A3 and DayZ share anything?

[novemberist 2]

But since all those new and apparently "advanced" things were developed by BI themselves, most likely by the some of the same people who made Arma 3 and since both engines are probably more alike then we think, how hard could it be to integrate those things into Arma 3? I'm sure nothing at BI is developed without even the thought in mind of using technology in as many products of them as possible. Nobody knows how long DayZ is gonna stay alive and generate profit. Arma3 has the sandbox editor and modding possibilities and is there to stay for a while...I'm confident no technology is wasted.

Edited February 26, 2014 by novemberist

[Fergal 10]

I really hope they port over the broken mouse acceleration from DayZ into ARMA and from the ARMA AI they give the DayZ zombies natural night-vision so they can easily spot you as you're sneaking around at night.

[chortles 263]

But since all those new and apparently "advanced" things were developed by BI themselves, most likely by the some of the same people who made Arma 3 and since both engines are probably more alike then we think, how hard could it be to integrate those things into Arma 3?

Based on a Reddit comment by rocket, the Arma 3 devs would basically have to redo the inventory system from scratch, hence my remark that all that could be expected to be carried over from DayZ to Arma 3 weapons-wise would be "more civilian weapons" (with A3 engine limitations).

Heck, Jay Crowe just piped in recently that "we are currently looking at an engine-based solution to the MP weather syncing issue, but it's no further along than that. The DayZ solution is suitable to their own implementation, but Sadovsf is still at the investigation phase of our own deployment", which suggests that it's not a 1:1 carry-over.

[lao fei mao 21]

Guys, economy decide everything. Day-z standalone absorbed 1.5millions players within two months, larger than the whole year sellings of ArmA3, so its market value is far beyond arma3, so of course its worth of BI's more dedication.

If arma3 could have 5 millions+ players, then it also deserves BI's more efforts. But the truth is many minor bugs and wishes haven't been solved since the day one of apha version.

I bet currently 70% manpower was assigned at Day-z. BIS's boss need money as we do.

[artisanal 22]

Wise words master Mao :notworthy:. Your pragmatism is legendary.

Seriously, this is totally true.

[Tonci87 163]

Guys, economy decide everything. Day-z standalone absorbed 1.5millions players within two months, larger than the whole year sellings of ArmA3, so its market value is far beyond arma3, so of course its worth of BI's more dedication.

If arma3 could have 5 millions+ players, then it also deserves BI's more efforts. But the truth is many minor bugs and wishes haven't been solved since the day one of apha version.

I bet currently 70% manpower was assigned at Day-z. BIS's boss need money as we do.

If yes then BIS is incredibly short sighted. DayZ is a phenomenon. The public will loose interest sooner or later, I very much doubt that they will be able to make a successor to the Stand alone version they are doing right now. Arma on the other hand is a well established franchise wich they might loose if they fuck it up. And what then?

[dostunuz 10]

I agree completely, they had to divert their resources to make Dayz.

[kklownboy 43]

If yes then BIS is incredibly short sighted. DayZ is a phenomenon. The public will loose interest sooner or later, I very much doubt that they will be able to make a successor to the Stand alone version they are doing right now. Arma on the other hand is a well established franchise wich they might loose if they fuck it up. And what then?

They might not even make a A4 anyways (they have said as such). It is only smart to make the money when you can(DayZ)Bet they make a DayZ3.. And as you say ARMA is established and so will go on for a longtime. Past its EOL when ever that is.

Game is fun to play. It will only get better. I dont see a issue here? I mean I did buy v99 of A1, so by that standturd, A3 is freaking awesome.

[rekrul 7]

But since all those new and apparently "advanced" things were developed by BI themselves, most likely by the some of the same people who made Arma 3 and since both engines are probably more alike then we think, how hard could it be to integrate those things into Arma 3? I'm sure nothing at BI is developed without even the thought in mind of using technology in as many products of them as possible. Nobody knows how long DayZ is gonna stay alive and generate profit. Arma3 has the sandbox editor and modding possibilities and is there to stay for a while...I'm confident no technology is wasted.

It took Dean's team over a year to rework many aspects of the engine to reach this alpha stage. Most parts that has been redone has been redone from scratch and they have experienced, and still are, lots of instability issues. Something tells me that moving DayZ functionality to A3 is no small task.

Although DayZ may be a phenomenon, it's still in alpha stage and has tons more potential than A3 had and has. Sorry guys, but DayZ is their flagship now. Is there room for DayZ 2? Probably not, but they have lots of other Arma-maps they can make into DLC. I doubt they will abandon Arma but it would be stupid not to explore the options the DayZ engine can offer when DayZ starts to fade.

