Is Arma III gonna shape up?

[dm 9]

Yay, another "will it be as "good" as crytek" thread.

[Madeon 6]

Yay, another "will it be as "good" as crytek" thread.

It's impossible to deny that Cryengine 3 has the best game graphics in the history of mankind -

JWvgETOo5ek

* video MUST be played in HD to truly appreciate the power of Cryengine 3

However Cryengine 3 is not designed for large scale maps, therefore the Real Virtuality 3 engine is currently the best engine available for a game of Arma3's enormous scale.

[dmarkwick 261]

It's impossible to deny that Cryengine 3 has the best game graphics in the history of mankind -

... but not necessarily the most appropriate graphics for the ArmA3 gamestyle. Cryengine makes mostly single-player & player-centric games, right?

[chortles 263]

... but not necessarily the most appropriate graphics for the ArmA3 gamestyle. Cryengine makes mostly single-player & player-centric games, right?

Hey now, Madeon basically said this about the engines overall after the part you quoted. ;) There's nothing inappropriate about the engine's graphics quality, it's about the extent of its simulation... I have no idea what you mean by "player-centric" though.

That is, that old RTI video DEFINITELY looked better than ARMA 2/VBS2 2.0, more realistic even (hahaha I'm actually not kidding here)... but I wouldn't be surprised if there were "under-the-hood" limitations that'd prevent it from being a VBS2 successor (even if it's adopted for more limited use).

[dmarkwick 261]

Hey now, Madeon basically said this about the engines overall after the part you quoted. ;) There's nothing inappropriate about the engine's graphics quality, it's about the extent of its simulation...

I guess I should have said "but not necessarily the most appropriate engine for the ArmA3 gamestyle" so my bad on that.

I have no idea what you mean by "player-centric" though.

It's about the extent of its simulation, just as you said. I can be sure that, 10km away on Charnarus, two opposing groups will be applying their AI around all the maps's local features as though I were there to see it....

That is, that old RTI video DEFINITELY looked better than ARMA 2/VBS2 2.0, more realistic even (hahaha I'm actually not kidding here)... but I wouldn't be surprised if there were "under-the-hood" limitations that'd prevent it from being a VBS2 successor (even if it's adopted for more limited use).

All engines have something that prevent it being the jack-of-all-trades. I'm sure I would buy a sufficiently cool game made in the Crysis engine, and my expectations would be different to a game from BIS. Not necessarily a poorer game, just not what I'm after maybe....? :)

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Yay, another "will it be as "good" as crytek" thread.

Well actually I didn't start this thread purely to compare the two. I am actually more interested in how Arma III is gonna take advantage of the engine improvements in RV4. But I guess it kinda escalated :j:, maybe we should just compare it with Arma II from now on :p

[Madeon 6]

I am actually more interested in how Arma III is gonna take advantage of the engine improvements in RV4.

The biggest advantage of the new engine is the AI improvement. For some unknown reason they didn't reveal the new AI system at E3 but it is going to be showcased at Gamescom. I don't know how they done it, but the new system is nothing short of a miracle, the stark contrast to the predecessor AI is amazing.

[noone1 1]

I would rather have graphics like these:

http://www.athensbytaxi.com/eikones/t_Limnos0021_b.jpg (146 kB)

I would like the island feel more "living" too, with animals, civilians, vehicles and bigger cities.

[zimms 22]

Don't know. The water looks way too unrealistic.

:P

[ProfTournesol 956]

The biggest advantage of the new engine is the AI improvement. For some unknown reason they didn't reveal the new AI system at E3 but it is going to be showcased at Gamescom. I don't know how they done it, but the new system is nothing short of a miracle, the stark contrast to the predecessor AI is amazing.

Source ?

[noone1 1]

I think the Outerra engine would look cool in Arma:

[dmarkwick 261]

I think I might have come in here, at least, this discussion feels very familiar :)

[PuFu 4591]

Source ?

wishful thingking

[nodunit 397]

It's impossible to deny that Cryengine 3 has the best game graphics in the history of mankind -

* video MUST be played in HD to truly appreciate the power of Cryengine 3

However Cryengine 3 is not designed for large scale maps, therefore the Real Virtuality 3 engine is currently the best engine available for a game of Arma3's enormous scale.

It is impressive to be certain but I wish they weren't going with movies for style, that contrasted, desaturated, filtered look that made me puke once with an upset stomach. It's nice but for someone who prefers lifelike visuals IE the diverse and rich colors and "dull" by comparison shading (not nearly as much as glare or bloom and things of that nature) RV3 will look better, and if they made the tweaks in Sandbox to make it look more like crysis as opposed to..something else, I'd be all over it.

Don't get me wrong, visually the engine is amazing and the team has put a lot of hard work into it, and it shows..but it comes off looking more like a painting of movie than a game, and it sort of belittles it.

When comparing this http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/122/1223066/Crysis3_screens_3_1334588724.png to this http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs39/f/2008/320/e/4/Crysis_HD_Screenshot_2_by_DarkRed27.jpg the former certainly has more going for it and the ashetic is great, it really projects the ruined, nature reclaimed city but the sky going super nova with the brownish filtering and high contrast makes it look less appealing to look at. Without them I think the scene would be terrific.

