Will Terrain Technology from VBS 2.0 by Imported to ArmA 3?

[ScorpionGuard 10]

Hello everyone.

I have been reading over the VBS 2.0 upgrades to the terrain figures. In the VBS 2.0 Media Handbook it states that a "Vendor" has made it possible to have terrain max out at 500 km by 500 km, with a 40 km viewing distance.

3.1.1 VBS2 v2.0 – the future of game-based training, mission rehearsal and IG

Bohemia Interactive has commenced development on VBS2 v2.0, based upon the Real Virtuality 3 (RV3) game engine. The game engine behind VBS2 v2.0 is four years more advanced than VBS2’s RV2, and is used as the basis for both the highly successful ArmA2 and ArmA2: Arrowhead computer games. The engine alone is much improved, with significant enhancements in graphics, efficiency (through multi-core exploitation) and AI. VBS2 v2.0 will include all VBS2 capability, plus exciting new enhancements funded largely by the US Army. VBS2 v2.0 is presently scheduled for limited release to US customers in March 2012, and wider release in the summer of 2012. The most exciting engine enhancement in VBS2 V2.0 is the implementation of paging terrain. Paging terrain refers to loading terrain ‘on-the-fly’ from a data repository, such as a hard disk drive. This and other IG enhancements have been sponsored by the US Army, including:

• Larger terrain (up to 500km x 500km)

• Paging (streaming terrain)

• Increased view distance up to 40km

• Direct fire support from armored vehicles in support of an infantry maneuver

• Support for shape data overlays

• Scuba Diving

• Increased terrain detail and dynamic grid

• Fixed-frame support

• Multi-core support

• Particle effect improvements

• Micro AI

• Parallax Mapping

• Parachuting[/Quote]

If so; would it open up the community terrain devs to try their hand at making the Green Sea terrain for those clans how have the numbers and server power to host large scale operations? Including naval operations for those clans how are based upon Marine units to take advantage of. In also asking with a larger terrain, will there be more room for multiple clans to operate on? Say up to at less 500 person at a time. With the AI numbers at less at 4000? What does the community think of this advance of terrain technology if imported to ArmA 3?

Edited January 10, 2013 by ScorpionGuard

[HorbeySpector 164]

500 person at a time and 4000 Ai?

i'm gonna have to borrow NASA's computer for that. ;)

[ScorpionGuard 10]

No. You can borrow my server. If you wish.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i don't think that the VBS2 terrain tech be part of the ArmA3, but sure that the terrain will be improved along with the view distance; i would be more worryed about the AI interaction with the objects and buildings without forget things like roads, crossroads and highways. They gonna improve the terrain for sure but not up to the VBS2 level, IMO. Let's C ya

[ScorpionGuard 10]

Let's look at it this way. The BIS devs put out the maps for Cherarus & Takistan Green Sea region. They would have to know that some of us in the community would see it as a hint of improve the terrain technology to dev to create the 338 km by 338 km platform to dev that map. I for one. Wish to do so. But it would be nice to take advantage of the 500 km by 500 km platform.

[dmarkwick 261]

You will get nothing like the object density you currently enjoy in Chernarus. In fact, those huge maps are almost empty.

[max power 21]

What does the community think of this advance of terrain technology if imported to ArmA 3?

I think you don't get something for nothing so while you might be capable of having datasets that large, I severely doubt you would be able to have a map that large with the detail density we have currently. The community have put out a few very large, empty maps for aircraft but I really think that for an infantry game they are a little sparse.

[[evo] dan 79]

Just have a look at TOH's South Asia map, its 120x120km, doesn't have many enterable buildings, and although it has a large city and some reasonable sized towns on it, they are rather spread apart and contain non-enterable buildings. Also the AI ground forces are stupider on the whole due to the fact that the cell size to do that (probably 20mx20m min) is to big for them compared to the micro-terrain on maps such as PMC training grounds.

BUT I do hope they have changed the engine enough to be able to get around this and still have a large map with a small cell size so the AI doesn't suffer too much. I would like to see this nonetheless though, just leaving the engine to support it so if somebody wanted to make it, they could. But I think it is possible in Arma 2 already as I did have a go at making a reasonably empty 200x200 (or something like that) map, and it did indeed work, so the I think the potential is already there, but it will be heavy on performance, as well as the time needed to make something that large. Also to make it detailed would require a HUGE file. (High res sat map would be a VERY huge file)

[Smurf 12]

Detail > Size

Why have a huge map with shitty textures, always flat, low concentration of objects and so on? Hyper-Large operations with jets it's the only thing that comes to mind.

[waxman 5]

What I see there is that they are now not loading the whole map and all assets but are streaming the relevant portions, this is why I have always been confused at why after view range there is any real limit on map size other than keeping low detail terrain maps in memory.

Ie you only need to worry about detail and density affecting performance on what you can see, any thing outside of that does not need to be resident (aside for pre-loading additional assets outside of the view range).

The real problems that can see are server storage for the object state of all objects and network utilisation to synchronise (known arma 2 issues). So far no hint of this for arma 3 but perhaps next update down the road?

[ScorpionGuard 10]

Come on guys. Look at the quote closely. Not try to bring up past terrain dev issues. The paging alone resolves alot of issues when it comes to terrain size. As for have town one on top of each other. That not realistic anyway. If you where to view the Green Sea maps. you would see that there are very few towns and cities when moving westered. So lets hear some projection from the improvements that are listed in the quotes. Not the short comings of the past developments of the past.

[metalcraze 290]

No. You can borrow my server. If you wish.

Have you actually tried running 500 players + 4000 AIs on your server on current "small" terrains like Chernarus?

That changelog should be compared to ArmA1 if anything because thus far 2.0 update for VBS2 puts it somewhere in between ArmA1 and ArmA2 (ArmA2 renderer with annoying bloom and DoF mixed with old content but no backpacks and no alt. scopes support and can't load ArmA2 terrains despite what advertisement videos showed - for example).

[wipman 1]

Hi, a big map with few enterable buildings would be better for the AI to maniouver, but the players would have to have an aircraft always ready to move by the map; ain't like the undetailed maps, they're boring and dead, there's few interaction with the enviroment, in the form of combat actions such as... cleaning houses, look for specific subjects, hiden weapons or explosives, drugs... money... even files or computer data. If we only have open field's combat then we'll have a basic and boring thing, boring because after a while... it'll become a repetitive thing making the players to loose interest. I preffer the detailed maps.

Since the ArmA, i always have my view distance set at 3000, is enough for the infantry and cavalry combat, but is completly insuficent for any kind of air operation; with planes or choppers, no matter what. The AI use to have an advantage there because they see you much earlyer than you; but anyways... i preffer the ground combat and without a detailed enough enviroment the game will turn for me into the same thing, an addons viewer and would end be boring. Let's C ya