[novemberist 2]

Although DayZ may be a phenomenon, it's still in alpha stage and has tons more potential than A3 had and has.

I don't think so. What potential does it have, really? They will add some more stuff, vehicles and optimizations and that's pretty much it. It will be a good and successfull game for what it is, but I doubt we will see something revolutionary coming in the long run. There is no editor, no modabilty...whereas there are all types of interesting things coming for Arma 3 from both BI (Zeus etc.) and the community. There are mods and DLCs that will basically turn Arma into anything...an MMORPG, an RTS, an open world survival game. And have you seen the freakin' T-Rex? That's what I call potential!

[roshnak 41]

That is because DAYZ SA was designed as an MMO from the ground up.

What does this have to do with weapon customization? Also, DayZ isn't really an MMO.

Based on a Reddit comment by rocket, the Arma 3 devs would basically have to redo the inventory system from scratch, hence my remark that all that could be expected to be carried over from DayZ to Arma 3 weapons-wise would be "more civilian weapons" (with A3 engine limitations).

Heck, Jay Crowe just piped in recently that "we are currently looking at an engine-based solution to the MP weather syncing issue, but it's no further along than that. The DayZ solution is suitable to their own implementation, but Sadovsf is still at the investigation phase of our own deployment", which suggests that it's not a 1:1 carry-over.

It's almost certainly not a 1:1 carry-over, but it does prove that BIS is capable of finding solutions to these kinds of problems if they want to. It think the basic answer to his question is: About as hard as it was to get the features into DayZ in the first place. Probably not significantly easier or harder.

On the porting weapons front, the only thing they would need to bring over is the art assets, although modeling a new M4 wouldn't exactly be a monumental task, and it might even be a good idea to remake those assets, anyway, to maintain consistency with Arma 3's art direction. It's not like they would need to have all the extraneous functionality of the DayZ weapons. The Arma 3 weapons should have more customization proxies, anyway. I don't think anyone thought that when BIS was going on and on about weapon customization, what they really meant was "one item at a time on a side rail and an optic."

Although DayZ may be a phenomenon, it's still in alpha stage and has tons more potential than A3 had and has.

In what sense does it have more potential? It's literally a more focused (read: limited) version of Arma. I'm sure DayZ will be quite successful in meeting its goals, but it's less versatile in every way than Arma is. It certainly won't be the launching platform for an entirely new game like Arma 2 was for DayZ.

As for the DayZ engine, it's designed to do very specific things which make it good for what it does, but you wouldn't want to play Arma on the DayZ engine. Frankly, I don't want to play DayZ on the DayZ engine. The only reason that DayZ is getting more features than Arma is that BIS is dedicating more of it's time and resources to DayZ. They could easily divert that time and resources to Arma and make it a better game.

It's also incredibly shortsighted to think that DayZ can be a flagship product for BIS. They've basically cornered a niche market with Arma. They can't do that with DayZ. There are already plenty of competitors -- granted, none of them are that good right now -- and it's only a matter of time before someone outdoes DayZ.

Honestly, BIS's biggest strength has been that no one else makes games like they do. You can't really say that about DayZ, and I can't see a way that won't be a huge problem for them.

[rekrul 7]

I don't think so. What potential does it have, really?[...]

I'm talking about financial potential. DayZ hardly has any content now, it's just the framework, but my point was that once it has stuff, other than a MMO shooter, it will attract more and more players.

---------- Post added at 12:11 ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 ----------

In what sense does it have more potential? [...]

It's also incredibly shortsighted to think that DayZ can be a flagship product for BIS. They've basically cornered a niche market with Arma. They can't do that with DayZ. There are already plenty of competitors -- granted, none of them are that good right now -- and it's only a matter of time before someone outdoes DayZ.[...]

It's hasn't peaked yet (in regards to sales).

BIS (or Dean, really) (re-)invented a new genre of games and DayZ is the leading title that everyone is competing against. To not take advantage of that would be incredible stupid. Now I know that that isn't what you're saying, but for them to get a huge title like that on the market is incredible rewarding in every aspect and I'm pretty sure the DayZ engine can and will be used for other titles in the future. It won't be GTAVI but even a single player DayZ game would sell pretty good and I'm sure they have more creativity than me. :)

And still, they were making both A3 and DayZ SA at the same time so I don't see why everyone is assuming that they can't maintain both titles at the same time. Right now, DayZ needs the most resources and is creating the most revenue so it would stupid not to put most resources on it. They have the opportunity to reach over 10 million DayZ sales - that's potential.

[roshnak 41]

I'm pretty sure the DayZ engine can and will be used for other titles in the future. It won't be GTAVI but even a single player DayZ game would sell pretty good and I'm sure they have more creativity than me. :)

Why, would the DayZ engine be used for other things, though? It's literally the same engine that the Arma series has been using all along, except it's more optimized and finely focused to do one specific thing. All of the things that are different about the DayZ engine are there specifically to suit the needs of DayZ. It's more of a little detour from the main RV engine than anything else.

