Take on helicopter environments for ARMA 3 ?

[jerryhopper 285]

... i'm connected to the 'real virtuality' cloud where i choose my game. TOH, ArmA some other.. i get patched thru to the battlefield, playing on the ground. everything in a radius of 5km of the main battle is in full detail for this ground battle, but in TOH you could fly over this area, and see global rampage on ground in quality acceptable for that game. if the helo - or on the ground player - goes to different place on map, this new enviroment + players will be streamed/merged and we could actually be on any place on earth, in different games playing together. utopia.

*huh* shit - i felt asleep and dreamt away, sorry folks.

[Haystack15 10]

So if I get this strait,

Basically you want:

1. A direct port over of the environment and scenery of TOH into ArmA.

- If so, I think that yea it does sound like a cool idea. But really TOH is meant to focus on flying, and flight simulation games like that don't have a very (Don't want to say playable scenery) but not so compatible playing field in terms of how players in FPS can use it.

or

2. A scenery model like the kind in TOH but made specifically for ArmA.

-If so, Sounds great and I'm all for that idea, but your chance of BIS creating something like that for ArmA is highly unlikely. If they change the environment they will have to change the storyline possibly the fractions etc.. Not only that a "Urban City" environment doesn't seem to fit well with ArmA 3 to me..

[subs17 9]

That would make it good to buy TOH just to have that scenery in there but other improvements could include working MFDs as well as FM from TOH.

[Drumheller 19]

That is, in my opinion, realism gaming of the future. I have no doubt that between 2 and 20 years we will not only be able to play in an environment like that, but for every room of every building to be enterable and even the AI to have realistic actions and even schedules. It will be amazing. Look back 20 years to 2d MUUDS and see where we are now, and just think where we will be in 20 years.

For now, though, I'll settle with Lemnos. :)

[Kristian 47]

if its using the same engine somebody is gunna release a mod for sure

I wanna snipe in the big city, spec op drops on roof tops etc

That, or rainbow six vegas or such. Not ArmA.

[onlyrazor 11]

That, or rainbow six vegas or such. Not ArmA.

Well, since rope physics are supported to an extent, fastroping could work. You'd just have really low rooftops to snipe from :p

[max power 21]

every room of every building

And how much do you think such a production would cost?

[noubernou 77]

And how much do you think such a production would cost?

We need procedural building generation for things like that. :p Its not too far out of the realm of possibility... but I do not see it in ArmA3.

[rye1 21]

They said some buildings are basically war-torn so I doubt all will be enterable, rooms at least.

[mr_centipede 31]

They said some buildings are basically war-torn so I doubt all will be enterable, rooms at least.

Either that, or they use the BIS_fnc_destroy(something like that, exact names escape me for the moment) thingy to destroy buildings early from the mission start.

I use it regularly in Chernarus/Takistan to give the mission a war torn feeling

[max power 21]

We need procedural building generation for things like that.

It's true... at the very least. But I'd imagine that software that could generate a convincing office building full of crap would cost a pretty penny as well.

[subs17 9]

That is, in my opinion, realism gaming of the future. I have no doubt that between 2 and 20 years we will not only be able to play in an environment like that, but for every room of every building to be enterable and even the AI to have realistic actions and even schedules. It will be amazing. Look back 20 years to 2d MUUDS and see where we are now, and just think where we will be in 20 years.

For now, though, I'll settle with Lemnos. :)

Same can be said for flight sims at 1st were very small terrain areas now it is global terrain. In the future FPS/Combat simulations will have Global terrain whats required is an engine that supports a similar design to Falcon 4s dynamic campaign system which worked by showing detail of the area the player was in(bubble) and blocking out everything outside the bubble until after the mission to calculate dynamic campaign progress and generate new missions for the Air Tasking order. So a future FPS combat simulation would have a similar terrain method is sim mode as in A2/A1 in the air a distant lower detail terrain level. If however you are on foot or closer to the building the player bubble expands terain detail to show more detail on the ground. Building interior shouldn't load until players is extremely close and only include what the player interacts with. So a future FPS perhaps late 64bit/early 128bit sim will likely be global terrain with realistic buildings etc. You can have a gun fight outside your own house.:cool:

Also because before we lacked data where as now they have SRTM elevation data for a global map and Google is currently mapping the ocean floor this data will go together for a combat simulation that includes Sea combat. For the current A2/3-TOH sim mod they can if they want to allow TOH/A3 engine compatibility so both sims can use the same terrain(just like now TOH/OA). To view TOH as a heli sim only is incorrect in my view they can start the sim by using FPS(which they are;)) and include a briefing in the briefing room, walk to the chopper do a walk around(look out for birds nests etc:D) climb in, fly to a burning building, climb out, fight the fire with a hose, do 1st aid etc.

