Reality Check

[mistyronin 1181]

Don't overeact, in 2001 you simply couldn't navigate buildings and many of them were not even enterable.

So true, and when you shot them they deform in weird shapes xD

[ProfTournesol 956]

So true, and when you shot them they deform in weird shapes xD

Well, in fact you could navigate them as bad as you could in A2.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Don't overeact, in 2001 you simply couldn't navigate buildings and many of them were not even enterable.

Please. My post has nothing to do with the old character collision detection inaccuracy from OFP.

[HKFlash 9]

Please. My post has nothing to do with the old character collision detection inaccuracy from OFP.

It did seem so.

[Harbinger2456 10]

Wouldn't this mean we're going to have the same old A2 for all eternity?

Sure seems like it. Seems to me they don't want to put money into a new engine. Its like 15 years old. Time to start looking for a new engine.

[Deadfast 43]

Its like 15 years old. Time to start looking for a new engine.

It has been nearly 35 years since Intel 8086 was introduced. Guess which CPU your current one is based on? Bottom line, just because something is old doesn't mean it should be immediately disposed off.

[ProfTournesol 956]

It has been nearly 35 years since Intel 8086 was introduced. Guess which CPU your current one is based on? Bottom line, just because something is old doesn't mean it should be immediately disposed off.

Yes, was about to say the same thing. A "new engine" doesn't mean anything, the actual RV engine is obviously very different from the very first poseidon one.

[antoineflemming 14]

It has been nearly 35 years since Intel 8086 was introduced. Guess which CPU your current one is based on? Bottom line, just because something is old doesn't mean it should be immediately disposed off.

Doesn't mean it doesn't need massive improvement either. Seriously, it makes me take back anything I've ever said about COD using the same engine.

[MavericK96 0]

Doesn't mean it doesn't need massive improvement either. Seriously, it makes me take back anything I've ever said about COD using the same engine.

Yeah. It doesn't need to be gotten rid of entirely but if it needs a major overhaul to get good CPU utilization and multi-thread support beyond 2 cores, then it needs a major overhaul.

I think the main complaint isn't that the engine is 15 years old, it's that it's about 5-7 years out of date with modern engines in terms of multi-core support.

[dayglow 2]

Yeah. It doesn't need to be gotten rid of entirely but if it needs a major overhaul to get good CPU utilization and multi-thread support beyond 2 cores, then it needs a major overhaul.

I think the main complaint isn't that the engine is 15 years old, it's that it's about 5-7 years out of date with modern engines in terms of multi-core support.

Completely agree when I compare it to the other modern engines of similar map size, custumizability, and mp player numbers.

[froggyluv 2130]

or do you have some kind of road map you would like to share with us for the evolution of RV4 to 64bit and proper scaling across multiple cores?

I'm just curious if you've tried VBS2 64bit? Overall the performance is far worse than Arma3 both ingame and while watching Ram usage/CPU cores - why are you so sure this will increase performance in any substantial way considering cost/results?

[mbbird 11]

It has been nearly 35 years since Intel 8086 was introduced. Guess which CPU your current one is based on? Bottom line, just because something is old doesn't mean it should be immediately disposed off.

Yeah but when that old thing starts showing it's age by performing as inefficiently as possible, flaunting its optimization issues across the floor, holding back expansive development through stone-age limitations, and baffling modders/mission-makers through its backwards, ancient methods, one might consider disposing of it.

It's almost certainly a matter of money, not logic, Deadfast.

Edited September 17, 2013 by mbbird

[celery 8]

I'm also starting to believe that the RV engine has run its course. Things that were supposed to be easy enough to change for the better in new games have repeatedly been failed to achieve despite lavish development times, and new features (or rather, hacks) seem to be sustained on bubblegum and the holy spirit alone.

[Harbinger2456 10]

It's almost certainly a matter of money, not logic, Deadfast.

LOL, its ALWAYS a matter of money.

[muzashi1964 10]

Not my first post (I lost my login, and the email addy I used before, thanks HOTMAIL:j:)

What most of you fail to realise, is that BIS has delivered on it's promise. ArmA 3 IS an excellent simulation. It delivers a life-like simulation with all of the necessary assets. For what Arma 3 is, it cannot be faulted. It is beautifully crafted, and promises much more.

The error you guys are making, is in thinking it is a military simulation. It is not. It is a game developing simulation.

ArmA 3 is aimed squarely at all the modders and scripters.

When they have finished modding and scripting the bejesus out of it, ArmA IV will come along.:cool:

[Harbinger2456 10]

The error you guys are making, is in thinking it is a military simulation. It is not. It is a game developing simulation.

ArmA 3 is aimed squarely at all the modders and scripters.

LOL, nice spin.

[blackhawk_pl 10]

The error you guys are making, is in thinking it is a military simulation. It is not. It is a game developing simulation.

ArmA 3 is aimed squarely at all the modders and scripters.

