Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

5LEvEN

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    280

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by 5LEvEN

  1. Posted

    My point is that if BIS will promote only public PvP it won't do any good.

    The game is very counter-intuitive to any casual PvP gaming by design and public PvP is the smallest part of the whole AA MP scene.

    So the everything BIS will get out of this is people complaining that they need weapon locks and grenade indicators on a daily basis, not weekly.

    I know this may sound harsh but it's true - people who come to play public PvP come there exactly for that - run and gun. Which is not what this game is about.

    The average new PC gamer today is not a new PC gamer of 10 years ago when PC games were varied and more open-minded in design. Todays PC gamer grew up on neverending clones of consolish Gears of War and CoD and he'd rather see ArmA changed to those instead of trying to adapt, survive and win.

    As evidenced by the stream of "don't want to learn/plz dumb it down" threads.

    True....

    Its up to the older generations to teach the young ones about variety in PC gaming. :blues:

  2. Posted

    It's about combined arms. What that means is interactions between the different elements (aircraft, ground vehicles & infantry) that are appropriate. Changing the flight model does little for the interaction of aircraft and other elements.

    Another thing that disappoints me is that the aircraft in ArmA 2 are already miles ahead of the ground vehicles in terms of simulation fidelity, and people keep asking for more improvements to aircraft. I don't think we need to further imbalance the game. The ground battles are IMO more important at this point. If you think flying is boring; have you tried tanking? Driving around? IMO it's much less satisfying at this point than flying.

    I still think too many people here want ArmA to be a flight sim; and that's exactly what TakOH is supposed to be and people still aren't satisfied. I simply don't understand why people can never be satisfied...

    I have tried tanking, even more boring :( ...

    I personally think arma should be in all-in-one simulator :D . The aircraft have realistic flight models, and avionics. The armor would have the equivelent (if I knew what it was I would name it, but I do not :o ). The soft skinned vehicles are already getting improvements (physx for example). The infantry already got it made compared to everyone else though, but still room for some minor improvements.

    I think what every single flight simulator is missing is real people being helped. If I was transporting real people to and from battle it would be much more entertaining. If I was helping by providing CAS to real people, again it would be much more entertaining. I believe this is the reason why you see people from hard core flight simulators coming to this game, and wanting realism for the aircraft. I and others see the potential that arma has. If arma was an all-in-one simulator it would draw people from every other simulation, it would have a larger community, and make more money (good for the devs :) )....

  3. Posted

    Whats RTT? And it doesn't have to be that realistic. I have played both DCS titles and it is really hard to get anything done.

    We just need a more realistic type of "electronic warfare" that makes playing on a large scale more fun and cuts the fun destroying elements of aircrafts when you are in a tank and just can't hide and on the contrary SAMs being godlike (often)

    RTT = Render to Texture. It would allow the MFD (multi functional displays), with TGP (targeting pod), and the cameras on the Mavericks to display. I agree with the proper counter measures though, but those are usually to get away or buy some time for killing the threat. With the way you can Tab to cycle identified threats in arma you will never be able to hide...

    P.S. I can help you out with DCS A-10C, but my knowledge for Black Shark is still limited as I have not dedicated enough time to it. I find its time consuming to get something done, but not difficult once you have learned the controls and functions of everything. Also having a basic understanding of each threat helps (like weapon range for example).

  4. Posted

    Yeah, that will earn you support and respect... calling people geeks.

    Better controls? You do realize that aircraft are best flown with a joystick? This isn't BF:BC2, BIS isn't going to make planes with "magic autopilot" that keeps you from crashing. Get a joystick and learn to fly.

    And easy movement? Did you even read the manual? Z-X-C are the only three keys you'll need to go prone/crouch/stand.

    About the controls...

    I am guessing you do not have a throttle with your joystick? Arma does not actually use the throttle on my saitek x52 correctly. It's basically an expensive version of the Q and Z keys... Some of the buttons on it arma will not even detect also...

  5. Posted

    I agree, but also disagree. A simulation is not what most people think. It is far from perfect for one, and usually makes it seem as if it is proper, but is not. An example being the CBU's from DCS. Certain things must be properly simulated. For example a T-72 should be destroyed if hit by an AGM-65D. An M1A2 should not be destroyed by an RPG. You have to simulate damages to an extent as shown. In comparison to dedicated simulators like DCS, and FSX, Arma's flight model is arcade. In comparison to BF, Arma's flight model is more realistic. Arma's current flight model works, but is still arcade.

    I consider it arcade because it is not a proper simulation. A proper simulation meaning, it has simulated everything to the extent that it seems realistic. For example DCS is a proper flight simulation, but it has not simulated infantry properly, because it would only need it for a forward air controller, which is minimal, and can be done without infantry simulation (no one is playing as infantry basically).

