Realtime immersive - Militar simulator cryengine

[-Snafu- 77]

So you think that our Army will never again be involved in future conflicts.:rolleyes:

I didn't say that but considering the circumstances the US fighting another major war within the next 10 years is low.

After that, heck even within that time, graphics will have jumped ahead of what we have now making the graphics argument redundant. Graphics, IMHO, is not worth millions and a more sound investment would be a proven engine that is flexible and can be upgraded when necessary.

[froggyluv 2130]

I'm sure it's not as simplistic as Defense going "Ooooooh, shiny!" and forking over money purely for pleasing asthetics.

Isn't it more probable that different engines will be used to support different training applications based on it's particular strength in that area :rolleyes:

[AviPure 1]

I think we should have a vote (just for curiosity, no other reason else).. who would rather play the realtime immerisive version of arma? State your reasons as well...

[froggyluv 2130]

I think we should have a vote (just for curiosity, no other reason else).. who would rather play the realtime immerisive version of arma? State your reasons as well...

But thats kind of a silly question don't ya think? Sure, I'd like to try Arma in any new engine just outta curiousity -who wouldn't?

[onlyrazor 11]

I really hope you mean DR/RR. Even if Consolemasters own the name and brand, you can't call those failures OFP. There is only one OFP, the one developed by BIS...

/lé fake French accent

But of course :D

Oh, and guys? There's no need for this 'perfectly sensible' thread to degenerate into a flamefest between RV and CE3 supporters. The DoD can have both :p

Allow me to close with the immortal words of Maruk:

There are of course many different engines around, each has its own strengths and also weakness, nothing is black and white.

Edited December 27, 2011 by OnlyRazor

[Timmoboy 10]

Edit: nevermind

[AviPure 1]

But thats kind of a silly question don't ya think? Sure, I'd like to try Arma in any new engine just outta curiousity -who wouldn't?

No, i meant 'I' wanted to see out of curiosity what other people's opinions would be.

[Messiah 2]

No, i meant 'I' wanted to see out of curiosity what other people's opinions would be.

Divided... one assumes

[Daniel 0]

How do you define Arma with a different engine? How do you distinguish Arma from the RV engine?

[-Snafu- 77]

I'm sure it's not as simplistic as Defense going "Ooooooh, shiny!" and forking over money purely for pleasing asthetics.

Isn't it more probable that different engines will be used to support different training applications based on it's particular strength in that area :rolleyes:

Of course, but the article posted earlier indicated that they were going to look for a replacement of the current system in 5+ years.

In addition to the Dismounted Soldier order, the Army is conducting market research on video gaming technologies for a first-person shooter that can replace or improve its flagship game to train individual soldiers and small units. The service currently uses Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS2), which offers the ability to operate land, sea and air vehicles in various scenarios via realistic simulations.

“We will squeeze as much capability as we can out of the flagship for five years, or as resources allow, and then test the market for new technology,†she says.

Thus my question is what are these millions of dollars going to get that the current system doesn't provide? So far all we have seen is that the graphics are a lot better and this isn't taking into account of what VBS2 could evolve into in several years.

There's no buckets of money to throw around these days.

[froggyluv 2130]

Well it's really impossible to speculate what and why they are looking to change engines and why CRY has apparently won them over. Perhaps it's the overall "feel" of the simulation as opposed to just graphics.

Honestly we havent seen really anything in terms of AI/large scale/functionality but that doesn't mean they haven't.

Or of course maybe CRY just have better salesmen :p

[Daniel 0]

Or of course maybe CRY just have better salesmen :p

Knowing the defence industry it could be any number of reasons beyond pure performance... ;)

[batto 17]

Hi. In reply to Cripsis from recently locked ARMA3 thread (with all respect to forum rules):

Give it up man, time to face the facts, RV engine is outdated and it's no secret within the wider gaming community. Deal with it.

How can you conclude it from few ARMA3 videos from E3 from several months ago. Have you considered the option that RV will have better graphics in future (say... summer 2012) if the graphics is the only thing you compare? (BIS and id Software collaboration? ).

EDIT: Wtf is "wider gaming community"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Edited December 27, 2011 by batto

[maddogx 13]

EDIT: Wtf is "wider gaming community"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

It's just one of many ways certain people add false weight to their arguments, simply by saying "everyone agrees with me".

[Tonci87 163]

Its like saying "I think that most gamers would agree with me"

[Dwarden 1124]

because this thread turned in e-peen this or that over xyz and seems to servs more like viral marketing for XYZ ... until there is some worthy news from RTI ... it's closed ...

[max power 21]

thread opened for new news.

[maturin 12]

What news it that? Couldn't dig any up.

[dm 9]

Thanks Max,

so, like I said here:

Intelligent Decisions said that Cryengine 3... ...combat simulation systems will be using this... ...technology globally by January 2012.

If it was going to be deployed next month, surely they would have been showing a cryEngine based demo at I/ITSEC last month, and not something running VBS2? (That article is from May, I/ITSEC showing VBS2 based DSTS was in November, deployment is in January... Just sayin...)

Now that the "January 2012" deadline has passed, it becoems clear to see that all this huff about the cryengine seems to be just that [so far]: huff!

First up, there is this presentation on DSTS, which mentions only VBS.

Then there is this Stars & Stripes report, from January of this year, which clearly shows VBS.

And finally, the cherry on top, so to speak, is the Intelligent Decisions website its self, detailing the outlines of DSTS. And whats that in the screenshots? Is it Crytek/CryEngine? Doh ho ho ho, no it isnt, its good ole VBS2.

So, it would seem that DSTS uses VBS [for now], and not cryEngine. (if thats not VBS, I'll eat my hat. :D Go BIS

Edited March 29, 2012 by DM

[soul_assassin 1745]

So, it would seem that DSTS uses VBS [for now], and not cryEngine. (if thats not VBS, I'll eat my hat. :D Go BIS

lol yellow chainlink :)

[dm 9]

Intelligent Decisions said that Cryengine 3... ...combat simulation systems will be using this... ...technology globally by January 2012.

Now that the "January 2012" deadline has passed, it becoems clear to see that all this huff about the cryengine seems to be just that [so far]: huff!

So, it would seem that DSTS uses VBS [for now], and not cryEngine. (if thats not VBS, I'll eat my hat. :D Go BIS

More proof that DSTS runs VBS2 and not some cryengine nonsense.

[Mr. Charles 22]

Who ya gonna call?

[Madeon 6]

New video -

FZ7ODmVgMk0

[jw custom 56]

New video -

So thats Battlefield 3.5 ?

[Opticalsnare 12]

I think they are confused as to what a simulation is, and the word "realism" has been raped so hard these past few years that word doesnt even have a meaning anymore.