RedTiger
-
Posts
1917 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RedTiger
-
-
I know what you mean. The floating cursor combined with the, "drank ten pints the night before", inertia makes pinpoint control decidedly dicey.
I would much prefer the option to turn it off. It’s not exactly like asking for jump pads or anything. Reaction times are critical in this game where one shot kills. Lurching about like Frankenstein’s monster on roller-skates is not a survival technique IMO.
Still love ARMAII though. Bless it.
We can accurately represent a weapon system or an aircraft because we have hard, quantifiable data. As soon as you start trying to simulate the human element, it becomes subjective and I start to question it. As soon as the human element starts to intefere with the game play, I lose interest because it is subjective. There are probably no dog house charts for waist swiviling or arm flexing under a given load of body armor.
The only exception I make is for moral, like you might see in a war game, and that's only because it can be succesfully randomized and quantified in terms of troop quality and condition.
That's the last I'm going to say about it, I think I got my point across.
-
Just so there is no confusion
Game Options
Aiming Dead Zone - Your weapon cursor floats in a certain zone in the
middle of the screen. Change the size of this zone, or completely disable thisbehavior by scrolling the slider all the way to the left.
Thanks Crunch. Unfortunately, the demo doesn't have any such option. On ArmA II I get sensitivity for X and Y axis and that's it. On OA I get the same plus one additional for mouse smoothing.
If I'm looking in the wrong place, please let me know.
-
hmmm. The lag is annoying though. Like a 'wading through custard' simulator sometimes. I know its touted as a realsm thing, but it only seems to end up simulating someone with slow reactions and ten thumbs. Someone who would get shot.
ARMA II - Grandad Simulator :smilewink:
I would prefer to be able to toggle the inertia. Unless its an engine limitation which my suspicious mind points towards.
This is the essence of my argument. The is the *exact* same argument people had about the old GLOC model in LockOn. People would say that it forced you to think about what you were doing and it promoted realistic flying. It also botched up the entire dogfight experience. While the model was sound, the curve was on the wrong part of the graph so that the effect would begin too early. We got a pencil-necked weakling vs. a healthy pilot with experianced, prepared for the onset of Gs and doing AGSM.
So...myself and many others set it to "reduced". We traded one unrealism for another. But our unrealism was more plausible.
Long story short: eveyone else screams "realism!" and I scream "doesn't matter one little bit if the game/sim plays like poo!" The road to hell is paved with good intentions. ;) If we're going to shoehorn in the sense of inertia into WASD and a mouse at the expense of play control and call it "realism", we should probably simulate sweaty palms and a button I have to hold down to make sure my solider grips the rifle properly. Or maybe an "SCRATCH THE ITCH" button the I'm forced to press at random intervals.
Anyway -- moot. I can set it up so that I get 1:1 movement between my solider and my mouse. I just don't think some understand what I was getting at.
-
I'm confused
You want more realism... except for the soldier movement.
So everything else needs to be real, but you want to be able to move like a F1 race car?
Seriously... body armour + webbing + pack + ammo + weapon system = a lot of weight to move effectively. No one wearing that is going to run like asafa powell.
Remember, it's still a sim/game. For an ultra realistic experience you should consider joining your local defence forces.
Read my post. I said the reaction time on the controls are sluggish. I said nothing about how fast you move.
A lot of this is moot. I zeroed out mouse smoothing in the OA demo and much of these problems went away. I'll have to figure out a way to do this in ArmA II demo since it isn't in the menu.
I think I'm going to cancel a pre-order of another game and buy this instead since Steam has it for $50 for both. It's probably worth having around no matter my hang ups about it.
-
it's far from perfect, but it's a hell better than in Ofp and arma. It gets complicated in close quarters as the collision detection is far from perfect and the animations too stiff. But the momentum has to be there, as planing your movement should be integral part of your field operation. The last thing I wanna see is soldiers changing direction or, god forbid, bunny hoping around, because they have no mass. You cannot change direction in split second irl, despite what fps shooters try to teach us.
