Jump to content
JohnO

Got to Hurry up and get version 2.6

Recommended Posts

I almost did something today and caught myself before doing it :) I was getting ready to drift over to ArmA2:OA and play a scenario and work on a scenario, which I find it so dam hard too do :)

I then look at myself in the mirror and said, "Dam it I can do it" and turn off the game ArmA2:OA and worked some more on the Soviet OOB :cul: plus a glass of rum and coke help as well :debile2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stay focused, not long to go now.

Your support network is in place and ready to help if required.

Go back and watch videos again.

Review the Gallery again (esp at the higher resolutions).

Or failing that, here is a concrete tablet in a "Harden the F*** Up!" wrapper to get you through it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject after all-

as a newbie, can any one tell me the differences btw Arma and SB? I know one is a first-person shooter, but its pretty realistic nevertheless (unlike EA's battlefield series). I know SB is armor-centric but how is the command system different? they're both focused, squad-company based warfare, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the subject after all-

as a newbie, can any one tell me the differences btw Arma and SB? I know one is a first-person shooter, but its pretty realistic nevertheless (unlike EA's battlefield series). I know SB is armor-centric but how is the command system different? they're both focused, squad-company based warfare, no?

Well I don't play it, but I'm led to believe that apart from the FPS aspect, ARMA's armour modelling is not a well developed as SB.

I'm sure there will be an avalanche of pro / con posts after this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ARMA is horrible and SB is not. see also youtube video of killing T-72s with M-240. Hit points are for kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as a newbie, can any one tell me the differences btw Arma and SB?

Again, I'm not knowledgeable enough in ArmA2 to be really qualified to answer. From what I hear (and that may reflect my own ignorance, or the bias of people who are telling me more than actual facts about ArmA, so take it with a grain of salt):

  • Low-level behavior of computer-controlled units is more predictable in SB Pro. Give a tank platoon orders to go to a specific location and assume a hull-down position in relation to 2000m forward of its position, facing south-southwest, and they will do exactly that, period.
  • As a consequence, fewer human players can control forces of the same size, or the same number of people can control a larger exercise. With about four to six people minimum you can actually run a battalion level exercise if needed
  • In SB Pro, you may inspect the 3D world prior to the actual combat, and with version 2.6 you may even save your battle plan for later re-use or modification and refinement
  • The mission editor in SB Pro seems to be easier to master (although in the absence of an actual scripting language you can control more elements in ArmA, including cut scenes if I am not mistaken)
  • Infantry combat is probably better/more realistic/more fun in ArmA
  • Steel Beasts goes into much deeper detail with respect to fire control system replication, or vehicle damage models, or interior, exterior, and terminal ballistics
  • No map edges in SB Pro (and therefore, if the mission designers did his job right, no safe flanks, anywhere).
    Is ArmA still playing in islands only? I don't know.
  • There's a lot more that can be manipulated ("modded") in ArmA. That can be good or bad, depending on how you look at it
  • No scripting, no console mode, and CodeMeter protection against reverse compilation: This probably means that it is much harder to cheat in SB Pro, and the cheats and exploits that are there are usually not very grave.
  • ArmA looks better - more visual effects, and more variety in the object library
  • ArmA has more players, more servers, more opportunity to play online. In SB Pro many multiplayer sessions are scheduled events, and if you drop out of a session, sadly, you cannot re-join but are transferred to single player mode.

There's probably more, and some differences can be seen as a good or as a bad thing, but this should give you a first frame of reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, come on guys this is suppose to be a fun thread not a serious thread, hell I could of said ATF, or Battlefield 3 or even better yet, COD:MW3, which I have all of them :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well my response to your OP was meant to be humorous (perhaps it didn't come off?).

Yes it did Mark, yours was ok :) Is the concrete tablet "Harden the F*** Up!" gift wrap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few internet laws:

  • You can start a thread, but you can't control how it will develop
  • Given enough time and participation, it is inevitable that at some point a threadjacking will occur
  • Corollary: In the long run, every thread is off-topic.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[ranton]

Ssnake, as an official company representative, wants to stay polite in relations to colleagues/rivals from other companies, but I can add two important points to his list above:

- vehicle physics in ArmA suck. Tanks bounce around like basketballs. Vehicle physics do not get just violated - they get raped. This was the case from Flashpoint to ArmA2.

- the AI never was clever, but from title to title became more dumb and useless. In ArmA2 it was such that I - notorious single player - actually stopped playing and deinstalled the title after short time. The workarounds to manage my squad that I got used to from Flashpoint and ArmA1, did not save it anymore.

