Survey: Which engine enhancement would you like to see?

[CameronMcDonald 146]

I would like to see the game made less accessible for mainstream users. God knows how things go downhill when you attempt to go in the other direction. :p

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I would like to see the game made less accessible for mainstream users. God knows how things go downhill when you attempt to go in the other direction. :p

Could be offtopic: all they ever wanted is some love, they couldn't get past the form to appreciated the function, form being animations most of the case.

[dmarkwick 261]

an amazing Lighting engine.

Actually, yes. Although Bullet physics implementation is still my No 1, a new lighting engine would be a close second. Deferred lighting would make the current light limit go away, and enable an almost limitless number of lights to be rendered for very little overhead.

[maddogx 13]

Actually, yes. Although Bullet physics implementation is still my No 1, a new lighting engine would be a close second. Deferred lighting would make the current light limit go away, and enable an almost limitless number of lights to be rendered for very little overhead.

Would those be full shadow casting lights, or the simplistic ones that are in-game now? I'm not familiar with deferred lighting.

[dmarkwick 261]

Would those be full shadow casting lights, or the simplistic ones that are in-game now? I'm not familiar with deferred lighting.

It's a complex topic, but the way I understand it is that although deferred rendering of lights is generally more expensive than forward lighting (the current ArmA2 lighting method), the overhead for each new light added is less, so for a sufficiently complex scene deferred lighting eventually becomes more efficient than forward lighting.

The benefits for the ArmA2 engine will be more visible lights. Ever been in a town at night and watched as streetlights and vehicle headlights battle each other for rendering time? Lets say the hardware of your video card can only handle 16 lights, the ArmA2 engine tries to decide which lights are "most important" based on brightness, proximity etc. So a close-to-the-player dim light, like a campfire, will take more priority over a distant streetlight that is more powerful. However back away a little, and the campfire light may go out and the distant streetlight may come on as the game engine decides that the more powerful streetlight is more visible than the nearer, but dimmer, campfire. It's a balancing act.

But deferred lighting would mean that all lights can be rendered no matter how many. Deferred lighting would give you an initial FPS hit, but that hit is then unaffected by the number of lights.

[Mr. Charles 22]

This would be cool too, is the light itself then stopped by walls? In ArmA your flashlights are laserrays of doom, which shine through walls.

But as I said, it is tough to only decide on one of these things.

[PuFu 4600]

1. physics (bullet above havok or alike)

2. autodownload

3. animation system overhaul

[-Paladin- 10]

Walking/moving in vehicles, shooting from vehicles

Also pretty self-explanatory.

Vehicle physics/handling improvements

For the hardcore pilots and drivers.

This and a Platoon AI

[Westsailor 10]

Eye candy (particles, lighting, animations, etc.) is always nice but my vote goes toward the netcode.

It's fundamental to successful online play and you just can never do enough to improve it.

2ndly would be bullet physics and 3rdly would be improving AI

[Flash Thunder 10]

Yes its a difficult task to only ask for one improvement.

Deffered lighting is implemented in Dragon Rising and Red River.

Particle effect systems would greatly benefit from deffered lighting rendering, such as tracers giving off a realistic luminance on the battlefield.

Night time and dusk settings would be greatly improved, seeing you could have both the Sun and Moon cast dynamic shadows, currently its only the Sun or the moon not both.

Arma 3 would look incredibly sexy and overall would run more efficiently then the current lighting engine.

Alternative: Performance/optimization/polish (LOD issues, FPS stutter, net lag, bugs, inconsistencies, poor design choices etc).

Honestly this should be more of a standard, BIS has been growing since 2009, I would expect BIS to hold Arma 3 back as long as possible before releasing it on the market. I really dont want another Arma 2 1.01, Arma 3 should have very minimal LOD issues (it cant be perfect), overall the polish can be higher.

I would rather have a few less features with tons of polish and work on day one then alot of features that need alot of patch work.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Flash Thunder

[trips 10]

I voted none of the above. I want a cover system that players and AI can use. One that lets units expose a minimum amount of flesh and lets them pop up and down quickly. Something similar to BiA: Hell's Highway or the up-coming Red Orchestra game. If units behind cover are harder to kill that puts a bigger emphasis on tactics.

The lack of necessity for tactics is one of my biggest disappointments in the game. Pick the spot with the best cover and attrit; so many missions are really just shooting galleries.

[killaalf 0]

Updated weapon simulation (chambered rounds etc.)

[carlostex 38]

1. Bullet Physics ftw. Forget about PhysX or Havok it's not gonna happen with those i'll eat my hat.

2. CQB. New AI programming when AI is in buildings. AI could move better than ever inside buildings and we could have the best of both worlds. Outdoor war and urban house to house clearing.

[wamingo 1]

I voted none of the above. I want a cover system that players and AI can use. One that lets units expose a minimum amount of flesh and lets them pop up and down quickly. Something similar to BiA: Hell's Highway or the up-coming Red Orchestra game. If units behind cover are harder to kill that puts a bigger emphasis on tactics.

The lack of necessity for tactics is one of my biggest disappointments in the game. Pick the spot with the best cover and attrit; so many missions are really just shooting galleries.

There are some downsides to those sorts of cover systems though.

Objects that can be used as cover are defined, placed and modelled to pretty rigid specifications (size, position etc). Basicly, they have to match the animations made specificly for each type of cover. Object not defined as a type of cover, in most cases can't be used as cover, even when it looks perfectly valid. You find this in a lot of games - especially with corners. It looks like a corner you could put your back to and lean from etc, but often can't.

One of the biggest downside to such a system is that enemy locations can become predictable because objects that can be used as "proper" cover is fixed and has limited flexibility.

