ArmA 3 terrain Size in to the Future

[nomofica 1]

even if is possible, it wouldn't be practical. that amounts to 1.13 times the size of the entire Korean Peninsula.

[[evo] dan 79]

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.

^ this. I suggested in another thread that they should do a naval Expansion, maybe built around a 120x120km archepeligo. This would then flesh out the naval side a bit more. And hopefully they can make the ships a little less arcady if they go for an expansion.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Dan;2311516']^ this. I suggested in another thread that they should do a naval Expansion' date=' maybe built around a 120x120km archepeligo. This would then flesh out the naval side a bit more. And hopefully they can make the ships a little less arcady if they go for an expansion.[/quote']

Interesting... could draw in all the peeps from Silent Hunter. :icon_twisted:

Of relevance, I found this back in 2011 during the ArmA III Reveal Summer ARG: http://distribution.vbs2.com/media/presentations/20100506_RN_Serious_Games.pdf

[[evo] dan 79]

Interesting... could draw in all the peeps from Silent Hunter. :icon_twisted:

Of relevance, I found this back in 2011 during the ArmA III Reveal Summer ARG: http://distribution.vbs2.com/media/presentations/20100506_RN_Serious_Games.pdf

Thanks for that link.

If BIS take this idea up I want my name in the credits :D

[waxman 5]

Navel warfare would be great with the one problem, it is not possible to physically move around vehicles. That rather limits larger boats to either static or fixed operations stations not really fitting with the rest of the games openess.

Regarding larger maps, I agree that the man hours required to fill extremely large terrains would result in no maps or sparsely populated (takistan). However the streaming tech coming in VBS would allow multiple maps to be stitched together, this is what i would love to see, panthera, namalsk, chernarus set into a single seamless environment.

you would find people working on modular maps slowly adding additional areas over time.

[[evo] dan 79]

Navel warfare would be great with the one problem, it is not possible to physically move around vehicles. That rather limits larger boats to either static or fixed operations stations not really fitting with the rest of the games openess.

Problem is solved more then likely by Physx, so no need to worry really.

Regarding larger maps, I agree that the man hours required to fill extremely large terrains would result in no maps or sparsely populated (takistan). However the streaming tech coming in VBS would allow multiple maps to be stitched together, this is what i would love to see, panthera, namalsk, chernarus set into a single seamless environment.

you would find people working on modular maps slowly adding additional areas over time.

Like I said an archipeligo, so it wouldn't be too 'busy', with several islands, one or two small villages, some military bases, as well as some interesting underwater features for the subs, and maybe a few rigs to go with it too. Definately something I think would be doable in an expansion pack.

[De_little_Bubi 1]

usually physic systems are generating problems when it comes about super big and heavy objects (like a ship) rather then solving them.

[waxman 5]

Dan;2311624']Problem is solved more then likely by Physx' date=' so no need to worry really.

[/quote']

Nope it has been categorically stated that physical movement with in vehicles is not going to happen at all period.

Dan;2311624']Like I said an archipeligo' date=' so it wouldn't be too 'busy', with several islands, one or two small villages, some military bases, as well as some interesting underwater features for the subs, and maybe a few rigs to go with it too. Definately something I think would be doable in an expansion pack.

[/quote']

I was more thinking of the wonders that the VBS streaming tech really could do. I thought 500km x 500km maps were possible in arma 2 / OA? just the item limits were the real issue. VBS now streaming terrain and not only items on demand.

[[evo] dan 79]

Nope it has been categorically stated that physical movement with in vehicles is not going to happen at all period.

Don't remember them saying this at all. Could you link where they said this? I remember them saying shooting out of vehicles would be on the wishlist but not likely in, but nowhere do I remember them saying that you wouldn't be able to walk inside vehicles or even have the possibilty of it being implemented.

[waxman 5]

Dan;2311649']Don't remember them saying this at all. Could you link where they said this? I remember them saying shooting out of vehicles would be on the wishlist but not likely in' date=' but nowhere do I remember them saying that you wouldn't be able to walk inside vehicles or even have the possibilty of it being implemented.[/quote']

it was some where in the wish list or confirmed features threads that I cant find now :( but it was directly connected with the not shooting out of vehicles discussion, the desire particularly was to be able to walk around Chinook. However even if I am wrong the not being able to interact (shoot) outside of the vehicle also pretty much kills navel operations (boarding and amphibious assaults etc.)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Nope it has been categorically stated that physical movement with in vehicles is not going to happen at all period.

B.S. Find me a quote. You can move in vehicles in VBS 2.0 which has PhysX.

[waxman 5]

OK my memory was a little hazy it was not confirmed or denied by any one official and no source for it but:

Arma 3 Confirmed features info & discussion

Hi everyone,

I spent some time to screen through the threads, but didn't find all the answers I was looking for. Maybe you (or ideally the devs) can answer these questions?

- ARMA 3 will include he improved Helo flight model of TOH. Will also the new interactive cockpits be available, with more instruments, MFDs etc?

- Will similar improvements be added for fixed wing platforms? Including g-effects etc?