ArmA2 may be a nice infantry simulator in multiplayer. But vehicle-wise and regarding single player and AI, it is a simply this: very bad.

It'S charm is the wonderful landscape.

[/rantoff]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gibson, thought the Diggers used VBS as a training aid ? Which is to ARMA as SB pro is to SB pe ?. In the right hands THe ARMA series is a credible infantry sim, many of the 3rd party addons are excellent. BignoseThreeZero and myself have used it online to run some Interesting scenarios. Now if the Armour element was as good as SB it would be the ultimate war simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gibson, thought the Diggers used VBS as a training aid?

Yes. The Mil Spec version of VBS2 which is a different beast again.

And not being a grunt I don't "waste" disk space on VBS2 either (which is a space hog too). :)

Now if the Armour element was as good as SB it would be the ultimate war simulator.

Sure and if the Inf side of SB was better we could ditch VBS2. :)

What we are actively looking at is using VBS2 for Inf and SB Pro for AFVs with a black box in the middle joining them up and sharing the same terrain.

So I can sit in the SB gunner's seat, traverse and see Infantry. While the grunts in another room running VBS2 can look over their shoulder and see my tank.

We use SB Pro for the "map" / F5 view as its superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum it up, you can buy Arma2 from Walmart for $15 or just download the free version. SB costs $125. You get what you pay for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the rest of the FPS crowd, ARMA still sticks out a bit.

All those FPS games show combat how people think it is (i.e. Hollywood style)...arma gets a wee bit closer to realism.

Still: Health bars are for kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ARMA, in it's defense, has never claimed the pursuit of total realism when it comes to vehicles. It has always been primarily an infantry 'simulator'. The ACE mods, the radio add on (ACRE) for teamspeak (simulated radio ranges, LOS for radios, frequencies, different radio sets) all make it stand very far out from the crowd of 'games' like COD (ugh), BF (hmm, not terrible as a game). In ARMA, viewed from a grunt's perspective, the tank in the distance shoots you in the face the same way a real tank would. From a vehicle point of view, it's of course not a simulator, despite the attempts of some addons. That said, it's graphical effects related to combat simulation (shadows, smoke etc) do leave SB behind, as does the overall impression of a 'scene' - moving trees, grass, blowing smoke, birds, animals, debris, clutter (bits and pieces of stuff laying all over the place), realistic terrain (small depressions etc to hide a man in), underbrush, rocks etc all contribute to making the world seem 'alive' somehow. In ARMA, you can go from flying a chopper and seeing for kilometers in any direction (no physical map edges, there's just nothing past the edge), to laying in the dirt and watching a dragonfly buzzing around a single blade of grass. From the 'massive' to the 'tiny', all in one graphical engine. SB, in comparison, while technically excellent, seems quite sterile in comparison. Infantry especially are often utterly exposed, with NOTHING to hide behind. That's the nature of the game I guess. I'm not knocking one or the other. I've always appreciated and enjoyed Steel Beasts for what it is. But ARMA is a viable option if you are after a 'realistic' product - just not for vehicles in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that ARMA has an immersive battlefield with all it's real life elements but in terms of realism... I mean, ARMA doesn't even attempt to be as realistic as possible. Tanks, choppers, all made to be as easy to use as possible. I understand that people like ARMA. I own both ARMA 1 and 2 and I like them. They are good games. But what I don't get is when people say ARMA is realistic. Sure, it's MORE realistic than most other games like BF and COD series but realistic? I don't think so.

I think it's hard to make a comparison since ARMA and SB are not in the same category. ARMA is not trying to be as realistic as SB and SB is not trying to be as appealing as ARMA. In my opinion at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realism debates are rarely leading anywhere. What's your metric, anyway?

There's realism of results, realism of procedures, sensorical realism. There are legal limitations of what you may or may not do in training (or a computer game), there are hardware limitations (e.g. limited dynamic range of monitors and audio systems, which is probably a good thing for health and safety considerations).

To me, the question is whether a (computer) game or a simulation is fit for certain purposes - be it entertainment, be it a certain application in training. Does using the software result in better proficiency in one or more skills that are deemed valueable in combat?

That can be the behavior to observe the terrain better. That can be better communication drills, or better coordination of fire and movement. Even shooter games can be helpful in these categories.

It's not leading anywhere to criticize a product for something that it doesn't attempt to be, and that applies to Steel Beasts just as much as it does to ArmA or any other software on the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...