Reality Check

[Fulcrum90 10]

think about like this...all work is done in engine and nothing on content except a few items...people would just start porting over A2 stuff and mods like I44 (which is being done) so there would be plenty of things to play with along with and engine that is 4x more powerful (scaling )

all the content in the world will matter for naught if my FPS tanks my CPU hit %100 while GPU drops usage drops because core 0 on my system of server is overloaded. engine first content later.

---------- Post added at 15:22 ---------- Previous post was at 15:20 ----------

^^this, cart was put before the horse :(

And with WHO would you play if everyone had different addons?

Oh and:

Quality models can be made "easily" by modders. Engine fixes, core AI fixes and gameplay changes not.

Sorry, but you have NO idea. That might have been true during OFP times, but a high quality model with high quality textures (Yes thats not easy to pull off as well). We are the tons of "high quality addons" for ArmA 2? Hm? Compared to OFP there arent many.

[-=seany=- 5]

So what you're saying is you want more, different, turrets and more UAVs and more planes then? Or am I understanding that wrong?

You aware of some other way of creating new turrets? The quantity of each factions units...eg the number of assets they all have are fine...we want more variation...what is so hard to understand about this..? Actually, I know you understand, you are just being pedantic. I also never mentioned new planes.. don't where you got that from.

So you're assuming they're all done and have all kicked back and are now twiddling their thumbs? I see...

...No, I mean "back to work" on the already created content...They are probably working on the models that they intend to include after the release..like the new jet etc..Or DLC.

You said people who are complaining want new toys.. No, most want the same NUMBER of toys (PER faction) but add more variety to them.

So you're assuming they're all done and have all kicked back and are now twiddling their thumbs? I see...

Also, by this statement you seem to be implying that they are actually working on more varied units/vehicle turrets in the background and what we have now are place holders or some thing? I think it is pretty unlikely.

And you still haven't said whether you like that fact that separate factions are using recycled components/units...Well, do you think this looks good? I assume you must do since you are so eager to defend it. Why the heck do even care so much that people are unhappy with the reuse of assets and are asking BIS for more variation. What do you have to loose exactly if they do improve the variety of assets?

Edited September 7, 2013 by -=seany=-

[Bouben 3]

And with WHO would you play if everyone had different addons?

Oh and:

Sorry, but you have NO idea. That might have been true during OFP times, but a high quality model with high quality textures (Yes thats not easy to pull off as well). We are the tons of "high quality addons" for ArmA 2? Hm? Compared to OFP there arent many.

Valid point maybe (I don't care that much for quality of textures, accuracy of models etc. so it is hard to tell), but even without addons ARMA 3 is perfectly sufficient content-wise ("all" types of combat units are there - the rest to discuss is just... I would say a matter of preference and visuals and taste, but the point is you can make all kinds of missions with them). I agree there should be more planes for fans of flying but other than that there is no need to give it a priority. What needs priority is engine, bugfixes and improvements of gameplay mechanics IMO. Because without it you could have just a great looking unit viewer...

So to sum it again, if development of content stopped now (after the planes) and BIS would concentrate only on engine, bugfixes and improvements of gameplay mechanics for another few years I would be a very happy customer/player/fan.

[fujix 11]

So to sum it again, if development of content stopped now (after the planes) and BIS would concentrate only on engine, bugfixes and improvements of gameplay mechanics for another few years I would be a very happy customer/player/fan.

Agree that engine work is very much needed to add features that the community has been asking for forever and ofcourse performance and bug fixes. But 3D artist are not working on engine improvements :)

[Bouben 3]

But 3D artist are not working on engine improvements :)

Well, but they consume money making new content and that money could be spent on programmers fixing the engine and gameplay.

[fujix 11]

Well, but they consume money making new content and that money could be spent on programmers fixing the engine and gameplay.

I think they consume money either way as long as they remain employed. Better then if they create content instead of fiddling their thumbs dont you agree? Or do you want BI to fire their art department and rehire them again for Arma 4?

[mistyronin 1181]

I really think that A3 is just at its beginning. I remember how OFP or A1 or A2 were at their release and well... ( besides the obvious, that A2 was a huge copy & paste, thought I don't care as it gives more toys to play with ).

What some people seem not be aware is that in some of the vehicles / weapons there are lots of variations inside the file that are only available through scripting ( for example the backpacks or the police beacons in the offroad ). If we made just a video with only a line of offroads with all the diff configs, it would be huge!