If it was developing simulator then they would give editing tools that aren't 10+ years old. AFAIK they haven't said anything about brand new editing tool, so they will probably go with their copy-paste theme and just update old tools.

[maddogx 13]

I'm also starting to believe that the RV engine has run its course. Things that were supposed to be easy enough to change for the better in new games have repeatedly been failed to achieve despite lavish development times, and new features (or rather, hacks) seem to be sustained on bubblegum and the holy spirit alone.

I agree, at least partially. When even the most trivial things (like changing weapons on the move) are deemed "almost impossible to implement", it paints a pretty clear picture. Certain core parts of the RV engine are really holding them back and should have been replaced years ago - something they're only now finally doing for DayZ SA, but unfortunately much too late for this game. To be blunt, this branch of the RV engine seems to be a dead end, which is too bad considering all the work they've put into making it look and feel nicer.

[windies 11]

I agree, at least partially. When even the most trivial things (like changing weapons on the move) are deemed "almost impossible to implement", it paints a pretty clear picture. Certain core parts of the RV engine are really holding them back and should have been replaced years ago - something they're only now finally doing for DayZ SA, but unfortunately much too late for this game. To be blunt, this branch of the RV engine seems to be a dead end, which is too bad considering all the work they've put into making it look and feel nicer.

That's where most of the frustration comes from, at least from a performance perspective as well as from a functionality perspective like you describe. Why sell a $60 game on an engine, or a "branch" of an engine as you aptly put it really, that you know is going to have these kinds of issue's doing what you want it to do and then complaining that your engine gains no benefit from the fact that the majority of computing is all multicore and parallel processing now? There are game engines out there that do parallel processing and concurrency with larger environments EXTREMELY well, so you can't say that the RV engine would not benefit from it. Maybe not in it's current form, the way that it's coded to run, but that's somewhat the issue I think at this point. And obviously the environments aren't as large as what the RV engine handles, but then that's more of an issue with memory addressing and file management than it is with processing performance.

I just find the performance issue's a more core issue or problem than something like changing weapons on the move because while they're both important, one does preclude the other.

[KeyCat 131]

This is quite funny. As a gamer since the 80's I honestly haven't seen a company support and continuously develop their titles as much as BIS. Look back at OFP, Arma and Arma 2 and the continuous stream of development .exe's and patches that keep adding features years after release, many from suggestions from the community.

Im in the camp that we're very lucky that they as dedicated as they are.

QFT!

You can call me whatever you like since I don't care but what DayGlow says is spot on!

Is A3 perfect in all aspects? No and very few things in life are! Will the engine and MP performance be fixed by future patches/DLC's/whatever? I don't know but I'm sure BIS are doing their best to improve it by all means.

Giving them feedback and constructive critics in a adult manner is OK and most likely welcomed by the dev's but all the negativity and bickering is only leading to a bad "working environment" and in the end it work's against your own wishes of things being fixed or added.

I can understand and agree to some of the disappointment but personally I'm perfectly fine to give them whatever time they need to contine working on it as they officially stated they will!

Just my 0.20 SEK

/KC

Edited September 17, 2013 by KeyCat

[maddogx 13]

I just find the performance issue's a more core issue or problem than something like changing weapons on the move because while they're both important, one does preclude the other.

The weapon changing issue was just an example to highlight how certain ancient parts of the engine are clearly holding the game back. Obviously there are bigger and more important issues, but the whole "performance vs. concurrency" problem isn't quite as easy to define.

[Deadfast 43]

I agree, at least partially. When even the most trivial things (like changing weapons on the move) are deemed "almost impossible to implement", it paints a pretty clear picture. Certain core parts of the RV engine are really holding them back and should have been replaced years ago - something they're only now finally doing for DayZ SA, but unfortunately much too late for this game. To be blunt, this branch of the RV engine seems to be a dead end, which is too bad considering all the work they've put into making it look and feel nicer.

Considering weapon switching on the move is in VBS and has been for a while, the engine is clearly capable if it.

[chortles 263]

Moreover, the changing-weapons-on-the-move one is a more clearly (specifically) defined issue that's universal across machines, whereas "performance issues" are merely inconsistent.

Considering weapon switching on the move is in VBS and has been for a while, the engine is clearly capable if it.

The issue though is just how did they implement it... after all, this exists too:

[2nd ranger 282]

Sometimes I think that BIS is simply unable to change clunky engine features like the animation system or action menu, because the people who designed them have left, or are working on other projects, and nobody else knows how to do it.

[maddogx 13]

Sometimes I think that BIS is simply unable to change clunky engine features like the animation system or action menu, because the people who designed them have left, or are working on other projects, and nobody else knows how to do it.

Jay Crowe has been lamenting the scarcity of programmers on the ARMA3 team for a while now. As for them working on "other projects", you don't have to look very far - at least the two most senior BI programmers I know of (Suma and Bebul) are working on DayZ. Particularly Suma's absense from the A3 team probably hurts a lot, considering that he's basically the guy who wrote the engine.