Confirmed features now cancelled - your thoughts?

[dmarkwick 261]

I think ruhtraeel was strictly speaking about the racgdoll physics, which, to me is pretty much only for immersion (and of course sick fun with explosives). Other than Dmarckwicks point, I don't see any gameplay value to them. Although they do look to be much more responsive than arma 2 - no more shooting a guy in the face six times and having him drop after 3 seconds. Is that due to ragdolls or some other feature?

That's another benefit of ragdoll, no need to wait for any current animations to finish before applying a death animation - they just simply disconnect & fall :)

[Engioc 10]

I only read the first few pages on this but as far as I'm concerned ArmA 3 is going to be an awesome game. Also I would of thought anyone playing games for any length of time would realise features that are talked about as confirmed during development often never make it to release because of problems getting them to work properly.

Been playing games since the early 80s and certainly not come across many PC games that shipped with all the ideas that were thrown around during the development. As far as I understand it ArmA 3 still has a long way to go before release and I think they're doing exactly the right thing by making sure they only leave things in that work, more than anything else it was the bugs that prevented ArmA 2 from being a bigger success than it was. A good rock solid stable release is what's needed for ArmA 3, other features you talk about can be added later through DLC's and full blown expansions.

Arma2 seems to have so much life still left in her I wouldn't care if they keep delaying to polish as much as possible.

I totally agree, I was actually surprised when ArmA 3 was announced, I felt they could of done a few more expansions to ArmA 2. When I first joined these forums I did some complaining about the amount of bugs in ArmA 2 but to me with the fixes we already have its good enough, it can still be painful at times but not so bad I couldn't of enjoyed playing for another year or two.

BIS are quite generous for some reason, providing a platform for film-makers, wannabe modders, programmers, who are just starting out and many others, though that list doesn't include the Player.

I would argue that list does include the player, I'm a player and also one of those film makers :).

I think BIS are one of the best devs around, they listen and care about their community way more than most other devs in my experience. When I look around at most other companies like Ubisoft, EA, Codemasters, Atari and the other big companies its clear they have absolutely no care at all for the fans. They release games likes Assassin's Creed loaded with bugs and rarely bother to fix anything but the absolute game breaking bugs because in 6 months to a year they're pumping out the next one to cheat you in to buying. Look around at what most of these other companies are selling you and the prices they charge, crappy DRM always online protection systems, shitty console ports, over hyped games where you pay a shit load more because you bought the black edition that included no actual gameplay bonuses but a nice (worthless/pointless) figurine. Look at the DLCs most companies release and the prices they want in comparison with what the DLC actually gives you.

Clearly I'm now getting carried away on my rant about the shitty gaming industry. I don't know how many others on these forums play other games but honestly its hard to find another developer that treats its fans as well as BIS do. Assassin's Creed Revelations release this year was a very bad console port and has received virtually no support from Ubi, compare that to ArmA 2 released in 2009 receiving its latest update just a few short weeks ago whilst also developing ArmA 3. Yet there are so many people on here bitching about what ArmA 3 MIGHT not have included and how bad BIS are. You people dont seem to realise how good you got it.

Developers I feel you get a good deal with (in not particular order):

Rockstar (GTA)

BIS

Egosoft (X Universe)

Creative Assembly (Total War)

Nitro Games (EIC and CoTA)

Auran (Trainz, hoping their new simulator store will include BIS games)

Gaming Mind Studios (Patrician, Port Royale)

ISI (rFactor)

Simbin (Race 07, GTR Evo)

OK I'll end the list there but my reason for listing them is most companies who offer their fans a good deal with pricing and continued support are the smaller guys just like BIS. Big companies just want your money and their solution to any of your bugs is to forget the one you just paid $100+ for and buy the next one. Apart from Rockstar most of these companies aren't that well known and their games not at the top of most peoples list but just like BIS you get support for years in to the future. The companies flogging you COD, AC and the like will never be as good imo because they lack any real creativity to begin with (all they understand is marketing reports) but mostly because all they care about is the money.

Don't get me wrong all developers are in it for money but I still see a clear difference in how BIS treat its customers compared to an EA or Ubi. I'd also argue with a company like BIS its clear there is more to it than JUST money, they seem to have an interest in the product, game, genre their creating for us.

In the past I was a big fan of old Might and Magic games, before the days of 3DO, and I remember a statement by Jon Van Caneghem during the demise of 3DO about how many people create games but it takes something more to create really great games. Big companies cant take the gamble and just listen to marketing to make games, but the biggest sellers in gaming history are made by people who had the balls to step away from the crowd and create something entirely new and different. SimCity, The Sims, like em or not they won because they were nothing like any other game. BIS wins because they have the balls to be different.