No it's not. I never was in an army, but got some hiking experience, and with good load your movement is anything but instantaneous, it's in fact pretty damn slow :) And after few hours march it gets even worse.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I agree, you do NOT want Super Mario Bros in ArmA. ;) You want there to be a realistic amount of lag between changing directions. But at the cost of the game feeling terrible? (IMO) I'd just rather not have it if the implementation is actually a detraction.
1)Something such complicated is not achievable in lockon - you cannot load and unload infantry from trasport helicopter. You cannot even stop a unit, once it's activated, it's activated for good.2)You don't have to touch scritps, you just have to use simple commands like fly in height, moveincargo. And afaik, you don't have to script your way out, just use 'unload transport' waypoint.
Again, gonna have to agree to disagree. Please, developers, give me a break. Give me the Fisher Price version of the mission editor, I don't care if even if you wanna call it that. What I described could be done with a GUI.
Also, I consider the "fly in height" command a "script". Is it hard to do? No. It actually will auto complete for you. I'm just not sure why it has to be there for such a basic thing. I'm not asking for anything fancy like a scripted engine failure or pilot getting killed.
The H is there to tell the a.i. 'look this is a safe spot to land', as terrain analyze is prety cpu heavy and with varying results (the heli will try to land even without the H, but this can end in a disaster). This is pretty efficient way to be able to force the heli to land anywhere on map, something you cannot do in lockon.Ok, you're right about this, I'll give you that. This makes sense.
-
Because in an arcadish shooter your camera is floating in the world (you are just a point in the world, nothing more). The weapons and hands you see in mw are not in any way conected to the world, they are there just for the effect. Other players see a model where your camera is floating, but what that model does is in no way restricting you.
Correct.
Im ofp, arma, armaII, you have a real body, that has it weight and momentum, try run around in 20kilos of gear and I guarantee you that your movement will be ever more slugish.Yeah, but last time I checked, I'm not. I'm pressing "W" on a keyboard and moving around a mouse. ;)
The point is you are simply getting rid of one unrealistic thing for another. They are sacrificing the floating camera for the feeling of mass and the accompanying momentum, yet they don't take into account the fact that I'm still using a mouse and keyboard. Now I've got "realistic" momentum but 4 digital buttons and a mouse to move it around with. That opens an entirely new set of "unrealisms".
It will *never* be perfect. You have to pick and choose. Since I'm using an imperfect method of control to move a simulated human body, I'd rather you just give me the floating camera to simulate the assumption that I'm a physically fit soldier capable of reasonable agility given my equipment. If I press "W", I want to move forward. It's not like I'm pushing a 500 lbs box on the floor where physics say I should have to push with more force to get it started moving. I shouldn't perceive *any* delay. My brain tells my legs to move and it's instantaneous.
I could go a step farther and say that I'd be willing to accept a little bit more unrealisms just to accomplish something more dynamic. As of now, "using cover" consists of stading a foot away from a wall and using track IR to lean around it. I would be willing to have a teensy bit more "arcade" if it meant I could accomplish things that are reasonably realistic.
I mean, you already have to switch to 3rd person if you actually want any perifial vision. ;) Auto-switching to different 3rd persion views with different actions would make it more dynamic, closer to what an actual person could do.
It's not. You just place units and assign waypoints, as in lockon. In arma2 you can get complex functionality (like ambient life, combat, patrols, artilery, uav), just by placing a simple modules.Scripting only kicks in when you wanna do complex stuff, like units behaviour based on some conditions (finite state machines), which is way beyond anything you can do in lockon.
Sorry, that's incorrect. Please explain.
Here's my example; I want to start the mission with my single playable soldier in an AI controlled helicopter carry me to an insertion point and drop me off.
In ArmA I can't accomplish this completely with the GUI. I have to put down a helicopter. I have type in a simple script to set it's altitude (but not its basic speed. Why is that? For that matter, why can't I specify it's exact speed in the GUI?). Then I have to plop down my soldier and then script him to be in the helicopter. I then place my steer points, the last one being the landing zone. I then have to put down an invisible landing pad, even when landing on a paved tarmac or runway (?), script the helicopter to land and script my solider to get out.