Edited August 11, 2012 by NodUnit

[metalcraze 290]

It's impossible to deny that Cryengine 3 has the best game graphics in the history of mankind -

I'm not exactly sure how having nothing but brown and green colours with the screen covered in BF3 puke while the scene has a really poor amount of detail is "best game graphics in the history of mankind"

A random Crysis 3 screenshot from google

http://games.mail.ru/pic/pc/gallery/0d/1b/crysis_3_screenshot_39250d6c.jpeg

Where there are no plain walls there is fog 100m away, them 2D trees. If not for textures and BF3 puke covering the screen I would've thought we are back in early 00s

Random Crysis 1 screenshot from google

http://a-1293.narod.ru/Crysis_1_for_mirasol/crysis1_for_mirasol_1.png

Much more glorious detail and draw distance. Doesn't even need BF3 puke to cover anything.

Crysis3 graphics are worse than 5 years old Crysis. So yeah it's possible to deny.

Edited August 11, 2012 by metalcraze

[Firby 1]

And remember that the ARMA engine draws about 400 square kilometres and cryengine draws a small tube shooter level. You can't compare them.

[tremanarch 6]

So I know that the BIS developers did a heck of job evolving the new engine Arma III is gonna run on (sorry I don't know the official name of the engine). But I am just curious as to how it is gonna shape up to the improved CryEngine 3 from Crytek.

I know I probably shouldn't be expecting the same thing from Bohemia purely based on the fact that the Arma III engine is being developed with a totally diffrent mindset and purpose. But as far as the techincal terms go I was curious when one would lay the finished Arma III engine and the CryEngine 3 next to each other how they would compare. What will be the strenghts and weaknesses of both Engines, how are they similair, and how do they differ from one another.

Also considdering that the military trainingsoftware Realtime Immersive (which has also been named quite a few times on these forums if I'm not mistaken) is build upon the CryEngine I was curious as to how the would compare.

So yeah, there's a question. Maybe the dev's could give us some more insight in the improvements that they have made. Or maybe someone who know's more of this stuff then I do :p

its only a very small "world" with no AI

and it doesnt look and feel realistic - more like a buffed hero universe with strong colours and cool stuff all around...

not comparable to a3...

[Sam75 0]

I agree that crysis has nothing to do with Arma and can't really be compared but I ve seen some nice thing from Realtime Immersive:

In this video for instance at 00:38, NVG lightning is much more believable that all I ve seen from Arma3 so far, why is it so hard to replicate ?

[dm 9]

We should really create a new internet law, similar to Godwins law:

Spanel's Law

It is impossible to discuss ArmA without drawing comparisons with Crytek, suggesting it might work better in Outerra or posting the Real Time Immersive tech demos

The cycle can not be broken...

[BlueWolf 1]

They need to do more without getting nasty about it

1) Hire NewTech Programmers for the Development team & let go some of the old ones (they have the money )

2) Separate The Development Team from Administrators (period)

3) Re Design & Re Organize a Better Suitable Less Clutter Packed File System

addons + Expansion + Mods = too much unnecessary file space for what the end results are worth.

4) A New Re Design and Enhanced Graphical Engine ..Not re build on top of the old one!

as times & technology changes so should arma.

Until They get the Engine & Graphics to be less rat infested with buggy Quirks and

Un Acceptable Lag Prone Game Play I will wait for arma 5 vs forking out money for

the same damn thing with a few fixes.

This is what I expect to pay good money for ..good crisp lag free quality gameplay

taken from the sim DCS A-10... so add some Tank & Infantry in a quality FPS!

[metalcraze 290]

If you have lags you should check your network connection.

This is what I expect to pay good money for ..good crisp lag free quality gameplay

taken from the sim DCS A-10... so add some Tank & Infantry in a quality FPS!

You expect to pay money for buildings drawn on the flat ground?

OK man, whatever you say.

[BlueWolf 1]

If you have lags you should check your network connection.

I get ridiculous lag in single player..not just mp

though we are talking blastcore SFX FX Warmods so..

You expect to pay money for buildings drawn on the flat ground?

OK man, whatever you say.

I would pick well textured low poly box modeled buildings vs super detailed unplayable skipLag 'any day'

Edited August 11, 2012 by BlueWolf
typo

[metalcraze 290]

I get ridiculous lag in single player..not just mp

I'm not sure you know what lag means. Just like I'm not sure you know the differences between rendering a bunch of empty low poly hills without trees or buildings and a highly detailed vegetation and villages on a much more detailed terrain among many other things.

I would pick well textured low poly box modeled buildings vs super detailed unplayable skipLag 'any day'

In that case you are always free to install older ArmA or even OFP if upgrading your PC to keep up with modern offerings is out of the question. They will have much better FPS than ArmA3 at much lesser detail. Problem solved.

[nodunit 397]

its only a very small "world" with no AI

and it doesnt look and feel realistic - more like a buffed hero universe with strong colours and cool stuff all around...

not comparable to a3...

Strong colors? I loved Mirror's Edge!

[maturin 12]

If you have lags you should check your network connection.

You expect to pay money for buildings drawn on the flat ground?

OK man, whatever you say.

DCS draws thousands of trees and buildings, with a view distance of hundreds of kilometers (might I remind you that past 4000m, ArmA draws only straight land textures and nothing else).

Like ArmA, the performance is often somewhat disappointing given what you get, and there are plenty of complaints about the series in that regard.