Last thing is I'm actually glad they don't overdo the marketing, they give us updates on their progress when its worthwhile doing so, as opposed to EA or Ubi who feed you so much info you know every aspect of the game before you even get it and are ultimately let down because it can never live up to the hype they generated.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Engioc

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I think ruhtraeel was strictly speaking about the racgdoll physics, which, to me is pretty much only for immersion (and of course sick fun with explosives). Other than Dmarckwicks point, I don't see any gameplay value to them. Although they do look to be much more responsive than arma 2 - no more shooting a guy in the face six times and having him drop after 3 seconds. Is that due to ragdolls or some other feature?

Are you nuts? Articulated vehicles with fully-working suspension are ragdolls. The PhysX engine is built around ragdolls, it will fully replace the current ArmA II Ping Pong mechanics.

Some people, Jesus wept.

I remember the old thread: "we doent ned phyziks, wat is tis - 21st Century? We ned 3d editoor with crap death animations and tetris mechanics in collision detection."

---------- Post added at 12:29 ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 ----------

fJS35p5g8l8

---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 ----------

UNwgRch5PMY

BF 3 is running Havok, but PhysX can also simulate different materials and their properties.

Regarding competition: Be quick or be dead.

[-Coulum- 35]

Are you nuts? Articulated vehicles with fully-working suspension are ragdolls. The PhysX engine is built around ragdolls, it will fully replace the current ArmA II Ping Pong mechanics.

Some people, Jesus wept.

I remember the old thread: "we doent ned phyziks, wat is tis - 21st Century? We ned 3d editoor with crap death animations and tetris mechanics in collision detection."

Okay sorry. The way the bodies of dead people go limp after being killed (it looks kind of like a ragdoll...) is to me, more aesthetic than game changing. The rest of the physics and the "ragdoll" on the vehicles ballistics etc. (seems like an odd term to describe vehicles but whatever...) are all very important and will help the game even more than most people expect.

Is that a little less "nuts" for you?

We're saying the exact same thing but for some reason you refuse to be happy with that.

Edited September 14, 2012 by -Coulum-

[maddogx 13]

Are you nuts? Articulated vehicles with fully-working suspension are ragdolls.

Actually, the term "ragdoll" isn't really used that broadly. Mostly it is used to describe procedural death animations on "living" entities (humans, animals, aliens etc.), though occasionally also for other procedural animations (such as those created by the Euphoria middleware).

Referring to vehicle suspensions and articulation as ragdoll is quite a stretch. By that definition, almost any interaction between rigid bodies via joints would be "ragdoll".

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Referring to vehicle suspensions and articulation as ragdoll is quite a stretch. By that definition, almost any interaction between rigid bodies via joints would be "ragdoll".

Since wheels, suspension, doors and other articulated components are "animated", there needs to be a definition - rigid bodies could be one, but in this case ragdoll fits best. Not to mention collision detection between these bodies.

Remember, PhysX vehicle simulation is derivative of basic character ragdolls. (See 2.x -> 3.x)

[maddogx 13]

Remember, PhysX vehicle simulation is derivative of basic character ragdolls. (See 2.x -> 3.x)

Both are simulated the same way, but what I'm saying is that it's uncommon for such animations to be referred to as ragdoll on anything but living objects.

If you want to do that anyway, fine, but perhaps you should make that clear from the start - you know, instead of calling people "nuts" when they misinterpret your meaning. ;)

Edited September 14, 2012 by MadDogX

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

If you want to do that anyway, fine, but perhaps you should make that clear from the start - you know, instead of calling people "nuts" when they misinterpret your meaning. ;)

Well, I gave them clear example footage on what context I was operating, yet none addressed it. :D

PFoy7hdMD1c

LOL

[dmarkwick 261]

My understanding of "ragdoll" as applied to ArmA is the procedural animation of dead units. Other stuff is "PhysX" :) so ragdoll is a subset of PhysX.

[Moerderhoschi 107]

Any information about fireing from vehicles?

I think i can remember on a interview with Ivan Buchta at E3 in which he said that BI is trying to implement this feature.

imo it would be a very useful feature for ArmA.

regards

moerderhoschi

[Maio 293]

Any information about fireing from vehicles?

I think i can remember on a interview with Ivan Buchta at E3 in which he said that BI is trying to implement this feature.

imo it would be a very useful feature for ArmA.

regards

moerderhoschi

Well Lord Ivan mentioned it in 2 separate occasions so I guess it;s still on the "let's do it if we have time" list.

