Arma 3 Engine - What would have been a better option and what can we learn?

[dmarkwick 261]

"Things happening outside of player's view"... a funny little novelty up until it affects my framerates.

It sounds like you're simply playing the wrong missions in that case. Player-centric missions that will save your FPS are very easy to make, just make them in a small area with fewer elements. No need to wish the engine crippled unnecessarily :)

[chortles 263]

Nah, I'm thinking more along the lines of what LowFlyZone is saying, or alternately "ALiVE as default."

[dmarkwick 261]

I haven't used ALiVE, so I cannot comment on that. But, I have used DAC, which (perhaps...) uses a similar idea. In DAC, distant groups are reduced to one representative unit, until it gets close to an enemy group (including player groups), at which point both are reconstituted back to full strength for regular simulation. The distance that the reduction/reconstitution happens can be set by the mission designer, and it can help in saving a few FPS while there is no contact between enemy. Of course, when there is, the same simulation levels happen that would have happened anyway.

I guess what you might be considering then is some sort of fidelity dropoff for distance? So that distant contacts can be decided by more statistical methods? That would certainly improve performance but there are also some cons involved with that, mostly with the fine placement & actual battle positions of dead units if you were ever to reach that area.

[Tyl3r99 41]

that's a pretty good idea, using Alives virtual battlefield surely would increase FPS right?

[chortles 263]

That would certainly improve performance but there are also some cons involved with that, mostly with the fine placement & actual battle positions of dead units if you were ever to reach that area.

And therein lies the conundrum: is there a particular reason to "need" 1:1 fine placement/actual battle positions for KIA units were my unit present or otherwise had line of sight to them and sufficient proximity (for view distance) or viewing by magnified optic?

I certainly don't have any such reason in mind, therefore the idea that fidelity dropoff might not necessarily be completely reversed (1:1 fidelity gain with proximity) doesn't outweigh the merits in my estimation. :) Although it may to others, but I certainly don't believe that we have similar scenarios in mind that actually necessitate the current state.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Why change, or notion an Engine over one built for Arma? Instead why not go more into detail to the lengths of what Ubisoft did with Snow Drop. That Engine was built specifically for The Division, and Real Virtuality 4 was enhanced for Arma 3. What am I getting at? If you want a great Engine that can do what you want it to do, for a specific game, and do it almost flawlessly, it must be designed this way. Otherwise you end up lacking in a lot of places, and you know it. But what about Engine Upgrades? So instead of a notion to scrap the RV4 Engine for something that is "perceived" to be better, why not just build on the RV4 Engine where it needs building for the purpose of Arma.

[bruhmis 10]

Why change, or notion an Engine over one built for Arma? Instead why not go more into detail to the lengths of what Ubisoft did with Snow Drop. That Engine was built specifically for The Division, and Real Virtuality 4 was enhanced for Arma 3. What am I getting at? If you want a great Engine that can do what you want it to do, for a specific game, and do it almost flawlessly, it must be designed this way. Otherwise you end up lacking in a lot of places, and you know it. But what about Engine Upgrades? So instead of a notion to scrap the RV4 Engine for something that is "perceived" to be better, why not just build on the RV4 Engine where it needs building for the purpose of Arma.

because that's what bohemia is already doing and it's the reason arma 3 is a complete disaster and dying fast. bohemia either doesn't have the time, talent or staff to properly support modern hardware with the engine they currently have. when you try to make one of the most technically advanced games out there and your game doesn't utilize hardware any better than a title from 2003 would then you're going to have massive problems, which arma 3 does.

[kbbw123 115]

If your not happy with a ecent game as Arma because of these kind of things maybe the game VBS 3 by Bohemia Interactive Simulations is something for you ya know instead of spending what only 45€ on it you can spend a couple of thousand on it BI will even custom build it for you so you have the units, islands, whatever you want.... and as far as i heard the AI in that is perfect (you never hear the army's all around the world complain) though you also might want to get a better computer than right away...... but if you don't want that than i guess you have to be happy with what you got the good ol ArmA3 with the RV4 enginge with AIs that have superhuman eye's (Luve It :D), a big terrain with 99% of the buildings entereble and with goofy skulls on distance islands that no one ever goes to for the heck of it... you can say whatever you want about other engine's and other games but i got 900+ hours on A3 and thats about 900+ more then i get on any other game i ever played so to BIS i can only say keep up the good work!

