BigBoss 10 Posted July 13, 2013 Bipods have been requested for a decade as far as I know. Arma 1, Arma 2 and OA have all gone through "post release" and they still haven't been put in. Not that I don't have faith in the devs but I can understand why one wouldn't. All the "possibly in post release features" add up to more features than we are gaining in arma 3 from arma 2. Thats a little much for free patches - maybe not for an OA type expansion... True, I can't remember any major features introduced in ArmA2 OA beta patches, just fixes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chortles 263 Posted July 13, 2013 One upside is that hopefully most of the bug squashing will be done by the time the game comes around, leaving post release for "cool stuff" rather than just the fixing the game.It should be noted/added that the public alpha with community feedback is pretty overtly positioned (as "officially" as the QA Lead Miloslav Cinko's interview is anyway) as part of this and in line with Jay Crowe's talk last year about trying for the most optimized, polished, stable out-of-the-box Arma release yet; frankly I can see a rationale going on internally that goes like "if this may not be implemented properly (as defined by the aforementioned 'optimized, polished, stable') without causing a chance of slipping the release date, it's being shelved until post-release". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigBoss 10 Posted July 13, 2013 IMHO the Alpha was already more optimized, polished and stable than ArmA2 was on launch day and it will only get better, so the guys are doing a great job. I'd rather have less features that work (near) flawlessly, than a bunch of half-baked, buggy ones. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ric 1 Posted July 13, 2013 Sorry Ric..That's how the things are. We should wait for the BI guys to finally deliver. Believe me..there IS an 'axe' around ..and isn't on features or community's neck. BI have very strict deadlines to deliver (on time)..and in the other side is the major part of community that believes in ARMA3 at last we will see things we are begging for years now.. I wish from my heart the guys will make it.. after watching some of the VBS2 2.0 videos I am starting to think that A3 is just A2 with select features from VBS2 2.0, in essence a stripped down version. they did afterall according to what i have read port the entire VBS sim over to the A2 engine so it reall would be a short leap just to port a few features from VBS2 2.0 such as sky diving,underwater combat, PhysX ragdoll etc. here is a video from almost 2 years ago with them testing PhysX in VBS2 here is a video with a submarine in VBS2 2.0 from last December. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
froggyluv 2136 Posted July 13, 2013 PhysX ragdoll etc. I have VBS2 and haven't seen any ragdoll -still has dead soldiers hanging from its toes, straight as a plank when killed near an elevated edge. VBS is cool, but isn't the end all be all and I doubt a lot of people here would actually like it as they think they would. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigBoss 10 Posted July 13, 2013 If all of VBS2's features, apart from a few specialized ones, were somehow crammed into ArmA3, Bohemia's military partners would probably question why they have to purchase VBS2 for thousands of dollars if they could just buy ArmA3 at retail price. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chortles 263 Posted July 13, 2013 they did afterall according to what i have read port the entire VBS sim over to the A2 engine so it reall would be a short leap just to port a few features from VBS2 2.0 such as sky diving,underwater combat, PhysX ragdoll etc.Am I seriously having to quote Rocket again? But a vast amount of work went into VBS, employing thousands if not tens of thousands of people worldwide. VBS is developed by a separate company, for a very specific purpose.The branches of the engine are very, very different. Drastically so. VBS and ArmA are more like cousins than brothers. And DayZ is like a second cousin. I specifically looked into shooting from cars when I was working on ArmA3. Often the solution used in VBS suits an actual military simulator very well - but is next to useless in an FPS. Meaning it needs to be redone from scratch, meaning it needs to be prioritized against other kinds of work. VBS is developed by Bohemia Interactive Simulations, for the military, and branched from Operation Flashpoint like ten years ago. They are similar in origin but any similarity beyond that can be, under the hood, quite cosmetic. Various dependencies can make code merges very dangerous and difficult.Also:If all of VBS2's features, apart from a few specialized ones, were somehow crammed into ArmA3, Bohemia's military partners would probably question why they have to purchase VBS2 for thousands of dollars if they could just buy ArmA3 at retail price.Licensing differences, and as at least one BISim whitepaper mentioned, some of the differences in VBS2 were there because they were specifically contracted by clients, i.e. some of the naval simulation differences in VBS2 compared to the Arma series were at the behest of the Royal Navy (RN) and Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