All of that is possible compared to FSX EH101 missions landing on a high way etc. Waiting for the medics to carry wounded to your helicopter.

You could have actual players being winched off the mountain.

In combat if a player ejects you can fly in and rescue them or the sims ATO could generate a RESCAP mission as well.

Edited August 23, 2011 by SUBS17

[lugiahua 26]

And how much do you think such a production would cost?

hard to say in 20 years from now...it's like presenting ArmA2 to someone works in ID back in 1991.

[Innomadic 10]

Take On Helo's environments are less densely populated with trees, buildings etc as resources are being taken up by the already large buildings and the flight model, so basically there will be times when you will essentially be looking at a .jpg on the ground (impression i got from E3). This is also due to the fact that the map is 60x60, significantly larger than A3's.

Basically, unless you actually want all the detail from a typical A3 map removed just so you can shoot of skyscrapers, its not really worth it in the scheme of things.

[max power 21]

hard to say in 20 years from now...it's like presenting ArmA2 to someone works in ID back in 1991.

To create a in the 16 bit era, it cost 50k - 100k USD. In the year 2000, the average game cost 1 to 4 million. AAA 'Next Gen' games cost 20 million. This seems like a geometric expansion, don't you think? Adjusting for inflation you can probably get away with roughly doubling the 16 bit eras cost.

1990....200k

2000.......2m

2010.....20m

2020...200m

2030.......2b

LOL. Sounds about right.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Max Power

[Innomadic 10]

You are aware that the TKH maps are 1200km^2, that they're not as fully detailed as Lemnos, right?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Air to air deathmatch?

[Trauma.au 10]

FYI Euclideon developed nothing. Voxels were used in games ~20 years ago already. They were dropped because for starters you cannot animate them and they are not resource effective.

That's why Euclideon demo had nothing but the same 5mx5m copy pasted without lighting and animations.

You might want to have a look at

, if it's too long for you then just watch from 17:38 until you realise you're wrong.

[b101_uk 10]

Take On Helo's environments are less densely populated with trees, buildings etc as resources are being taken up by the already large buildings and the flight model, so basically there will be times when you will essentially be looking at a .jpg on the ground (impression i got from E3). This is also due to the fact that the map is 60x60, significantly larger than A3's.

Basically, unless you actually want all the detail from a typical A3 map removed just so you can shoot of skyscrapers, its not really worth it in the scheme of things.

err the A3 Lemnos is going to have be > ~40km x ~40km before you even add the sea either side of the widest parts so it’s going to have to be in the region of > 50km x 50km, also Lemnos is not a place you associate with trees as its very sparse in that respect anyway so would be much more like A2’s Utes than the tree covered Chernarus which both work well with the TKoH CP.

Just compare the amount of triangles and transparent texture there is to sort out there occlusion in a A2 trees vs. a house you cannot enter then bare in mind the house doesn’t sway in the wind like some A2 trees and that a house may occupy the space of >4 or more trees ;)

[Derbysieger 11]

The actual landmass of Limnos in Arma 3 will be 400km²; that's 20kmx20km. The whole map will be 900km² or 30kmx30km. Seattle in TakoH is 3600km². I'd say that's a pretty huge difference.

[b101_uk 10]

The actual landmass of Limnos in Arma 3 will be 400km²; that's 20kmx20km. The whole map will be 900km² or 30kmx30km. Seattle in TakoH is 3600km². I'd say that's a pretty huge difference.

