, but does the job.

    Allow me to be more specific this time :) . I was aiming a WE Scar GBB, yes I even used iron sights... Google it if you do not know what it is... I understand the difference between aiming say a piece of metal, and a rifle... Also it is very very rare for me to have a rifle in arma without at least a red dot... So I almost never use iron sights in game...

  17. Posted · Edited by 5LEvEN

    So, you're saying it should be possible to sprint 500m in full gear, then immediately pop off some split second headshots?

    Who can sprint 500M in FULL gear, then pop off a headshot in a split second? What I am stating is that when I go and run 10+ miles at 10minute per mile, and try to aim something that weighs the same as a rifle, my aim is NOT messed up like it is in game... No I am not wearing full gear, obviously... Yes, there are SMALL effects to my aim, but nothing I cannot compensate for... In game, I have to wait for my guy to catch his breath before I can aim accurately, after only jogging NOT sprinting half a mile.... Sometimes even for just a quarter of a mile... So unless the average soldier is in worse shape then I am, I see this as WAY unrealistic.

    EDIT:

    Did some testing on utes with the standard USMC rifleman on the run way... After jogging 100m there is a slight movement of the rifle while standing, and almost no movement when in prone. After 400m there is very noticeable movement of the rifle while standing, and very little movement of the rifle while in prone. After 600m there is a lot of movement of the rifle while standing, and noticeable movement while prone. After 800m is about the same as 600m... Jogging 150m has roughly the same effects as sprinting 100m...

  18. Posted

    I am very confused... Why does everyone say the mando missile mod is realistic? I have played DCS A-10C and Black Shark along with Falcon 4.0 AF, they are WAY different from the mando mod, yet they are hard core simulators... So how is it that the mando mod is realistic?

    I do NOT want to see something like the mando mod... I want to see REALISTIC FCS...

  19. Posted

    No. I already dislike the shaking of your weapon after running. When I run and pick up an object and point it at something, my aim is not all messed up like it is in game, in fact its the same as if I had not run before hand...

  20. Posted

    I also like the idea that DMarkwick said... I really really really want realistic aerial vehicles. Basically the quality of DCS is what I want... Arma 3 WOULD appeal to more people with aircraft realism... If you want aircraft to be more on the arcade side, then why don't you buy BF2? Arma is about realism....

  21. Posted

    hmmm, what observations are you making :j:

    I have an ati card, for an (speed and vram) equivalent card by Nvidia I was going to have to fork out 100-200 dollars more (180 dollars vs 370 dollars, current pricing, it was different when I bought the card).

    The difference is that you get more features with nvidia such as: 3d, Cuda support (and hence video card based physx, not to be confused with the physx physics engine) and generally better support.

    here are some statistics for now:

    http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

    for comparing graphics cards (high end). use ctrl f to find the 6870 and the GeForce GTX 470 (the closest card by nvidia to the 6870)

    price:

    ati 6870: $189

    nvidia gtx270 (geforce): $369

    And yes, I have way too much time on my hands at the moment :D

    Uh the 2 series is no longer sold brand new (unless you get lucky at finding it)... Compare it to the 560 gtx and 560 ti... Those are the two closest... BTW those type of benchmarks are NOT in direct relation to game performance 100% of the time.... So look for game benchmarks (but the drivers are almost never the most current for any benchmark...)

    ---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

    /sarcasm on

    This obviously has not been stated enough... If you have an AMD card... AMD cards do NOT run physx. The CPU does through software... In other words AMD owners can have physx, but it will run on the CPU not the GPU....

    /sarcasm off

  22. Posted

    the unit and i are looking at models on turbo squid and we are trying to find out limit we can put on arma 2. we were looking at models with 60k+ polys but we have the chance to get ones with polys under 35k.

    Although it is much easier to download models then to make them your selfs, the models you download are very high quality, not optimized for games. Thus it is better to make your own...

  23. Posted

    The only (from my observations in the year 2011) reason you can consider AMD cheaper is because of the lower power consumption. Power use cost money, so it is cheaper to run an AMD card. AMD and Nvidia cards are priced about the same. I personally go with Nvidia because of the better driver support, as with better drivers comes better performance, thus a Nvidia card is almost better in performance with the latest drivers for each. Nvidia's new GPU series kepler is supposed to have better watt/performance ratio... Just a heads up...

×