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

[mercenar1e 10]

On the engine:

I like the RV engine for what it is, as it meets all my gameplay needs. I also like to be optimistic and see the absence of a certain engine feature as simply a lack of manpower at a certain time and not an engine limitation.

As if they would admit that the faults are due to engine limitations lol.. They are the same people that announced the delay of single player campaign in the beta phase.. DayZ SA is a clear indication of just how bad the engine is. We won't be seeing that anytime soon

[xendance 3]

I don't see that happening. BF caters to the adversarial crowd while Arma offers a wider range of MP possibilities. A second point could be made regarding game pace and playable area. Arma gives the players the possibility to take it slow over large terrain, while BF is pretty much "in your face" action. Even if EA goes soft and releases mod tools and modders create game types and associated maps that force the player to dial it down a notch, Arma could still co-exist peacefully with the BF series.

On the engine:

I like the RV engine for what it is, as it meets all my gameplay needs. I also like to be optimistic and see the absence of a certain engine feature as simply a lack of manpower at a certain time and not an engine limitation.

What BF is about is irrelevant. The point was with mod tools you could transform BF into more ArmA like. Much like what happened with Project Reality.

[calin_banc 19]

Exactly Xendance! BF is not that much "in your face" with a lower number of players and is rather quite enjoyable. Custom larger maps, even with the distruction turn down a little, should be rather fun. At the moment we have no idea of what Frostbyte is actually capable of.

However I must agree with maionaze, although it may take a bunch of people from the community, it shouldn't actually kill the game, perhaps cripple it for while, but nothing more.

[Maio 293]

As if they would admit that the faults are due to engine limitations lol.. They are the same people that announced the delay of single player campaign in the beta phase.. DayZ SA is a clear indication of just how bad the engine is. We won't be seeing that anytime soon

The engine architecture is being modified for DayZ SA considering it's now a MMO. When you are rewriting large chunks of software with limited manpower, that takes time :)

What BF is about is irrelevant. The point was with mod tools you could transform BF into more ArmA like. Much like what happened with Project Reality.

PR is an adversarial mod catered towards the tactical PvP community. As I said, modding tools will not turn the BF series into Arma, unless:

A. The mod tools will allow players to create maps the same size as Arma's, a factor which ultimately affects game pace and tactics used.

B. The mod tools will allow players to create non traditional MP games modes, such as the "Life" which again is dependent on point A.

C. This point has more to do with the "A.I" system then mod tool, but still affects potential game modes. Isn't the A.I. just bots navigating path nodes (actual question)? Any CO-OP game mode would have to be highly scripted. So DICE would have to create an actual autonomous AI system with similar capabilities to the BI's.

Remember Arma is not only about tactical PvP or CO-OP game modes/missions, regardless of how some would like to think so.

[xendance 3]

PR is an adversarial mod catered towards the tactical PvP community. As I said, modding tools will not turn the BF series into Arma, unless:

A. The mod tools will allow players to create maps the same size as Arma's, a factor which ultimately affects game pace and tactics used.

B. The mod tools will allow players to create non traditional MP games modes, such as the "Life" which again is dependent on point A.

C. This point has more to do with the "A.I" system then mod tool, but still affects potential game modes. Isn't the A.I. just bots navigating path nodes (actual question)? Any CO-OP game mode would have to be highly scripted. So DICE would have to create an actual autonomous AI system with similar capabilities to the BI's.

Remember Arma is not only about tactical PvP or CO-OP game modes/missions, regardless of how some would like to think so.

And that is the essence of what Rocket said in the panel.

Edit: Regarding the AI pathing, most games these days use navigation meshes that are automatically calculated. No need to hand place navigation paths :)

[RushHour 11]

project reality for BF3/4

shame it will never happen

I don't think it's ever had the mission making abilities for the community Arma does though which is pretty much what Arma lives off.

You haven´t heard? a standalone Project Reality is being made with CryEngine 3. Looks sick at the moment.

Cryengine 3 even though it can´t handle big areas (allegedly) it can do things like walking inside vehicles (like Star Citizen) you can house vehicles inside other vehicles.

The sea in Assasin´s Creed looks INSANE. Graphics seems to have far better potential as well.

It seems people think that because Arma is alone in their field with the huge map that no other engine could do a better job. Which obviously is a ridiculous assessment.

Arma´s engines seems to be more hobby-style engines compared to something done by a multi-million dollar company with far greater resources.