I understand that these scripts are simple, but why are they even necessary to accomplish this? I am in favor of them being available for complex behavior, but for something like this, I SHOULD be able to do this all in the GUI with drop-down menus and sliders.
This would be really nice, but some user created missions offer decent randomization of events.Good point, and I suppose I could randomize my own if I took the time to learn how. TBH, I've never been a fan of 3rd party missions, but this is just a preference.
-
Hi Red Tiger. Have you tried adjusting the floating zone for mouse control in the game options? This option controls the amount you move your rifle before your waist turns. If you set this 0 then you have the same setup as other FPSs.
Think of the aircraft and vehicles in Arma as simple Bonuses. Stick with Infantry and you'll have fun.
The problem I am having is framerates. In the campaign I get 18 fps. -I am good in open areas though.
No, I wasn't aware of the floating zone. That would probably fix a lot of what I was experiencing.
As for the vehicles -- aren't they an integral part of the game? Doesn't the campaign have you pilot them eventually? I also could have sworn that by the end of the original ArmA II campaign, you're practically playing a war game in the amount of units under your control.
Pass.
-
Hi folks! Been a while since I've posted here. I've lost interest in flight sims for the time being, but I've been messing with the demos to both ArmA II and OA as well as doing some research on both. I REALLY want to like this game, but there's bunch of nitpicky problems I have with it that just add up to a deal-breaker.
1. The control of your playable soldier is sluggish, just like the original ArmA and OFP. Everything feels like it has a ramp-up time, or like I'm controlling him with strings. I'm not sure why an "arcade" shooter like MW2 can get this right but these realistic ones cannot.
2. The mission editor is complicated to the point of needing scripting to do very simple things. It's the equivalent of needing to script a plane to be on the runway ready for takeoff in LockOn.
3. It would be nice to have an actual random mission generator or have the templates work better. I use a template and I get enemy infantry 1 km away standing in a line in plain sight. I'm aware of the ability to sync to a SecOps module, but unfortunately that isn't available in the demo or I couldn't figure out how to do it.
4. To me, the player-controllable vehicles break my immersion and detract from the infantry portions. Private Ryan, the infantrymen, can climb into an F-35, huh? I can forgive this in something that is obviously a game like BC2, but in ArmA, it leaves me scratching my head. I would rather them put more work into making the infantry control work better and be more dynamic than figuring out a new fighter jet for my USMC sniper to fly.
Just a preference here, but why can't we get a game/sim with this much realism on a smaller scale? Something like the original Ghost Recon, for example? I'd much rather leave the large scale warfare in a war game and have something like ArmA really nail the infantry portion down to perfection. It can be a big sandbox world, but one where the action is much more covert and smaller scale.
It's a shame, because this game is a step in the right direction. In a market where the next Ghost Recon game might as well be Crysis, we need more games like ArmA.
-
Plz don't say that, it makes my toenails curl. ;)
What I showed you this?
How are your toenails doing? :D
-
As far as i know, the illumination ranges of the IR Lights for night vision goggles are not long enough for an efficient use in fixed wing cockpits.
NV is mainly built for infantry units and is clipped on top of their helmets.
For A-10 / Su-25 Pilots it would not help much as distances to enemy ground units are much bigger than the NV can show.
Also both Aircraft dont have cockpit instrument illumination which you can dimm down, so there will be dazzle effect inside the cockpit if you use NV at this time.
The AH-64 D Apache combat helicopter also has NV, but it is projected into the right eye of the Pilot and works with high sensitive FLIR (Forward Looking Infra Red ) optical system which is a round box on top of the rotor blades.
So right now there are only illumination flares that you can use in the hot zone to light up the dark night :)
F-15 pilots have been using NVG for years. That's right, not a pound for air to ground. NVGs are standard fair for A-10 and F-16 pilots too. The types of goggles used by the military work on the same principle as the Starlight scope from Vietnam. They gather ambient light and amplify it. What you're thinking of is the old IR illumination stuff. That's been around since WWII.