Also, I don't really see how a single player DayZ game would sell well, since the whole concept of the game revolves around multiplayer. A single player game would just be a standard survival game and there are plenty of those.

And still, they were making both A3 and DayZ SA at the same time so I don't see why everyone is assuming that they can't maintain both titles at the same time. Right now, DayZ needs the most resources and is creating the most revenue so it would stupid not to put most resources on it. They have the opportunity to reach over 10 million DayZ sales - that's potential.

I was more replying to the people who keep saying things like "there won't be another Arma game," which is insane, since it's the only product BIS makes that has basically guaranteed customers. Discontinuing the Arma series would be a huge risk to the company.

[-Gews- 1]

The Arma 3 weapons should have more customization proxies, anyway. I don't think anyone thought that when BIS was going on and on about weapon customization, what they really meant was "one item at a time on a side rail and an optic."

DayZ weapons have more proxies right now, such as removable handguards, stocks, bipods, lights, for the M4, as well as proxy magazines for all firearms. In addition the weapons can be spray-painted various colours. A lot of this is cosmetic (or should be cosmetic).

As for the DayZ engine, it's designed to do very specific things which make it good for what it does, but you wouldn't want to play Arma on the DayZ engine. Frankly, I don't want to play DayZ on the DayZ engine. The only reason that DayZ is getting more features than Arma is that BIS is dedicating more of it's time and resources to DayZ. They could easily divert that time and resources to Arma and make it a better game.

Meh, from ARMA 2 to DayZ, I notice little difference between the engines from a player's (infantry) perspective. For me, the most striking changes from ARMA 2 are due to config options, which could be easily changed. There are quite a few negative changes in DayZ IMO.

I don't see a lot in DayZ which I would care to have in ARMA. The more extensive clothing is good. The damage system isn't complete so I don't know. The melee is much better but still very simple and clunky, and anyways melee in ARMA is not very important.

IMO ARMA 3's stance system, controls and superior responsiveness (DayZ is currently much closer to A2 than A3) is far better than DayZ at the moment.

[rekrul 7]

Why, would the DayZ engine be used for other things, though? It's literally the same engine that the Arma series has been using all along, except it's more optimized and finely focused to do one specific thing. All of the things that are different about the DayZ engine are there specifically to suit the needs of DayZ. It's more of a little detour from the main RV engine than anything else.

The year they spent in development wasn't just making enterable buildings. Especially the server-client archistructure that they built from ground up will kill the big elephant in room when it comes to ARMA games and their flood of hacks and griefers. Inventory has been mentioned already. Swap out zombies and think Mad Max-like universe, think Robinson Crusoe-universe, think RPGs, think Sims, whatever.

Also, I don't really see how a single player DayZ game would sell well, since the whole concept of the game revolves around multiplayer. A single player game would just be a standard survival game and there are plenty of those.

Not really. It's about survival, as the inspiration for Dean was military hellweek. Zombies were initially just a placeholder but they became mandatory when it exploded.

Your total ignorance to the opportunities and possibilities it offers makes me think you're high level management in a large corporation. EA maybe. ;)

(I know you will argue with the RV being able to the same, but you would still need to a lot of rework to adjust it to the game you're making, especially the hacking problem. My point is that with DayZ, the major parts are now done.)

[OrLoK 20]

I don't think so. What potential does it have, really? They will add some more stuff, vehicles and optimizations and that's pretty much it. It will be a good and successfull game for what it is, but I doubt we will see something revolutionary coming in the long run. There is no editor, no modabilty...whereas there are all types of interesting things coming for Arma 3 from both BI (Zeus etc.) and the community. There are mods and DLCs that will basically turn Arma into anything...an MMORPG, an RTS, an open world survival game. And have you seen the freakin' T-Rex? That's what I call potential!

Hello There

I stand with my feet firmly in both camps.

Without OFP/Arma's modability there would have been no DAYZ or indeed any of the "zombie" mods that came before it, nor ACE for that matter. It *is* the RV engines main strength.

However, DAYZ will more than likely be opened up to modding after a set period but not in the short term.

Personally, although a moderator on the official DAYZ forums, im not actually a fan on the "infected"/zeds, what I love is the persistence and the scavenging/survival aspect and although there are Arma missions which do this DAYZ, for me has always done it that little bit better IMHO.

As to sharing assets etc, im sure any mutual bug fixes and optimisations would be shared and I have absolutely no problem with any art assets, scripts or any other functionality that go either way throughout both the games developments.

