Arma 3 Community Alpha - Announcement!

[james2464 176]

Jay said they will have a date revealed at Gamesom in July, he says the Alpha will come around September followed by a Beta then full release early 2013

[oldbear 390]

Well, this is starting badly ... Gamescom in Cologne, Germany is set on 2012 15th Aug 2012 - 19th Aug 2012

If you get such a piece of intel coming from any official source, please quote the source or give an accurate description of the people involved because if you are just inferring such info from what we all already knew here, you will just get "Flame and Troll".

[royaltyinexile 175]

Hello! I've updated the OP with the latest details.

Obviously, we'd have preferred to unleash the alpha directly after E3, with the great interest we've experienced with Arma 3 with our community and the broader gaming media/ players.

Unfortunately, that's not been possible, in part - as I've mentioned to journalists and visitors to our booth - due to the implementation of certain fundamental features in the engine.

I'd really like to avoid any uncertainty or confusion spawning around this issue. To that end, we'll be as upfront about our plans as we can, with certain 'grey issues', such as access and content dealt with properly (i.e. formally) in the forthcoming weeks and months!

Best,

RiE

Edited June 11, 2012 by RoyaltyinExile

[rfc 10]

Cant.Wait.To.Get.It. :)

Appreciate the update!

[maddogx 13]

Damn, I was hoping to play the shit out of the alpha during my holiday in August. Seems like that's not gonna happen. :(

But as I've said before, it's for a good cause. I'm sure there are good reasons for the move from PhysX 2 to 3, and that we will all benefit from them. :D

[jhoson14 10]

So the alpha will be avaliable to any one who want to try it like ToH Alpha ?

Or will be closed for some lucky chosen members?

[Maio 293]

So the alpha will be avaliable to any one who want to try it like ToH Alpha ?

Or will be closed for some lucky chosen members?

Read the first post man :)

[Colossus 2]

...

Thanks for the update. It's understandable, of course, just heartbreaking. :( August or September it is then. :)

[Booster 1]

Fact: I'm going to kick everybody's ass in the firing drills.

[zimms 22]

Fact: Liars won't be allowed to participate in the CA. :mad_o:

[b00ce 160]

Hopefully I get to play the Alpha before I ship off to basic. :p

It would suck having to wait 26+ weeks to play ArmA3.

[slatts 1978]

Hopefully I get to play the Alpha before I ship off to basic. :p

It would suck having to wait 26+ weeks to play ArmA3.

Because real soldiering just isn't good enough :)

[celery 8]

Because real soldiering just isn't good enough :)

Comes home

"Alright, time for some real military action!"

[myshaak 0]

I don't know what to feel! Should I feel heartbroken that I won't be playing Arma 3 for another few months... or should I feel happy that Project Splendid won't make me spend an entire summer behind my computer? ;)

[Shatter3D_S0uL 1]

Well,good news in general.Thanks for the update.

[maddogx 13]

Would a BI dev be so kind as to elaborate on some of the advantages we will be seeing thanks to PhysX 3 when compared to PhysX 2? What motivated you guys to make the move?

[roberthammer 582]

MadDoX - i can guess the Physx 2.0 was too old and there was already a new version 3.2 > http://physxinfo.com/wiki/PhysX_SDK_3.x

[danny96 80]

MadDoX - i can guess the Physx 2.0 was too old and there was already a new version 3.2 > http://physxinfo.com/wiki/PhysX_SDK_3.x

Wow o_O. That news!

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Would a BI dev be so kind as to elaborate on some of the advantages we will be seeing thanks to PhysX 3 when compared to PhysX 2? What motivated you guys to make the move?

Why, realistic tank armour simulation being the prime reason, of course

C U on the battlefields of Colonge in August, my dear.

P.S. From that page,

(new) Full vehicle model that includes components such as engine, clutch, gears, autobox, differential, wheels, tyres, suspensions and chassis

(new in 3.2) N-wheeled vehicles (N > 2) and tanks

(new) Support for various tire types and drivable surface types

;-)

[gonk 0]

still would of liked to of got my hands on a early alpha, even with physx 2. Just to look at the features that are not covered by physx. This would give BIS better lead time to tweak. Oh well, good to see what Physx 3 can bring to the table.

[nodunit 397]

Why, realistic tank armour simulation being the prime reason, of course

C U on the battlefields of Colonge in August, my dear.

http://i.minus.com/in41RSxgPyPoy.png

P.S. From that page,

;-)

Don't get ahead of yourself now, that is what it CAN do, not necessarily what will be included and for all we know the move could have been due to a case of "use it or lose it".

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Don't get ahead of yourself now, that is what it CAN do, not necessarily what will be included and for all we know the move could have been due to a case of "use it or lose it".

Armour simulation out-the-box -- tis my dream, though I'm pretty confident they have switched to version 3.X due to the above-mentioned points: wheeled vehicles and tank (suspension, tracks) simulation. PhysX 2.0 only provided ragdolls, i.e. infantry AFAIK. :icon_twisted:

[PuFu 4600]

Armour simulation out-the-box -- tis my dream, though I'm pretty confident they have switched to version 3.X due to the above-mentioned points: wheeled vehicles and tank (suspension, tracks) simulation. PhysX 2.0 only provided ragdolls, i.e. infantry AFAIK. :icon_twisted:

If you want my 2 cents, the reason was there was no reason to keep old technology in, especially since once implemented, switching it to a newer one would have been a lot more demanding post-release.

The fact that SDK provides certain tools, as nou said, doesn't necessary mean they'll actually use them. I'll obviously love to be proven wrong though

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

If you want my 2 cents, the reason was there was no reason to keep old technology in, especially since once implemented, switching it to a newer one would have been a lot more demanding post-release.

The fact that SDK provides certain tools, as nou said, doesn't necessary mean they'll actually use them. I'll obviously love to be proven wrong though

If that APC physics in E3 demos is the best physics we're going to get, then that would be a waste, as 3.2 seems to be oriented towards vehicles, not mere ragdolls. I think the choice before them was thus: 1) PhysX 2.0 - infantry ragdolls, vehicles - not applicable/minimal simulation; 2) Version 3.x - everything relevant is included, which provides freedom of action, flexibility and extended longevity of the game.

A good read for any ArmA III Zealots out there,

1) http://physxinfo.com/wiki/PhysX_SDK_2.x

2) http://physxinfo.com/wiki/PhysX_SDK_3.x

Version 2.x is old, old, ooold legacy code based on Ageia physics engine, which had been bought by NV many moons ago. Ageia - hey, I remember that name... from 3DFX times. :cc:

Edited June 12, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Scrub 0]

If you want my 2 cents, the reason was there was no reason to keep old technology in, especially since once implemented, switching it to a newer one would have been a lot more demanding post-release.

The fact that SDK provides certain tools, as nou said, doesn't necessary mean they'll actually use them. I'll obviously love to be proven wrong though

As right as you've been for all your time on these forums, you ARE statistically due to be incorrect anytime now. ;)