-
Personally, I could see the appeal for a mint green HUD in FC1, but now, in FC2, the HUD symbology is semi-transparent. This gives you the lighter green color seen in the photograph when against a lighter background and the darker, richer green when against a dark background.
While I'm no expert, I find the stock HUD color very realistic and usable. I think the mint-green HUD unnecessary as far as realism is concerned.
My 2 cents.
I agree. Previously, I used a yellow HUD. I actually used this in Falcon 4.0. Now in FC2, I find that the default HUD color is perfect.
-
To summarize, for my own benefit and others, arbitrary numbers where applied to the sim to get the plane to perform the way it should? In effect, ED worked around the quirks of the SFM and tweaked numbers to inaccurate values so that the actual performance is close to the real thing?
In other words, except for the known F-15C problems, we should ignore the values in LUA and use the aircraft in the sim to plot a chart, then compare that chart to the real one, correct?
-
What's the default bird strike setting on FC 2.0, no config files altered, fresh install?
-
Wait, first of all...so with a HOJ shot, the R-27 becomes self-homing? Do when know this with total certainty?
Sniffer, for your situation, I have seen that in FC 1.12, only it was me and not the AI. I have seen an R-27 continue to track and kill a bandit while I was locked onto another fighter. GG in this thread also suggests that an R-27 can guide on its own during HOJ. Konkussion confirms that he has seen this happen with the AI.
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=31223&highlight=Hand-off
I can't remember if the bandit was jamming, as this was close to 2 years ago. Its probably just a rare bug.
-
I hate to say it but this might just be leftovers from older game engines. IIRC, those ILS bars were present in Flanker 2.0 on the Su-27. They were also present for the Su-27 in original Lock On. That was one of the numerous things Flamming Cliffs improved on the Russian planes. I'm guessing that it just has never been changed in the F-15C.
-
Funkster, no, like this: on a longer-ranged shot the target has more time to defeat it through bleeding it's energy through maneuver and going into the "look-down clutter notch" - basically turning perpendicular to the missile flight path and diving to make the aircraft disappear in the "clutter" echoes from the terrain. Basicaly - place the missile (if you acquire it) or the launching aircraft at your 3 or 9 o'clock and dive to make their radar see ground behind you. If you get it right, your aircraft's radar echo will be filtered out as part of the terrain.
It's not so much about bleeding the missile's energy, it's about causing the launching plane to lose lock. Notching will completely and utterly defeat a SARH missile...at least in Lock On. Notch = completely wasted missile since the missile goes ballistic shortly after the launching plane looses lock. It can also defeat the Aim-120 both prior to going active and after, but the latter is hard to do when it is launched close and of course you lose a SARH lock if you notch.
Pilotasso is right. If you launch at long range against someone who knows what they are doing, you're probably going to waste all your missiles.
-
The one thing at this point that is keeping me from trying this game is the idea of classes. This is the same thing that keeps me from playing Team Fortress 2. I prefer the way "classes" work in MW -- not really classes, just a weapon load-out and a set of perks.
Classes work well in a purely co-op game against the computer (like WoW), but I'm not a fan of it in any sort of PvP setting. I'm fond of lone-wolfing, and I pretty much won't play any game that doesn't allow this. If the game has in-game match-making, especially with some sort of ELO ranking, I'm usually already sold.
The problem I have is that you're usually gimped into losing if no one wants to play a certain class OR if the people playing the class aren't playing it correctly. If the medic doesn't plop down health packs when you are clearly injured (but will heal themselves), or if the stupid engineer won't set up auto turrets to actually defend, its pretty much a total waste of time. I prefer it when everyone's job is the same; shooting guns at stuff. So, I suppose if classes were all like soldier, heavy weapons, snipers, assassins, that would be cool. As soon as you throw in a medic, I'm not interested. If there's medics, they need to have ZERO offensive capability or have no way of healing themselves. Otherwise, they are game-breaking.