Never seen an engine with this many bugs, with this crappy MP experience, with this many scripts just to do quite ordinary things that in many cases should have been in the game in the first place!

Well...except for the previous engine.

People are going to be shocked the day Arma gets a competitor..

[frostwyrm333 1]

The problem with engines is what people perceive as engine. Its basically code which can be modified or replaced. The problem is that to improve it is costly.

People on the internet believe that "just change the engine" is the cure but actually its an insanity, it would take years to recreate the same stuff.

In some ancient video, BI said that there is no animation middleware which would work because they are limited to a few characters.

When you say the engine has bugs then yes, you would be suprised, many times when modders/third parties utilize something new in an engine it crashes down instantly, also there is a difference between engine problems and game/script problems. Many games are purely scripts running on a engine, this is nothing extraordinary.

"People are going to be shocked the day Arma gets a competitor.. "

Yes I would be shocked.

tldr

Game has problems, yes; unless you can code, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[instagoat 133]

People have tried competing, and found even during development that a game as extensive and in such long-time development as Arma is very hard to match. Arma 2 smacked OF:DR around with the sheer bulk of its content and the heritage, while Codies decided to basically cut everything that made OFP OFP simply because they realized that it would be too much to try and make the game work on their inherently limited engine.

You have other massive world games, but none feature such diverse AI and terrain combinations, and if they feature specialized assets, they are scripted. (Helicopters in Stalker, for example.) Could you imagine COD with the helicopters not being a show on rails, but rather dynamic AI trying to cope with battlespace, as the AI in Arma has to?

There are probably engines that could do a better job, but A: this is a tiny market and B: BI pretty much has it nailed down at this point and C: others have tried at this point, and failed massively. There are obviously specialty sims, but those generally are unable to cover the breadth of Arma's battlespace simulation.

The engine has some problems still, which are inherited from ancient times, but the integration of PhysX and the advancements in the graphics that are currently occuring tell us that it still has overhead. The problem just is that in the past, some parts of the engine have been very much neglected, and until everything is brought up to standard, we'll need another bit of time. The fact that the game is super enjoyable to play (I tried Binkowski's rendition of Infantry yesterday and it was really tense.) despite the flaws gives me hope that it will only get better. To me, this is finally not a release that tastes bitter despite all attempts to make it seem sweet, it tastes slightly sweet but a little flat.

Building on a new engine is basically throwing -everything- that has been generated on RV so far out the window, including all knowledge and experience about the inner workings of the engine, learning a new engine to standard (which possibly needs to be licensed for expensive money), and then trying to build the game to the same extensive breadth of possibilities that RV offers right now.

Sorry, that does not sound economical at all.

[das attorney 857]

Anyway i'm going to post here something that Rocket posted on Reddit:

"I could write a program today that models the movement of every electron in the universe"

That's quite a funny thing to claim. Not even Stephen Hawking could write that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

[xendance 3]

That's quite a funny thing to claim. Not even Stephen Hawking could write that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

That just depends on the level of abstraction :P

[dmarkwick 261]

It seems people think that because Arma is alone in their field with the huge map that no other engine could do a better job. Which obviously is a ridiculous assessment.

Arma´s engines seems to be more hobby-style engines compared to something done by a multi-million dollar company with far greater resources.

Never seen an engine with this many bugs, with this crappy MP experience, with this many scripts just to do quite ordinary things that in many cases should have been in the game in the first place!

Well...except for the previous engine.

People are going to be shocked the day Arma gets a competitor..

Not likely to happen in the near future. Games concentrate on player-centric performances, whereas RV is non player-centric. So everything that is on the map, every unit & vehicle, is simulated. Each time a group of units 10km away from the player meet, the battle is played out as though you were there to see it or not. That sort of fidelity is not only tremendously expensive, but for nearly every other game is simply not required. Therefore, only RV engine currently does this. This may change at some point, but it ain't gonna be soon.

[RushHour 11]

Not likely to happen in the near future. Games concentrate on player-centric performances, whereas RV is non player-centric. So everything that is on the map, every unit & vehicle, is simulated. Each time a group of units 10km away from the player meet, the battle is played out as though you were there to see it or not. That sort of fidelity is not only tremendously expensive, but for nearly every other game is simply not required. Therefore, only RV engine currently does this. This may change at some point, but it ain't gonna be soon.

And this is the main problem as well. When i´m 20km away from a guy driving a car i don´t need to know anything other then his position on the map, that´s the only relevant thing i need to know.

