ArmA 3 terrain Size in to the Future

[ScorpionGuard 10]

Hello to all

As I have been reading about the last upgrades to VBS 2.0 +. I wonder if we (the community of terrain builders) will have the chance to max out our terrain editing boards to 500km by 500km (310 miles by 310 miles) just as allowed in VBS2 with terrain cell size between 7 - 10 meters. If so, with the new RV4 engine transferring some of the technology from VBS 2.0 to ArmA 3 whom would take on the task of say, creating the Green Sea World? I can see possibilities of more intergraded military operations. Such as Army, Air Forces, Marine Corps, and Navy interoperation in-game. I know in the past post people in the community have said that naval operations have no place in ArmA. But with know elements such as the diving feature with mini subs coming in the next phase of the ArmA Universe. Why would we limit the community from more development of naval forces to enrich the content of the simgame we love so much? Your thoughts, Thanks

[Dallas 9]

I'd love to see maritime operations, boarding cargo ships from boats, helicopter insertions or divers climbing the sides at night.

[johncage 30]

not really. i'd like to see them added to complement the infantry experience, which imo is really the core of arma.

the only thing that isn't dumbed down, truthfully, are the infantry and small arms, everything else has been made easy. so i only want content that enhances the best part of the game.

voted for the 2nd option.

[strych9 10]

yes to all, the more content the happier ill be. i miss the battlefield 1942 "all around" warfare. battleships/subs/tanks/planes/inf. i know it was more arcade like. but, make it more real/sim like and id be happy. doing a night time "hostage rescue" rescue mission onto a pirated cargo ship sounds "giggity", or using a battleship as arty, beach assault on a hovercraft with an apc onboard. the list can go on.

side note, I could go for an updated bf1942 for my arcade fun fix. unfortunatly dice became ea and now is all about money. so they have been boycotted by me.

[johncage 30]

bis does not have unlimited resources so the more content they add, the less quality it has. quality>quantity.

[Obsidius 10]

bis does not have unlimited resources so the more content they add, the less quality it has. quality>quantity.

I agree but if they have the infantry aspect done right then it would be pretty cool to have them focus a little on naval warfare, but naval warfare shouldn't take away from the infantry experience. Infantry combat on board ships and boats like what Strych9 suggested could add some fun and challenging game-play to the mix, taking control of an offshore oil rig, CQB on-board a cargo ship etc could work as a sideline to the core game. I think most people think of ship vs ship when they hear naval content mentioned but it doesn't have to be the case and the fact we will now have diving and submersible craft added to the game I don't see why we couldn't have more added in the future, either by BIS or by the modding community. I suppose if there are enough people who want naval elements added then there will be mods added at a later date.

As for ship & submarine weapon functions, I'd love to see that although only if its kept to a minimal effect and not weapons that will bombard half an island or anything else overpowered.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

I’m not saying BIS has to add maritime content to the out-of-box product. The community has persons that can model/code ships and subs already. We would just like the chance to exercise maritime warfare. And persons have forgotten that maritime elements where added to ArmA 2, i.e. Arleigh Burke Destroyer, and Wasp Amphibious Assault Ship. We to build upon does platforms that already there. By adding codes for sonar, FC radar, working guns and cannons, torpedoes, deck landings, etc. Also, some persons in the community seem to be living in the past when it comes to maritime warfare. They forget or do not know that amphibious warfare is part of maritime warfare. All I’m saying to complete modern day warfare. You have to include maritime warfare into the operation. From the fighters off the decks of aircraft carriers to provide CAS for the Marine Corps and Army. To the off shore gun fire to cover the beach landings. To the submarines delivering special force (Navy SEAL's, Marine Recon, and Army SF’s). The maritime platform has become a center piece of overall warfare.

Edited March 3, 2013 by ScorpionGuard

[Cytreen 14]

not trying to Hijack the thread but why did they reduce the island size of Altis from 350km to barily being larger than takistan at 270. They were so adament about Altis being 350km and with the sea it being close to 900. Yet the page info show it at 270.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/73057897.jpg/

Joris-Jan van 't Land adds, “The resulting fictional environment is often close to its inspiration, but it's never exactly the same - nor would we want it to be. For us, 'Altis' echoes the Mediterranean heart of our island, but differentiates it from any undesired real-life connotations.â€

The main island in ArmA 3 is about 350 square kilometers, smaller than the 475 square kilometers of real-world Lemnos.

Marek Spanel, the chief executive officer of Bohemia Interactive, suggested the setting for the new game after spending a vacation on Lemnos a number of years ago.

