Some PC Details

[Papa6]

Funny thing is a kilometer is only .6 of a mile or 1056 yards. I want the really long shots for sniping, more than .6 of a mile.

Exactly!, that's why i tried so hard to work on opening up the clip distance. GRAW is not a snipers game.

[Creatch]

If I'm correct and most likey to be corrected The longest sniper kill to be registerd was by a Canadian in Afganistan using a Barret .50 and the distance was just over 2.5km. But thats just a side note.

As usual the only thing I am mainly concernd with is will or won't there be any meaningfull Co-op in this instalment ?

The attempts at this for GR:AW fell way short. Now don't take this as a slam, because it's not. There were many things I truly liked about GR:AW. The graphics were great, the sound even better. Tango movement and reaction was much better than GR. No more drawing in the entire map with a bunch of Gl's and waitng for them all to come running. Good maps and effects. The arty was very cool.

But as far as Co-op we die hard junkies of Co-op were left with a bit of a bad taste in our mouths and many gave up on the game very quickly. I still enjoy the FF's.

Another draw back is the learning curve for making missions. I thought Igor was a pain, and since I'm not a computer wiz I am totaly confused.

So here is to hoping that there is a bit better attention paid to a bit of meaningful Co-op.

Just my 2 cents.

[Papa6]

Sorry, I just wanted to note that Carlos Hathcock the "White Feather sniper" has the longest documented confirmed kill

Hathcock's 2500 yard confirmed kill with a .50 caliber Browning rifle-longest sniper kill ever documented. Added: which equates to 2286.0 meters

A 5 day engagement that wiped out an entire company of Vietcong guerrillas

Finally but not least "US Marine Gunnery Sergeant Carlos N. Hathcock became a military legend with 93 confirmed kills in Vietnam".

Sorry But Hathcock is the best right now and still.

Also, a tribute page to Carlos Hathcock is Here

Now...Back on topic and our regularly scheduled programming

Edited January 15, 2007 by Papa6

[Breeze]

Will there be a dedicated server with the release of the game??

[RAbbi_74]

...

As usual the only thing I am mainly concernd with is will or won't there be any meaningfull Co-op in this instalment ?

The attempts at this for GR:AW fell way short. Now don't take this as a slam, because it's not. There were many things I truly liked about GR:AW. The graphics were great, the sound even better. Tango movement and reaction was much better than GR. No more drawing in the entire map with a bunch of Gl's and waitng for them all to come running. Good maps and effects. The arty was very cool.

But as far as Co-op we die hard junkies of Co-op were left with a bit of a bad taste in our mouths and many gave up on the game very quickly. I still enjoy the FF's.

Another draw back is the learning curve for making missions. I thought Igor was a pain, and since I'm not a computer wiz I am totaly confused.

So here is to hoping that there is a bit better attention paid to a bit of meaningful Co-op.

Just my 2 cents.

@GRIN- the above comes from what we here at GRnet (you likely know this already) regard as THE authority on COOP Mission gameplay. When I see someone with the AS or SD tag add another $.02 to the conversation, I know it comes from EXPERIENCED, TALENTED folks with a reputation for excellence in that arena. Hell, AS made better maps for GR than did the developers (no offense, RSE)! I've played some of the missions from AS and SD (though admittedly NOT in the actual tournaments, but after the fact) and they're quite awesome. Like Charles Schwab, when these guys talk EVERYONE listens.

The point- please THESE folks, and I guarantee you'll please the rest of us diehards as well. Disappoint them, and GRAW2 will sell worse than GRAW did...

[sui317]

i think what every one wants is a shortcut to modding GRAW2

the changes from editor to xml pad and back to editor and back to xml pad, then making a draft and find out that it does not work ###### most people off,

(i think it would ###### them off anyway what ever way cause it is not igor)

any way

if the scripting could be seperated from the map .bundle modders would have more time to learn scripting cause they then would not be switching desktops

and they could test more and see results quicker.

if they had a scripting interface like igor, you would have them at your knees and BF this game and they would not mind cause they can mod it anyway they like

i don't know what modding means to ubi, and if grin has freedom to supply us with the tools and knowhow,

we'll see

sorry for my sarcasme, but .... hackers did graw in the first day with what ever wallhack and the likes...

i wish we had such in this community cause they did not complain it was so damn hard.....

think it is the hang over ..... hope i did not step on anyones toes here, and if so. WATCH OUT STUMBLING DRUNK HERE !