[dmarkwick 261]

And this is the main problem as well. When i´m 20km away from a guy driving a car i don´t need to know anything other then his position on the map, that´s the only relevant thing i need to know.

Fair enough, but for a lot of people that fidelity is worth the price. If you wish for another engine to compete with RV, then it has to do this.

[mr_centipede 31]

And this is the main problem as well. When i´m 20km away from a guy driving a car i don´t need to know anything other then his position on the map, that´s the only relevant thing i need to know.

Its not a problem, its a feature. I dont want an AI that stands like a statue then suddenly 'activates' when the player is 'within range'... But mission designer can do that also in RV engine using disableAI or disableFSM until they are needed.

[RushHour 11]

Its not a problem, its a feature. I dont want an AI that stands like a statue then suddenly 'activates' when the player is 'within range'... But mission designer can do that also in RV engine using disableAI or disableFSM until they are needed.

You could have this "activation" just outside your visual distance. It´s just incredibly performance taxing keeping check of people on the other side of the map for absolutely no reason at all.

If one of them sends over a missile then it can activate, if you fly an UAV then your visual scope will be the UAV and yourself. Right now it seems it´s everything, all at once.

Yea that´s a good option imo. Same with the civilian spawn thing. Completely useless to spawn Civs all over the map instead of just spawning them right outside your visual scope.

Fair enough, but for a lot of people that fidelity is worth the price. If you wish for another engine to compete with RV, then it has to do this.

It doesn´t have to no. Because it´s useless information knowing what a guy does on the other side of an island. It only start to be relevant if let´s say they fire a missile at your destination.

But apart from that it just drains performance for no reason whatsoever.

And i don´t believe other engines need to do this just to compete with Arma, this is hardly the key feature separating Arma from other games.

[ric 1]

99.5% percent of people who post anything about RV are haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about. It's like a conspiracy theory for complainers. I've thought about dubbing them (not just in an ArmA context) the engine sluts, but that might get me banned,

well just for the sake of argument let me point out that %100 or the people out there from the guy with his doctorate in computer science to the hobbyist who builds his own rigs down to the laymen that just knows how to turn on his PC all see the same thing....underutilized resources i.e ram and CPU power.

[Pac Man 10]

Well, Dean Hall said a game panel recently, that if battlefield would offer modding tolls, ArmA would be pretty much done. Not sure if that would actually happen, tough you never know.

Comparing Arma to Bf is comparing apples to oranges though. For the most part the mindset of each "crowd" is vastly different. I know I sure wouldn't hop on the BF bandwagon just because they introduced modding tools. Also, there's only so much you can do with tiny BF, no tools are going to allow for such a large environment as this series always have. And bigger isn't always better, but it sure has been the case so far with this series. If ofp hadn't been so massive, the game would have been bad. Just like the other Arma titles. That's one of the big game breakers for alot, huge environments.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Pac Man

[dmarkwick 261]

It doesn´t have to no. Because it´s useless information knowing what a guy does on the other side of an island. It only start to be relevant if let´s say they fire a missile at your destination.

But apart from that it just drains performance for no reason whatsoever.

You're not thinking about other consequences. If you don't effectively reduce some enemy force by enough units and they reach their destination, they might have enough force to reduce some group you are relying on later on. That group you are relying on may not show up at all - or it may show up missing some parts. In which case you'll have the opportunity to go over & see what you can salvage, if anything. When you get there, the story of the battle is laid out for you. In any case, this sort of fidelity is key.

And i don´t believe other engines need to do this just to compete with Arma, this is hardly the key feature separating Arma from other games.

Well there you have it - it is precisely the key feature that separates the RV engine from the others. If you wish to know what it is that RV does that others do not - it is exactly this. I'm not saying you have to like it as a feature, I'm saying that is the key feature that separates the engines, and which a competitor must also do.

[RushHour 11]

You're not thinking about other consequences. If you don't effectively reduce some enemy force by enough units and they reach their destination, they might have enough force to reduce some group you are relying on later on. That group you are relying on may not show up at all - or it may show up missing some parts. In which case you'll have the opportunity to go over & see what you can salvage, if anything. When you get there, the story of the battle is laid out for you. In any case, this sort of fidelity is key.

I think it´s clear you have misunderstood the whole thing here.

Well there you have it - it is precisely the key feature that separates the RV engine from the others. If you wish to know what it is that RV does that others do not - it is exactly this. I'm not saying you have to like it as a feature, I'm saying that is the key feature that separates the engines, and which a competitor must also do.

