Development Blog & Reveals

[james2464 176]

Some insights into E3

Edited June 8, 2012 by James2464

[Steakslim 1]

oNLY PROBLEM IS THAT THE rt SCREENS SEEM TO BE waay TOO LAGGY.

I think you had your capslock on backwards....if that's possible.

Anywho I think it was a performance related thing, because I think the rear view mirrors were doing the same thing if you catch a glimpse of them while he's driving the fennek. Hopefully they are smoothed out in the future, I assume TOH's RTT for it's mirrors and screens where at a decent framerate?

[Flash Thunder 10]

Seems like they function at half the frame rate or maybe a quarter.

Yeah hopefully its just a setting or can be optimized more.

[Scrub 0]

"ARMA 3 is balanced for double lean"... NIIICE!

Finding the vehicles more real with the interactive screens and such. Groovy job BIS. Can't wait to see what can be modded from the new physics, animation methods, vehicle models and points, programming and interface accessibility. wow, just...... wow. And it looks GORGEOUS on top of it all! Now if you let loose the idea that the AI module you'll plug in in a few weeks allows MOUT, I'll go into a digital coma.

*** In this vid (below) I believe it's Jay Crowe who said "So come 2013 (!!!), we can release the best game..blah blah"***

2013 now? listen around the 4:30 mark.

http://e3.gamespot.com/video/6381268/arma-3-demonstration?hd=1

Edited June 8, 2012 by Scrub

[nodunit 397]

I think you had your capslock on backwards....if that's possible.

Anywho I think it was a performance related thing, because I think the rear view mirrors were doing the same thing if you catch a glimpse of them while he's driving the fennek. Hopefully they are smoothed out in the future, I assume TOH's RTT for it's mirrors and screens where at a decent framerate?

Seemed to be, in the mission where you fly the heavy to provide supplies for an airshow RTT is displayed on a large screen and on a MPD in the aircraft, from what I saw there it was silky smooth, same with the mirror on the light's landing gear. I'm wanting to say there was one that was a bit stuttery but I can't recall..

[Janez 530]

I coaxed a word from Dwarden about this in the chat: apparently right now, the system can´t simulate it correctly and would need a deep rewrite or something. Maybe I misunderstood, but apparently they are considering improving this in the future, but right now it´s not a priority as they want to finish and polish the game proper first, and do the "nice to have" features later on as the game gets treated post-release.

So, focus is on tight gameplay, no gamebreaking or major bugs, and sound, solid, well implemented features and improvements to keep the new crowd, and please the old one.

Hey, thanks for info. I would just like to point out that this feature is one of the most important in CQB. It adds a lot to LMG and sniper gameplay too. This is kind of a point to have reload anims instead of CWR=>A2 way. Without it, it seems like a bit of waste. I could probably live without +1 round (hinders small magazine weapons) but tactical reload could be done I think, hopefully.

[mr.g-c 6]

I coaxed a word from Dwarden about this in the chat: apparently right now, the system can´t simulate it correctly and would need a deep rewrite or something. Maybe I misunderstood, but apparently they are considering improving this in the future, but right now it´s not a priority as they want to finish and polish the game proper first, and do the "nice to have" features later on as the game gets treated post-release.

So, focus is on tight gameplay, no gamebreaking or major bugs, and sound, solid, well implemented features and improvements to keep the new crowd, and please the old one.

Lol... again the "Engine Limitations".... How about getting rid of them once and for all? This is supposed to be a "SIMULATION" remember BIS? Not a kiddie-Corner-shooter (which often got such features - strange hah?)... Community is begging you about that since PRE-ARMA1!!! Release and you still can't do such things because of "engine limitations" ?

Also this statement kind of kills any hope for a tank armor system like told by booster, realistic penetration and after-effects, whatever and so forth... Pretty sad in my eyes and ears.

Though the game looks good... but didn't that ArmA2 already? Probably i really drive the wrong brand... Good Luck BIS.

[scubaman3D 0]

since PRE-ARMA1!!!

And we've all had the pleasure of reading your whining the entire time. Its been fun.

[nodunit 397]

It's not priority right now but they have a large window just opened up. While PhysX may take some of it, it's not going to requrie the WHOLE team so who knows what will be seen between then and now. If you're going to judge it then may as well wait for the finished product before jumping ship.

[mr.g-c 6]

And we've all had the pleasure of reading your whining the entire time. Its been fun.