[Yeti1 1]

I'm sure BIS will try their hardest to put more into this game, sometimes though some things take that much time that they simply can't put it in, I imagine doing the underground structures is a coding/editing nightmare!. Considering the quality of what we have seen and what else is on offer I wouldn't be too bothered about these minor exclusions, besides they might even end up in the game, who can tell.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Fixing basic gameplay in accordance with available technology is the utmost priority, everything else can be added in expansion packs and DLCs. Speaking of DLCs: not many bought them for ArmA II, because it's not that kind of platform, which grows on you to the level, where you'd be dishing out cash for more units and campaigns, when the vanilla game is broken and unpleasing aesthetically.

If they don't provide a smooth experience for the player, as he's standing in the basic training camp area, then there isn't going to be talk of further development on the same platform. Of course, the same 2000 people will buy anything, but that's not exactly optimal profit, given the hard work involved, is it?

[-Coulum- 35]

Fixing basic gameplay in accordance with available technology is the utmost priority, everything else can be added in expansion packs and DLCs. Speaking of DLCs: not many bought them for ArmA II, because it's not that kind of platform, which grows on you to the level, where you'd be dishing out cash for more units and campaigns, when the vanilla game is broken and unpleasing aesthetically.

If they don't provide a smooth experience for the player, as he's standing in the basic training camp area, then there isn't going to be talk of further development on the same platform. Of course, the same 2000 people will buy anything, but that's not exactly optimal profit, given the hard work involved, is it?

This is correct. BIS needs/plans to master the core of the game before tackling new problems/features. stability trumps all, and only after the core game is super stable do I think BIS plans to add anything else. This quote seems to support that idea quite a bit.

I think the point is not that more 'deep rooted' improvements to the AI aren't warranted/ desired; rather, it's that to be confident about which behaviours need to be changed/ corrected, one must be sure that the configuration is balanced appropriately. It's also worth bearing in mind that more high level observations about AI decisions are not simple to translate into technical requirements.

Naturally, I wouldn't dare to suggest that specific repros aren't available (The CIT and Beta Patch forums have been and continue to prove to be invaluable resources for our most skilled programmers: the ones with the experience to make core changes happen), but, again, we need clean repros and it can be a challenge to achieve that at this stage of production, where a big number of factors interplay (i.e. significant environment, model, config, animation changes on a frequent basis) on top of the significant resource demands of implementing new features.

Looking forward, we know that AI refinement will be necessary. The above isn't intended to excuse not achieving it; rather, it frames the problem and doing that helps us plan an appropriate schedule for getting it done.

In this case, basically BIS doesn't want to try and implement "extra" ai features until they fully finish and polish the rest of the game. If the game were a tower, and BIS its builders, they want to build a solid base for it before trying to build it higher.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I'd say AI is is included in "basic gameplay", though the case with them properly lurking in underground structures would be an extra feature.

ArmA is a great game and concept: you have these rules (laws?) that govern ballistic trajectory, vast, populated, unparalleled in detail islands, but often the illusion and immersion breaks, when you place a single unit (yourself?) and go exploring the world, i.e.: you get stuck on a rock there, killed by a wall here, not fitting into the doorway over there. You get the idea. :)

[chortles 263]

Fixing basic gameplay in accordance with available technology is the utmost priority, everything else can be added in expansion packs and DLCs. Speaking of DLCs: not many bought them for ArmA II, because it's not that kind of platform, which grows on you to the level, where you'd be dishing out cash for more units and campaigns, when the vanilla game is broken and unpleasing aesthetically.

I on the other hand got the sense/impression that frankly the DLCs weren't bought BECAUSE they were not required for multiplayer compatibility and content-making; although that was an overall good move for the players to prevent community-splitting (a rather major part of why I skip the COD series!), you really weren't even buying the units, just textures/sounds to go with the campaigns -- although that's NOT to speak ill of the campaigns themselves.

If they don't provide a smooth experience for the player, as he's standing in the basic training camp area, then there isn't going to be talk of further development on the same platform. Of course, the same 2000 people will buy anything, but that's not exactly optimal profit, given the hard work involved, is it?

I can't keep harping this one enough -- "the same 2000 people" are the wrong people to talk to, and in 2012 the promotional focus was very much on providing a smooth experience.

-Coulum-, the Internet fights seem to be over people wanting THEIR "special" feature to be part of that foundation... thank gosh that BI seems to have better ideas, even if "stability trumps all" sounds more like "a conventional shooter" :icon_twisted: (i.e. the COD approach that "60 fps über alles", although of course that's not the approach here but rather "stability über allies".)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

RE physics,

9yfneb8UYzw

That's dedication. Known ATV bug, 12.5k views. Imagine how much test data could be gathered, if BI quickly conjured up a zombie mod on Stratis and released it publicly with the Alpha. :icon_mrgreen: Key words here are "zombie mod" & "dedication".

