Micro Destruction

[dm 9]

BIS has been long time struggling with making their engine, the latest attempt in Take-On Helicopters shows how they are struggling. I doubt the game engine can simulate proper destruction like you guys are describing, probably need to wait for a complete engine remake or a new engine adoption like using outerra (whenever its ready for devteams that is).

I think it would be a good idea for BIS to add proper destruction to trees/vehicles/walls/buildings and also character models but I doubt they have the time or expertise to do so, it simply requires a far more advanced engine then what they have been showing us with the ARMA series, best we can hope for is more detailed use of proxy hit-zones and section damage. Even that is asking allot from the poor old arma engine.

Quoted for idiocy...

[frostwyrm333 1]

If people could code they would know that you can remake stuff indefinitely, its much much easier to modify entire parts then start from scratch, and what exactly is meant by engine, mainstream games could theoretically change engine "easily" but games like arma are deeply tied to the engine, engine IS the game, they would have to remake the entire game from nothing, look at duke nukem forever, it would take 4 years to reimplement arma to anything else.

And outtera, lol its an interesting project but seriously?

btw. maruk said few days ago http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=2079813&postcount=230

[Cripsis 10]

it simply requires a far more advanced engine then what they have been showing us with the ARMA series

Well that depends on what your definition of advanced is. Sure this type of destruction is fantastic -

UNwgRch5PMY

but let's see DICE create that type of destruction on an ARMA sized map...

[Minoza 11]

BF suffers from same problem as well, BC2 had better environmental destruction then BF3 has... Obviously, that caused some issues so they had to cut it down. Arma is bigger and more complex, so it's environmental destruction is more limited as well. Don't forget that you need to sync all that stuff, it's not an easy task.

Also, compare BF3 SP look vs. BF3 MP look, they had to cut it down in many areas in order to maintain fluid MP experience. And even after beta testing, game launched with severe issues...

[PRiME 1]

Quoted for idiocy...

My point is valid, ARMA engine has and still is struggling to keep up with the new crop of engines, feature/flexibility wise. Why have we still not got cave systems for example?.. Don't answer... .Haters will hate...

Also while BIS struggle to add in deformation and flexibility to their engine, other companies sail ahead at lighting speed. Just saying, the engine needs a truck load of work still!

Edited January 4, 2012 by PRiME

[dmarkwick 261]

My point is valid, ARMA engine has and still is struggling to keep up with the new crop of engines, feature/flexibility wise. Why have we still not got cave systems for example?.. Don't answer... .Haters will hate...

Also while BIS struggle to add in deformation and flexibility to their engine, other companies sail ahead at lighting speed. Just saying, the engine needs a truck load of work still!

Caves? LOL :)

The engine has different priorities and abilities. The other engines you speak of cannot do the work that ArmA's engine does. I don't even need to know the names - there are none that can do it. In that regard the current engine is already streets ahead of the competition. (Such as it is, the fact is there is no real competition for this sort of work.)

[PRiME 1]

LOL, so you don't even look into other engines or investigate yet you KNOW IT ALL and can firmly say nothing can do what arma engine does... YET call me a IDIOT... nice...

Trust me, ARMA engine isn't doing anything amazing that other engines cannot do. Its just other games are focusing on different audiences so they don't do that with their engine, farcry-1/2 Crysis... all have large scale landscape options and AI systems available to boot, sure there is more scripting involved but ARMA AI needs allot of helping hand too.

Really all I am saying is ARMA engine CAN and SHOULD allow deformation and more flexibility in the engine, and doing so would not mean the game becomes a crawl, that is silly, everything is handled locally to the player.. For example a wall destruction animation or event does not need to occur if player is not in vicinity, it can be stored on server and uploaded to client for when they come in range..

Continuously arguing 'no the engine is too good and complex and amazing that it can't do that because its simply too good' is kind of a oxymoron...

