December 2012 status update

[cm. 10]

oh my gawd mang! suma dosnt work on A3? The project iz doomed mang!

[Wiki 1558]

In ArmA 3, will the graphic engine be improved?

I mean, it is nice, but very heavy: I can run the Cry Engine 2.5 or the Frostbite 2 at full whereas I have to play in medium/high in ArmA 2 to make it run with proper fps.

I thought using the Cry Engine would be good:

I was thinking more like this for ArmA 3.

What do you guys think?

[chortles 263]

Suma still randomly fixes OA/TOH bugs when he has time and mood ...

rarely even adds stuff (see headless (dedicated) client recently)

so it's not like "dropped out" ... it's just not his primary nor secondary focus ...

Thanks for explaining! I'm not contesting BI's personnel priorities, but I believe that what you've posted is essentially the minimum of disclosure that fans were looking for.

[PuFu 4600]

In ArmA 3, will the graphic engine be improved?

I mean, it is nice, but very heavy: I can run the Cry Engine 2.5 or the Frostbite 2 at full whereas I have to play in medium/high in ArmA 2 to make it run with proper fps.

We back again on comparing apples with pies...point is, could your run CE or Frostbyte games if they were the size and complexity of arma at the same gfx levels? I doubt it, but there is no way to tell since they don't really support either.

I thought using the Cry Engine would be good:

I was thinking more like this for ArmA 3.

What do you guys think?

1. is not gonna happen (BI using anything but their in house made game engines

2. i think you know very little about you can achieve with CE3, and what you can't. For one, you cannot have an arma game (at least from what i know) in any other game engines out there.

3. From a bussines POV, changing the engine of a franchise that has been in continuous development with a different engine, mid-development or not is never gonna be an option for any sane developer out there.

[Wiki 1558]

Yeah, I must admit I dont know anything about it.

It was just a thought because I found the vidéo very nice, and they say that this engine is capable of doing the same as ArmA.

[PuFu 4600]

Yeah, I must admit I dont know anything about it.

It was just a thought because I found the vidéo very nice, and they say that this engine is capable of doing the same as ArmA.

If you wanna talk about RTI: here's the link for it: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?112877-Realtime-immersive-Militar-simulator-cryengine

and btw, RTI is suppose to compete with VBS2, not arma.

[-FHA-Dynamo 0]

why hasn't this thread been locked already? the new/update/what ever has already been posted, and now this thread has degraded down to trolls and flame baiting.. don't you people have better things to do than spam a thread with nothing meaningful?

[chortles 263]

3. From a bussines POV, changing the engine of a franchise that has been in continuous development with a different engine, mid-development or not is never gonna be an option for any sane developer out there.

Ironically BI is in the same boat as Infinity Ward/Treyarch on this one -- "we're used to it and good at it, so tweaking/evolving it instead of starting from scratch gives us more money (good) but time (even better) to focus on other aspects"*... and considering the huge shift in the game features and development priorities between the 2011 and 2012 presentations of Arma 3, and the amount of "stuff that we teased or revealed or that the community but we couldn't actually implement because it was beyond the boundaries of our own programming skills, sorry" that's been hinted at by devs such as former project lead Dan Musil... I wouldn't be surprised if there's been a lot of turnover and starting-from-scratch WRT Arma 3 development that explains the delay.

(What I mean by "turnover and starting-from-scratch", Rocket described the DayZ standalone release goal of end-of-2012 as being related "to what was achievable in terms of releasing a "mod on steroids", whereas halfway through we abandoned that and went for a "new game based on the mod" - which is far more ambitious and really what everyone wants. But that meant achieving the december release is much harder, still because I'd made that promise it made the programmers work much harder.")

* More cynical interpretation: "if you thought Arma 2 was buggy on release, imagine what Arma 3 would be like on an engine we know even less than we knew RV3!"

Edited December 16, 2012 by Chortles

[PuFu 4600]

Ironically BI is in the same boat as Infinity Ward/Treyarch on this one -- "we're used to it and good at it, so tweaking/evolving it instead of starting from scratch gives us more money (good) but time (even better) to focus on other aspects"*... and considering the huge shift in the game features and development priorities between the 2011 and 2012 presentations of Arma 3, and the amount of "stuff that we teased or revealed or that the community but we couldn't actually implement because it was beyond the boundaries of our own programming skills, sorry" that's been hinted at by devs such as former project lead Dan Musil... I wouldn't be surprised if there's been a lot of turnover and starting-from-scratch WRT Arma 3 development that explains the delay.

(What I mean by "turnover and starting-from-scratch", Rocket described the DayZ standalone release goal of end-of-2012 as being related "to what was achievable in terms of releasing a "mod on steroids", whereas halfway through we abandoned that and went for a "new game based on the mod" - which is far more ambitious and really what everyone wants. But that meant achieving the december release is much harder, still because I'd made that promise it made the programmers work much harder.")

* More cynical interpretation: "if you thought Arma 2 was buggy on release, imagine what Arma 3 would be like on an engine we know even less than we knew RV3!"

