Micro Destruction

[wipman 1]

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.

Hi, i'd seen bigger coop missions on the OFP Resistance, with more units on the three sides, longer ones, with more detailed orders and objectives than i've ever seen on the ArmA or the ArmA2; the ArmA series is true that it's about the scale of the islands, but you can't really drive a simple dysembarq on a beach with scripted CAS & naval Arti, you can't even shoot from the cargo of the AAV7A1 to on foot targets.

There isn't HQ & batallion structures, command lines, radars or anything... for don't have... we don't even an alive island, populated where the things work on their own instead have to place it all on the islands by ourselves and we're talking about few units if we want it to move; forget about a guerrillas clash and much less anything close to what a real military operation requires/haves. Still i don't think that a viable micro-destruction BF3 style would be possible with the ArmA3 as for what it seems the game models are made in the same way that always and also the terrain. Let's C ya

[frostwyrm333 1]

@wipman, wut, you are missing what? HQ & batallion structures? That was never intended part of game, things you mention can be created by community.

You can populate islands with civillians and stuff, is shouldn't be so hard with other units, and AI is even somewhat capable of waging wars with itself.

Srsly, why are you posting this stuff, arma 2 is 2,5 old game, it shouldn't be surprising.

[codarl 1]

we don't even an alive island, populated where the things work on their own instead have to place it all on the islands by ourselves and we're talking about few units if we want it to move; forget about a guerrillas clash and much less anything close to what a real military operation requires/haves. Still i don't think that a viable micro-destruction BF3 style would be possible with the ArmA3 as for what it seems the game models are made in the same way that always and also the terrain. Let's C ya

Game logics (as used in ArmA 2) take away a huge ammount of scripting: You can let the game create a fight around you, and villages, and lots and lots of other fancy stuff.

but you have to say so.

Using game logics to populate roads and villages and wildlife gives you more time to spend on the mission itself; big plus!

[wipman 1]

@wipman, wut, you are missing what? HQ & batallion structures? That was never intended part of game, things you mention can be created by community.

You can populate islands with civillians and stuff, is shouldn't be so hard with other units, and AI is even somewhat capable of waging wars with itself.

Srsly, why are you posting this stuff, arma 2 is 2,5 old game, it shouldn't be surprising.

I just just agreeing with Cripsis on that the ArmA series is about the island scale, but the retail game isn't up (12 years before the OFP) to even make a simple dysembarq with all the things that comes with it IRL. The retail game is just a long island or islands and war machines that work as WWII ones if we take as example the tanks; and for performance issues it won't work well with micro-destruction in the same way (visual one) than the BF3 for example, but it still allows many improvements on this concept, like bullet penetraion etc.. if we don't ask for the visual part.

[frostwyrm333 1]

Well, no surprises there since Arma 1, you either get it or not.

I expect of A3 to remove all the retarded stuff so it would be on a comparable level with other games from early 21st century, mostly animations and physics that are currently ruining the game. The only questions remaining is what will they deliver. The date is a killer. I doubt whether they will have done all the low level stuff by summer, along with the game content. If they want AAA title they should really make effort to make it perfect, even if it takes another half of a year. Third release like that.... thats a bad joke, but considering their history... we'll see. There should be more info next thursday

About RL disembarking ops, I have no idea about that, why wouldn't it work?

[[evo] dan 79]

Well, no surprises there since Arma 1, you either get it or not.

I expect of A3 to remove all the retarded stuff so it would be on a comparable level with other games from early 21st century, mostly animations and physics that are currently ruining the game. The only questions remaining is what will they deliver. The date is a killer. I doubt whether they will have done all the low level stuff by summer, along with the game content. If they want AAA title they should really make effort to make it perfect, even if it takes another half of a year. Third release like that.... thats a bad joke, but considering their history... we'll see. There should be more info next thursday

About RL disembarking ops, I have no idea about that, why wouldn't it work?

It would be extremely buggy to do as you cant shoot out of vehicles, and you cant move vehicles around on other ones easily without them exploding.

[stakex 0]

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

Exactly what capabilities does RV have that you have never seen in another engine? None, I would imagine. Sure there might not be another engine that has everything the RV engine does, but thats because there really are no other companies making games that are exactly like the ArmA series. No two engines have the same functionality, as most engines are built for a specific purpose. There are certainly engines that have a lot more, and far more advanced, functionality... but they might not be good at making open world war games. On the flip side if you tried to use the RV engine to make a game like BF3, it would never work.

With that said, I'm sure if a company was going to start making an ArmA style game right now... they would certainly not decide to go with the RV engine (lets pretend BIS would license it to them for the sake of conversation). It simply lacks a lot of basic features one would expect in a modern engine... like physics that aren't from the 1990's.

Guys, physics on this scale is purely for the SP experience you realize, anything other than rather basic destruction simply cannot be transmitted across MP clients in realistic terms. It's OK for ragdoll, where only the torso needs to be synced, but for thousands of discrete objects, it'll be either client-side eye-candy only, or SP only

Not true, at least sort of not true. The last two Red Faction games have done fully dynamic destruction in MP and it synced up pretty good. While it might not have been fully to the scale of ArmA, it DID work and was far beyond what I would call "basic destruction", which makes your statement false.