[GRiN_Bumbi]

The graphics and AI ar both LODed, the ghost shrinks from 8000 to 1000 triangles in 150 m, and the AI also gets less smart over distance. Don't ask me about specifics there because honestly I don't know exactly what happens, but I think I've heard that they both stop to check for certain things and the checks occur less often, as maybe each second instead of every frame. Still each AI soldier is the most demanding task for the enigne so adding tons of characters are really not a option even how much both you and we would have liked it.

As for upgrading, I can't promise anything since I don't know exactly where we will land, testers have to determine that with the final build I guess. But if you could run GRAW fine you should not need to worry that much about being able to run GRAW2 as well, but a gig of ram will probably be added to the minimum specs this time.

And we do our best to not to disappoint anyone, but you do know that you all want different things

[sui317]

@bumbi

watch out above you

and nevermind we GR folk are schizofrenic wanting this one day that the other day.... and i think your first few lines were specific enough to baffle me....

never mind my words, only when i tell you to watch out for things from above and to take some rest once in a while.....

oh and when you have opening doors in GRAW2 when i say watch out for the doors, i might mean it

[Pritzl]

The graphics and AI ar both LODed,

Despite the odds, I was hoping that wasn't the case so that it might open up some more options.

Still each AI soldier is the most demanding task for the enigne so adding tons of characters are really not a option even how much both you and we would have liked it.

In that case, any chance at least some missions can be designed with a limited number of AI but fairly spread out throughout the map? I don't mind facing only a score or so enemies in an entire mission if I can at least engage a couple of them at reasonable sniper ranges. (500m+)

If that's not in the cards, what are the chances of adding some more functionality to the mission editor to help aspiring modders realize their scenarios? I'm particularly interested in the following:

1. Point-and-click waypoint system for both AI soldiers and vehicles. (something like the current AI graph)

2. Click-and-drag repositioning for most objects. The current implementation is occasionally buggy even without considering the no-collision-model objects.

3. Optional filtering of objects by selected set. (city/shanty/industrial, etc...)

4. Click-and-edit scripting options.

5. A simple, embedded xml editor for direct editing of the mission files so we don't have to switch back and forth between the game and a third-party xml editor.

6. Any pre-rendering tests for mission validity would also be appreciated. Having a mission fail after a several hour rendering is not fun.

And we do our best to not to disappoint anyone, but you do know that you all want different things

You can ignore everyone else as I'm pretty much the only one that matters!

No, seriously, I enjoyed GRAW and expect GRAW2 will be even better. The ROE alone will make it worthwhile imo. Don't let the naysayers bug you (some people are never satisfied) and keep up the good work.

[Colin]

...

As usual the only thing I am mainly concernd with is will or won't there be any meaningfull Co-op in this instalment ?

The attempts at this for GR:AW fell way short. Now don't take this as a slam, because it's not. There were many things I truly liked about GR:AW. The graphics were great, the sound even better. Tango movement and reaction was much better than GR. No more drawing in the entire map with a bunch of Gl's and waitng for them all to come running. Good maps and effects. The arty was very cool.

But as far as Co-op we die hard junkies of Co-op were left with a bit of a bad taste in our mouths and many gave up on the game very quickly. I still enjoy the FF's.

Another draw back is the learning curve for making missions. I thought Igor was a pain, and since I'm not a computer wiz I am totaly confused.

So here is to hoping that there is a bit better attention paid to a bit of meaningful Co-op.

Just my 2 cents.

@GRIN- the above comes from what we here at GRnet (you likely know this already) regard as THE authority on COOP Mission gameplay. When I see someone with the AS or SD tag add another $.02 to the conversation, I know it comes from EXPERIENCED, TALENTED folks with a reputation for excellence in that arena. Hell, AS made better maps for GR than did the developers (no offense, RSE)! I've played some of the missions from AS and SD (though admittedly NOT in the actual tournaments, but after the fact) and they're quite awesome. Like Charles Schwab, when these guys talk EVERYONE listens.

