ARMA3 - Brand new engine or backward compatibility?

[Flash Thunder 10]

As for SLI. Last time I checked the Valve hardware surveys, only 2% of Steam users (which I would consider a good representative sample of PC gamers as you will ever get) have SLI systems. Should BIS go to all that effort to cater to them? I'm not so sure.

And you're right, I actually never looked up the statistic I was just listing it as a problem under performance, I think the same doubt SLI/Crossfire will even matter when they develope smaller mono GPUS

And as for physics upgrades in the next version I would expect things like objects equiped being lifted up when near walls so they dont go through the mesh, more detailed collision models, would be cool if bodies fell to the ground instead of Lay down while falling, and bodies laying flat while on a sloped surface.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Gods know i'd be more than willing to learn another scripting language from the ground up if i get a brand new ArmA3 which is worth the hazzle.

1. A squad AI that gives a realistic impression of inhouse fighting/close quarters. Covering corners, taking cover, giving hand signals to advance/retreat etc.

2. Better com sounds. Switching from a whispering mode (stealth mode) to normal talk (safe mode) to screaming (combat mode) automaticly.

3. Physics.

4. Transparent models for LOD switching. (new LOD model slowly becomes static, old LOD model slowly disappears)

[Engioc 10]

I wonder just how easy it's going to be to design an engine that would offer a worthwhile increase in efficiency and scalability over the current one.

It's very easy for people to say "Game X looks better than ArmA 2 and yet it runs better on my machine." The reality is that you have to consider the scale of what BIS' engine is generating. Things like the Source engine, championed as the wonder engine that runs great on the slowest of PCs, would shit itself over half of what the BIS engine has to do (case in point - Garry's Mod will eat a well spec'd computer on big maps with lots of objects) Hell, I'm sure there's probably an argument to be made for BIS' engine being the most efficient computer game engine out there. Who knows? Certainly not going to be simple to improve on it in a way that justifies the years of work and millions of euros that a substantial rewrite would take.

As for SLI. Last time I checked the Valve hardware surveys, only 2% of Steam users (which I would consider a good representative sample of PC gamers as you will ever get) have SLI systems. Should BIS go to all that effort to cater to them? I'm not so sure.

On grahpics I'll totally agree with you there, I don't find anything wrong with the visuals in this game, thats never been a problem as far as I can see, heck even A1 still looks great in my opinion, but then again I was a gamer back in the early 80s so anything is an improvement over that.

On Physics though, well I wouldn't say I was happy with the Physics so far. It does do a lot of things well, but there are also plenty of times when I think A2 ends up looking rather lame when you see how vehicles/tanks etc react to the terrain. It's not absolutely terrible, but its not great either. I've seen people saying its not to do with the engine but just down to some configuration, well if that's the case, why didn't BI do a better job? If its just a few simple changes, why did they release a game where tanks roll around on stones as if they were huge boulders? On road they work fine, but take your vehicle cross country or let the AI do the driving and you'll see how bad it gets. Some of it is just bad AI driving, but even when your controlling it yourself it still doesn't react in a realistic manner.

However I dont believe that is the biggest problem for ArmA.

Two biggest problems I see for BI and ArmA, poor AI driving, but worse still is how unknown this game is. People will never experience what is good about this game because hardly anyone knows it exists. Oh and I realise an engine change wont fix those problems.

As for comments saying it might be a long time before BI do A3 (if ever) well I'm not really worried about that. I think we will see A3 at some point and I think BI are right to take a break for 3 or 4 years even before they do A3, and that is a long time in gaming/tech. I think all too often these days companies push to release too many games, companies like Ubisoft now moving to pumping games out every year which I think is a really bad move, I've never liked mass produced crap like CoD, NFS, or EA Sports for example. I believe when we do eventually get to A3 it will feature many changes to the engine and other aspects of the game and I'm sure BI already know what will be needed before they make A3. So in the end I'll agree with comments that this is a rather pointless thread since BI are smart enough to figure out what changes need to be made by themselves. I suspect some of them will be quite big changes, some small, its normal. What I'd hope for from BI until A3 is just keep releasing expansions and DLC for A2, the game looks great so just keep using what they have for now.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Engioc

[polar bear 10]

Forget about "Arma 3".

Just fix all the bugs in Arma 2 and OA.

[dm 9]

Forget about "Arma 3".

Just fix all the bugs in Arma 2 and OA.

[echo1 0]

Forget about "Arma 3".

Just fix all the bugs in Arma 2 and OA.

BUT OMG WE NEED A NEW ENGINE TO FIX THE BUGS!!!111(eleven)

*coughs*

[MrXToTheN 10]

I'm for a complete rewrite. That way they can build an engine targetting current and future needs using their existing knowledge and have less bugs than before. The engine will be more modern and run better (I hope).