Edited January 4, 2012 by PRiME

[Minoza 11]

Well, is there an engine with capabilities similar to what RV offers that I do not know off? Please, provide valid links at least.

[PRiME 1]

For starters, this is the commercial product here not VBS so you would need to be more specific in what capabilities you are in hot desire of.. Again allot of other game engines are VERY VERY modular, you can snap in features quite easily while ARMA RV engine is quite closed loop when it comes to the engines core systems.

Tweaking of physics/graphics/model systems are very limited. Only now are they messing with quality real-time physics engines.

Again I listed some titles that have quite fundamental engine flexibility from a development standpoint. Just load up Take-On Helicopters and witness the RV engines struggle to flexibility when it comes to flight sims in cityscapes and long view distances.. Read reviews..

The limitations in the area of this topic are valid and obvious. ARMA used a beefed up OFP engine, ARMA2 used a polished up ARMA1 engine, ARMA3 is using a polished up ARMA2 engine...

There are fundamental limitations in the flexibility of the engine that need addressing and its likely the micro destruction issue won't be looked at all that much in ARMA3, I just hope BIS allow for the modding community to add it in, as like I said the RV engine is quite closed loop... what you see is what you get, no edits.

[Sealife 22]

I just hope BIS allow for the modding community to add it in, as like I said the RV engine is quite closed loop... what you see is what you get

problem is BIS engine can do it and has since arma 1, its just too much to expect 20 -40 km worlds to have each building with it , Imsure by time arma 3 with pysx it will be even better :) , problem is with biiiig view distance require more lods , and so each lod must contain destruction to a degree, its nightmarei wouldnt liketoo have , i prefer the compromise from BIS

heer videos i found thatchannel posted by Paragraphic.

this one even have More detailed terrain than the OTHER Engines you speak of so argument to me is Moot.

4e50k4XJ48A

not much but shows even in big terriain is possible

4VEFUTusCzA

[PuFu 4591]

For starters, this is the commercial product here not VBS so you would need to be more specific in what capabilities you are in hot desire of.. Again allot of other game engines are VERY VERY modular, you can snap in features quite easily while ARMA RV engine is quite closed loop when it comes to the engines core systems.

Tweaking of physics/graphics/model systems are very limited. Only now are they messing with quality real-time physics engines.

Again I listed some titles that have quite fundamental engine flexibility from a development standpoint. Just load up Take-On Helicopters and witness the RV engines struggle to flexibility when it comes to flight sims in cityscapes and long view distances.. Read reviews..

The limitations in the area of this topic are valid and obvious. ARMA used a beefed up OFP engine, ARMA2 used a polished up ARMA1 engine, ARMA3 is using a polished up ARMA2 engine...

There are fundamental limitations in the flexibility of the engine that need addressing and its likely the micro destruction issue won't be looked at all that much in ARMA3, I just hope BIS allow for the modding community to add it in, as like I said the RV engine is quite closed loop... what you see is what you get, no edits.

You are beating around the bush...really

The other engines you posted as counter-examples is cryengine. Ok, well, CE3 is a iteration of CE2 which is a beefed version of CE1. Nothing to argue here about. Now, while you keep saying that RV has nothing on those modern engines, especially in terms of size, i can assure you that there is a real reason why there is no other game similar in scope and size with a2, and that is NOT because of a different focus.

neither of their SDKs (unreal and CE3, since you mentioned those) allow to even build a terrain size 1/4 of Chernarous for instance.

In a perfect world, the XYZ engine would look similar to

plus real time ray trace lights opposed to baked textures, procedural terrain and size similar to outera, and micro-destruction above BF3. I have no comparison in terms of real AI, since i still believe A2s are the best on the market at this very moment.

BUT, guess what, there is no such perfect world, not game engine built. In the real world I am living, there are monetary, time and manpower resources that need to be taken into consideration, besides the aim of a video game...