[Llano 11]

If your not happy with a ecent game as Arma because of these kind of things maybe the game VBS 3 by Bohemia Interactive Simulations is something for you ya know instead of spending what only 45€ on it you can spend a couple of thousand on it BI will even custom build it for you so you have the units, islands, whatever you want.... and as far as i heard the AI in that is perfect (you never hear the army's all around the world complain) though you also might want to get a better computer than right away...... but if you don't want that than i guess you have to be happy with what you got the good ol ArmA3 with the RV4 enginge with AIs that have superhuman eye's (Luve It :D), a big terrain with 99% of the buildings entereble and with goofy skulls on distance islands that no one ever goes to for the heck of it... you can say whatever you want about other engine's and other games but i got 900+ hours on A3 and thats about 900+ more then i get on any other game i ever played so to BIS i can only say keep up the good work!

Duhwhat? So because you have x hours playtime in Arma 3 means that they don't have to fix the engine?

Such logic.

[spanishsurfer 58]

When I read this thread yesterday I eventually realized there really isn't a game engine out there that can do EVERYTHING the ARMA engine does. However, there is one in the pre-alpha stages that the thread took me to that shows what's possible (although the pace they update is extremely slow) and I was definitely impressed: http://www.reddit.com/r/Outerra/

I guess what that game engine showed me was that MUCH MUCH larger game worlds along with ridiculous view distances are not impossible (which also run well on average PCs) and should be expected in 4-5 years.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

If your not happy with a ecent game as Arma because of these kind of things maybe the game VBS 3 by Bohemia Interactive Simulations is something for you ya know instead of spending what only 45€ on it you can spend a couple of thousand on it BI will even custom build it for you so you have the units, islands, whatever you want.... and as far as i heard the AI in that is perfect (you never hear the army's all around the world complain) though you also might want to get a better computer than right away...... but if you don't want that than i guess you have to be happy with what you got the good ol ArmA3 with the RV4 enginge with AIs that have superhuman eye's (Luve It :D), a big terrain with 99% of the buildings entereble and with goofy skulls on distance islands that no one ever goes to for the heck of it... you can say whatever you want about other engine's and other games but i got 900+ hours on A3 and thats about 900+ more then i get on any other game i ever played so to BIS i can only say keep up the good work!

900? =O

*lel, jk*

I have 2004 hours of Arma 3 on record. Why would I even dare thing of complaining about Arma? No, I'm not complaining. I love Arma 3 because of its potential an that's all. It has great potential in all these Areas. It's a good game, but it's not done, and what needs improving, isn't just content. Content will come (hopefully <.<), but what about Engine improvements? I would like to believe making Engine improvements wouldn't duras rivalry break the game, but knowing BIS... They don't have enough man power to do such things, as mentioned, and that's their first problem. But what if they got all of their people together to enhance upon what we have? Could you imagine the vast amount of upgrades that would make this game look and feel like a proper "Next" Gen game? Full TrueSKY implementation, helicopters feel real, shooting is not totally realistic, but so unique that it's fun, but feels realistic, and immersive. A lot can be done, and a lot should be done, but I have faith that a lot will be done. But the tre focus should be on improving Arma, and not making a whole new one... Until Arma 4 obviously, which still might be a sequel to what we have. Which I'm not sure a lot of people would prefer, I want a good looking Arma with real weapon names. Anyhow, there's a lot more to talk about in terms of enhancing the RV4.

[vran. 13]

To me, when I look at Arma 3, I see a very highly upgraded OFP. The improvements they made to the base engine are impressive to me and I certainly don't think they'd need to change to a fully new engine. I think the latest VBS footage is proof that a lot more can still be done with RV. It's only a matter of 'man power' and time/finance/priorities. While some issues still drag along since OFP era (they really do... ;) ), there's also a host of improvements that make it feel like a 'fresh' title. At this point, I'd say they most certainly will keep improving upon the existing engine rather than switching to something else. This is also a good move to keep the easy 'backwards' addon porting and such. Not a unimportant feature in a so community supported project, I'd say. :)

[araripe 10]

Well, Arma 3 looks perfect for me. The only thing than really annoys me a bit is about the optimization at all. The game runs like a crap here. I don't have a good hardware at all, but It could run the game on ultra settings in the early alpha stage. Now the HDR stuff eats tons of Frames, and it can't be disabled. I am wondering if is possible to disable the HDR effects.