ArmA 3 also includes a smaller secondary island, which will continue to be called Stratis, about 20 square kilometers big.

The military shooter will use a new version of the Real Virtuality engine, designed to bring the game experience as close as possible to the realities of the modern battlefield.

That quote was taken from when they renamed the main island. I hope it is just a typo on there arma3.com page.

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=18465 Full interview here on armaholic.com

Edited March 3, 2013 by Cytreen

[vegeta897 13]

not trying to Hijack the thread but why did they reduce the island size of Altis from 350km to barily being larger than takistan at 270.

Sorry but how is 270 "barely" larger than 170? Not to mention Takistan doesn't have much detail or terrain variety. And this isn't even counting the underwater content in Altis.

I don't think you quite understand how much landmass 270km is. It's more than what we could ask for, especially with all the detail being even greater than arma 2.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

not trying to Hijack the thread but why did they reduce the island size of Altis from 350km to barily being larger than takistan at 270. They were so adament about Altis being 350km and with the sea it being close to 900. Yet the page info show it at 270.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/73057897.jpg/

That quote was taken from when they renamed the main island. I hope it is just a typo on there arma3.com page.

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=18465 Full interview here on armaholic.com

This is a point i'm trying to make. The RV3 Engine can exspane up to 500km by 500km of terrain. Witch would be 310 miles by 310 miles. 270km2 is about 10.2+miles by 10.2+ miles. This is smaller than one of the maps in Operation Flashpoint. Witch was 60 miles by 60 miles. Is BIS taken steps backward?

[Cytreen 14]

Good catch there Vegeta. I was think of chernarus being the 225km map. I just want to know the reason behind this massive change to the size of the island sense they are can use terrain page filing in RV4. The only thing i can conclude is to get the game out in time.

[johncage 30]

This is a point i'm trying to make. The RV3 Engine can exspane up to 500km by 500km of terrain. Witch would be 310 miles by 310 miles. 270km2 is about 10.2+miles by 10.2+ miles. This is smaller than one of the maps in Operation Flashpoint. Witch was 60 miles by 60 miles. Is BIS taken steps backward?

no, they just realized bigger isn't always better. for example, there's no point to putting the whole damn earth into the game if 90 percent of the space is going to be neglected.

[Winfernal 2]

I don't think we can conclude anything. The game isn't released, nor are we devs. One can only speculate...

[OChristie 0]

Just because the engine can support a terrain of 500km x 500km it doesnt mean that you can craft it with a high level of fidelity required for the purpose of a game. AFAIK: The object limit at the moment is somewhere around 4,000,000. Also, bigger isn't better, ask my mrs! :)

[ScorpionGuard 10]

Just because the engine can support a terrain of 500km x 500km it doesnt mean that you can craft it with a high level of fidelity required for the purpose of a game. AFAIK: The object limit at the moment is somewhere around 4,000,000. Also, bigger isn't better, ask my mrs! :)

I have to inform you that BIS and the US Army have "crafted a high level of fidelity" at 500km by 500km. Army being a centered on land warfare and all. Guys try reading about technology break through that BIS has already done. This makes no sense informing people in the community of things they should know about the RV3/RV4 Engine specs. And what it can and can not do.

To johncag. It's up to the person/group to use all the terrain are not. But if you like small terrain. Would it be batter to play Battlefield 3 style game and beyond. Are am I to believe that a portion of the ArmA community wish to drag the simgame down to the level of other FPS?

[vegeta897 13]

270km2 is about 10.2+miles by 10.2+ miles. This is smaller than one of the maps in Operation Flashpoint. Witch was 60 miles by 60 miles. Is BIS taken steps backward?

What on earth are you talking about? Altis is 270km of land mass. What map in Operation Flashpoint was 60 by 60 miles? The land mass in OP flash maps was way, way less. The entire map of Everon was 12x12km, and that's including the whole map. The actual landmass was probably 40% of that, something like 60 square km. Chernarus was 168. Altis is 270. The actual area of the whole map, landmass and sea, is much larger.

Edit: Analyzed a map of Everon, it's got about 51 square km of land mass.

Good catch there Vegeta. I was think of chernarus being the 225km map. I just want to know the reason behind this massive change to the size of the island sense they are can use terrain page filing in RV4. The only thing i can conclude is to get the game out in time.

Even Chernarus is not 225km of landmass. I posted in this thread already and calculated it to be about 168km. More if you count the barren land in the north and west edges, but still significantly less than 225.