I see this start from scratch mentality pretty often these days. But what does that mean for you? Writing a new engine from ground up? You and me know that it is mostly impossible in the given timeframe, or any sort of bussines oriented timeframe for that matter.

Hell, even the bigger engines out there have evolved through time, and are part of an evolution rather than a ground up development (i am talking about Unreal, Frostbyte, Cryengine, Dunia, IW engine, Id tech, Source, Rage etc etc etc etc).

"the thing with beyond our own programming skills" is such a cliche you made up in the end, not hinted...Of course each technology has it's limitations, but mostly because somewhere in the legacy code no one thought about it at the time, or because it is impossible with the current hardware.

I'm sorry, but what i gather is that you would rather feel it is appropriate for BIS to scrap a 15 year development on an engine that was designed for a game like arma, in favour of writting yet another from ground up. That is NOT gonna happen, just like using another licenced engine is not going to happen either...

[chortles 263]

I'm sorry, but what i gather is that you would rather feel it is appropriate for BIS to scrap a 15 year development on an engine that was designed for a game like arma, in favour of writting yet another from ground up. That is NOT gonna happen, just like using another licenced engine is not going to happen either...

You read my post all wrong, I was writing as far as WHY devs would end up evolving an engine instead of starting from scratch -as you said, "it is mostly impossible in the given timeframe, or any sort of bussines oriented timeframe for that matter", and the same reason applies for why they (at BI, IW and Treyarch) wouldn't simply license out a new engine... even though BI isn't pressed for time or beholden to a publisher quite like IW/Treyarch, they already incurred delays such as the above (as well as the decision to implement PhysX 3, which delayed the community alpha, which in turn delayed "out in the wild" feedback from players, which in turn delays improvement/refinement/dropping features) and changing from RV4 would simply exacerbate those problems.

As for the bit about the quality of BI's programmers... I'm reminded about complaints at the time that Dan Musil's comments were reported on things such as AI seeing through grass, or certain posters being aghast at how seemingly unambitious BI seemed to be with AI for Arma 3, hence "if you don't like that, imagine how much worse Arma 3 would be with a licensed or from-scratch engine!"

[PuFu 4600]

You read my post all wrong, I was writing as far as WHY devs would end up evolving an engine instead of starting from scratch -as you said, "it is mostly impossible in the given timeframe, or any sort of bussines oriented timeframe for that matter", and the same reason applies for why they (at BI, IW and Treyarch) wouldn't simply license out a new engine... even though BI isn't pressed for time or beholden to a publisher quite like IW/Treyarch, they already incurred delays such as the above (as well as the decision to implement PhysX 3, which delayed the community alpha, which in turn delayed "out in the wild" feedback from players, which in turn delays improvement/refinement/dropping features) and changing from RV4 would simply exacerbate those problems.

fair enough. Although BI has indeed the advantage of being self published (for digital copies anyways), and not needing external (publisher) funding for support the product development. And with A2:CO still selling strong, i doubt the delay will affect the budget all that much.

As for the bit about the quality of BI's programmers... I'm reminded about complaints at the time that Dan Musil's comments were reported on things such as AI seeing through grass, or certain posters being aghast at how seemingly unambitious BI seemed to be with AI for Arma 3, hence "if you don't like that, imagine how much worse Arma 3 would be with a licensed or from-scratch engine!"

I have no recolection of such thing, so i won't argue with you here.

[^Th0mas^ 10]

I think BIS has to much going on at the moment. First two important game developers gets imprisoned in a country with no justice system. Along with this they start developing DayZ because the mod went well. I dont give a shit about DayZ, I just want them to focus on ArmA.

[Phantom Six 25]

The 2 game developers being imprisoned in Greece without justice is already pretty horrid. Ivan Buchta was also one of the guys I see most on the ARMA 3 videos which is a huge blow. DayZ I can care less about it, I hated the people on there anyways and it got stale to me pretty quickly but if people want to play that's cool, more $$$$ to BIS.

Sure, they can go ahead and release DayZ first, the DayZ-ers will be waiting for it and then that will UP their revenues. I don't mind ARMA 3 getting delayed, it can take as long as it takes but I'll be looking forward to it. It has been looking great (as long as its not cancelled because that'd be a complete utter waste). There's still lots of life left in ARMA 2. Lots of mods in the making and being developed further as well. I'll be looking forward to Hell in the Pacific updating some more, Unsung 2.5, even that Crusader medieval mod and I can work on more missions in the meantime.

[FraserNZ 1]

Ne news is goods news kinda

[Wizper1 1]

Looks good ... release it already

[Flash Thunder 10]

Looks good ... release it already

um lol no

just because it looks "good" doesn't mean its stable enough for a public release, please use your head.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

But what does that mean for you? Writing a new engine from ground up? You and me know that it is mostly impossible in the given timeframe, or any sort of bussines oriented timeframe for that matter.