Yes and that above was my last "whine statement" - i get the impression that it won't change anyway, i didn't in almost 10 years, why should it change in 20? To much energy wasted in that from my side. Have more important things to do ;-)

Thats why i said - good luck :-)

OT:

Besides that Scuba, a lot of the other "more critical" community members are either banned or completely fed-up with the series and abandoned it totally. Now you decide if thats a good sign or not.

But you can write me anytime via PM if you like to discuss about that.

Cheers.

Edited June 8, 2012 by mr.g-c

[NeuroFunker 11]

Lol... again the "Engine Limitations".... How about getting rid of them once and for all? This is supposed to be a "SIMULATION" remember BIS? Not a kiddie-Corner-shooter (which often got such features - strange hah?)... Community is begging you about that since PRE-ARMA1!!! Release and you still can't do such things because of "engine limitations" ?

Also this statement kind of kills any hope for a tank armor system like told by booster, realistic penetration and after-effects, whatever and so forth... Pretty sad in my eyes and ears.

Though the game looks good... but didn't that ArmA2 already? Probably i really drive the wrong brand... Good Luck BIS.

wow man, calm down abit. BIS are not magicians, get rid of all limitation? Simple, just donate them some 1.000.000$ for complete new engine, and we all will be happy.

BIS doing great job and i don't believe it could be any better, since BIS is not cheap action shooter, where you got nothing but graphics and assplosions. BIS doing now all they can, look at all beta patches being released lately and how often. Look at big step they made with 1.60 patch compared to previous. You just can't compare multiplayer experience before and after.

[roberthammer 582]

Well - am sure that is not a Engine limitation , if they can add special Key for "jump" in arma 2 , so it will be a big problem to add another special key for specific action?

also tank armor system , realistic penetration and after-effects is a matter of some good scripts - for example in Iron Front or in ACE2

Edited June 8, 2012 by RobertHammer

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Hey, mr.g-c, chill.

I remember playing with you back in ArmA 1 on TG, we were unloaded in trucks just south of Bagango with no maps issued and hell ensued. :D

PhysX brings the possibility of proper compartmentalised damage in armoured vehicles - they are removing this limitation as we speak! Have faith, brother. ;)

[neokika 62]

There's no such thing as "Engine Limitation" when you are upgrading it!

[someboy 0]

I have the feeling that BI stuff themselves have deeper knowledge about their own engine than you. Plus adding a key for performing an action is not related to modifying the engine so some specific data is stored and handled somewhere else, together with the external data and configuration changes required.

The key is how much time it would require to make that modification. If it takes 300 hours (including testing) then there will be tons of things more valuable to do.

[mr.g-c 6]

wow man, calm down abit. BIS are not magicians, get rid of all limitation? Simple, just donate them some 1.000.000$ for complete new engine, and we all will be happy.

BIS doing great job and i don't believe it could be any better, since BIS is not cheap action shooter, where you got nothing but graphics and assplosions. BIS doing now all they can...

Now, we shouldn't let this topic getting more and more OT only because i made a disappointed statement towards BIS, but just let me say to you that you probably don't understand that because you are rather new i assume (based on your join date).

The term "Limitations" or "Engine Limitations" connected with BIS' Engine and feature-requests gives me and many other slight hiccups. In the past the majority even of "little" feature requests were mostly answered and denied with exactly that term. Even if it was just small things like slightly longer reload times on LMGs and MGs, not even to talk about reload anims here. Everytime it was stated that its not "possible" because of "Engine limitations"...

Then you are a free open-minded person (welche auch gerne mal über den Tellerrand schaut, gelle) and you see that your beloved Game is called a "Simulation", then you look at the games you just called this:

...cheap action shooter, where you got nothing but graphics and assplosions

And you see that despite such games are really "cheap" and not even comparable to the ArmA Series, its scale, etc., they somehow can do such "Simulation" aspects better... How is that possible?

All i'm saying is that since we play a supposed "Simulation" (Package states: "Most Realistic Military Simulation"), we simply should have such features detailed and modeled into the Engine. In my opinion better spend development time in this area, than on making the engine just prettier and prettier every time. (Though of course it looks very good - i don't dare to say different since its true!)

But again, feel free to drop me a PM and we can discuss that further and i see you are German too, so its even easier to communicate :-)

Hey, mr.g-c, chill.

I remember playing with you back in ArmA 1 on TG, we were unloaded in trucks just south of Bagango with no maps issued and hell ensued.

PhysX brings the possibility of proper compartmentalised damage in armoured vehicles - they are removing this limitation as we speak! Have faith, brother.