- Will realistic, separate sensors (Radar, IR, Lasers etc) be implemented on planes/helos, that are jammed only by appropriate countermeasures (Flares, Chaff, or electronic countermeasures)? Are influenced by weather conditions (IR and IR-freq Lasers by rain/cloud conditions etc)? Or will the aerial platforms keep their "mystic radar"?

- Will we get cockpits for AFVs back?

- Will ARMA3 feature "digging", i.e. fox holes, trenches, impact craters?

- Will AI in buildings learn to shoot through windows, or remain target puppies?

- The "modify weapon on-the-fly" addition sounds neat. Will we finally also be able to change weapon loadouts on plane's pylons dynamically?

- Will the VBS eventhandlers that also gives the impact angle of ammo be implemented for vehicles, and a more detailed "damage part" model, such as to allow a more realistic penetration calculation?

- Will AI be able to select the different ammo types (say the variety of tank rounds from APFSDS to MPAT) better?

- Will moving in vehicles during operation (walking in choppers, sniping from them, etc) be added?

Thanks for any answer!

1. doubtfully

2. most likely to a smaller degree than rotor wing...if at all.

3. this game is no aircraft simulator though...i hope for improvements but i really doubt things will be taken to that extent

4. if you mean interiors, well...there might be a pleasant surprise. Very few ppl understand the amount of work (and time) needed to model interiors of such vehicles.

5. according to ARG, no

6. unknown

7. unknown

8. unknown

9. unknown

0. no

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

He's not a dev. Point = void.

[vegeta897 13]

"Will it be added" is not the same as "is it possible".

[[evo] dan 79]

I don't really count pufu's reply as an answer, seeing as he is not a dev and so I wonder if a dev could answer this question of ours?

[waxman 5]

He's not a dev. Point = void.

Dan;2311851']I don't really count pufu's reply as an answer' date=' seeing as he is not a dev and so I wonder if a dev could answer this question of ours?[/quote']

Yes as I said my memory was obviously hazy. I would like to know what pufu was basing his answers on though. However I am still unaware of any thing positive about this sort of functionality being included, I do however now have some hope that it is only a case of time and not technical block.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Yes as I said my memory was obviously hazy. I would like to know what pufu was basing his answers on though.

His wishful thinking. :p I'll look for the old PhysX thread where I had all the VBS 2.0 vids.

[cadmium77 16]

Real naval warfare requires vast amounts of map space. At best you would have landing craft and amphibious armor. I suppose minisubs are OK. But realistically even the Mediterranean is too small for warship operations; an aircraft carrier would be a sitting duck in the eastern Mediterranean. There are some great naval sims out there. The Arma franchise is not one of them. It can barely contain the air warfare game beyond helicopters and A10s.

The devs need to focus their scarce resources where it will really count. Like on the AI and incorporating additional CPU cores like the headless client does. That produced striking results in gameplay. Frankly I thing the submarine frogman stuff is kind of gimmicky, like the flaming pigs and screaming women units in Rome Total War.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

When I started this thread. I should have informed you guys on where BIS is in it's technology.

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

Streaming terrain witch was dev by the US Army made it possible to have 500km x 500km terrain that populated due to the piecing togather of smaller terrain. My bad. But from a personal point of view. I just went through a interduction to programming course. In asking my instructure. He informed me on what needed to be done to resolve some of the issues to make it work has to do with calculus algorithms. Witch the Army has. While BIS doesn't request thier employes to. Just take a look in careers at the ArmA 3 site. So, so far as BIS take time to do, I'm not asking for that. For it would mean that someone would have to go line by line in the code and rewrite using calculus to condense the code. So the processor can handle more functions to resolve physic issues. My goal is to bring togather people from the community who have the know how to do so. Willing to heir your responces.

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

Here is a link on the formulas you would need for Paging (terrain streamimg): www.cs.virginia.edu/johntran/TerrainLOD.ppt

Edited March 4, 2013 by ScorpionGuard

[OChristie 0]

Yes it is possible using the multi-map feature of VBS2 2.0 but this is not the right place to discuss VBS2. But having used the multi-map feature, I can confirm it is very handy and does function accordingly! Yes, the technology can be implemented into A3 but it would need to be licensed and have the customer approve its use for commercial purposes. I do not believe at current it will happen.

[minimalaco 30]

Can't wait to get the new terrain tools :(

[Ivorystate 23]

I would like to see even a payed dlc to add naval content, even just destroyers and subs.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

Yes it is possible using the multi-map feature of VBS2 2.0 but this is not the right place to discuss VBS2. But having used the multi-map feature, I can confirm it is very handy and does function accordingly! Yes, the technology can be implemented into A3 but it would need to be licensed and have the customer approve its use for commercial purposes. I do not believe at current it will happen.

Yes. But what I'm saying that persons in the community can also write the same code.

[waxman 5]

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 to me says that terrain streaming is not exclusive to the US army, but was developed upon their request and with their funding, it is a core component of VBS2 2.0 and will be available to anyone who uses the product.

This is nothing special leveraging features that are paid for and requested by one customer to enhance your general product is bread and butter for software companies (we do it here with every single version release of ours and have collected new customers from features we have charged others to include many times).