[djfluffwug 10]

My point is valid, ARMA engine has and still is struggling to keep up with the new crop of engines, feature/flexibility wise. Why have we still not got cave systems for example?.. Don't answer... .Haters will hate...

Also while BIS struggle to add in deformation and flexibility to their engine, other companies sail ahead at lighting speed. Just saying, the engine needs a truck load of work still!

You do realise struggling requires you to start? Last I heard they were working on the lighting engine, animations and physx. I dont see how you can jump to the conclusion they are struggling to add in the features you want.

And secondly, how can you be saying other engines are better and the RV engine is hard to use. Have you even RV engine at all?

Edited January 5, 2012 by djfluffwug

[PRiME 1]

I was more in line of saying they were struggling to get the engine to perform framerate and appearance wise with more demanding game dynamics like how people want more flight sim ability in the game.

Also the game does not have millions of objects, honestly count the walls or objects you would like destruction on, there isn't all that many, look at OA, LOL many buildings are repeated, they already have much destruction on these they just need to up the resolution of that destruction and ad it to walls and cover objects better.

THAT is completely doable in the ARMA engine. Cave system/destructable terrain... best left with new age engines like outtera and many others that are pushing the boundaries. I think people get a bit too caught up on special effects too much like a hollywood movie or something...

Light Engine, Animations, PhysX add very little to actual gameplay mechanics where as micro destruction would.. No more invincible houses or walls, no more having a entire wall section fall over exposing you.. Terrain destruction would also be very nice, hide in newly formed impact craters.. Be cool.

PS. Thromp, your showing me a video of some metal panels instantly falling down and massive objects blowing out square polygons.... . LOL, yeah real Moot. I guess I am the only one who understands what micro-destruction truly is...

Edited January 5, 2012 by PRiME

[djfluffwug 10]

I was more in line of saying they were struggling to get the engine to perform framerate and appearance wise with more demanding game dynamics like how people want more flight sim ability in the game.

Also the game does not have millions of objects, honestly count the walls or objects you would like destruction on, there isn't all that many, look at OA, LOL many buildings are repeated, they already have much destruction on these they just need to up the resolution of that destruction and ad it to walls and cover objects better.

THAT is completely doable in the ARMA engine. Cave system/destructable terrain... best left with new age engines like outtera and many others that are pushing the boundaries. I think people get a bit too caught up on special effects too much like a hollywood movie or something...

Light Engine, Animations, PhysX add very little to actual gameplay mechanics where as micro destruction would.. No more invincible houses or walls, no more having a entire wall section fall over exposing you.. Terrain destruction would also be very nice, hide in newly formed impact craters.. Be cool.

PS. Thromp, your showing me a video of some metal panels instantly falling down and massive objects blowing out square polygons.... . LOL, yeah real Moot. I guess I am the only one who understands what micro-destruction truly is...

In ArmA 2 OA, I would believe they would have about 20 or 30 different house models (Just a guess). Now, I can partly agree that creating the destruction wouldn't be too hard locally. But, once you get into MP, that is where things get tricky. If the destruction was handled locally, then lag could have a major effect on the outcome. If you fire an RPG at a building, and it gets partly destroyed, but actually an RPG was fired before, but due to lag, the event happened later, your going to get 2 different outcomes.

So, while it could be possible to handle locally, it would have a tonne of syncronisation troubles. Same if it was handled by the server, because that way, you would have to be constantly transferring the x,y,z position and x,y,z rotation for each piece of broken building.

Then, times that by about 500 as there is roughly that many buildings in Takistan, then your going to get alot of syncronisation problems or a tonne of network traffic.

I didn't even get into updating the colliders for the building but that is a whole other issue.

Oh jeez, I forgot to even mention other objects that aren't houses but you get the point.

While you have a few valid points, I would like you to clear a few things up for me?

• What is your definition of microdestruction?
  
• Which games have this microdestruction you talk of?
  

Now, Light Engine, Animations, PhysX do actually add quite a bit to gameplay.