    In arma's case it is more of a infantry simulation, but because there are real people flying aircraft for the infantry it requires a proper flight model. The flight model and controls affect the way the pilot does things, it effects it to the point where the pilot has to learn new techniques and the different flight model. I realize that you don't care for this, but the pilots do. Arma's flight model for me, is just not that fun to fly. It does not require the precision, attentiveness, and skill that the real thing does, thus it is boring to me.

    Adding a realistic flight model would only affect the infantry in a negative way if an inexperienced pilot is flying, which I thought you wanted to avoid(?). If you want people on your server who don't crash the aircraft, and leave, then get a realistic flight model, and avionics. With those two things, you would be able to avoid things such as the crash and leave problem. Also you would have proper CAS, and transport. In a dedicated flight simulator, I can set up a flight plan, and follow it with precision. No more checking map, or place a way point with the Ctrl+LMB to go somewheres. Although at first it can seem more difficult to set-up and follow a flight plan in a dedicated simulator, trust me it is not. In my opinion it is much better.

    I prefer the challenge the dedicated simulations offer. Which is why I would love to see that in arma. Yeah, I could go into DCS and give CAS to some AI, or FSX and transport some imaginary people, but that is just not the same as helping out REAL people. It is much more fun to know you are actually helping real people win a battle.

    Also keep in mind, a lot of the things we would like to see are not needed. Just check the wishlist... If arma is an infantry simulation only then, anything dealing with vehicles being accurate outside of basic damage, basic models, and speed is out of the question. I personally think arma is more then just about the infantry...

  6. Posted

    ArmA has always been an infantry simulator; it has never been a vehicle and/or aircraft simulator. The aircraft and vehicles are controllable to the extent that the result appears realistic from an infantry perspective while being accessible enough for direct control by a novice. If a more realistic (and thereby much more challenging) flight model is introduced, it is imperative that it be optional, lest the heart of the game (the infantry experience) be diminished.

    Infantry meaning the soldiers who fight on the ground.... Thus they are not using vehicles like aircraft or tanks for example, unless they are riding in them. Which means you have a pilot and/or crewman supporting the infantry. Making the vehicles simulated properly will not effect the infantry in a negative way. In fact it would help the infantry. If vehicles are simulated correctly then the infantry can get proper armor and CAS. As of right now pilots don't really need the infantry's eyes on the ground, but if it was simulated correctly it would be difficult locating and identifying targets without eyes on the ground. In other words the infantry would be much more valuable in helping pilots locate and destroy targets. It would also mean there would be a real job for the forward air controller. Adding simulation also means proper insertion to the AO. You can't have an infantry simulation with arcade vehicles, its not a simulation anymore if you do. You can, however, have an infantry simulation with properly simulated vehicles, or without vehicles. I am assuming you would rather have vehicles to transport and support you on the ground. Am I right? So in other words, if you want an infantry simulation with vehicles, the vehicles must be properly simulated.

  8. Posted

    Because a Hellfire can't miss? I see.

    The important thing for warfare working out better in ArmA 3 are things like no freaking IR Radar, proper vehicle signatures, having a solid armor simulation and not having an vehicle combat system superior to the one of Iron Fist. (TAB SPACE TAB SPACE TAB SPACE TAB SPACE).

    So if they scrap that radar, put in a WW2O like armor system, a Mandos Missile like aiming for missiles and bombs plus an at least rudimentary simulation of radars (for the vehicles which have one that is) we have a winner.

    Mando missiles was good for trying to simulate what the game engine could not at the time. With RTT being implemented you could potentially have a real set-up for targeting.

    The following is an example of how to use AGM-65H in an A-10C from DCS:

  10. Posted

    I would say for easy difficulties on singleplayer only this would be useful... Unless people start playing Arma like MoH I don't see any need for this in multi-player.

    Side note- I have roughly 20 TK in MoH with only 8 hours of game play. The reason, because some idiot walks into my line of fire when I am already firing... Or someone walks in front of me just as I click to call in mortars the result is me and the guy dead from the mortars...

    I don't see why you guys are concerned with performance with these simple additions. Back years ago anisotropic filtering was actually taxing on GPU's. Now days I have yet to see one modern GPU that is effected by anisotropic filtering. Even on an 8400GS there is not 1FPS difference, or a higher load on the core GPU... In other words simple things like this should not effect fast dual or quad core CPUs, which is needed to run arma anyways :rolleyes: ...

  11. Posted

    I personally (as this is a SIM) think every aspect should be properly simulated :) ....

    Primarily vehicles need work, both air and ground vehicles are not properly simulated, but the maps are just to small for proper aircraft simulation to be honest. Ground vehicle simulation is a different story though, it is very plausible, but it would render aircraft useless. Unless the aircraft are properly simulated. Infantry, I would say are already simulated very well. Yeah there is still a lot of things you cannot do that you should be able to do, but those are minor things, and current simulations do have their limits.

  12. Posted

    My first reaction was similar: why not have the most realistic flight model hardcoded in a realistic combat simulator? Speaking against it made as much as sense as taking out other difficult yet realistic Arma mechanics.