That it would be better, and it is a bit disappointing that some vehicles share the same turret, that ships and unmanned are sharing even the whole model. Right, IMO BI should correct it in the future. But have in mind that with the new engine and possibilities, we are gonna have new community addons in a few weeks ( and some of them with huge amount of high quality addons like FFAA 6.0 to say one).

To me, the only thing that I would really look up to in these next days, and I think it'd be important; would be a open BI message to the community answering some of the point of the forum ( obviously without giving any final date as we all now that WIP can take more time than expected ): Are they gonna change the turrets? ( or are they definitive ), same with UAV and ships. Are they working in more vehicles than the cited two planes for free?

IMO that could help to relax a bit the actual storm in this forum ( though that may encourage some hooligans ).

[froggyluv 2136]

I guess I am the minority here, who cares mostly about vision of improved gameplay mechanics with each game release rather than the quantity and variability of content. I would kill for BIS devs concentrating ONLY on gameplay mechanics and engine fixes for several years and leaving content development behind. That would be the best thing to ever happen with this series. Shame it is not going to happen as I watch this discussion...

think about like this...all work is done in engine and nothing on content except a few items...people would just start porting over A2 stuff and mods like I44 (which is being done) so there would be plenty of things to play with along with and engine that is 4x more powerful (scaling )

all the content in the world will matter for naught if my FPS tanks my CPU hit %100 while GPU drops usage drops because core 0 on my system of server is overloaded. engine first content later.

---------- Post added at 15:22 ---------- Previous post was at 15:20 ----------

^^this, cart was put before the horse :(

Valid point maybe (I don't care that much for quality of textures, accuracy of models etc. so it is hard to tell), but even without addons ARMA 3 is perfectly sufficient content-wise ("all" types of combat units are there - the rest to discuss is just... I would say a matter of preference and visuals and taste, but the point is you can make all kinds of missions with them). I agree there should be more planes for fans of flying but other than that there is no need to give it a priority. What needs priority is engine, bugfixes and improvements of gameplay mechanics IMO. Because without it you could have just a great looking unit viewer...

So to sum it again, if development of content stopped now (after the planes) and BIS would concentrate only on engine, bugfixes and improvements of gameplay mechanics for another few years I would be a very happy customer/player/fan.

And herein lies the disconnect between some of us who are amazed at some of the recent enhancements in light of limited content and some of us who see limited content as the fall of the series. It really just depends on where said player's priority is. I once posted in the OFP forums that I'd pay $100 for a souped up AI version -that's why I'm pretty happy as I care primarily how firefights play out and IMHO, they are best in Arma 3.

[metalcraze 290]

I really think that A3 is just at its beginning. I remember how OFP or A1 or A2 were at their release and well... ( besides the obvious, that A2 was a huge copy & paste, thought I don't care as it gives more toys to play with ).

A2 was a huge copy paste? With ArmA3 being around? Are you kidding?

What some people seem not be aware is that in some of the vehicles / weapons there are lots of variations inside the file that are only available through scripting ( for example the backpacks or the police beacons in the offroad ). If we made just a video with only a line of offroads with all the diff configs, it would be huge!

Yeah right. Except those backpacks aren't real backpacks since in ArmA3 they just magically extend carrying space instead of being real backpacks like they were in ArmA2.

But see making a decision of not burning madly through your ammo because you would have to unpack the rest was not streamlined-accessible-authentic enough so now you can just shoot through 20 mags mindlessly.

But hey backpack variety is the thing we complain about, no?

That it would be better, and it is a bit disappointing that some vehicles share the same turret, that ships and unmanned are sharing even the whole model. Right, IMO BI should correct it in the future. But have in mind that with the new engine and possibilities, we are gonna have new community addons in a few weeks ( and some of them with huge amount of high quality addons like FFAA 6.0 to say one).

Well then BIS should give all money we paid to modders. Great idea you gotta agree! Oh wait - they will not.

Also what new engine? The "new" engine that still has ugly stencil shadows that people were asking to replace with proper soft shadows for the past 6 months?

The "new" engine that has almost no new features over its ArmA2 version and missing a ton of features ArmA2 had?

Edited September 7, 2013 by metalcraze

[Bouben 3]

I think they consume money either way as long as they remain employed. Better then if they create content instead of fiddling their thumbs dont you agree? Or do you want BI to fire their art department and rehire them again for Arma 4?