[76 0]

How about you all do you're jobs and BI will do theirs.... or how about you ppl enjoy what you have now.

This is a stupid thread.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I'm for a complete rewrite. That way they can build an engine targetting current and future needs using their existing knowledge and have less bugs than before. The engine will be more modern and run better (I hope).

FPDR

This is why this thread is a lost cause. People just don't understand what they are talking about.

I can practically guaruntee you that if BIS rewrote the entire engine, it'd have just as many bugs as before. For some reason people think that a rewrite automatically implies improvement. It may improve in some areas, but it'd probably also become much worse in others...

[SASrecon 0]

Developing a new engine is the way forward for BIS, over 10 years or ago the

was developed; some would argue that sticking to this engine is the way forward.

It's old, the animations are clunky and many new features need workarounds to implement, if BIS develop a new engine they could build something revolutionary like back in the ofp days and completely redefine the ARMAversum.

Backwards compatibility is an issue however, I don't know too much about porting and addon-making but surely if it's the same type of game, it's possible to port the current models..

I am aware that part of BIS is exploring a new engine and game-concept (carrier command) and wish them luck with this :rolleyes:

Just imagine if BIS could create something like the rendered Dragon Rising stuff That would set a new standard for the pc-gaming industry, it would also be much more attractive for militaries around the world, having many features simulated in a much more visually-immersive and diverse manner.

--

Someone please wake me up... :D

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Man I was seriously just gonna post that video... but as an example of how far RV has come. Maybe it will make people realize that the engine is not some old clunky thing that cannot be drastically improved without rewriting it all.

[polar bear 10]

Well serious answer:

Rewrites from scratch are almost always a big disaster and a great way to bankrupt your company. As I love playing ArmA and don't want to see it disappear anytime soon I strongly suggest that BIS avoid a complete rewrite at all possible cost. It is never as simple as you think, the current code will embody all sorts of insights that won't really be captured at the level of an ArmA 3 design document so too much would be lost resulting in a rewrite turning out to be more work than expected and not necessarily even superior.

On the other hand going through and doing a major overhaul of the engine and adding all sorts of new capabilities to it would presumably be exactly what an "ArmA 3" would mean, as opposed to more "Operation Arrowhead" style versions of ArmA 2.

Breaking backwards compatibility between 2 and 3 is OK to me if there is sufficient advantage to be gained--so it would come down to looking at specifically what would be added. I'd be willing to suffer a loss of compatibility if it meant an end to problems like not being able to run in and out of doors in an urban environment without getting stuck in them, etc., but not just for some new vehicle types or other content.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Polar Bear

[nocturna 10]

Just rewrite the netcode, im sick of the warping. Oh and hire a QA team, BI obviously doesnt have one

Edited August 8, 2010 by nocturna

[echo1 0]

I'm for a complete rewrite. That way they can build an engine targetting current and future needs using their existing knowledge and have less bugs than before. The engine will be more modern and run better (I hope).

You forgot to use the word "Synergy"

[Flash Thunder 10]

weird turned the settings to low and normal with a 1024x768 resolution and a whopping 1km viewdistance

and im still getting abysmal performance, all I want to do is finnish the god damn campaign BIS! :(

my computer must being doing something evil to keep the fps at 15-20 in the campaign where nothings happening, graphics look like something from ps2 and my cpu usage is only getting up to like 45% on all 4 cores hmmmm.....

whens the patch coming out that will actually increase performance for us, like the one arma 1 supposedly had a 125% performance increase or something...

[Peonza 10]

Smoothness should be focus imo

[Quakecry 10]

Well, imagine a game like arma 2, just with lets say the frostbite engine, or just an engine that have ragdolls and everything. That would be awesome.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Well, imagine a game like arma 2, just with lets say the frostbite engine, or just an engine that have ragdolls and everything. That would be awesome.

Im imagining Battlefield right now.

[PuFu 4600]

Well, imagine a game like arma 2, just with lets say the frostbite engine, or just an engine that have ragdolls and everything. That would be awesome.

1. ragdolls are getting old now (and so is the fixed anim system BI is using)

2. frostbite engine has been used solely for BF games.

3. imagine that your game will not even start using that engine, due to the sheer size of information it would need to process...

I know this is a free forum and all, but some you don't really use the cerebral matter before throwing "an idea" (weird thing, no?) out in the wild.

If i would never post in this thread if

a) i had no idea what a game engine actually is, and mix it up with a physics engine

b) i had no idea about lighting, shaders etc within a game

Anyhow, it is great everyone wants more from A2, but on the other hand the "same" everyone bickers about performance...

[knight_sy 10]

I hope that the new amra 3 do not need any new patch

I wish it come without any errors

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I hope that the new amra 3 do not need any new patch

I wish it come without any errors

You obviously don't understand software then...