Well, not the lighting engine too much, but the new animation engine (Whatever it will be) will add quite a bit to gameplay, plus Physx will be drastically changing gameplay.

[PRiME 1]

I'm not allowed to discus this topic here.

[maturin 12]

There is never going to be MP-compatible micro-destruction on a map like Fallujah, which is 16 square kilometers of dense houses.

[Cripsis 10]

i can assure you that there is a real reason why there is no other game similar in scope and size with a2, and that is NOT because of a different focus.

Actually it is because of a different focus. ARMA is renowned for the 'sheer scale' of the game - massive maps and the ability to stage incredibly large scale combined operations. Some other FPS game engines focus on the

smaller details, they are much better suited for simulating small unit actions.

At the end of the day it's all about compromise, the central focus of ARMA is scale, the central focus of engines like this -

http://www.program-ace.net/3d/technologies/ace3d_engine/

is the finer details.

[dmarkwick 261]

LOL, so you don't even look into other engines or investigate yet you KNOW IT ALL and can firmly say nothing can do what arma engine does... YET call me a IDIOT... nice...

You made that up. It never happened.

Trust me, ARMA engine isn't doing anything amazing that other engines cannot do. Its just other games are focusing on different audiences so they don't do that with their engine, farcry-1/2 Crysis... all have large scale landscape options and AI systems available to boot, sure there is more scripting involved but ARMA AI needs allot of helping hand too.

Really all I am saying is ARMA engine CAN and SHOULD allow deformation and more flexibility in the engine, and doing so would not mean the game becomes a crawl, that is silly, everything is handled locally to the player.. For example a wall destruction animation or event does not need to occur if player is not in vicinity, it can be stored on server and uploaded to client for when they come in range..

This is what I mean by ArmA's engine doing stuff that other engines don't. ArmA's engine is not player-centric in anything other than rendering. This means that if two groups are encountering each other 10km away ingame, they employ all the tactics and firepower as though you were there to watch it. You as a player may never see the outcome of that battle, but it still happens. This means the ArmA engine has a fidelity that other gamer engines do not.

Other game engines simply don't do that. Micro-destruction applied to ArmA would need some serious fiddling to be done effectively without losing that fidelity, which extends across multiplay BTW.

Continuously arguing 'no the engine is too good and complex and amazing that it can't do that because its simply too good' is kind of a oxymoron...

If you're going to quote someone for effect, you'd better make sure you're actually quoting a real thing, not your hallucination of the event.

The engine has different priorities and abilities.

---------- Post added at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 AM ----------

I'm not allowed to discus this topic here.

You're allowed to discuss it, but if you have a misconception, it's going to be corrected :)

Edited January 5, 2012 by DMarkwick

[maturin 12]

Actually it is because of a different focus. ARMA is renowned for the 'sheer scale' of the game - massive maps and the ability to stage incredibly large scale combined operations. Some other FPS game engines focus on the

smaller details, they are much better suited for simulating small unit actions.

At the end of the day it's all about compromise, the central focus of ARMA is scale, the central focus of engines like this -

http://www.program-ace.net/3d/technologies/ace3d_engine/

is the finer details.

Reading comprehension, please.

To paraphrase:

ArmA can create things on a grand scale not because the game is focused that way, but because the engine has capabilities that other engines do not. Source, for example. You can't decide to make a 135 square mile map in source because it is impossible.

Yes, the capabilities are different because of focus of the concept/design, but that's about developer intentions, not engines, and is beside the point. So, moving on from this bit of contrarianism...

they are much better suited for simulating small unit actions.

Funny, because I've never seen any other engine simulate anything well.

ArmA may be known for 'sheer scale,' but it isn't RISK. In my opinion, the game is at its best in those same small unit engagements, especially with PvP.

[Cripsis 10]

ArmA's engine is not player-centric in anything other than rendering. This means that if two groups are encountering each other 10km away ingame, they employ all the tactics and firepower as though you were there to watch it. You as a player may never see the outcome of that battle, but it still happens.