Yes I agree it is problematic. I am not in the lead of the company so it is definitely hard to tell. Fair enough.

[mistyronin 1181]

A2 was a huge copy paste? With ArmA3 being around? Are you kidding?

In A2 almost all the vehicles were just updated from other games ( A1 or VBS ). In A3 they have included a good amount of new stuff, the most important since OFP ( though they also have updated a few, like the Buzzard and Gorgon from ACR, Orca from PMC or Littlebird from A2). Even if the ships are the same for the three factions, they are not from previous games.

Yeah right. Except those backpacks aren't real backpacks since in ArmA3 they just magically extend carrying space instead of being real backpacks like they were in ArmA2.

But see making a decision of not burning madly through your ammo because you would have to unpack the rest was not streamlined-accessible-authentic enough so now you can just shoot through 20 mags mindlessly.

I was talking about the hanging backpacks in the offroad.

Well then BIS should give all money we paid to modders. Great idea you gotta agree! Oh wait - they will not.

BI has bought some community addons in the past. Besides that BI has made all the huge part of the engine, so IMO they deserve the money we have paid. Besides that community addon makers do that for fun. Even that in some cases I wouldn't have any problem in paying for them ( ok, not directly cuz it would be illegal, but at least buying them a few beers ).

Also what new engine? The "new" engine that still has ugly stencil shadows that people were asking to replace with proper soft shadows for the past 6 months?

The "new" engine that has almost no new features over its ArmA2 version and missing a ton of features ArmA2 had?

Well, I certainly notice a lot of differences from A2 ( the most important for me smoothness while playing as infantry ). All can be improved, but to me it has been the time I noticed a huge leap forward compared to the previous games.

[HKFlash 9]

Now I agree that Bohemia is different developer and have in the past been a very generous developer and cares for their community and listens (not always). But as with every other developer out there they to can change. People are taking for granted that they will provide us with free content to make up for the shortfall in Arma 3. Maybe they will give us a few more toys to play with (2 CAS planes confirmed). But anyone that thinks they will revisit the copy paste content and add variety to the major factions lives in a fantasy world with pink bunnies and unicorns. It just wont happen.

Here is what I think will happen.

They will release some content for free, like the 2 CAS planes. Then comes the DLC. We will pay to get more weapons, vehicles etc. Hopefully new content will be more varied and not copy paste but this is not guaranteed.

A major expansion will be released, similar to OA. This is a perfect opportunity for BI to redeem themselves. They can add all the features that were axed and add new factions with unique weapons and vehicles. Again this is best case scenario and it might turn out the be the exact opposite.

You pretty much nailed it. I hope we will be proven wrong though.

[clydefrog 3]

A major expansion will be released, similar to OA. This is a perfect opportunity for BI to redeem themselves. They can add all the features that were axed and add new factions with unique weapons and vehicles. Again this is best case scenario and it might turn out the be the exact opposite.

How would they be redeeming themselves by charging us extra for the load of stuff that was left out of the original game? That would make it even worse.

[metalcraze 290]

In A2 almost all the vehicles were just updated from other games ( A1 or VBS ).

So how is it a copy pasta when they bothered to update stuff versus ArmA3 where they just did ctrl+c ctrl+v with 2/3 of vehicles?

In A3 they have included a good amount of new stuff, the most important since OFP ( though they also have updated a few, like the Buzzard and Gorgon from ACR, Orca from PMC or Littlebird from A2). Even if the ships are the same for the three factions, they are not from previous games.

So basically every single side having the same vehicles with the same loadouts and armor > whole 5 sides being unique but some of the models being updates from previous games?

It's not just boats, it's cars, it's apcs, it's artillery, it's tanks. The only different things are choppers but some of those are straight from ArmA2 which is kinda telling.

Also wrong even there - zodiac boats are from previous games. But hey BIS modeled a whole 1 boat and 1 UDV, what an effort.

I was talking about the hanging backpacks in the offroad.

Don't see how that makes any difference to the real copy pasta.

BI has bought some community addons in the past.

Like which?

Besides that BI has made all the huge part of the engine, so IMO they deserve the money we have paid. Besides that community addon makers do that for fun. Even that in some cases I wouldn't have any problem in paying for them ( ok, not directly cuz it would be illegal, but at least buying them a few beers ).

Oh right that's a pretty nice reasoning there. BIS doesn't do anything, they deserve money. Modders do it for fun (what other choice do they have?), they deserve nothing.