If you truly want a new engine, you need to hire somebody else to do it imo. Otherwise you're too familiar with the old ways and unintentionally driven towards similar end results. At work I sometimes create and update 3D assemblies that we use as templates in order to push through regular work more quickly. But my mindset about how these are set up are extremely hard to change :) And just when you've fixed one approach to get rid of a problem, the fix causes not-so-obvious issues on its own. And that's pretty miniature to setting up a games engine.

So when someone says "rewrote everything from scratch", you know they're lying unless everyone involved was exchanged :D

[Madeon 6]

Not even a single new screenshot after months of work? Yeah right...

Fact is the game was cancelled months ago but they won't admit it because it will scare off investors.

[[frl]myke 14]

Not even a single new screenshot after months of work? Yeah right...

Fact is the game was cancelled months ago but they won't admit it because it will scare off investors.

You were warned, possible consequences were communicated. Go troll elsewhere.

[chortles 263]

fair enough. Although BI has indeed the advantage of being self published (for digital copies anyways), and not needing external (publisher) funding for support the product development. And with A2:CO still selling strong, i doubt the delay will affect the budget all that much.

Agreed re: the BI advantage; IW and Treyarch has the added pressures of a relatively tight schedule but can also draw on more resources and manpower with which to meet that timeline, while of course BI has VBS2 money (and now Arma 2: CO-for-DayZ money, and hopefully DayZ standalone money in the future) to draw on, though I've heard it said that "more devs" isn't a complete positive due to the exclusivity (and thus unfamiliarity) of Real Virtuality 3 (much less 4)...

Even when you're not held to a "must push out a full game ever year" schedule, delays and impediments in development can risk the game not being ready to ship at all, and I would not be surprised if BI management all the way up to Maruk would really, really like to avoid some of the horror stories of Homefront development such as "eleventh hour revisions" that result in "misery for the lower-level developers who would have to implement all these changes" (quoting the article) even if such preventative measures result in the game be delayed, i.e. the PhysX 3 implementation that delayed the community alpha from post-E3 to post-Gamescom.

It helps that unlike DayZ, Arma 3 doesn't have competitive pressure (read: potential damage to mitigate) from any would-be imitators in the civilian market, because frankly no one else wants a piece of the "large-scale-possible milsim" market...

I have no recolection of such thing, so i won't argue with you here.

I remember it, as well as complaints when some of the visible changes in Arma 3 were shown, that those were being worked on instead of the complainers' priorities such as AI behavior or less visible irritations from Arma 2, though frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the visible changes were prioritized because they were easier to show off and thus build marketing hype on.

Sure, they can go ahead and release DayZ first, the DayZ-ers will be waiting for it and then that will UP their revenues. I don't mind ARMA 3 getting delayed, it can take as long as it takes but I'll be looking forward to it.

It's actually quite nice to see that "as long as it takes" instead of "these devs are laughingstocks" has been the most commonly voiced attitude I've seen about Arma 3 from outside the community in thread/article comments. :)

[naizarak 4]

Myke;2265690']You were warned' date=' possible consequences were communicated. Go troll elsewhere.[/quote']

somebody didn't get the joke...

anyways the devs are under no obligation to release screens/video, but if they're going to take this long the end product better be worth it. i hope they genuinely rework the game and don't just add "HD" graphics, leaving the majority of the work for community modders...again.

[paecmaker 23]

somebody didn't get the joke...

anyways the devs are under no obligation to release screens/video, but if they're going to take this long the end product better be worth it. i hope they genuinely rework the game and don't just add "HD" graphics, leaving the majority of the work for community modders...again.

"but if they're going to take this long the end product better be worth it"

You dont know that the fact that it has been so quiet is probably because of the Limnos "incident" aka that two devs are in a greek prison and that they have switched project lead in the middle of the heat. These guys are good but lets take it this way.

"You work in a small company, the company works hard to develop a new product in which a majority of the people are part of. In the middle of the development an important developer and a designer gets arrested in a foreign country. They are both being accused of espionage. They are like family and everyone gets really shocked. In the middle of this the Project leader leaves the project and is swithched. The new leader has worked in the company for a long time and everyone knows who he is. However he havent been on this project and may not know the way around."

IMO these arent the best working conditions, the leader is replaced with another person which may or may not know his way around the project, two important devs have been arrested and faces an uncertain future. Another dev(in the not so big team) left earlier for a project on his own(dayZ).

This isnt EA where they have hundreds and even thousends of people in case of something happens. This is BI, a relativly small company which dont have as much manpower as EA/Activision and so on, every loss is a big loss.

[Smurf 12]

Very nice background @RPS.

For those that can't see: Link

[[frl]myke 14]

somebody didn't get the joke...

Spamming all over the forums doesn't have anything to do with "joking".

[Kakeshoma 10]

somebody didn't get the joke...

anyways the devs are under no obligation to release screens/video, but if they're going to take this long the end product better be worth it. i hope they genuinely rework the game and don't just add "HD" graphics, leaving the majority of the work for community modders...again.

Rework the game? Have you fucking played it yet? Too bad they can't stop ungreatful twats from buying the game.