Lastly, will the game bring anything revolutionary to the table? well, I think its already done that cash wise, but as to actual gaming? I think it will be a fun game and will add some really nice mechanics to the mix, I dont see it pushing back any boundaries apart from possibly bringing PC gaming away from the consolian handholding we've seen in the past few years. Which to me is a good thing.

Rgds

LoK

[novemberist 2]

So, I just bought DayZ myself 2 days ago and I think I initially got carried away by the hype and the videos I had watched too quickly.

Whatever problem my computer has with the Arma 2 engine, it's still in DayZ and makes me think that I just wasted my money on DayZ forever. I don't want any of those "optimizations" to spill over into the Arma3 engine anymore to be honest.

How can this game constantly crash and freeze after only minutes of playing, whereas Arma 3, which looks much better, runs like a charm (and even did in very early Alpha)?

From what I could see gameplaywise, I'm also massively underwhelmed by DayZs current quality and overall playability. For a game so massively popular and actively developed, what does ist offer? Cherno+ and the new buildings are really nice, rain looks nice, but apart from that, almost everything looks pretty bad or doesn't work at all (yet). I know this is not the DayZ forum and DayZ is still in early developement, but since I bumped this thread and asked for a lot of DayZ assets in Arma3 , I feel I have to make a step backwards here.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

TBH, if you are having technical issues you're best coming over and asking in the Official Forums.

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/forum/126-troubleshooting/

Rgds

LoK

[Smurf 12]

*meanwhile somewhere else in CZ*

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh5nYjbCAAAaU6U.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhzTuzCIIAEIvXn.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhkSfZdCEAA2hFL.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhaiSsZCMAAUtqu.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhU96QzCAAA3tFG.jpg

[Smurf 12]

Hi!

http://i.imgur.com/Puh8t82.png (574 kB)

http://i.imgur.com/YhS9sDU.png (610 kB)

[Mr. Charles 22]

/insert comment how ArmA needs this and we didn't get it for 13 years

[Nicholas 5]

/insert comment how ArmA needs this and we didn't get it for 13 years

Welcome to the Bohemia Interactive forums, did you just sign up here? :P /Sarcasm

To anyone else:

DayZ and ArmA are different game genre's with a different userbase that has different needs. Yes, they both run on versions of Real Virtuality, but that does not mean they should share features.

[roshnak 41]

DayZ and ArmA are different game genre's with a different userbase that has different needs. Yes, they both run on versions of Real Virtuality, but that does not mean they should share features.

I don't understand. Are you saying that Arma doesn't need multi-threading and 64-bit architecture?

[Nicholas 5]

I don't understand. Are you saying that Arma doesn't need multi-threading and 64-bit architecture?

Did I say that?

I said that just because they both utilize Real Virtuality as their game engine, does not mean they should share features, or should I say, it does not mean they need to share features. It's a pathetic excuse. While, yes, I agree it would be nice. But you have to think realistically.

Take a look at these blog posts, I know they're old, but the information within is still valuable.

BREAKING THE 32 BIT BARRIER

REAL VIRTUALITY GOING MULTICORE

Posts from developers, again old but still valuable.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?102682-Devs-time-for-a-64BIT-version&p=1680591&viewfull=1#post1680591

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?102682-Devs-time-for-a-64BIT-version&p=1680786&viewfull=1#post1680786

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?102682-Devs-time-for-a-64BIT-version&p=1680953&viewfull=1#post1680953

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?102682-Devs-time-for-a-64BIT-version&p=1681401&viewfull=1#post1681401

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?102682-Devs-time-for-a-64BIT-version&p=1681449&viewfull=1#post1681449

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?102682-Devs-time-for-a-64BIT-version&p=1681739&viewfull=1#post1681739

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?102682-Devs-time-for-a-64BIT-version&p=1681764&viewfull=1#post1681764

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?102682-Devs-time-for-a-64BIT-version&p=1685009&viewfull=1#post1685009

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?102682-Devs-time-for-a-64BIT-version&p=1968567&viewfull=1#post1968567

[roshnak 41]

Did I say that?

I thought you kind of implied it, since those were the last two features that were brought up, but I wasn't sure, which is why I asked.

I generally agree with the idea that many aspects of the DayZ engine are not applicable to Arma (just read any of my previous posts in this thread), but those two features are certainly not among those that wouldn't be useful for Arma, or any other game for that matter.

I'm also aware of the fact that BIS has, in the past, taken steps to address upcoming technology. Unfortunately, they have fallen behind the curve again. The first article you linked says, "In the long term, the solution to this will be to move to a 64 bit operating system and to compile the game as a 64 bit application," which would seem to indicate that the referenced method wasn't intended to be a permanent solution.