A very good point that deserves a lot more recognition, and I'm tipping that most of those who complain ARMA is poorly optomized are unaware of it.

---------- Post added at 10:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------

Yes, the capabilities are different because of focus of the concept/design

My point exactly.

Funny, because I've never seen any other engine simulate anything well.

ArmA may be known for 'sheer scale,' but it isn't RISK. In my opinion, the game is at its best in those same small unit engagements, especially with PvP.

Ever heard of SWAT 4? Fighting indoors in ARMA is like trying to wrestle a gorilla.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Cripsis

[Pyronick 21]

Actually it is because of a different focus. ARMA is renowned for the 'sheer scale' of the game - massive maps and the ability to stage incredibly large scale combined operations. Some other FPS game engines focus on the

smaller details, they are much better suited for simulating small unit actions.

At the end of the day it's all about compromise, the central focus of ARMA is scale, the central focus of engines like this -

http://www.program-ace.net/3d/technologies/ace3d_engine/

is the finer details.

Funny detail is that most game engines are increasing size limitations where Real Virtuality works both ways. ArmA 2 for instance has more finegrained terrain detail compared to previous iterations. Which you can also tell when seeing AI move on it.

But VBS2 for instance works on going bigger and bigger - trying to compete with flight simulators.

Detailed and decorated streets and rooms you see in populair first-person shooters won't be far away anymore.

[Cripsis 10]

Funny detail is that most game engines are increasing size limitations where Real Virtuality works both ways. ArmA 2 for instance has more finegrained terrain detail compared to previous iterations. Which you can also tell when seeing AI move on it.

I play ARMA on max settings (unless recording with FRAPS) and yes I agree the visuals are nice, but the fact remains that micro-destruction on ARMA sized maps is not going to happen any time soon.

[maddogx 13]

ArmA's engine is not player-centric in anything other than rendering. This means that if two groups are encountering each other 10km away ingame, they employ all the tactics and firepower as though you were there to watch it. You as a player may never see the outcome of that battle, but it still happens. This means the ArmA engine has a fidelity that other gamer engines do not.

Just a minor nit pick from me: distant AI units (i.e. ones that are far away from any players) are simulated with lower fidelity than closer ones, so strictly speaking the overall simulation can still be described as somewhat "player-centric", although not in the sense that all action takes place exclusively around the player. It's all a matter of definition of course. :)

Back on the topic of micro-destruction, I see myself in the "don't think it will happen, don't much care either way" camp. Even if they do increase the fidelity of environmental destruction, it certainly won't be dynamic - with the possible exception of some PhysX-enhanced eye candy debris, which would be kinda cool but not truly dynamic. If they do manage to even approach the level of destruction seen in BF3 I will be very, very surprized.

[dm 9]

The limitations in the area of this topic are valid and obvious.

The limitations of your argument and knowledge are valid and obvious...

ARMA used a beefed up OFP engine, ARMA2 used a polished up ARMA1 engine, ARMA3 is using a polished up ARMA2 engine...

Battle Field 3 uses a polished up Bad Company 2 engine which is in turn a polished up Bad Company engine...

Modern Warfare 3 uses a polished up Black Ops engine, which in turn is a polished up Modern Warfare 2 engine, which in turn is a polished up Modern Warfare engine.

CryEngine 3 is an improvement on CE2, which is an improvement on CE.

None of the "premier" engines are "new", but constant iterations of their predecessors...

[maturin 12]

Ever heard of SWAT 4? Fighting indoors in ARMA is like trying to wrestle a gorilla.

Indoor fighting =/= small group engagement. If you mean tactically constricted clusterfucks in broom closets, then ArmA doesn't do well, due to building design and a handful of animation and clipping issues. The varied and precise control you have over your avatar is superior to SWAT 4 or any other 1st person game. It's clunky, but indispensable for the initiated.