Arma 3 Community Alpha - Announcement!

[reaper lok 82]

Let them get unpacked from GC....give them 20 minutes for a coffee then hit the RELEASE ALPHA button please :) We will all be happy to play with the current version then feel free to patch it as often as you need. But seriously, I hope we can get our hands on an Alpha build before November.......the E3 and GC video clips have me excited about the upgrades in graphical fidelity and the new gameplay features.

Claymores - oh yes please!

Underwater action - me thanx you!

Driving immersion - bring it on!

Trip wire mines - cha-ching!

New character animations - sweet!

[alx 20]

The more delayed the alpha is, the lower the prices on graphics cards (which I'll need to buy), so I'm happy with an Xmas release of the alpha.

[stk2008 14]

The more delayed the alpha is, the lower the prices on graphics cards (which I'll need to buy), so I'm happy with an Xmas release of the alpha.

Yeah but some of us have no money for computer parts I wish I could upgarde just for ARMA I have done it in the past but cant any more familys MEh :P.

So yeah ASAP would be better for me then I could see how it will run on my rig or at least have an idea :(.

Q6700 @ stock speeds

ATI 4870 1GB @ stock speeds

4 GB ram

[Ash712 1]

The "Alpha" was originally planned for what like August/September before the delay, so now it's more like December?

DayZ's "Stand Alone Alpha" is set for October/November according to Rocket, so it looks like that will be out before an ArmA 3 "Alpha" :(

I'd be happy if they just released the "Gamescon Alpha" for us to play with as a "Tease" until the official "Community Alpha" is ready...PLEASE BI?

[kylania 567]

I'd be happy if they just released the "Gamescon Alpha" for us to play with as a "Tease" until the official "Community Alpha" is ready...PLEASE BI?

I'd love that too, but if you listen to many of the videos there's still a lot of little things missing or not fully implemented on the PhysX side and there's no use in releasing an Alpha that isn't complete for what it has to offer.

[gossamersolid 155]

there's no use in releasing an Alpha that isn't complete for what it has to offer.

I have to strongly disagree with you here.

The point in releasing an Alpha is so that people can see how the game is coming along and contribute their thoughts and ideas and point out bugs/issues. We all know how BIS' previously released games were when they were released. If the alpha is held off till it's "complete", then there's no point in there being an alpha.

I for one also would like to use the alpha is an opportunity to start porting missions over so that I have something good to go for launch.

[gonk 0]

The point in releasing an Alpha is so that people can see how the game is coming along and contribute their thoughts and ideas and point out bugs/issues. We all know how BIS' previously released games were when they were released. If the alpha is held off till it's "complete", then there's no point in there being an alpha.

+1...

[oldbear 390]

@Ash712 : I would have it too, as it is in GC Alpha state, but as I have seen while testing it some items such as the underwater anims need some work, as well as the full implementation of PhysX for vehicles. So if a dedicated guy as I am can feel it and understand it as work in progress flaws what about the noobs hordes ? The Alpha need to be a solid, homogeneous core before being released as a public and/or as a "play and contribute" Community Alpha.

Seasoned BIS games players, like me, are remembering well that initial Arma release was more or less in Alpha state and that a lot of unfinished buggy reputation about Arma games comes from that release. I believe that BIS is going to get rid of this in releasing a more tweaked game even as a Community Alpha for Arma3.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Old Bear

[Gilson 10]

IF they released the alpha within, say, the next month, it wouldn't have multiplayer, wouldn't have the new radio chatter system in, nor would it have a *working* editor. Then you'd only complain because it didn't have them. They want to release the community alpha and give us all these things so that we can use and abuse them, and give them enough time and feedback to release a game, instead of it being like Arma 2.

[arigram 0]

BIS developers have stated that features will be added to the alpha after its release to be tested by the community.

The first release of alpha will happen when the testing platform includes the planned features and code status for testing and only the developers can judge when that state is reached, otherwise the testing won't be as useful.

The alpha isn't just an appetiser of the main course and a vehicle to deliver wishes and complaints as impatient gamers see it. That's why very specific content will be presented for testing, in the beginning and later on and the better organized the process is, the more succesful the testing period will be.

It doesn't matter -when- the alpha is released, it only matters that it is organized and not rushed, not unlike the whole development process.

So, be patient. It will be done when its done.

[MavericK96 0]

I have to strongly disagree with you here.

The point in releasing an Alpha is so that people can see how the game is coming along and contribute their thoughts and ideas and point out bugs/issues. We all know how BIS' previously released games were when they were released. If the alpha is held off till it's "complete", then there's no point in there being an alpha.

I for one also would like to use the alpha is an opportunity to start porting missions over so that I have something good to go for launch.

Absolutely this. I was just thinking about this last night...the E3 and Gamescom "Alphas" looked very functional to me. Why does it keep getting delayed? It doesn't need to be feature-complete or bug-free...that's the point of Alpha. The sooner they are released to the community, the sooner the community can start ironing out bugs and providing feedback on mechanics, balance, etc. Would they rather release a near-complete "Alpha" and have to go back and revamp the entire thing if the community finds it to be crap, or fix it as they go...?

