Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RadioActiveLobster

The ArmA III Engine

Recommended Posts

On of my biggest hopes for ArmA III is a vastly improved Engine (not necessarily in terms of how pretty it is but how well it runs)

As it stands right now the engine in ArmA II OA is a great engine but it still has some issues (as do all engines)

My questions then are what are these "radical engine improvements"? Is this a new engine from scratch (unlikely)? Major overhauls or rewrites to the rendering pipelines?

I don't want to use it as a direct comparison (because the scopes/scales of the games are different) but Frostbite 2/Battlefield 3 have that same realistic look and if what I have read is true it's been demoing on a single GTX580 @ 60fps.

I have crossfired 6950's and have trouble maintaining 60fps (consistently) in certain situations in ArmA II OA (with details on high, 1600m draw distance)

What are your thoughts on how this new(?)/improved engine should handle?

PhysX sounds nice but not everyone has nVidia hardware, why not Havok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, is it using a upgraded version of the Real Virtuality engine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ArmA III Engine

I am pretty sure it is not Outerra though :rolleyes:

i'm sorry, i really am, but i just couldn't let it go after all the nonsense about it in the last few days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't need nVidia hardware to use PhysX.

To use hardware accelerated PhysX you do. You can run it off of your CPU if you want to cut your framerates in half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no way I can rob enough old ladies to fund a new pc for this...

:386:

Having said this I really have no issues with my 8800GTS because I've never checked the fps... If I can hit something I'm aiming at, that's good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, do a google research first on nvidia physix softwere then edit your post lol...

ATI can also run Nvidias physix, its just softwear, the software that your g-card is handeling and procesing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defered lighting would allow for more dynamic lights and shadows.It seems to be well documented now, so by 2012 it should be a given I think. They don't need to go as far as Frostbite/cryengine style with real-time radiosity though.

The new ragdoll effects means it's going to be bone based and not just baked point-animation (rtms) so, it's probably much more flexible and reactive to the environment. The rest of the physics and vehicle handling is covered.

I had hopes about DX11 tesselation features, especially for the terrain : it could give you really the extra detail you need for small ditches, rocks etc... They already mastered parallax mapping, so it's still plausible, but being advertised as DX10, I don't know if it will be a standard feature.

Basically a more flexible terrain grid system (variable density of cells) and geometry (with caves and overhangs) could have been great, but I have doubts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol, do a google research first on nvidia physix softwere then edit your post lol...

ATI can also run Nvidias physix, its just softwear, the software that your g-card is handeling and procesing....

You have a very aptly written signature. AMD/ATI cards cannot run hardware accelerated PhysX (which is its main selling point). You can off load the PhysX processing to your CPU but unless you are running a i7-990x or Dual Xeons on an SR-2 its going to drastically cut your framerates. I've tried it (Batman AA, Mafia 2) and it just isn't worth the performance it.

Now I could be wrong, it's possible the PhysX BI are putting in ArmA III are mainly gimmicky things like the PhysX features in pretty much every game that's had them so far (realistic swirling paper! Chunks of stuff fall down!) and if they arn't used for people who don't want them then nothing is lost.

One thing I am curious about as well is the lack of DX11 rendering pipeline. Even if they ignore most of the features of DX11 (Tesselation, etc...) from what I understand the DX11 renderer is vastly superior to DX9/DX10 and would allow for faster rendering even if only using DX9/DX10 features. Someone correct me if I am wrong on this.

Edited by S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PhysX is used for non-gimmicky things in VBS2, it's essential for attaching a trailer to the back of a vehicle. As well as fast-roping (although probably not essential for this one, the rope moves prettily though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am pretty sure it is not Outerra though :rolleyes:

i'm sorry, i really am, but i just couldn't let it go after all the nonsense about it in the last few days

Weren't you also calling the PhysX talk nonsense as well :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it will include some engine upgrades from latest VSB2, such as terrain paging, and support for underground structures as described here.

What I'm hoping for is smooth gameplay.:yay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weren't you also calling the PhysX talk nonsense as well :p

no, i was calling the physiX as the only physics engine out there nonsense.

regarding BIS PhysiX implementation, we'll just have to wait and see. I am sure there will be more information closer to release date, which might be important for my future upgrade investment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol, do a google research first on nvidia physix softwere then edit your post lol...

ATI can also run Nvidias physix, its just softwear, the software that your g-card is handeling and procesing....

People will never learn...

How about keeping your CPU free from physics? Why don't you do a google research to understand that a CPU is good por general processing, but just plain SUCKS at parallel computing! It's just a waste of CPU power that you need for AI.

Unless Nvidia changes the game, AMD GPU users will have less performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if it will include some engine upgrades from latest VSB2, such as terrain paging, and support for underground structures

Wow, good find.

underground structures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You dragged a thread from 2011 back from the depths to call it crap?? That required a search for sure. and its a first post. Nice way to start your tenure here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You dragged a thread from 2011 back from the depths to call it crap?? That required a search for sure. and its a first post. Nice way to start your tenure here.

Well he did at least use the search function rather than post a question about something that sits on the front page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He/she is entitled to his/her opinion. Now let the thread go back to sleep please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know more about DX11 and RV4, as well as what RV4 is currently capable of doing, despite possible destruction of FPS. Maybe we may find out with the Expansion if the Dev's take those, "risks" they were talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This engine, if Poseidon was released in 1997, was probably developed in 1996.

Making it older than I am.

I mod for an engine older than me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×