If you go by land mass Limnos is ~477 km2 but you need to put it in a space of ~30km by ~35km to account for its shape

Its how you infer things relative to the quotes of being ~2.4 times the size of Takistan which is 100% land mass thus sits in the smallest possible bounding box of measurement, also let’s not forget BIS don’t count the bounds of the sea or low detail land outside of the detailed area or they would be claiming ~55km x 55km of usable space or being able to get up to ~63.7km of distance between 2 objects just in the A2 editor yet still being able to drive much further! ;)

SEA in A2 etc is hardly a hit on the frame rate so why would it be in A3 ;)

edit:

BTW: I was using the largest quotient of land mass area’s I could find for Limnos, which makes my argument harder than using the other smaller land mass area’s which are almost exactly 2.4 times the size of Takistan’s land mass area even though you need a ~30km by ~35km space to drop it into.

Edited August 24, 2011 by b101_uk
added BTW:

[5LEvEN 11]

I imagine limnos will be like sahrani. With unlimited water....

[Derbysieger 11]

If you go by land mass Limnos is ~477 km2 but you need to put it in a space of ~30km by ~35km to account for its shape

Its how you infer things relative to the quotes of being ~2.4 times the size of Takistan which is 100% land mass thus sits in the smallest possible bounding box of measurement, also let’s not forget BIS don’t count the bounds of the sea or low detail land outside of the detailed area or they would be claiming ~55km x 55km of usable space or being able to get up to ~63.7km of distance between 2 objects just in the A2 editor yet still being able to drive much further! ;)

SEA in A2 etc is hardly a hit on the frame rate so why would it be in A3 ;)

Limnos in Arma 3 will be ~400km² (slightly downsized) and and the map 900km². That's what Lord Ivan in the interviews said. Of course you will be able to go beyond the 'official' map ...

Edited August 24, 2011 by Derbysieger

[subs17 9]

If both maps are possible(TKOH and A3) then modding could also be possible to increase detail for seattle with community mods etc. Its very cool to have a city for something like A3.

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------

To create a in the 16 bit era, it cost 50k - 100k USD. In the year 2000, the average game cost 1 to 4 million. AAA 'Next Gen' games cost 20 million. This seems like a geometric expansion, don't you think? Adjusting for inflation you can probably get away with roughly doubling the 16 bit eras cost.

1990....200k

2000.......2m

2010.....20m

2020...200m

2030.......2b

LOL. Sounds about right.

Depends on how the devs go about getting the sim published if it is published by another company you run the risk of releasing a faulty/buggy product. I think in the future sims will be self published by the developers own company and such sims might also use subscription which makes it possible for the sim to further evolve. Looking at the above pricing the 1990 sims had 1 or 2 programmers the later 2010 would have much larger groups of programmers, vastly increased complexity and realism and much better graphics engine.(like FSX etc) But when a sim has reached its limit in FM, detail and complexity then the major hurdle is graphics engine and terrain detail. Because of that 2b is highly unlikely the other factor is console vs PC. Console are vastly larger users in number and so there will be only a few companys that do sims in the future as there are now. Consoles for simple sims/games but serious simmers are limited to PC(actually an advantage as far as sims are concerned). For Bis they can if they want to expand further from just TKOH to other sim types like ships etc. The winners will be those companys that listen to the community regarding improvements and continue to evolve their product. As it is there are:

DCS Series/FC Series

Jet Thunder

VRS

FighterOps

Combat Helo

Bis - TKOH

Lead Pursuit

[b101_uk 10]

Limnos in Arma 3 will be ~400km² (slightly downsized) and and the map 900km². That's what Lord Ivan in the interviews said. Of course you will be able to go beyond the 'official' map ...

You fail to grasp the concept that that the only value that has been given is its ~2.4 times the high detailed land mass of Takistan.

There is quite a wide difference of given km2 of Limnos as some are taken as low tide area, others are high tide area, some count the sea space between rocky outcrops just of shore.

Would you rather believe that it is ~400km2 of land mass but have the inconvenients of trying to fit it in a 900km2 which means you have to lose at least >5km of island east to west or even think that BIS couldn’t be bothered to do the whole island or have shrunk the island to fit within 900km2 which then automatically means the island WONT be ~400km2 as if you shrink it it means less surface area of land mass!

What is the problem of grasping ~400km2 of land mass within a ~30km x ~35km bounds to fit the whole island in given a bulk of that would be sea accounting for the island shape.