The point- please THESE folks, and I guarantee you'll please the rest of us diehards as well. Disappoint them, and GRAW2 will sell worse than GRAW did...

Yes this was the only real large hole that was not filled, this to me was the one thing that stopped the game being a fantastic game as opposed to a good game.

IF THIS WAS FILLED IN THE NEW VERSION AND MODDING MADE A BIT MORE USER FRIENDLY YOU WOULD HAVE A VERY LARGE HIT ON YOUR HANDS BELIEVE ME.

With respect of course.

[Nutlink]

GRAW was good, and the patches showed that Grin was heading in the right direction. I have more faith in them now than I do in the R6 or SC series as it stands at the moment.

[Poita]

The more i play GRAW the more i appreciate it.

At the same time though i'm often hit by the consolitus effects on it.

The 'whooosh' sound as the bring the scope up.

The very look of the sniper rifle and it's scope interface (what reason is there to give the distance in miles '&' KM except as an excuse to have more seemingly flashy date rippling on the screen).

The soldier and team mates is even cartoonised a bit to lookk more like a console version of a soldier than a real one as seen in games such as GR1 & OpFlash.

Lot's of other consolish details that annoy but the effects and look of the levels are very nice and the general game play is quite good. GRAW1 has the bones and even some of the flesh of a great serious shooter, all it needs is more freedom to get serious and I think GRIN could make GRAW2 ace . i just doubt they will have that freedom. If anything i think they will be under more pressure to consolise it even more.

[GRIN_Wolfsong]

1. Point-and-click waypoint system for both AI soldiers and vehicles. (something like the current AI graph)

It's already in GRAW for AI soldiers. but for vehicles would be nice.

In GRAW I usually do a human with graph and then copy the graph over to the vehicle in the XML, which works but is not a really good solution.

2. Click-and-drag repositioning for most objects. The current implementation is occasionally buggy even without considering the no-collision-model objects.

I think the current system works quite good. Teh grid system for positioning items at differnet height and the "follow" object system with optional angle after face normal system it good as you always get the objects on the surface. I still age that some things are hard to place. Some vehicles comes to mind....

EDIT: I forgot that some of it requires a 4 button mouse. But that is quite common among gamers these days anyhow so shouldn't have to be considered.

3. Optional filtering of objects by selected set. (city/shanty/industrial, etc...)

This is essentially done as those objects have a name that starts with something similar and you can use the filter. But dividing them into different tabs would be nice.

4. Click-and-edit scripting options.

? Explain this due to what you wrote in 5 about and XML editor.

5. A simple, embedded xml editor for direct editing of the mission files so we don't have to switch back and forth between the game and a third-party xml editor.

I don't see this as a problem. Alt-Tab. And XML is just as easy in NotePad as in an XML editor, you still have to know the language.

6. Any pre-rendering tests for mission validity would also be appreciated. Having a mission fail after a several hour rendering is not fun.

Do draft renders with single pass. Don't bother with the light and use the nightvision when testing is needed. Draft render on the mission 5 map took me 15 minutes I think.

Edited January 15, 2007 by Wolfsong

[Papa6]

I am still working on a map and have maxed out the clip plane and it works nice on my simple compaq. But it works just fine

plus on that same note, i don't get that low LOD texture like i get in the other maps. wierd.

But it is possible to open up the clip plane.

This may sound cheesy but I figured out the clipplane can be adjusted to full bore by placing 9999999999999 in the clip plane box at the start of your map guys. it does work nicely.

ok, back on topic and our regularly scheduled programming

Edited January 15, 2007 by Papa6

[Pritzl]

It's already in GRAW for AI soldiers. but for vehicles would be nice.

In GRAW I usually do a human with graph and then copy the graph over to the vehicle in the XML, which works but is not a really good solution.

I'm not talking about the AI and vehicle graphs, but the actual soldier/vehicle waypoints. Unless I'm mistaken, only the former can be done through the editor. The latter has to be added manually via the script file by adding <waypoint> entries within the AI group or vehicle.

I think the current system works quite good. Teh grid system for positioning items at differnet height and the "follow" object system with optional angle after face normal system it good as you always get the objects on the surface. I still age that some things are hard to place. Some vehicles comes to mind....