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:49 ----------

N42xf0a9k60

PhysX integration can't come soon enough. :icon_mrgreen:

---------- Post added at 14:30 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------

P.S. Looking good,

FKG9B-XDub4

You can really feel the inertia of the vehicle when stopping and impact of inputs to steering and controls. Bridge at 7:21! Or is it a prototype roof of a prototype bunker? The docks area at 8:42 remind me of Corazol - lots of PvP will be had here. Keep watching... NATO base, docks and an airfield on an mini-peninsula - LOTS of PvP. Now this area brings memories of Paraiso AF. :icon_mrgreen:

Enter-able warehouses, fully-functional multiple-story (so it seems) control tower, an airfield on a mini-peninsula, which is approachable only by sea from three sides, and a land chokepoint on the fourth (East?) - Pliskin must be in heaven.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

More PhysX goodness, this time on the seas -

Looks like a modern, functional, fun, realistic title! Patrol boat's cockpit helps with realism a lot, balances an otherwise awesome terrain. Can't hype physics high enough in our case - that's the single most-needed feature in the ArmAverse. Edited September 15, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[ruhtraeel 1]

Both are simulated the same way, but what I'm saying is that it's uncommon for such animations to be referred to as ragdoll on anything but living objects.

If you want to do that anyway, fine, but perhaps you should make that clear from the start - you know, instead of calling people "nuts" when they misinterpret your meaning. ;)

This x1000.

Personally it drives me crazy as a Computer Science major when people assume something non-standard and expect everyone to cohere. Even more so since I am taking Software Engineering 301, which is about project management.

Again, I think if BI prioritizes stuff well in their development process, the feature cutting process will have minimal impact on gameplay experience.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

What would be crazy is to assume, that ragdolls are not the integral part of the physics engine. We wouldn't want another spreadsheet game, masquerading as an FPS.

DPMk-a2gvXU

Edited September 16, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Shagulon 1]

Thank God for the much needed physx overhaul :)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Thank God for the much needed physx overhaul :)

Good to see that we have established what is important. Since this useless thread has been taken over by the discussion of real features, here's another demonstration of PhysX implementation in VBS 2,

pmJlHPM1mKc

Fun, fun, fun! Mass can be adjusted for more dramatic swaying and momentum effects, but going by the previosly-mentioned patrol boat demo of ArmA III, BI seem to have a good idea what the right settings are for each vehicle class on every terrain.

---------- Post added at 09:13 ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 ----------

tS8mTRqHj40

VBS2 again: Crates may need some work, but the Humvee has a fully-working front suspension, and look at that Stryker - Tatratruck style! :icon_mrgreen:

Edited September 16, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[SASrecon 0]

pmJlHPM1mKc

I wonder what the situation will be with regards to character-sway in-vehicle, especially in a boat with the fancy new water physics, it would look a bit silly if the player is completely rigid, attached to the boat while the boat is swinging around at full speed, even minimal sway can add to the immersion.

Also getting a bit ot but anyone know anything about upper-body lean/DOF whilst in vehicles? I assume this would be smookie's job and I should probably put this bit in the animations thread but it fits nicely with my previous paragraph :p

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I wonder what the situation will be with regards to character-sway in-vehicle, especially in a boat with the fancy new water physics, it would look a bit silly if the player is completely rigid, attached to the boat while the boat is swinging around at full speed, even minimal sway can add to the immersion.

Hmm, interesting question, but as we have seen, there's at least something to alleviate this - hands on the steering wheel are going to be animated, as will hand fixtures on mounted machine guns and other usable vehicle objects. Here's the vid with the boat,

GebXTjMDh-o

That diver has some guts and internal balance, standing upright like that; most of them are scanning the horizon. Overall, feels very fluent and believable.* :)

*Till they hit the mini-yacht, but lets say that this particular patrol boat design has good ergonomics and comfy seats with safety features. :D Having them fall out of the boat would be an over-the-top feature in my view.

---------- Post added at 11:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 ----------

Also getting a bit ot but anyone know anything about upper-body lean/DOF whilst in vehicles? I assume this would be smookie's job and I should probably put this bit in the animations thread but it fits nicely with my previous paragraph :p

Do you have in mind the use of the new dynamic stance animations inside vehicles? HEHE. Tilting at the waist in a 5T truck could become a passtime - doesn't serve much purpose, though, unless... Nah!

Edited September 16, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[dmarkwick 261]

Don't know if the overhead would be worth it, but spring-loading torsos from the waist up for vehicle passengers might provide a cheapish effect of passenger sway.