And yes, it's to get the game out in time. Engine capability is a very different thing than what they can realistically produce. If making a bigger island means less details, then it's not really worth it to me. The island already is bigger than anything we've had, so why bother artificially inflating that.

Edited March 4, 2013 by vegeta897

[ScorpionGuard 10]

Ok. Lets do the math. Example: 10 miles by 10 miles (16.09344 km by 16.09344 km). multiply 10 x 10 =100. Witch is 100 miles square (258.99881 kilometers square). So if 100 miles square is 259.0 km square, and the terrain of Altis is 270 kilometers square. That means the island is little over 10 by 10 miles. It does not state how big the map (terrain) is in the specs of ArmA 3. But we are still talking about a small space for and engine that can do larger terrain (up to 500km x 500km) with a increased view distance up to 40km. With the same graphic "fidelity" to play the simgame at ground level.

Lets look at the Green Sea making up five countries (Chernarus, Russia, Takistan, Ardistan, and Karzeghistan). The terrain is 200 miles x 200 miles (322 km x 322 km). Not all land mass, witch is divided up with forest, desert, mountains, and water. Being most of the land scape is bare desert. Over 20% of it. And water making another 20 - 25 % of it. With this scheme you can product a large terrain with balance in mind.

Edited March 4, 2013 by ScorpionGuard

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I'd like to see proper carrier implementation with jet launching catapults - this would increase the battlespace for jets/fixed wing by a lot without modifying the map, since the carriers could be positioned 15-20 km off the coast.

[vegeta897 13]

Ok. Lets do the math. Example: 10 miles by 10 miles (16.09344 km by 16.09344 km). multiple 10 x 10 =100. Witch is 100 miles square (258.99881 kilometers square). So if 100 miles square is 259.0 km square, and the terrain of Altis is 270 kilometers square. That means the island is little over 10 by 10 miles. It does not state how big the map (terrain) is in the specs of ArmA 3. But we are still talking a small space for and engine that can do larger terrain (up to 500km x 500km) with a increased view distance up to 40km. With the same graphic "fidelity" to play the simgame at ground level.

The landmass of Altis is 270, not the total map size.

The entire region of Altis is about 31 x 24 km, which is 744 square km all-together. The island takes up about 36% of that area, which amounts to 270km. I've calculated this myself and what BIS says confirms it.

[metalcraze 290]

But we are still talking about a small space for and engine that can do larger terrain (up to 500km x 500km) with a increased view distance up to 40km. With the same graphic "fidelity" to play the simgame at ground level.

Good. Now find 10000 people to populate it with objects before our lifetimes run out.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

That's easer than you think. But I have to finish my cyber security and C++ homework now.

[Winfernal 2]

Let map makers create maps in those sizes. Don't ask BI to use ressources on creating detailed maps with 900km2 of landmass. Prioritize other things...

[OChristie 0]

I have to inform you that BIS and the US Army have "crafted a high level of fidelity" at 500km by 500km. Army being a centered on land warfare and all. Guys try reading about technology break through that BIS has already done. This makes no sense informing people in the community of things they should know about the RV3/RV4 Engine specs. And what it can and can not do.

To johncag. It's up to the person/group to use all the terrain are not. But if you like small terrain. Would it be batter to play Battlefield 3 style game and beyond. Are am I to believe that a portion of the ArmA community wish to drag the simgame down to the level of other FPS?

Well I have to inform you that I know for a fact that if you create a terrain with the sizes of 500km x 500km (250,000km2) then you can not, even in VBS2, a product I have been developing content for various nations in for a long while, create a high level of fidelity that is required by the customers of the ArmA series, You can in certain areas of that vast, useless terrain create high fidelity environments that are good for certain purposes, but you will not be able to create a terrain area that is a quarter of a million km2 to the level of Altis, Stratis, Chernarus etc etc.

Please by all means prove me wrong.

That's easer than you think. But I have to finish my cyber security and C++ homework now.

Im assuming your RL experience in making a 250,000km2 high fidelity game like terrain area won't help you there.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/35656609.jpg

Edited March 4, 2013 by OChristie

[HorbeySpector 164]

If they'd make it possible to have bigger maps, that would be enough. Community would do the rest. BI doesnt need to make one themselves. :)

[OChristie 0]

The ability exists to have huge maps the top limit at the moment, correct me if im wrong, is 500km x 500km (250,000km2) but populating it would be a near impossible feat, mostly due to the tools we have.