EDIT: I forgot that some of it requires a 4 button mouse. But that is quite common among gamers these days anyhow so shouldn't have to be considered.

Actually, I don't have a 4-button mouse but that's easily fixed with an optional keyboard override for the 4th button. What concerns me is the generally glitchy behaviour of the editor when manipulating objects.

This is essentially done as those objects have a name that starts with something similar and you can use the filter. But dividing them into different tabs would be nice.

Exactly. I know about the naming scheme but it's not enough imo. For one thing it is not 100% uniform.

? Explain this due to what you wrote in 5 about and XML editor.

Some parameters could be open to direct input. For example, we should be able to collate a number of AI groups into a single randomgroup by directly editing them so that they share the same randomgroup name. i.e., create the randomgroup in the editor itself, associate several AI groups with it from a drop-down box that lists all randomgroups in the mission, and set a probability for each. Granted, it's probably superfluous given request 5, but ease-of-use is what I'm looking for to encourage as many people as possible to work on new missions.

I don't see this as a problem. Alt-Tab. And XML is just as easy in NotePad as in an XML editor, you still have to know the language.

You may not but I do. On my system Alt-Tabbing always crashes the editor. It's simply not stable enough without me trying to go back to the desktop and come back. Besides, I'm not asking for a full-fledged XML editor with markup and what-not, just your basic text editor that allows access to the mission files from within the editor interface.

Do draft renders with single pass. Don't bother with the light and use the nightvision when testing is needed. Draft render on the mission 5 map took me 15 minutes I think.

15 minutes is still too long to discover simple errors. e.g. suppose you are play-testing to check whether all your groups appear as planned or not. You'd need ~15 minutes per render + say an hour per mission run through + however long it takes to find the problem group(s) and fix it multiplied over however many iterations it takes.

If alternatively, we could run the script through a quick evaluation routine that could identify things like "orphan" groups, invalid parameter values, etc... that would cut down on the number of passes required to verify a mission. i.e. playtesting would be more focused on checking the mission's balance, atmosphere etc, rather than troubleshooting core scripting errors.

Edited January 15, 2007 by Pritzl

[GRIN_Wolfsong]

It's already in GRAW for AI soldiers. but for vehicles would be nice.

In GRAW I usually do a human with graph and then copy the graph over to the vehicle in the XML, which works but is not a really good solution.

I'm not talking about the AI and vehicle graphs, but the actual soldier/vehicle waypoints. Unless I'm mistaken, only the former can be done through the editor. The latter has to be added manually via the script file by adding <waypoint> entries within the AI group or vehicle.

I'm actually talking about AI waypoint graphs as well, not the AI graph.

? Explain this due to what you wrote in 5 about and XML editor.

Some parameters could be open to direct input. For example, we should be able to collate a number of AI groups into a single randomgroup by directly editing them so that they share the same randomgroup name. i.e., create the randomgroup in the editor itself, associate several AI groups with it from a drop-down box that lists all randomgroups in the mission, and set a probability for each. Granted, it's probably superfluous given request 5, but ease-of-use is what I'm looking for to encourage as many people as possible to work on new missions.

That would probably require that all of the scripting is made that way. And that is a lot or work developers don't generally have time to do.

Do draft renders with single pass. Don't bother with the light and use the nightvision when testing is needed. Draft render on the mission 5 map took me 15 minutes I think.

15 minutes is still too long to discover simple errors. e.g. suppose you are play-testing to check whether all your groups appear as planned or not. You'd need ~15 minutes per render + say an hour per mission run through + however long it takes to find the problem group(s) and fix it multiplied over however many iterations it takes.

If alternatively, we could run the script through a quick evaluation routine that could identify things like "orphan" groups, invalid parameter values, etc... that would cut down on the number of passes required to verify a mission. i.e. playtesting would be more focused on checking the mission's balance, atmosphere etc, rather than troubleshooting core scripting errors.

Hmm... never had this problem. I set it up as an override mission while scripting so I don't have to export it between fixes. Only need to copy the world.xml and mission.xml into my override when I've made a change. Or simply edit the mission.xml in the right away, and then copy it back into the custom levels folder when I'm done.

