Arma 3: Confirmed features | info & discussion

[max power 21]

Sounds good. I'll transfer it.

---------- Post added at 01:52 ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 ----------

Merge Completed. Thread Cleaned.

Thank you for your post, Corvinus. Your post can be found here.

[PuFu 4600]

Whoa, what? When was it said that ARMA 3 was going to be one of the last in the series?

don't worry, he's talking out of his bottom..

Dwarden, are you guys actually using a physics engine like this.

It helps keep things interesting, but what exactly are you guys doing? I saw in the first public preview of ArmA 3 a lot of very nice physics. But is destruction really going to be a valuable asset, or is that still yet not decided?

1. they are NOT using Havok

2. Everything you've seen in that vid can also be achieved with Physx

3. No, BIS already said there will be little to no improvements in terms of destruction. So all in all you will most likely NOT see that sort of stuff going on.

A lot of people are wondering about it, considering it may be one of the last ArmA games.

Where exactly did you pull that out of?

I work on the Unreal Development Kit

You work ON, or you work WITH?

and they have a Fracture tool where you can take any object loaded in a map and open it in the Fracture editor. It allows you to assign different effects like smoke or sparks etc... and it also allows materials. With the exception of changing the shapes of fractures, like chunks or bending. If it were possible to even shoot holes through bricks and stuff, this game could enhance combat by a mile stone. I used to watch World War II videos, and all of the nice little towns people lived in were getting destroyed [sadly]. But my observation is that all of the debris gave more concealment and cover. Such as Battlefield 3 in some ways has done, but this Havok engine looks so damn nice its outstanding :O

? point is?

[bloodxgusher 10]

Hey everyone.

Does anyone know whats the setup with Arma 3's scripting/modding? Will we be able to use Arma 2 code/files? Or are we looking at having to learn a new set of rules to edit missions and such.

Thanks.

Also modderator. I THINK the link "New scripting technology" is misplaced. That link takes me to threads about "Take on Helicopter"

Edited April 30, 2012 by BloodxGusher
Error

[DeclaredEvol 10]

don't worry, he's talking out of his bottom..

1. they are NOT using Havok

2. Everything you've seen in that vid can also be achieved with Physx

3. No, BIS already said there will be little to no improvements in terms of destruction. So all in all you will most likely NOT see that sort of stuff going on.

Where exactly did you pull that out of?

You work ON, or you work WITH?

? point is?

Why do you want me to point out the obvious? I'm not a developer of the UDK and I am friends with a few, on the contrary I have worked at Epic Games and worked with the Unreal Engine for 12 years. And I have as much experience with physics as you do with ArmA so its not a matter of competition. But answering the question on the Fracture tool, it is a tool for fragmenting objects without using a 3d modelling software. Something similar is used in BF3 and any other game. I believe it could be implemented to Oxygen if they wanted to... but why did you come to me with retorts. Do you think I came on here so I could see your smart comments? And where did you get the assumption that I was asking you, you're obviously somebody who doesn't like answering questions. So shh...

Edited May 1, 2012 by DeclaredEvol

[Flash Thunder 10]

I don't think its in the best interest that BIS tax our CPU's further with fractured based physics.

Seeing that all the physx in Arma 3 are going to be done by CPU.

[DeclaredEvol 10]

I don't think its in the best interest that BIS tax our CPU's further with fractured based physics.

Seeing that all the physx in Arma 3 are going to be done by CPU.

You may be right, but if you wanted my opinion that was it. I have spent most of my money and time building a good pc for a game worth the run, but if I am not getting the challenge I worked for. Where would this be going? :P

I am also implying that I went from Lower Class to Poverty recently, so I don't have internet to talk or game with anyone now. I am quite bored, and I am also tired of seeing little to no advancements in true CPU and GPU support for games. If a game like BF3 can be played with such immense physics and graphical effects, I know ArmA 3 can do the same thing. ArmA 3 has quite a superior engine compared to most, to be able to make such LARGE scale terrains. But on the contrary, if people are spending money to buy ArmA 3, I also want a mile stone of improvements because this is one of the few games I can buy and enjoy offline.