    Then I understood the practicality of being optional, since after all Arma's focus is still the infantry.

    Then again, isn't one's lack of skill costing the virtual lives of a whole group, an important part of a true to life war simulation, whether is transport flying, grenade tossing or general fighting?

    This might belong in another thread, as it is a suggestion, but what if a player required to earn his wings before being allowed by the game on the pilot seat?

    Already you can block players from entering certain vehicles, there is a pilot class (although in Arma 3 it would be just a change of clothes) and there are flying tutorials, armory test flights and unlocking achievements.

    Combine all that and you could have a system built in the game, where a vehicle's access anywhere is restricted to a player that has finished the relevant training mission(s) and/or drove the particular vehicle successfully in an Armory-like mission.

    And that could work with all vehicles and even weapons, so tutorials are not just mere suggestions, but required training material for more advanced gameplay.

    Of course, that also could be an option for game servers and doesn't have to be a "hard" denial of access of a vehicle, but can be translated as a small graphic next to a player's name or profile that represents their possession of a "driver's license to let other players know how skilled is that player and if they should trust him with their safety when being his passengers.

    The "wings" could be bronze, silver, gold, etc according to the level of the training mission completed (simplified/advanced flight model, etc), their performance, the expertise on a particular vehicle and their logged hours.

    So, yes, at first it looks like an arcade shooter's achievement/stat silly ego-boost, but in Arma can be used for practical, realistic purposes.

    Thats why you would want realistic flight... If the game requires a person to dedicate time to learn how to use and fly it, then you will never have a complete noob providing you with air assets or the join server and crash aircraft then leave problem...

    Take an average mission (for me) from DCS A10C... It takes me roughly five minutes just to power up so I can taxi to the run way. After another two minutes I am finally up in the air. Then I usually have a minimum of a five minute flight just to be in TGP range, for target verification. After another ten minutes of verifying and prioritizing targets; I will plan (if necessary) and attack the enemy targets. So after roughly 25 minutes, I finally fire a weapon. So if the player has to do that, then the player will not want to crash it, and have to start over...

  18. Posted

    wow 10 pages and people are still complaining about the actual sound files themselves. Screw that, that is the LEAST important thing regarding the issue at hand

    The biggest issue is the sound engine itself. If you are in a tank you can hear a bird chirping outside........ no matter how good the sound files are you can't fix that at the moment. The sound engine itself needs to incorporate dynamic volume range, reverb, echo, amplitude, dynamic equalization etc.

    If a loud vehicle is rolling past, everything else should be quitened significantly aside from equally 'loud' objects. So a bird chirping next to a tank will make absolutely no sound at all, whilst gunshots would still be audible (not silenced weapons).

    Tanks in the distance should have all high frequencies reduced so it sounds like bassy thunder, as they approach they equalize towards neutral so you can hear all the little squeeks of the wheels etc.

    Gunshots in the distance should be the same as above

    Weapons fired indoors should be much shorter, louder and reverberated

    Extremely sudden loud sounds such as a near explosion should cause all volume levels to reduce, and a ringing to be heard

    Dynamic audio is what makes great audio! NOT the sound clips themselves!

    :yeahthat:

  19. Posted

    I would just wait.... Thats current pricing for a decent rig. A year from now that rig could cost a few hundred less, or be completely out dated. So wait till arma 3 is released or a week before to look at prices of computers.

  21. Posted

    Did you read the first post. Jackass! I don't want the game changed. I just want it a little easier to meet and play with players on open public rooms like we did in the old days.

    Would it be nice if a could text a player in a locked room that was playing a coop mission or player vs player in a locked room and say hi two of my friends and we are into coop missions do you have room for us! There are players playing games out there that will fit what players are looking for but lack of accessibility to meet and join in the current game. Why can't some of you see that.

    I never said make the game easy to play, make the game more cod/BF.

    If you ever played my missions you would see multiple objectives,limited ammo and number of lifes to complete the mission. This is how I like to play but it is very hard to find players to share with or play other missions makers missions.

    LMAO you got some anger issues bro.... I never said or accused you of anything... Maybe you need to learn to read...

    I did read you post. The only game that has the one button play multi player is Bfp4f (that I have seen). Even BF2 which is more popular has what arma has when it comes to finding games. PC gamers expect the list of servers to choose from, most if not all PC gamers don't even use the "join now" buttons available in some games. What I hate and I mean HATE about consoles is the lack of a server list....

    Now onto the others "issues" you mentioned. It is NOT BIS job to host dedicated servers, nor is it to create maps for us. Thats why they give us mod tools and the editor. The issues you are talking about with lack of types of game modes and dedicated servers are because the people who pay for them do not want what you want... If you want a server with a game mode you are going to have to persuade the host of the server or buy/rent your own server....

    Voice Chat I see nothing wrong with. The in game system works vary well. IMO better than teamspeak. Although it needs bit quality improvements.

×