Feel free to correct my misconceptions about how this game works.
-
I was just think about this yesterday. I think that several decades from now we're probably going to look back upon DRM at this point in time with a mixture of ridicule and good-humored disbelief. Similar to the way one looks back at the movie industry when Thomas Edison literally wanted all movies filmed only on his equipment by only his own company.
Something has got to give and without saying that I "guarantee" it, I find it strongly possible that the anti-DRM side will win. The odds are stacked so much against DRM, its mind boggling. In the long run, DRM simply cannot win.
Its not just the fact that there are potentially millions of people trying to crack DRM the instant the software becomes available, its just the sheer size and scope of the internet. Information itself has become something of an artifical life-form. It reminds me of Ian Malcom in the Jurassic Park movie -- "life finds a way". ;) Nothing can contain it and nothing can stop it. The idea of "control" of it is an illusion, and a dangerous one. The idea of a cold and hot war being fought over its perceived control isn't too farfetched to me.
Either the entire set of "rules" of the internet will change (for the worse, IMO), and change forcibly with all the catastrophic consequences, or DRM will have to adapt and allow people to feel like they actually own a product they purchased. Care to bet which one is quicker, actually feasible, and which one a person with a working brain would choose to do? ;)
This is all my opinion, of course. :D
-
35 FPS near a town is actually an improvement. In FC 1.12, depending on lots of factors, of course, you might have seen teens or single digits.
-
Have you ever seen pics of real Jets coming back home looking like swiss cheese?
If by "jets" you mean A-10s and Su-25s, certainly. ;)
-
The damage impact instead, is really omg or its the damagemodel on the jets..you decide..i cant tell. A full good deflection hit ok, but in 2.0 a "touch" disables the bandit completly...im not sure, if that is really accurate. I have my doubts, but good thing we discuss it.
Doesn't that make sense though? Imagine blindfolding yourself and throwing a dart at a modern fighter jet from above, full plane form view. I'd be surprised if it doesn't hit something vital! There's not a lot of wasted space, probably not much redundancy, and there's practically no armor. You're going to hit an engine, fuel, avionics, control surfaces, control mechanisms, or a human pilot.
-
Agree with you there Ether.
If you read any dogfight gun or BFM manual it tells you to gun be in lead, be in range, and be in plane. With the gun as deadly as it is now you don't bother with the last rule "be in plane" as you just go for nose position and cut the circle ASAP and kill (too easily). so IMOP it changes the fundamentals of BFM gunzo.
Granted everyone will have their own opinion, we'll let you know how the test works out.
No one says you can't shoot your enemy in the face head-on and no one says you can't attempt a snapshot kill. If by 'in-plane' you meant in the saddle and out of plane, that is working as intended. You won't hit much of anything in that case. :)
If you actually decide to turn at the merge and start a dogfight, you have to put up what's coming to you. The guns are fine, IMO. In reality, these dogfights would actually be even more deadly if the R-73 actually had thrust vectoring and the sim forced you to premptively use flares against heaters. The gun would be a secondary worry.
If you're doing a gunzo tournament or practice, my suggestion is to do a three second pipper on target "guns guns guns" without pulling the trigger and consider that a kill.
-
ECM is too difficult to simulate correctly at the moment.
I really think it would be better to do away with it altogether until DCS:Fighter
If anything, I would expect them to not simulate it in DCS.
-
Thats when the forums are at there most idiotic, disgraceful, and pointless!
Fixed that one for you. ;) Because:
Have you seen the factions warring in PAK-FA v F22 thread??Um, no. If you think what has happened in the PAK-FA thread is the same thing that happens in threads like this, you need to re-think that one. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm not holding my breath.
ArmA2: Operation Arrowhead
in Chit-Chat
Posted · Edited by RedTiger
If you're responding to me, I don't think you're understanding my point. You're bringing up specifics that I didn't get into. Please read my posts, then read them again for comprehension. ;)