Edited May 1, 2012 by DeclaredEvol

[Flash Thunder 10]

You may be right, but if you wanted my opinion that was it. I have spent most of my money and time building a good pc for a game worth the run, but if I am not getting the challenge I worked for. Where would this be going? :P

I am also implying that I went from Lower Class to Poverty recently, so I don't have internet to talk or game with anyone now. I am quite bored, and I am also tired of seeing little to no advancements in true CPU and GPU support for games. If a game like BF3 can be played with such immense physics and graphical effects, I know ArmA 3 can do the same thing. ArmA 3 has quite a superior engine compared to most, to be able to make such LARGE scale terrains. But on the contrary, if people are spending money to buy ArmA 3, I also want a mile stone of improvements because this is one of the few games I can buy and enjoy offline.

Have you read the confirmed futures list? The Rendering engine is getting quite a bit of work on it for the size that BIS Bruno studio comprises of.

BF3 taking the overly done HDR and lighting gimmicks out of the equation isn't too impressive, I mean even on the PC version maxed out I see lots of low resolution textures, no use of parallax mapping on terrain textures like Arma has its just hidden with Flare after flare also Frostbite 2 is plagued with Z-fighting which is something inherent with almost all 3D rendering engines as you would be aware of but BIS has done quite some good work on lowering the amount of z-fighting in a patch(es) for Arma 2.

CPU based physics was the solution BIS can't alienate their market any further by associating their physics system to the GPU.

Im sure you're well aware that Arma is more CPU based then it is GPU based either way whatever you do to upgrade your system, its a good investment.

Personally for me the only aspect that still feels kinda lacking still even from the latest press is particle effects, I want to see BIS do more with particles, smoke from eject shells, afterburners, rotor static when viewed in night vision. Im content with the features list and engine improvements we're expected to see in Arma 3.

Edit:

Missed a point, I wouldn't go as far as to call BF3's Physics immense. Physics are pretty shoddy in that game and the destruction models are average from what i've experienced.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Flash Thunder

[DeclaredEvol 10]

Have you read the confirmed futures list? The Rendering engine is getting quite a bit of work on it for the size that BIS Bruno studio comprises of.

BF3 taking the overly done HDR and lighting gimmicks out of the equation isn't too impressive, I mean even on the PC version maxed out I see lots of low resolution textures, no use of parallax mapping on terrain textures like Arma has its just hidden with Flare after flare also Frostbite 2 is plagued with Z-fighting which is something inherent with almost all 3D rendering engines as you would be aware of but BIS has done quite some good work on lowering the amount of z-fighting in a patch(es) for Arma 2.

CPU based physics was the solution BIS can't alienate their market any further by associating their physics system to the GPU.

Im sure you're well aware that Arma is more CPU based then it is GPU based either way whatever you do to upgrade your system, its a good investment.

Personally for me the only aspect that still feels kinda lacking still even from the latest press is particle effects, I want to see BIS do more with particles, smoke from eject shells, afterburners, rotor static when viewed in night vision. Im content with the features list and engine improvements we're expected to see in Arma 3.

Edit:

Missed a point, I wouldn't go as far as to call BF3's Physics immense. Physics are pretty shoddy in that game and the destruction models are average from what i've experienced.

Oh, you're probably right... and from that press release video recently it looks badass. I might write a mod or something when it comes out, maybe for advanced penetration and object destruction. If ArmA 3 uses Static Meshes then its always possible that the poly count won't be too bad either, but remember... not everything should be stored in memory and never has. The optimization of Physics in towns would be extraordinarily easy with the exception of a 64 bit video game. But I may be speaking too soon, no one has made a game as large as Arma 3. But if ArmA 3 is 64 Bit, while supporting DX10-11 and Quad or more Core CPU's... then I would be amazed if the physics were to not perform right. The MOST important thing is for them to optimize the game towards Graphics Cards with 200+ Stream Processing Cores. If you read about Graphic Cards of today, they have the ability now to literally power a CPU without the CPU needing its own Processors which is what AMD is releasing within months. I would consider saying that modern Graphic Cards have nearly 1,500+ Stream Processors which kills the use of only Four or more CPU Cores. In the end, as said previously... not everything in the game is stored in Video or Physical Memory. My advisement is to say that if Bohemia Interactive is really pushing itself towards modern generation gaming, it would only be hurting it self to leave behind such valuable features as this.