progamer 14 Posted July 13, 2013 Or be like the official Arma 3 Facebook page and outright promote it! :lol:See my sig for what a reputed Arma dev states that Arma is... ;) It varies between devs ,I've seen some devs call it a "combined arms simulation" on multiple occasions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ric 1 Posted July 13, 2013 By the time VBS2 2.0 was actually released, Arma 3 was seemingly already moved over to Real Virtuality 4 (RV4), and before that it seems (basically between Gamescom 2011 and E3 2012) the decision was made to move Arma 3 over to RV4, and Rocket -- the DayZ project lead is a former Arma 3 dev -- has said that they're actually way more different under the hood than they look.Also, as I pointed out elsewhere... no, no they're not both under the BI umbrella, no parent company with an "over-CEO" here.... thnx for your response chortle but you have to look at it from average customers point of view...you have all these new features for A3 that are already in a sim built ontop of A2 and A3 being the next iteration or advancement of the A2 engine could cause some confusion and reasons for people to ask what were we waiting for? So BI does not own the rights to VBS2 2.0? ---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ---------- If all of VBS2's features, apart from a few specialized ones, were somehow crammed into ArmA3, Bohemia's military partners would probably question why they have to purchase VBS2 for thousands of dollars if they could just buy ArmA3 at retail price.Thats not what i am saying BB,what i am pointing out is that VBS2 2.0 is using the A2 engine which has ragdoll,Physx, skydiving ,underwater combat etc and then here comes A3(built on A2) which now has...ragdoll,Physx, skydiving ,underwater combat etc.which makes me think they just yanked some features out of VBS2 threw it into A2 and wuhlah..A3 is born :) anyways i dont want to argue with anyone about it...i just thought it looked a little odd :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
froggyluv 2136 Posted July 13, 2013 Doesn't work like that. VBS2 is built on Arma2's engine RV3. Arma 3 is built on the next iteration of that engine:RV4 If anything it's VBS which will be looking to jump to the newer Arma3 (engine) contrary to popular belief. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chortles 263 Posted July 13, 2013 froggyluv said what I would have said! Dslyecxi has also mentioned that the game engines have preceded the simulator engines every time: OFP, VBS1 (RV); Arma, VBS2 (RV2); Arma 2, VBS2 2.0 (RV3); Arma 3 (RV4), which is something that this timeline by BISim also shows. I have no idea what you mean by "own the rights to VBS2 2.0" though. Nevertheless, it's never been a case of "the simulator gets civilianized into a commercial game", but rather a separate product where some of the enhancements are outright funded by client militaries, although even there the simulation hasn't always been 1:1; for example, a 2012 white paper noted that "characters moving below the waterline in a ship interior", "characters walking around on a moving ship" (which were not possible in VBS2 as of 2010) were two of those RN/RAN-contracted fixes, while not mentioning other reported limitations as of 2010, such as an inability for helicopters to land on moving ships -- which mankyle's experimentation has shown is possible in Arma 3 (albeit right now "The friction between the landing pad and the helicopters is not strong enough to maintain the choppers on the landing pad"). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted July 13, 2013 BI = Bohemia Interactive a.s. = the developer of Arma serie and RV (Real Virtuality) engine BISIM = Bohemia Interactive Simulations = the developer of VBS serie based on heavily modified RV engine BI is in entertaintment industry, makes games for public BISIM is in serious games industry, makes simulators for niche clients like armies, government and state agencies the only link between companies is "Bohemia Interactive" in name, similar logos and RV engine ... due to historical reference of the origin of each company and to keep them somewhat recognized together (which a seen often makes people think it's one company and one product, but that's completely wrong) two completely different, separate companies ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ric 1 Posted July 13, 2013 Doesn't work like that. VBS2 is built on Arma2's engine RV3. Arma 3 is built on the next iteration of that engine:RV4 If anything it's VBS which will be looking to jump to the newer Arma3 (engine) contrary to popular belief. The simulation engine driving VBS2 is Real Virtuality 2, developed by Bohemia Interactive now whether this video is using the RV2 or RV3 i cannot say but i know for sure its NOT RV4 (unless VBS2 was using RV4 before A3) my point again was that BIS showed us all these wonderful new features of A3 (RV4) like PhysX that seems to have already existed in RV2 or RV3. you guys (froggy,chortles) have to understand how odd that can look. