Initial info on pending v1.02

[JOGR]

Originally posted by thewood:

But to be fair, the AI in those tactical shooters are robots. For all the issues in SF's AI, there is almost none in vbs2. Also, penetration of armored vehicles is very abstracted in those. Its all about the graphics in those. That's 90% of the game.

Right so that's the reason to why the US, Canada and Australian military have been using VBS for years and not CM:SF? Get the facts straight. Recommend taking a look at this video:

VBS2 features

Sure the pricetag is insane but then VBS2 isn't a game. I bought SBProPE for $150 but $1500 is asking too much when you get ArmA for $37.99 and it's practically the same thing xpt for a few units and the commercial (gamey) presentation.

But to be fair. VBS2/ArmA is a military training simulation and not just another game for us armchair generals.

[Sergei]

I haven't tried VBS2. But if you call ArmA a simulation, you can as well start calling me Betty Lou. ArmA Stryker ICV machinegun is remote controlled, but the screen is useless unless your target is standing 50m away. The birdcage has no effect on RPG rounds, just like it doesn't matter if you hit a tank's front or its arse. Nor can infantry peek or fire from the hatches. Javelin is sort of modelled, except it has no textures. And as I said, M136 sight is fooked... not my idea of military simulation.

[JOGR]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I haven't tried VBS2. But if you call ArmA a simulation, you can as well start calling me Betty Lou. ArmA Stryker ICV machinegun is remote controlled, but the screen is useless unless your target is standing 50m away. The birdcage has no effect on RPG rounds, just like it doesn't matter if you hit a tank's front or its arse. Nor can infantry peek or fire from the hatches. Javelin is sort of modelled, except it has no textures. And as I said, M136 sight is fooked... not my idea of military simulation.

Well the militaries and home defences of many countries would disagree with you. ArmA Strykers don't have birdcages. No missing textures on my install (version 1.08). M136 sight is a bit goofed, I usually aim with the crosshair.

Don't get me started on the lack of realism in CM:SF as I have nothing against it. But just to name something: To simulate modern combat (especially at Battalion level) you need pretty large maps. Modern tanks can engage targets from miles away and most maps in CM:SF are less then 1km x 1km. Fact is, trying to make a map bigger then that in the editor bogs my system (Dell XPSm1710) down to a crawl.

I think the main island in ArmA is 400 sq km and fully rendered with 2 km view distance. Just to compare.

EDIT:

And it runs smoothly in 1900x1200 on High 8xAnisotropic and 4xAA on my laptop, large battles regardless.

[ August 02, 2007, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: jogr ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by jogr:

Well the militaries and home defences of many countries would disagree with you. ArmA Strykers don't have birdcages. No missing textures on my install (version 1.08). M136 sight is a bit goofed, I usually aim with the crosshair.

Come on, Armed Assault (nor VBS) is no Steel Beasts when it comes to simulating the systems. ArmA is a FPS with emphasis on combined arms, and that's its value. But it or OFP has never been a real simulation. Medics give instant heal, to begin with. No foxholes or artillery.

Originally posted by jogr:

Don't get me started on the lack of realism in CM:SF as I have nothing against it. But just to name something: To simulate modern combat (especially at Battalion level) you need pretty large maps. Modern tanks can engage targets from miles away and most maps in CM:SF are less then 1km x 1km. Fact is, trying to make a map bigger then that in the editor bogs my system (Dell XPSm1710) down to a crawl.

And how often in ArmA can you engage other tanks at over a kilometer range? Even if you were able to see a target the sights would be too poor to hit anything, especially since there is no targetting computer, laser sight or anything.

Not that the claim that you need the maximum range of a modern MBT maingun to do combat holds true, anyway. It may be true for desert tank battles, but I rather think that desert tank duels between M1A2's and T-72's are not the most exciting thing in town (nor the one that a sensible defender would aim at, seeing how well it worked in 1991 and 2003). And in an urban environment it's very short ranges.

What is the ArmA terrain grid anyway? 25m x 25m? Not that it matters since there is no terrain editor. Buildings collapse once their hitpoints are gone, and no deformable terrain either - I guess Sahrani soil is solid steel. CMx2 might be more complex than you thought.

[Pandur]

No foxholes or artillery.

that depend on mods, you can have foxholes(more or less, but they arent spotable in brush), camoed fighing positions, artillery shell and rockets, automted air defenses,... . you can have nearly all.

for arma there isnt as much as for OFP now since there arent any official tools avaliable so far as i see it.

but i wouldnt go and compare a FPS engine with an Cm like engine. that wont work...