Besides, its not required that the client track every single debris object perfectly synced as you point out. You could simply have the client be told when/where/how much damage is done to the building and let the client run the simulation for the debris. While each client might see a slightly different outcome for each piece of debris, the main thing is that the actual dynamic damage to the building would be the same for everyone. The only drawback would be that the debris would be simple eye candy... but thats still 100 times better then the pre-build building damage models the game currently uses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bottom line on this issue is not about what BIS can or can't actually do... its about what they WANT to do. They blew a lot of smoke up peoples ass's when they removed their dynamic destruction system from ArmA2. They gave excuses like AI reacting to the damage, and poor content pipeline... issues other developers have solved just fine. There are performance and MP questions of course, but with effort those problems could be solved. Its not that BIS can't do it, its that they can get away without doing it.

Its the same reason dynamic destruction has not made its way to games like COD. Could it be done? Sure... but why bother when its not a deal breaker for most people? Its one feature that would take a lot of time and effort to pull off, and BIS just does not have the will to do it. I can't say I blame them totally, but it is a shame that a feature that could be really cool will never see the light of day.

[Cripsis 10]

There are performance and MP questions of course, but with effort those problems could be solved.

I don't profess to be an expert but this would be an immense project that would require a tremendous amount of development time and effort.

Its not that BIS can't do it, its that they can get away without doing it.

I feel the community is adequately compensated by the sheer scale and scope of ARMA, and in terms of realism no other FPS can hold a candle to ARMA.

[Tonci87 163]

With that said, I'm sure if a company was going to start making an ArmA style game right now... they would certainly not decide to go with the RV engine (lets pretend BIS would license it to them for the sake of conversation). It simply lacks a lot of basic features one would expect in a modern engine... like physics that aren't from the 1990's.

Google Ironfront

[msy 22]

On the flip side if you tried to use the RV engine to make a game like BF3, it would never work.

BF3 just has 4km^2 battle zone, some pre-set destruction and common FPS style animations.

All you want to say is that ARMA series always don't have common FPS style animations. Then ARMA series is not as good as thouse common FPS games.

Then to us ARMA has its own style, but to thouse of you, ARMA series are poor FPS games.

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

Google Ironfront

Does he mean deepsilver is a fool?

[Minoza 11]

Exactly what capabilities does RV have that you have never seen in another engine? None, I would imagine. Sure there might not be another engine that has everything the RV engine does, but thats because there really are no other companies making games that are exactly like the ArmA series. No two engines have the same functionality, as most engines are built for a specific purpose. There are certainly engines that have a lot more, and far more advanced, functionality... but they might not be good at making open world war games. On the flip side if you tried to use the RV engine to make a game like BF3, it would never work.

With that said, I'm sure if a company was going to start making an ArmA style game right now... they would certainly not decide to go with the RV engine (lets pretend BIS would license it to them for the sake of conversation). It simply lacks a lot of basic features one would expect in a modern engine... like physics that aren't from the 1990's.

You beat your own argument. Your third sentence was my point. You can basically program any engine to do whatever you want it to do, so when I talk about capabilities, I'm talking about what they offer in current state, not what other engines could or could not do if "they" wanted to.

How many other engines offer vast and populated areas such as Sahrani or Chernarus, while giving you as advanced AI as Arma has (advanced in terms of actions they can perform on their own)? None, I would imagine.

[batto 17]

On the flip side if you tried to use the RV engine to make a game like BF3, it would never work.

Why not? I just hope we'll see improved CQB in ARMA3. Then ARMA3 will kick BF3 in the @$$.

With that said, I'm sure if a company was going to start making an ArmA style game right now... they would certainly not decide to go with the RV engine (lets pretend BIS would license it to them for the sake of conversation). It simply lacks a lot of basic features one would expect in a modern engine... like physics that aren't from the 1990's.

Physics IS in ARMA3. Maybe light effects could be improved (though I've no complains so far... others complain).

They could also decide to pay 20% of earnings to CryTek. Or they could spend a dozen of man days making their own engine. Dude world is not that simple.

Its not that BIS can't do it, its that they can get away without doing it.

Again. You think it's simple. Bear with BIS. It's one of few companies left that didn't fall for money from Xbox kids.

Are you trolling?

Ops. I'm off topic.

Edited January 9, 2012 by batto

[Fenrisulven 1]

BF3 level of destruction won't be necessary but I have to agree, at least cover that you normally use a lot could have a more detailed destruction mesh. This would be possible without changing the engine. Just make enough meshes and divide, for examples the wall into more segments. If someone is blasting you with a .50 it would be nice to see the cover being gradually degraded. That way you will get a visual hint to when it's time to move.

[froggyluv 2130]

How many other engines offer vast and populated areas such as Sahrani or Chernarus, while giving you as advanced AI as Arma has (advanced in terms of actions they can perform on their own)? None, I would imagine.