If you haven't moved or added stats I think you can just select to export without lightmap generation. It always stores the latest lightmap in a custom levels subfolder and I think it includes what is already there if you choose not to generate a new one. Not 100% on this as I don't remember when I tested it, but logically it would do that. It would save some time.

Edited January 15, 2007 by Wolfsong

[Troutmaster]

Well here I go again; I want quick save feature!!!!!!!!! And also a better way of manage activate/deactivate of modes. Also that servers tell me what modes are needed, not only that I can not connect. All these things really ###### me of in GRAW. Next time I will wait and see before I buy GRAW2.

[Tinker]

...

As usual the only thing I am mainly concernd with is will or won't there be any meaningfull Co-op in this instalment ?

The attempts at this for GR:AW fell way short. Now don't take this as a slam, because it's not. There were many things I truly liked about GR:AW. The graphics were great, the sound even better. Tango movement and reaction was much better than GR. No more drawing in the entire map with a bunch of Gl's and waitng for them all to come running. Good maps and effects. The arty was very cool.

But as far as Co-op we die hard junkies of Co-op were left with a bit of a bad taste in our mouths and many gave up on the game very quickly. I still enjoy the FF's.

Another draw back is the learning curve for making missions. I thought Igor was a pain, and since I'm not a computer wiz I am totaly confused.

So here is to hoping that there is a bit better attention paid to a bit of meaningful Co-op.

Just my 2 cents.

@GRIN- the above comes from what we here at GRnet (you likely know this already) regard as THE authority on COOP Mission gameplay. When I see someone with the AS or SD tag add another $.02 to the conversation, I know it comes from EXPERIENCED, TALENTED folks with a reputation for excellence in that arena. Hell, AS made better maps for GR than did the developers (no offense, RSE)! I've played some of the missions from AS and SD (though admittedly NOT in the actual tournaments, but after the fact) and they're quite awesome. Like Charles Schwab, when these guys talk EVERYONE listens.

The point- please THESE folks, and I guarantee you'll please the rest of us diehards as well. Disappoint them, and GRAW2 will sell worse than GRAW did...

Post Rabbi

Mission scripting is dull, uninteresting and too much time consuming. No interest in trying anymore myself. Though i do favor the attempts of others, have all recent missions here.

There is no real Ghost Recon future here with real Recon Missions and Modes, i hope for an upgrade in that department, the whole process of making a single mission as it stands is just not fun to spend a few hours modding. Igor is a great example and did anyone try the Lockdown Editor?

Did someone mention different sets of AI? Elite to Dumbo would be good.

Why drop what works fine is my question?

Tinker

[kretzj]

It's a stand alone game, not an expansion pack; hence, GRAW2.

Thus, another $50 price tag from us for an expansion pack and bug fix combo.

[rossiski]

...

As usual the only thing I am mainly concernd with is will or won't there be any meaningfull Co-op in this instalment ?

The attempts at this for GR:AW fell way short. Now don't take this as a slam, because it's not. There were many things I truly liked about GR:AW. The graphics were great, the sound even better. Tango movement and reaction was much better than GR. No more drawing in the entire map with a bunch of Gl's and waitng for them all to come running. Good maps and effects. The arty was very cool.

But as far as Co-op we die hard junkies of Co-op were left with a bit of a bad taste in our mouths and many gave up on the game very quickly. I still enjoy the FF's.

Another draw back is the learning curve for making missions. I thought Igor was a pain, and since I'm not a computer wiz I am totaly confused.

So here is to hoping that there is a bit better attention paid to a bit of meaningful Co-op.

Just my 2 cents.

@GRIN- the above comes from what we here at GRnet (you likely know this already) regard as THE authority on COOP Mission gameplay. When I see someone with the AS or SD tag add another $.02 to the conversation, I know it comes from EXPERIENCED, TALENTED folks with a reputation for excellence in that arena. Hell, AS made better maps for GR than did the developers (no offense, RSE)! I've played some of the missions from AS and SD (though admittedly NOT in the actual tournaments, but after the fact) and they're quite awesome. Like Charles Schwab, when these guys talk EVERYONE listens.

The point- please THESE folks, and I guarantee you'll please the rest of us diehards as well. Disappoint them, and GRAW2 will sell worse than GRAW did...