..and here too. If you think what sets apart Arma from other games simply by knowing where every single person is at all times then i don´t know what to say.

[Azzur33 1]

It doesn´t have to no. Because it´s useless information knowing what a guy does on the other side of an island. It only start to be relevant if let´s say they fire a missile at your destination.

But apart from that it just drains performance for no reason whatsoever.

And i don´t believe other engines need to do this just to compete with Arma, this is hardly the key feature separating Arma from other games.

This has been one of the key features separating Arma from other games. If the "action" activation is happening just "outside of the visual distance (lets say object view distance), that would ruin a big part of my missions. And it would ruin the mission editor, which is another key feature, also.

With "limited action area" and crippled mission editor, sure there would be competitors to Arma. But I'd have to become a virtual pacifist and never touch a virtual weapon again. Militaristic shooters ...no thank you.

[calin_banc 19]

The AI hit on performance is not as significant when you are away from a battle as it is when you are looking at it. The hit on performance when they are just walking or stand around is acceptable.

Also, the problem with actual AI is that you'll find yourself in situations that shouldn't happen. For instance, playing the showcases for infantry and combine arms, I found myself almost alone, because my squad mates have died a stupid death. More so is frustrating when the AI cheating is second to Stalker's. It's a pain in the bum to be killed through grass, bushes and all sorts of cover that has perhaps a small hole in it. For me that's the biggest issue at the moment for the single player experience. They are either dumb as a brick or super agent Smith like entities.

The good part is that I can play something other than infantry until this is fixed (hopefully it will) and oh boy, those choppers look good! :D Too bad there is little content compared to ArmA 2! (high hopes for something on this front as well).

[Pac Man 10]

It doesn´t have to no. Because it´s useless information knowing what a guy does on the other side of an island. It only start to be relevant if let´s say they fire a missile at your destination.

But apart from that it just drains performance for no reason whatsoever.

And i don´t believe other engines need to do this just to compete with Arma, this is hardly the key feature separating Arma from other games.

But scale is a key feature in the series, and always has been. I for one wouldn't touch the game if arma maps were the size of say, the typical BF terrain. But that's only my opinion.

[heruon 1]

The only other engine I could see handling the scale of Arma would be Outerra. It's still in development, but when it's finnished I believe it will be very suitable for Arma's needs

[dmarkwick 261]

I think it´s clear you have misunderstood the whole thing here.

..and here too. If you think what sets apart Arma from other games simply by knowing where every single person is at all times then i don´t know what to say.

LOL, OK :D I think I see what's going on. You're right in that there seems to be a misunderstanding ;)

[LoneCrow66 10]

To me the graphics are fine. Very enjoyable from all perspectives (in the air, and ground). All the missing stuff inside houses and military buildings really take away from the experience but it isn't necessary I guess when you are searching for other enemy players.

I'd have to say the physics the missing inertia and ragdoll animations for being hit all of that needs serious improvement. It is already squeezing a LOT of processing into this to make it work as well as it does. I don't know how much more you can do with today's tech at this scale.

But the AI is the whole other story. I've been playing computer games since pong and it has always been the quest for game developers to make good AI. Its never been done, and I don't know if it really can be done yet once you add 50 or more individual soldiers or more in a small areas. They all have to make decisions and smart ones.

Yesterday I was spotting for mortars and they were exploding all around an AI patrol as they were walking down a road non-nonchalantly like nothing was going on. Then one guy got killed and THEN they reacted and ran. That is just the most simple things that can be improved about this game's AI.

If you are getting shot at, you take cover and try and find where you are getting shot from. They can't turn around and shoot you instantly. The more rounds that get fired the closer they are able to zero in on where its coming from. Sound plays a big part in this game to find out where you are getting shot from and where to take cover from.

The AI should also for example at military outposts have a commander or someone on the roof's spotting with binoculars. They can designate an area if we are spotted and sound an alarm or stay quiet and radio to a patrol where we are coming from.

You would not see AI seeing you from a long range just start shooting. Wouldn't they want to get the upper hand and get the best shot? Just like we move in as close as we can before engaging trying to use surprise and flanking.

The AI is just so bad it is almost not worth playing. That dynamic mod where you have to take the island is so damn good but the AI is so bad you just can't play it.

This is why I like the "Counter Insurgency" mod the best out there. It takes Insurgency and splits the island into 2 factions. One is allied with the AI and one is purely players. This adds some intelligence to your opponent but also gives us plenty of targets and strategy to use.