[thewood]

Actually I thought VBS was used to as multiplayer for ther military. The AI is completely scripted if I remember.

[Michael Dorosh]

Did ArmA get rid of the contact grenades? I stopped playing OFP when it became obvious you couldn't throw a grenade inside a window even if you were right next to it, because it exploded on contact with the window frame and killed you.

The hit points for tanks were very silly, too. I did try the demo for ArmA but IIRC it was multiplayer only, so there wasn't much to do. It didn't convince me to buy the game - didn't seem like much of a change from OFP, which I still own in the GOTY edition.

[JOGR]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jogr:

Well the militaries and home defences of many countries would disagree with you. ArmA Strykers don't have birdcages. No missing textures on my install (version 1.08). M136 sight is a bit goofed, I usually aim with the crosshair.

Come on, Armed Assault (nor VBS) is no Steel Beasts when it comes to simulating the systems. ArmA is a FPS with emphasis on combined arms, and that's its value. But it or OFP has never been a real simulation. Medics give instant heal, to begin with. No foxholes or artillery.

Originally posted by jogr:

Don't get me started on the lack of realism in CM:SF as I have nothing against it. But just to name something: To simulate modern combat (especially at Battalion level) you need pretty large maps. Modern tanks can engage targets from miles away and most maps in CM:SF are less then 1km x 1km. Fact is, trying to make a map bigger then that in the editor bogs my system (Dell XPSm1710) down to a crawl.

And how often in ArmA can you engage other tanks at over a kilometer range? Even if you were able to see a target the sights would be too poor to hit anything, especially since there is no targetting computer, laser sight or anything.

Not that the claim that you need the maximum range of a modern MBT maingun to do combat holds true, anyway. It may be true for desert tank battles, but I rather think that desert tank duels between M1A2's and T-72's are not the most exciting thing in town (nor the one that a sensible defender would aim at, seeing how well it worked in 1991 and 2003). And in an urban environment it's very short ranges.

What is the ArmA terrain grid anyway? 25m x 25m? Not that it matters since there is no terrain editor. Buildings collapse once their hitpoints are gone, and no deformable terrain either - I guess Sahrani soil is solid steel. CMx2 might be more complex than you thought. </font>

[Hev]

Jogr is perfectly correct, VBS2 is state of the art software and sells comercially FOR A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY. There is certainly a difference between ArmA and VBS2 though, for good reason, BIS were fully aware that they had to make a GAME from that software.

ArmA is a good comparison to draw with this game on another issue. Both BIS and BFC are held in incredably high regard by thier supporters ( of which i am for both companies ) which makes any slip, how ever slight, that much more agrivating (for want of a better word) for us guys. We just expect higher standards from these two firms.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by jogr:

I find it hard to believe BFC would get a military contract with CM:SF, despite it's foxhole features.

No military in the world uses Armed Assault. So your point is, again? That a $55 game should do more than a $1800 game? Or that ArmA is a better simulation than CMSF? Both ideas are laughable.

[Battlefront.com]

Jogr,

Well the militaries and home defences of many countries would disagree with you.

One of our testers has intimate knowledge of VBS2 from a development standpoint. I can't say much, but I can say that I think he would disagree with almost everything you've said so far.

BTW, many of the things you listed that VBS2 has are irrelevant to CM since it isn't a first person shooter (which VBS2 is). The stuff that you listed that is relevant we do as well for the most part.

And if the various Armies of this world want to give us tens of millions of Dollars, we do some amazing things (right before retiring for life ).

Steve

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And if the various Armies of this world want to give us tens of millions of Dollars, we do some amazing things (right before retiring for life ).

Those armies just better have T-34's and StuG's in their equipment pool or I will have to kidnap you from retirement to make CMBBx2...

[gibsonm]

Hey how did you know we were going to buy these !!!!

I'll have to forward this to ASIO for investigation.

[Battlefront.com]

If we got a contract for 1/10th of what was spent on VBS2 we could do a version for them with modern stuff, a version for you with WWII stuff, a version for my mom with... well, hell if I know, but we could do it all and STILL have a ton of money left over to retire on. Too bad you're a dang'd ferriner and can't legally bribe a Congressman to get us a fat contract. By legal bribe I mean a campaign contribution on behalf of a PAC

Steve

[GriffinCheng+]

BF.C, any update, svp?

[Battlefront.com]

The ATI bug needs to be fixed before we release v1.02. We've got an initial batch of info from people with the problem and it has helped narrow things down. Not quite there yet. Hopefully it will be cleaned up tomorrow so we can get our testers to make sure the fix doesn't break anything.