This is a huge point for me at least. BF3 has NO AI anymore -meaning, I cant load up an MP map and play with bots and practice flying, have fun running around blowing shit up etc... The campaign isn't real AI, they are just scripted for each scene and I find this to be a huge drawback. Of course it's supposed to shine as an MP game and in some way it does but it doesn't feel like I actually own the game -but am more a paying particpant to jump on Origin and then into a server rather. Sometimes you just want to mess around in you own bought and paid for game.

They took the easy way out and dumped AI programming in favor of scripted nonsense.

[NeMeSiS 11]

This is a huge point for me at least. BF3 has NO AI anymore -meaning, I cant load up an MP map and play with bots and practice flying, have fun running around blowing shit up etc... The campaign isn't real AI, they are just scripted for each scene and I find this to be a huge drawback. Of course it's supposed to shine as an MP game and in some way it does but it doesn't feel like I actually own the game -but am more a paying particpant to jump on Origin and then into a server rather. Sometimes you just want to mess around in you own bought and paid for game.

They took the easy way out and dumped AI programming in favor of scripted nonsense.

From what i remember the BF1942 AI was on predefined pathways anyway, so the difference wasnt that big... :p

[Fenrisulven 1]

This is a huge point for me at least. BF3 has NO AI anymore -meaning, I cant load up an MP map and play with bots and practice flying, have fun running around blowing shit up etc... The campaign isn't real AI, they are just scripted for each scene and I find this to be a huge drawback. Of course it's supposed to shine as an MP game and in some way it does but it doesn't feel like I actually own the game -but am more a paying particpant to jump on Origin and then into a server rather. Sometimes you just want to mess around in you own bought and paid for game.

They took the easy way out and dumped AI programming in favor of scripted nonsense.

That pretty much sums up my feeling of BF3 missing bots in MP maps. Any bot, even stupid bots is better then none. Also you can't create your own dedicated servers in BF3, WTF is up with that? Let's hope BIS never change their formula.

[dragon01 902]

BF3 level of destruction won't be necessary but I have to agree, at least cover that you normally use a lot could have a more detailed destruction mesh. This would be possible without changing the engine. Just make enough meshes and divide, for examples the wall into more segments. If someone is blasting you with a .50 it would be nice to see the cover being gradually degraded. That way you will get a visual hint to when it's time to move.

Red Faction had it's GeoMod for some time now, perhaps this could be used for AIII. It actually did all modifications on the fly, thus making complex internal divisions less necessary. I think that BIS should take a look into using a similar system. I'd like to be able to enter a building not only through doors, but, for instance, by firing an RPG at the wall and going in through the hole.

This would add a lot more tactical possibilities, while being comparatively light on CPU and memory (correct me if I'm wrong though, I guess that keeping track of it could prove problematic). Most of the time, only 2-4 modifications would be executed, with the exceptions being weapons like GAU-8 or mass satchel detonations, neither of which happens frequently. .50 cal guns should be the smallest weapons to which it would be applied in most cases and most of the time, there's one or two firing.

Also, at a certain distance from the player, some generic destruction schematic could be applied, so the player could come across damaged areas without wasting CPU power on actually calculating deformations for every shot.

Another thing I'd like to see is glass breaking like in Red Faction. When I first seen the effect I was amazed, it looked very real.

[PuFu 4591]

in case you haven't noticed this already:

5_YRFLGbd7c

from HERE

[Cripsis 10]

I'm intrigued, definitely need to experiment with this.

[bigpickle 0]

Although you say that, I've heard plenty of reports about Afghani compounds resisting absurd levels of damage in the real world. Never doubt the power of compacted and dried mud.

an pooh

[batto 17]

@PuFu:

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Heh, cool. :)

[froggyluv 2130]

Didn't DeanosBeano have something similar a while back :confused:

Thats stuff's mouthwatering -tho I don't like it to the extreme that Bad Company takes it -I worked demo construction for a few years and don't remember any M4's with me 5 and 12lb hammer takin down walls :D

[krazikilla 5]

Actually for soldner secret wars micro destruction was possible like 8 years ago.

They created a very decent destruction system which worked quite well on huge maps and like 30 players playing it online. You could even destroy landscapes with big explosions, which left craters.

If THIS, was possible 8 years ago. Why it shouldnt be today? Why it shoulndt be possible to do it even 100x nicer?

http://www.soldnersecretwars.de/index.php?mod=static&action=view&id=9

I know you cannot totally compare soldner - secrete wars with the ArmA series, but in general the idea and the maps are comparable.

Also dont forget, you can handle a lot of destruction via CPU and nice algortihms. Just a few bigger parts of rubbel may have to be synct via internet. Even that i think you can handle by algorithms CPU/GPU side.

Watch this movie, only 2minutes long and remember this game is 8! years old, its german, but only watch the destruction:

Edited January 22, 2012 by KrAziKilla

[frostwyrm333 1]

lol soldner secret wars, ancient overhyped game with poor rankings I never played looks like an interesting game. Will try it out. (since its free)