Remember:

Alpha = Feature incomplete, focus on adding/tweaking engine and mechanics, lots of bugs and balance issues

Beta = Feature complete, focus on ironing out bugs and balance issues

[CarlGustaffa 4]

We all know how BIS' previously released games were when they were released. If the alpha is held off till it's "complete", then there's no point in there being an alpha.

I for one also would like to use the alpha is an opportunity to start porting missions over so that I have something good to go for launch.

I disagree. Alpha shouldn't be released too early, with the effect of having the interest it causes be able to die down, given that it's open to everyone. Even as an alpha, it should have the major things in, and I think the PhysX 3.0 implementation is a pretty huge part of that. Even during alpha, there won't be any big revisions wrt feature content. We may be able to influence how the new input system works, but maybe not the philosophy behind it - way too late in the development cycle.

Maybe a closed (full version) beta to certain productive content providers, but I fear it'll just be leaked quickly anyhow.

[kremator 1064]

I'm for delaying it for quite a while. Too busy with MechWarrior Online and GuildWars2 tomorrow :) Keep coding BIS!

[instagoat 133]

They want to bring in some essential features before they start the alpha. That they´re not doing so suggests that they´re either not implemented yet, or are being problematic. Things mentioned at GC aside from physX were the command interface, netcode things and such. However, I too am rather keen on getting my hands on this, sooner rather than later.

But that´s just me being impatient.

[iratus 71]

I'm for delaying it for quite a while. Too busy with MechWarrior Online and GuildWars2 tomorrow :) Keep coding BIS!

I'm willing to sacrifice GuildWars 2 in favour of alphatesting ArmA3 any time :o

But I guess it makes sense to get things on a certain level before you start to test them. Otherwise you'll get "bugs" reported that only occour because of those missing parts (that are on schedule to be implemented).

[metalcraze 290]

They need to improve AI so it won't have same issues as in ArmA2 - then they can release the alpha. AI is pretty much the only thing that hasn't been improved thus far. At least teach it to use buildings for attacking and defending and make it react really fast to stuff around it.

[froggyluv 2130]

At least teach it to use buildings for attacking and defending and make it react really fast to stuff around it.

I don't think this is gonna happen as they continue to reiterate that the only enhancements will be a better config. Getting AI to fight/defend from buildings would need more then that methinks.

[metalcraze 290]

But it's crucial. I think it was Marek who said that they won't make 3D editor because those people were moved to another stuff including AI. BIS should make that count.

It's been more than 2 years since fully enterable buildings became the standard for ArmA and AI still can't use them. I don't want to wait until ArmA4 to get proper urban combat in SP and COOP.

[HKFlash 9]

But it's crucial. I think it was Marek who said that they won't make 3D editor because those people were moved to another stuff including AI. BIS should make that count.

It's been more than 2 years since fully enterable buildings became the standard for ArmA and AI still can't use them. I don't want to wait until ArmA4 to get proper urban combat in SP and COOP.

You've waited 11, surely you can't wait some more years. :p

[Bee8190 10]

My guess, is that there (A3) won't be too many different buildings so to my genuine question: whats the issue to have the AI pre-scripted for those buildings? They (AI), could maybe show even some decent fight, once they'd enter them?

[oldbear 390]

@Bee8190 : in fact it's not a problem to have many different buildings, to have AI fighting in buildings you must have 2 conditions.

- The buildings must be build to give AI clear pathways,

- The AI itself must have clear and unequivocal mechanism to deal with buildings.

Let's remember that some previous attempts -for Arma- with destroyable buildings were stopped after BIS has noticed the AI was unable to deal with destroyed models.

[dmarkwick 261]

@Bee8190 : in fact it's not a problem to have many different buildings, to have AI fighting in buildings you must have 2 conditions.

- The buildings must be build to give AI clear pathways,

- The AI itself must have clear and unequivocal mechanism to deal with buildings.

True, Plus, some rather low-level AI behavior needs to be in place, othrwise you get the behavior that AI will just stand/crouch at a window firing out of it. They need a more intelligent approach to this, but in principle I would accept this behavior over AI not using buildings at all :)

Let's remember that some previous attempts -for Arma- with destroyable buildings were stopped after BIS has noticed the AI was unable to deal with destroyed models.

It sounds like a (relatively) easy fix to me: just disregard any destroyed building. JIP shows that destroyed buildings enter some sort of list.

[Madeon 6]

I think if BIS could figure out a way for the AI to navigate and fight from within buildings it would be the icing on the cake for the Arma series. I accept that it's impossible to make the AI behave perfectly when fighting in buildings but any improvements in this area would be very much welcomed. If someone can create a mod where the AI will navigate/fight better in buildings I will happily donate some money to them for their efforts.

[carlostex 38]

One answer for AI in buildings is in my signature, although is a costly one.

[oldbear 390]

One of the problem I has heard of is the fact that the IA tend to considers some objects as obstacles and tend to avoid/go around them. If I had understood well that is one of the issue forbidding atm to have underground structures in Arma3.