It's been 4 years and BIS still didn't fix drones among other things. Or a rain which they took out for 6 months then put it back making it actually look worse with drop splatters gone. So much hard work, I hope they didn't get burned much from all those sunbaths they took whole summer.

Well, I certainly notice a lot of differences from A2 ( the most important for me smoothness while playing as infantry ). All can be improved, but to me it has been the time I noticed a huge leap forward compared to the previous games.

Where is this leap forward? Can you point me to it? Leap forward where they dumbed down backpacks? Leap forward where they've made medics useless? Leap forward where they've made ammo bearers useless? Leap forward where sniper rifles have a recoil and weight of a pistol? Leap forward where you can't tell BLUFOR apart from OPFOR save for brown color? Leap forward where cars and tanks autoflip back on their wheels/tracks so poor casual players won't have to drive with a bit more care? Leap forward where you do an instant 180 degree spin while prone? Leap forward where they cut out first aid module?

Sounds like a leap forward into Dragon Rising territory alright.

anyone that thinks they will revisit the copy paste content and add variety to the major factions lives in a fantasy world with pink bunnies and unicorns. It just wont happen.

Even more. ArmA3 has the biggest potential for DLC milking out of all games in the series with so much content missing. And with people already defending the absolutely lazy job BIS did with A3 and saying "it's perfect amount of content for the money" there's no reason for them not to.

Better to say that if anybody thinks that after September 12th BIS will work for free is very naive.

Edited September 7, 2013 by metalcraze

[mistyronin 1181]

metalcraze as it seems that you don't like any of the features of A3, and you don't think it's gonna improve.

I'd suggest you to forget about this game and dedicate your time in things you believe are worth it; or whatever you do when you feel really disappointed after using a product that you have bought.

I mean, what's the point of keep playing a game that you think its that bad that it's developers deserve nothing?

[ric 1]

I really think that A3 is just at its beginning.

sorry MR I know you are trying to be positive and rational but to say this is the "beginning" is really not correct and i say that because when they (devs) tell us that the TOH flight models will not be added because it flogs the engine for 10FPS that sounds more like the the end...when you start robbing peter to pay Paul just to maintain playable frames rates that means you have reached a ceiling. then there is the content issue on top of the performance issues along with the "reuse" of models making it kinda generic and the obvious cut n paste of the entire underwater environment from VBS2 leads a lot of people to question...what have they been doing

now for me i don't care about anything but the engine...because when i spend 20 mins getting to the LZ only t have my FPS go from 40 to 15 because all of sudden core 0 is screaming at %100 and my GPU is dropping and the rest of my cores are flat lining at %20....you have to understand why there is alot of anger MR the engine should have been priority number #1 because it is not a new issue which just makes it worse for a lot of people to accept... while the game is running better than its predecessor its just not stable which again reminds people that the issue was not truly addressed.

Think about this MR, imagine A3 could scale like *BF3 that would open up the console market to BIS because the new consoles use a 1.8ghz hex core chip (both sony and xbox) not to mention the longevity for future titles and portability.

* BF3 is referenced ONLY to compare scalability not content or play style

[liquidpinky 11]

the new consoles use a 1.8ghz hex core chip (both sony and xbox) not to mention the longevity for future titles and portability.

Sure I have a calculator faster than that.

You know that the RV engine loves fast single core speeds over nothing else? Even 12 cores and indeed 24 if you use an SR2 motherboard still laughs at you with Arma. Consoles can stick there piddly little 1.8GHz up their bum until RV4 uses cores properly. Even then it will be dire at best on consoles.

[ric 1]

Sure I have a calculator faster than that.

You know that the RV engine loves fast single core speeds over nothing else? Even 12 cores and indeed 24 if you use an SR2 motherboard still laughs at you with Arma. Consoles can stick there piddly little 1.8GHz up their bum until RV4 uses cores properly. Even then it will be dire at best on consoles.

I think you misunderstood me..what i mean is that if RV could scale that would mean that BIS could make games for console using the RV engine opening up another source of revenue for BIS :)...im not saying you would or want to put ARMA on console :) right now i don't think RV4 could be used on the new consoles.

[clydefrog 3]

Sure I have a calculator faster than that.

You know that the RV engine loves fast single core speeds over nothing else? Even 12 cores and indeed 24 if you use an SR2 motherboard still laughs at you with Arma. Consoles can stick there piddly little 1.8GHz up their bum until RV4 uses cores properly. Even then it will be dire at best on consoles.