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted July 13, 2013 VBS2 has used old PhysX v1.x or early v2 ... older than PhysX v2.x used in early Arma 3 and we know how hard was to rewrite v2 to v3 for Arma 3 right ... anyway can't we please move away from VBS ? it's different company different engine branch different products , so except some rare fixes or simple code it can't be used, period Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ric 1 Posted July 13, 2013 BI = Bohemia Interactive a.s. = the developer of Arma serie and RV (Real Virtuality) engineBISIM = Bohemia Interactive Simulations = the developer of VBS serie based on heavily modified RV engine BI is in entertaintment industry, makes games for public BISIM is in serious games industry, makes simulators for niche clients like armies, government and state agencies the only link between companies is "Bohemia Interactive" in name, similar logos and RV engine ... due to historical reference of the origin of each company and to keep them somewhat recognized together (which a seen often makes people think it's one company and one product, but that's completely wrong) two completely different, separate companies ... don't you mean a separate division of the parent company BI? if not you will want to get this changed as it is misleading VBS2 is developed by Bohemia Interactive Australia (division of Bohemia Interactive Studio). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBS2 ---------- Post added at 23:16 ---------- Previous post was at 23:13 ---------- VBS2 has used old PhysX v1.x or early v2 ... older than PhysX v2.x used in early Arma 3 and we know how hard was to rewrite v2 to v3 for Arma 3 right ... anyway can't we please move away from VBS ? it's different company different engine branch different products , so except some rare fixes or simple code it can't be used, period thnx for the response :) VBS discussion /end :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted July 13, 2013 no ric, when i say separate companies then separate companies as Sony and Microsoft ... and BIA is now BISIM ... period ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
St. Jimmy 272 Posted July 13, 2013 don't you mean a separate division of the parent company BI? if not you will want to get this changed as it is misleadingVBS2 is developed by Bohemia Interactive Australia (division of Bohemia Interactive Studio). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBS2 Wikipedia *cough* *cough* It's really a division of BISim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted July 13, 2013 ye, the VBS2 wikipedia entry is somewhat quite outdated in the terms of companies structure changes ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ric 1 Posted July 13, 2013 Wikipedia *cough* *cough*It's really a division of BISim i found there wikipedia page...pretty kool stuff there doing ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisimulation Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krazikilla 5 Posted July 13, 2013 Comon gents, stop with this BISim and BIS comparison. Dwarden clearly stated its 2 completly diffrent companies. Better give him some time to talk his collueges into finally developing the weaponrest feature - Its most wanted feature of all. --> http://feedback.arma3.com/plugin.php?page=Vote/list_bugs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ash712 1 Posted July 14, 2013 (edited) I can't believe some of you using "Wikipedia" as your source when an actual BI employee is telling you what is up... *mega face palm* Welcome to the internets to those who count on "Wikipedia" as their source for all things lol! :p *it's updated by users, and users who can add false information if it's updated at all* EDIT : To the devs BTW : Thanks for answering my Q's ;) Edited July 14, 2013 by Ash712 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pettka 694 Posted July 14, 2013 I can't believe some of you using "Wikipedia" as your source when an actual BI employee is telling you what is up... *mega face palm* Welcome to the internets to those who count on "Wikipedia" as their source for all things lol! :p *it's updated by users, and users who can add false information if it's updated at all* EDIT : To the devs BTW : Thanks for answering my Q's ;) Or just take a look at some more informed places - BISim Linkedin profile shows no connection to BI and even BISim pages speak about acquisition by Riverside :icon_twisted: We know the people, speak to each other, but they are the different company. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dale0404 5 Posted July 14, 2013 Assumption is usually the mother of all fuck ups... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zogrim 10 Posted July 14, 2013 (edited) VBS2 has used old PhysX v1.x or early v2 Ehm, just a notice - there is no such thing as PhysX 1.x. The engine from which PhysX has originated was called NovodeX (2002-2004). And "early" PhysX SDK (2.3) was released somewhere around 2005, I don't think that was something VBS2 was using. But I presume that switch from PhysX SDK 2(.8) to SDK 3 was indeed time and resources consuming, as their API are quite different. Edited July 14, 2013 by Zogrim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
giorgygr 61 Posted July 14, 2013 Assumption is usually the mother of all fuck ups... Assumption means free spirit. Believe me lots of things provided to human as a "fact" (lots of examples at history/education/everyday's things) -and with plenty of "proof" supporting that *fact-doesn't mean is the truth. Think outside the sardine-can Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