Hey i am chilled... having a beer and cigarette on my free day just right now. :-) I really should change my write style ^^

Yes those old times on TG were pure fun, i think when ArmA3 and mods such as ACE and ACRE are out for it, we should do such uber-realistic missions again. Was pure (but often exhausting) fun to be pinned in front of your computer for 6 hours or so. Sometime not even fired a single shot. haha.

Edited June 8, 2012 by mr.g-c
Added Answer to Iroquois Pliskin

[NeuroFunker 11]

the simply thing is: the more features a game got, the more limitation will they have later. Thers no engine without limitation, just by fact, you would need atom core pc etc. if you want all features possible. BIS already has lots of features.

[Corvinus 35]

All new animations look nice, except for one - running with lowered weapon (and, of course, obvious WIP stuff like transition, or, rather, lack of it, from lying on back to prone). That's what I'm talking about:

The animation itself is ok, but its speed is too excessive.

[4 IN 1 0]

I have the feeling that BI stuff themselves have deeper knowledge about their own engine than you. Plus adding a key for performing an action is not related to modifying the engine so some specific data is stored and handled somewhere else, together with the external data and configuration changes required.

The key is how much time it would require to make that modification. If it takes 300 hours (including testing) then there will be tons of things more valuable to do.

That is why if you are willing to change things, its better starts from ground up to have that mindset to do so instead of looking for an answer at the last minutes.

I also have that feeling that there is a thing within developers mind that they are too afraid of rewriting codes, even if they were ancient and do not fit modern day requirements. But that just what I think, and might not be accurate.

Edited June 8, 2012 by 4 IN 1

[instagoat 133]

That is why if you are willing to change things, its better starts from ground up to have that mindset to do so instead of looking for an answer at the last minutes.

I also have that feeling that there is a thing within developers mind that they are too afraid of rewriting codes, even if they were ancient and do not fit modern day requirements. But that just what I think, and might not be accurate.

From what little I learned in coding classes in Uni, program code is hugely integrated, so if you start changing somewhere, you sort of get a cascade where the changed code affects other places of the program, which then have to be adjusted, which then cause other places to need adjustment. That´s one reason why Microsoft didn´t just took XP apart and improved its faults right there, but instead wrote a completely new operating system (Which, even then, was kinda sucky).

You can´t just take a code and fundamentally re-write portions of it without potentially creating a huge impact. So when you change something, you have to check how big a change your "improvement" actually causes, and how much -damage- you create by implementing it, and if you can contain that without needing to basically write the whole thing anew from bottom to top.

There are limitations in the other games too. I bet you can´t just throw in a company level, open world, combat situation in call of duty´s base code without having to reshuffle everything.

Writing programs is more complicated than people assume. I am amazed that this ancient engine is able to produce what we´re seeing now. Remember, this was first demonstrated in 1998 (the demo is still available on the Biki, if you care), and first hit the market in game form as OFP in 2001.

There will be cutbacks here and there. BI decided to go with the engine instead of creating a new one. They will probably have had good reasons for that. Such decisions aren´t felled lightly.

[4 IN 1 0]

I am not implying that it is not complicated, nothing in engineering of any sort is not complicated, but if there is something that needs to be overhaul, it have to be done, just saying.

[liquidpinky 11]

It would require two sets of reloading animations per weapon, not really an engine limitation but a time limitation I think.

They would know when a forced reload is made or a tactical reload is done already as something has to trigger the dead mans click on an empty mag.

Then it would be coded to add a plus one to the bullet count or not.

So that is the basics, adding it in game isn't quite so simple and requires time that they may have deemed to be better spent elsewhere.

[purepassion 22]

I just discovered quite an interesting little detail.

In the gamespot presentation, precisely in the Helicopter showcase at ~10m 56s, you can see the Co-pilot biting and deforming his lips. This precise sort of facial animation is completely new and might mean there are finally proper facial expressions :)

(In addition to the "not procedural head movement" as already known)

[antoineflemming 14]

I really think it's neat that the gear/items you have are actually visible on the character:

Adds a really nice touch to the character, and makes the gear look kinda unique.

[Maio 293]

I really think it's neat that the gear/items you have are actually visible on the character:

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/6658/arma3e3customizablebody.jpg

Adds a really nice touch to the character, and makes the gear look kinda unique.

Well... to be honest I think that's just another vest model and does not represent a dynamic system. I eagerly await to be dis proven by the developes :)