In arma you can stack sandbags ontop of eachother or even make them float in the air if you so desired. I imagine that type of flexibility would not be trivial to code a regular cover system for.

Now, I'm all for cover improvements if at all possible. But I'm unconvinced that this particular system is what arma needs.

[trips 10]

There are some downsides to those sorts of cover systems though.

Objects that can be used as cover are defined, placed and modelled to pretty rigid specifications (size, position etc). Basicly, they have to match the animations made specificly for each type of cover. Object not defined as a type of cover, in most cases can't be used as cover, even when it looks perfectly valid. You find this in a lot of games - especially with corners. It looks like a corner you could put your back to and lean from etc, but often can't.

They could still be used as cover, but only as cover is used currently, i.e. with crouch & lean. Nothing would be lost.

One of the biggest downside to such a system is that enemy locations can become predictable because objects that can be used as "proper" cover is fixed and has limited flexibility.

In arma you can stack sandbags ontop of eachother or even make them float in the air if you so desired. I imagine that type of flexibility would not be trivial to code a regular cover system for.

Perhaps mission maker-placed objects could be 'compiled' when the mission is .pbo'd so that compound or oddly placed objects are given a 'cover LOD' or maybe just evaluated to see if they'd be appropriate and the cover system disabled if they're not (stacked, at an odd angle)?

Now, I'm all for cover improvements if at all possible. But I'm unconvinced that this particular system is what arma needs.

I think if the game's supposed to be played with tactics that reflect real-life AI need to be a lot harder to shoot.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Animation system overhaul (CQB)

By that I also mean focus on the little stuff. I know it's animation eyecandy, but it makes the game engine feel old with static hands on the steering wheel, no gear shifting, static pose when operating a helicopter machinegun/minigun.

Breaking anims is highest on the list though. I think forced anims counts for 50% of my kills. But AI must also be able to do this. There is currently no speed and smoothness associated with AI firing, standing up, running for cover, and hitting the deck - making them very easy targets.

As for the option "Walking/moving in vehicles, shooting from vehicles", I think the shooting part is way more important than the walking/moving part - it's a war sim, not a dance floor :p. Having the walking/moving part also denies any LOD tricks that goes on to aid performance.

I would also like to have more focus on individualism by config rather than general rules that won't satisfy us. I.e. the vehicle speeds at different surfaces (locked amphibious water speed? :D) and slopes. I'm amazed how I can go 90km/h steep offroad uphill in a heavy Stryker, whereas a relatively light HMMWV will struggle right next to the flat road due to surface type.

Oh, and reduce the warping ;)

[coopr 10]

Animation system overhaul (CQB)

By that I also mean focus on the little stuff. I know it's animation eyecandy, but it makes the game engine feel old with static hands on the steering wheel, no gear shifting, static pose when operating a helicopter machinegun/minigun.

Breaking anims is highest on the list though. I think forced anims counts for 50% of my kills. But AI must also be able to do this. There is currently no speed and smoothness associated with AI firing, standing up, running for cover, and hitting the deck - making them very easy targets.

As for the option "Walking/moving in vehicles, shooting from vehicles", I think the shooting part is way more important than the walking/moving part - it's a war sim, not a dance floor :p. Having the walking/moving part also denies any LOD tricks that goes on to aid performance.

I would also like to have more focus on individualism by config rather than general rules that won't satisfy us. I.e. the vehicle speeds at different surfaces (locked amphibious water speed? :D) and slopes. I'm amazed how I can go 90km/h steep offroad uphill in a heavy Stryker, whereas a relatively light HMMWV will struggle right next to the flat road due to surface type.

Oh, and reduce the warping ;)

As you said +1

[MoS 0]

All of these things are irrelevant if the game continues to be so jerky and warpy in multiplayer. It kills all the immersion, everything is really dumb looking when people and stuff warps around.

So; Alternative, a better netcode. I can not play the game the way it is right now in multiplayer, that stuff is the stuff that causes nightmares.

THIS!

We all know that multiplayer was the key of success in OFP (besides modding). But since ArmA I, MP just isn´t the same anymore. The world doesn´t feel "persistent" or "immersive" when everything lags/warps around.

You absolutely have to add Netcode improvements to the list!

[Jacky60 10]

Fire extinguisher to get rid of the smoke plume giveaway from burning vehicle-Co2 should be easy.

[Atkins 10]

I would like an option for the netcode fix. Make this game playable with 128+ players online.

[Primarch 10]

I would like an option for the netcode fix. Make this game playable with 128+ players online.

More like make it playable with 15 players first. It rages the shit out of me that I am not able to play with all of my friends at the same time without lag.

[Atkins 10]

Indeed.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

It would absolutely make my day if BIS bought a license for the full Havok physics/animation engine suite.

Not only does it do fantastic physics simulation, it also includes a full animation suite that does something vitally important: Motion blending. Oh, and full featured facial animations based on the actual speech patters of the voice over, synchronized. Aaand, a proven MP track record for minimal netcode impact.

One license purchase from BIS would drastically change nearly everything about this game.

[Zipper5 74]

Well, people seem to forget that even Dragon Rising apparently used Havok physics and... That didn't turn out too good. :p

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Dragon Rising uses a very weak and half-assed implementation of Havok. And I imagine the only reason they 'did' use it was because Codemasters already owns the license to use it in EGO engine games, and was already embedded in the code they were forced to use to get the game out as quick as they did.

It's also used in Dead Rising 2, Just Cause 2, Bioshock(s), Assassin Creed(s), Uncharted 2, FEAR(s), Fallout(s), Oblivion, and most notably, Portal 2. These games are well noted for having some of the best physics and animations in the industry.