That's because the engine is ancient and they should have decided to use a new one after having RV over 10 years. It's obviously completely outdated as far as hardware standards go and it's always had other problems apart from performance anyways. If even now 12 years later they can't get it to use multicore processors properly they should get rid of it and develop something else because it's clearly not suitable anymore.

Edited September 7, 2013 by clydefrog

[dm 9]

You aware of some other way of creating new turrets?

I know you understand, you are just being pedantic.

Actually, I was just trying to point out the logical fallacy of saying "we don't want them to make more content, we just want them to make more content" :)

Also, by this statement you seem to be implying that they are actually working on more varied units/vehicle turrets in the background and what we have now are place holders or some thing? I think it is pretty unlikely.

I, on the other hand, think it is quite likely :)

And you still haven't said whether you like that fact that separate factions are using recycled components/units...Well, do you think this looks good? I assume you must do since you are so eager to defend it. Why the heck do even care so much that people are unhappy with the reuse of assets and are asking BIS for more variation. What do you have to loose exactly if they do improve the variety of assets?

Compared to some previous screenshots we've seen (where all sides do actually use the same few vehicles, yes I think it looks better. It is obviously not ideal, but thats what we've got so far...

That's because the engine is ancient and they should have decided to use a new one after having RV over 10 years. It's obviously completely outdated as far as hardware standards go and it's always had other problems apart from performance anyways. If even now 12 years later they can't get it to use multicore processors properly they should get rid of it and develop something else.

Oh god, not this shit again. Protip: the core of the engines that run CoD, BF, and all the other "next gen" shit out there are just as old, if not older, than RV. We've done this to death, so lets not beat this dead horse any more plzkaythx mr armchair expert.

[clydefrog 3]

The age isn't the point, I wouldn't care if the engine was 50 years old if it could still utilise modern CPU's properly like the "next gen shit" and not have some of the same problems it did from the start.

[dm 9]

The age isn't the point, I wouldn't care if the engine was 50 years old if it could still utilise modern CPU's properly and not have some of the same problems it did from the start.

If the age isn't important, why do you make such a fuss about the age?

That's because the engine is ancient and they should have decided to use a new one after having RV over 10 years. It's obviously completely outdated as far as hardware standards go and it's always had other problems apart from performance anyways. If even now 12 years later they can't get it to use multicore processors properly they should get rid of it and develop something else because it's clearly not suitable anymore.

My use of bold :)

Also, protip2: you don't toss out an engine core after 12 years and start fresh, that's just crazy talk.

[clydefrog 3]

protip: learn to read, it helps you understand the message people are trying to put across

If even now 12 years later they can't get it to use multicore processors properly they should get rid of it and develop something else because it's clearly not suitable anymore.

I'll spell that out and simplify it for you since you seem to have selective reading:

IF they STILL CAN'T get it to use multicore processors properly AFTER 12 YEARS it's not suitable anymore.

IF they CAN get it to use multicore processors properly AFTER 12 YEARS it would be fine.

And I don't see BF having problems with this with its even older engine core, so nobody cares how old it is as there is no issue with it.

Edited September 7, 2013 by clydefrog

[froggyluv 2136]

The age isn't the point, I wouldn't care if the engine was 50 years old if it could still utilise modern CPU's properly like the "next gen shit" and not have some of the same problems it did from the start.

there currently is no 'other magic engine' that can do what RV does. If open world, sandbox mil-sim shooters of this scope were easy, everyone would be doing it. Study Dragon Rising for a more illustrated history of the rise and fail of a Flashpoint clone. If setting a unit ceiling of 64 total entities a map is the tradeoff for super-smooth performance, I'll take RV thanks.

[clydefrog 3]

there currently is no 'other magic engine' that can do what RV does. If open world, sandbox mil-sim shooters of this scope were easy, everyone would be doing it. Study Dragon Rising for a more illustrated history of the rise and fail of a Flashpoint clone. If setting a unit ceiling of 64 total entities a map is the tradeoff for super-smooth performance, I'll take RV thanks.

Yes that's the problem, it's stuck with it unfortunately and it could mean that if they don't develop a new one and just keep updating it a little bit each time they bring a new game out (while still keeping the long standing issues that they can't solve), then Arma will maybe eventually just die out as this engine surely won't be able to go on another decade.