Pre-announcement ARG answers to questions discussion

[hamm 10]

Well then... what does the animation elude to? I guess we have to wait until E3, I'm still holding hope for complex destruction physics for vehicles though.

The animation eludes to a physics engine, that's it.

[Sif 10]

Will there be more support for thermal and night vision scopes and the like?

[metalcraze 290]

Of course not by a single soldier. You would still need a commander, driver, gunner,... but I know what you mean. You can't simulate a driveable submarine realisticly because you would need over 40 (or more) men to have it fully operational. Since ArmA is still a game I would be fine if it had 4 positions like a tank.

But that would be too ridiculous for ArmA

[ScratcH1 10]

But that would be too ridiculous for ArmA

I would still prefer drivable naval vehicles over static objects. I don't even mind if it those vehicles are only driveable by AI similiar to the UAV (I know that you can "drive" it but it's ment to be controled by AI) in OA

Btw, you can always pretend that there's a full crew in the submarine... they're just not playable

Edited May 28, 2011 by ScratcH1

[metalcraze 290]

You can drive boats since OFP.

You being able to drive a whole submarine would be like you alone driving a ship.

I however wouldn't mind it be a non-playable but active unit of course.

IIRC big ships are already active units in VBS2 not just a static background.

[Alwarren 2765]

I however wouldn't mind it be a non-playable but active unit of course.

IIRC big ships are already active units in VBS2 not just a static background.

That's what I hope too. If players are restricted to drive small boats, that's fine by me. What I'd like is AI-controllable ships... oh, and the submarine submerged insertion vehicles - even though "Modern Warfare 2" is considered a swear word by some, I found the insertion into the oil platform level pretty cool.

[purepassion 22]

I think a modelled submarine that can be moved to certain points via waypoints or scripting with parts of it being enterable and fully modelled and a player operatable SDV would be a good compromise. So the submarine can dive to given points autonomously and the player can move in certain areas inside it and then enter the SDV, which is fully operatable and use this for the insertions.

Edited May 28, 2011 by PurePassion

[DeclaredEvol 10]

Will there be better sound systems equal to a game such as Medal of Honor 2010?

[maddogx 13]

Will there be better sound systems equal to a game such as Medal of Honor 2010?

Who are you asking?

[PuFu 4591]

himself

[2nd ranger 282]

Q: Will Arma 3 players be able to read?

[ScratcH1 10]

Q: Will Arma 3 players be able to read?

No

(message too short)

[Maio 293]

Since the 15 questions have been answered , maybe the thread should be closed until the spoiler questions are answered ... ?

[DomZ 15]

Will High Command be made much slicker?

[maddogx 13]

Will High Command be made much slicker?

Yes, it will become even more awesomer!

[Laqueesha 474]

It'll be even betterer.

[2nd ranger 282]

Guys will there be turtles in Arma 3?

[NeMeSiS 11]

Guys will there be turtles in Arma 3?

Yes, their names will be Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello, and Raphael.

[ScratcH1 10]

Yes, their names will be Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello, and Raphael.

Next time: please use spoilers :rolleyes:

[Tonmeister 14]

#12 "Considering the ASCII animation we saw showing a ball smashing a wall, is BIS planning to add more complex destruction physics to buildings in Arma3?"

No

"Doh!!"

[maddogx 13]

#12 "Considering the ASCII animation we saw showing a ball smashing a wall, is BIS planning to add more complex destruction physics to buildings in Arma3?"

No

"Doh!!"

I was a little surprised at that one too, although it makes sense when you think about it: using PhysX to dynamically destroy buildings would be a nightmare to synch across the network. Instead, I guess we may see some prettier local destruction effects like bits and pieces flying though the air - bricks, bits of wood and small pieces of rubble that don't need to be synchronized.

[Steakslim 1]

Yeah client side particle effects for the destruction models would be nicer and easier. Make the building's destruction a little more "ooohhh and aaaahhhh" without killing a server. Right now Dice seems to be the only one going full sail with the idea of the synced destruction we'd like to see, at least from the BF3 previews, but they don't have the same scale to work with, contrary to what their previews may imply, I doubt their maps well get much larger than their first 3 installments (bf1942, bf vietnam, bf2) as they went a few steps backwards in the scale of things for a while now and are now coming back around.

[neokika 62]

Yeah client side particle effects for the destruction models would be nicer and easier. Make the building's destruction a little more "ooohhh and aaaahhhh" without killing a server. Right now Dice seems to be the only one going full sail with the idea of the synced destruction we'd like to see, at least from the BF3 previews, but they don't have the same scale to work with, contrary to what their previews may imply, I doubt their maps well get much larger than their first 3 installments (bf1942, bf vietnam, bf2) as they went a few steps backwards in the scale of things for a while now and are now coming back around.

Hi,

I did not knew that you could bring entire buildings down in BF, also, this is the map size ppl can expect from BF3.

_neo_

[maddogx 13]

According to that recent dev interview posted in the BF3 thread, large physics events (like bringing down whole buildings) will basically be scripted "set pieces" in BF3. The dynamic destruction only happens on a relatively minor scale, such as taking out pieces of walls.

Something tells me that even that won't be entirely dynamic though, at least not in MP.

As for Arma3, I'm hoping that the destruction effects will be improved in a way that they become more seamless and natural looking than in Arma2. Add in some fancy PhysX based particle effect and Bob's your uncle.

That would be enough for me. :)

[Tonmeister 14]

yea i really hope A3 gets a little particle loving. my seat dropped a foot after reading the response.