That's quite a compliment, Rabbi. Much obliged.

You'll find the latest missions from Alpha Squad, 9MS, and +SD in the Community Coop Tourney (see sig below) certainly won't fall short of your expectations. If you're unable to join us during this latest tourney, don't worry, I'm pretty sure everything will be eventually released for all to enjoy.

@GRIN...please, please, please consider mission-based coop with more than 4 players this next time around. Kind regards.

[Demanufakture]

@GRIN: I can't wait to see the 1st person only, pc exclusive feature set that the GRAW2 is going to bring to my rig! The new story line that continues right where the first one ended is awesome and I like how we get to fight in the US and Mexico. I live in Texas so you can see why I like the new story . I like the new direction Tom Clancy games are going. I am also thrilled to know that GRIN will be making the sequel to their game. I have played all of the Ghost Recon games and they just keep getting better. Now I'll go back to waiting for more details on GRIN's GRAW2. Keep up the work guys, I'm sure GRAW2 is going to blow us all away!

Edited January 16, 2007 by Demanufakture

[Forrester]

The graphics and AI ar both LODed, the ghost shrinks from 8000 to 1000 triangles in 150 m, and the AI also gets less smart over distance. Don't ask me about specifics there because honestly I don't know exactly what happens, but I think I've heard that they both stop to check for certain things and the checks occur less often, as maybe each second instead of every frame. Still each AI soldier is the most demanding task for the enigne so adding tons of characters are really not a option even how much both you and we would have liked it.

As for upgrading, I can't promise anything since I don't know exactly where we will land, testers have to determine that with the final build I guess. But if you could run GRAW fine you should not need to worry that much about being able to run GRAW2 as well, but a gig of ram will probably be added to the minimum specs this time.

And we do our best to not to disappoint anyone, but you do know that you all want different things

I would like to suggest you to print out some threads of this forum and compare them, you'll get the grasp of what attracted us to GR and GRAW and which things went wrong.

I can understand that there are limited possibillities, but to me it seems the most active GRAW players/ fans come here and make their say.

Having less enemy's cause the AI becomes more realistic is good, but when in coop online there should be enough to shoot at, so maybe downgrade the enemy AI for online gameplay and increase the fun in that way.... (just an idea) Maybe some scripted tank/helo movements could increase the tension without demanding too much system power?

Less repetive terrain would do much good too IMO, mor realistic damaged buildings cans only in places where they should be (ass wel as fences in the middle of nowhere)

What GR had was realistic terrain because of the copy of theaters that exist its that simple. I know that there are limits because of the overall game (x-box and PC cant differ too much) but some nice candy trips to Mexico and the US might be well worth (as were the clan tags in GRAW MP)

Ah well I could go on and on..... Hope you are on scheme and deliver a game as fine as GRAW1 patched with some extra new stuff, anything more would be awesome

oh and please improve the mod activation/deactivation possibillities or at least explain us why it can't be done restarting the game every time i downloaded a map to see me being dropped cause the next map is new too is no fun....

Edited January 16, 2007 by Forrester

[GRIN_Wolfsong]

Having less enemy's cause the AI becomes more realistic is good, but when in coop online there should be enough to shoot at, so maybe downgrade the enemy AI for online gameplay and increase the fun in that way....

Having fewer players in coop helps balance this. If you're gonna be ghosts you won't go in with large numbers anyhow.

[Forrester]

Having less enemy's cause the AI becomes more realistic is good, but when in coop online there should be enough to shoot at, so maybe downgrade the enemy AI for online gameplay and increase the fun in that way....

Having fewer players in coop helps balance this. If you're gonna be ghosts you won't go in with large numbers anyhow.

well I'd rather have the "old" 6 or 9 than 4, most cland don't play coop cause too many players can't join the game.

We were online with 6-12 most of the time, so I'd rather see a good 6 ppl coop than the 12 ppl firefight modes we have now. It lets you experience different skills...... The tanks built in custom [GR] COOP maps are mostly stationary and the story is missing mostly. Those well done GR mods like Frostbite can't be done in GRAW and thats a shame, though I can understand with the sophisticated build of this game easy modding days are over (I'm no modder so I just can comment on what I've seen)

But those screenies get me drewling