[Maio 293]

In case you missed it, there are 2 models of the NATO sleeved combat fatigue:

Sleveves rolled down

Sleeves rolled up

and this time around there seems to be no correlation between this and the load bearing vest type the soldiers are wearing.

[Joe98 92]

The first post at the top of this thread lists confirmed features.

I note there is only 1 machine gun. Surely the different factions would use different weapons.

Which begs the question:

Will the weapons available in the editor, include any that are not used in the official scenarios?

.

[Dingo8 1]

The first post at the top of this thread lists confirmed features.

I note there is only 1 machine gun. Surely the different factions would use different weapons.

Which begs the question:

Will the weapons available in the editor, include any that are not used in the official scenarios?

.

This list only includes things that have been confirmed as features of A3 so far, not everything that will be in the final product.

As far as I know, all versions of Arma so far have let you use in the editor all weapons/vehicles/etc that were used in the official campaigns, and I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't.

[kimozabbi 1]

As far as I know, all versions of Arma so far have let you use in the editor all weapons/vehicles/etc that were used in the official campaigns, and I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't.

He is asking about weapons/vehicles/etc that aren't used in the official scenarios.

[Dingo8 1]

He is asking about weapons/vehicles/etc that aren't used in the official scenarios.

Oops, you're right; I misread.

[Maio 293]

The first post at the top of this thread lists confirmed features.

I note there is only 1 machine gun. Surely the different factions would use different weapons.

Which begs the question:

Will the weapons available in the editor, include any that are not used in the official scenarios?

.

Of course they will. Recent example... the XM-8 and the G-36 in ArmA 2 vanilla.

[MisTyK 12]

I've mave a screen comparison between arma2 and arma3 maps ( not arrowead because there's no sea or island )

Limnos and Chernarus:

Stratis and Utes:

Cherna : 225km²

Utes: 4km island / 25 km map

Limnos: ~300km island / 900km² map

Stratis: 19km² island / 80km² map

Edited May 3, 2012 by MisTyK

[f27sharps 1]

Nice !

[Flash Thunder 10]

That's insane! :D

Also Arma 3 is supposedly featuring 20km viewdistance so the scale in this game is immense!

Power of the PC unleashed!

[Zacho 0]

On the tanks, the "Black Eagle Tank?"

http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/08/Arma3_screeenshot_PCGUS_01_exclusive-627x352.jpg

Is a T-95

Look at the right side on the vid. Mat %61/

Edited May 4, 2012 by Zacho

[papanowel 120]

It is really big!

[f27sharps 1]

Is a T-95

Look at the right side on the vid. Mat %61/

Its a Merkava

[froggyluv 2136]

Cherna : 225km²

Utes: 4km island / 25 km map

Limnos: ~300km island / 900km² map

Stratis: 19km² island / 80km² map

Thats a lot of scuba'ing!

[J-Guid 10]

Yea, we can make a sea battles with crusers :D

[Maio 293]

OK... so I was thinking. There is no way the Fennek will be NATO's main Light Armored Tactical Vehicle , it's a Recon vehicles after all and can fit only 3 crew members inside. Now I doubt BIS modified it so it could fit more, it does not look modified from the outside. That brings up the issues of what vehicles will fill in the L-ATV role. Seeing how BIS is going with vehicles of European origin for NATO/US, I'm kinda hoping for the Dingo 2 or the Mowag Eagle 5. If not... any of the current US JLTV program contenders would be nice.

Thoughts on this?

[Robster 11]

Limnos: ~300km island / 900km² map

Are you sure? Here says: "Limnos, spreading over an area of almost 300 square kilometers..."

anyways, ~300km island would be 90000 km² map! the biggest map ever done ;)

[Steakslim 1]

He ment that the landmass is 300km2, where there's an additional 600km2 ocean = total of 900km2. This information isn't new.