Steve

[patrik pass]

jogr,

years ago, flashpoint was a great game for me. i tried arma several times(different versions/updates of demo). engine is old and not ergonomic. youre talking about hdr effects and adaptation of eye pupil:) on the other side - engine is so impractical, that movement in buildings is very strange/bogging in corners/falling from floors etc. and a.i. is very primitive. maybe arma looks like army simulations to you, because of this impractical interface:) talking about games 40x40kms, im looking forward to adaptation of cryo engine. now im still playing americas army( not so big, no vehicles, but for sure more fun as arma, and of course combat mission shock force:)

p.s.: for us, in eastern europe was total dissapointment, when bohemia interactive and distributor choosed star force protection for arma. that was last drop.

(sorry for english)

[jomni]

America's Army has controllable Humvees...

You get to bring along Javelins to destroy tanks as well.

[JOGR]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jogr:

I find it hard to believe BFC would get a military contract with CM:SF, despite it's foxhole features.

No military in the world uses Armed Assault. So your point is, again? That a $55 game should do more than a $1800 game? Or that ArmA is a better simulation than CMSF? Both ideas are laughable. </font>

[JOGR]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Jogr,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well the militaries and home defences of many countries would disagree with you.

One of our testers has intimate knowledge of VBS2 from a development standpoint. I can't say much, but I can say that I think he would disagree with almost everything you've said so far.

BTW, many of the things you listed that VBS2 has are irrelevant to CM since it isn't a first person shooter (which VBS2 is). The stuff that you listed that is relevant we do as well for the most part.

And if the various Armies of this world want to give us tens of millions of Dollars, we do some amazing things (right before retiring for life ).

Steve </font>

[Blackmuzzle]

VBS2, like VBS1, is a training tool. Not a simulator per-se, but a training tool for squad tactics and specific scenarios, like convoy ambushes and the likes. Where VBS shines is it's instructor interface and the AAR module, which is what sets it apart from the regular game.

CMSF is a game. While it is a relatively complex one in some areas, it's also making a lot of abstractions and simplifications in others. It may or may not be suitable for training of command-level staff, even though is definitely less detailed and of lower "resolution" in its scope and execution. What it lacks is a detailed after-action analysis tool to become useful as a training device.

Ultimately, CMSF is not better or worse than VBS. It simply "is". And regardless of what you think you know about VBS and it's success, I can tell you that it is doing rather well. For a military simulation, the budget is quite small. Get an imaging simulation system from Evans & Sutherland and compare their budget and their "retail" price with a classroom suite of VBS2. And again, SBPro is even cheaper, and has a higher quality than most manufacturer-endorsed tank simulators on the market, and it achieved that with a laughable budget.

In summary, comparisons between these programs and CMSF are quite moot. Different companies, different ways of doing business and making products. We all should accept that CMSF is a fun game and leave it at that. Maybe fix a few bugs and optimize performance of course

[patrik pass]

to jomni:

yes:) i know.

but only in one mission:)and there is one tank and 2bmp

[Pandur]

maybe a bit late after some good posts in between but still,..

Just to name a few; , agent based AI for more realistic behavior (VBS2), real-time day/night cycles, accurate starscape, sunrise/set based on lat/long, simulation of tides, accurate moon phases, HDR based simulation of human eye pupil reactions, speed-of-sound (naturally) with the supersonic "crack" from passing bullets, UAV simulation (with UAV control station)(VBS2), accurate iron sights, recoil and weapon movements (influenced by stamina, stance, injuries and holding breath), complex ballistic model (incorporates ballistics coefficient to allow a 99% match to real-world ballistic behaviors), bullet velocity/type/location based, material bullet penetration, ricochets angle/material dependant, bullet camera (observe the flight of key projectiles(ie an M136 AT-4 rocket)(VBS2).

lol all that you can have in arma by mods or its allready in

the thing with the balistics, they left out the AIRfriction for small arms, thats why they shoot that strange. corrected by mod if you like.

UAV with launch truck with contol station is also there.

the HDR stuff is quiet a crap if its not better than in ARMA. its totaly off.

jsut to name a few...

i deleted things from your list where i couldnt say for sure its there.

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And if the various Armies of this world want to give us tens of millions of Dollars, we do some amazing things (right before retiring for life ).

Those armies just better have T-34's and StuG's in their equipment pool or I will have to kidnap you from retirement to make CMBBx2... </font>

[Becket]

Originally posted by MeatEtr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And if the various Armies of this world want to give us tens of millions of Dollars, we do some amazing things (right before retiring for life ).

Those armies just better have T-34's and StuG's in their equipment pool or I will have to kidnap you from retirement to make CMBBx2... </font>