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

[RogerM 10]

What about releasing a game without endless crashes? What about removing the whole interaction menu and make it more like other games, not area based or whatever it is now.

[ProfTournesol 956]

What about releasing a game without endless crashes? What about removing the whole interaction menu and make it more like other games, not area based or whatever it is now.

That's a recent bug, it'll be corrected soon. There are regular patches, contrary to other games.

[instagoat 133]

People don't understand how complicated it is to teach an AI to do something dynamic in a 3D environment. Computers today can easily beat chessplayers at their own game, but until today there's never been a robot built that can cross the average inner city street. -All- games I have looked at so far, paying special attention to the AI from a layman's perspective (ie, what the player sees versus what's going on under the hood), have the AI cheating to one degree or the other and/or use environments tailored to AI performance. Arma does the opposite of any of those. The ballistics for the AI are identical, the vehicle handling is identical, performance of weapons in general is identical... and then you also get a completely free form environment that has largely been designed for the benefit of player eyes than AI. The reason why OF:RR went away from the large Island is because an AI is so much simpler to get to work in a defined corridor, rather than a completely open space.

Even the most powerful pathfinding AI's today have their individual entities barely functioning above the cognitive level of your average household insect. You are trying to write realistic behaviours by hand, and if you consider how many different responses there could be to a situation inside a 3D environment is baffling.

That the AI is able to do what it does already is a marvel to me at times, and every time they do something stupid I have to rein myself in and consider that nobody else has done something on the level of Arma's AI yet, as far as I am aware.

[Harbinger2456 10]

Bigger isn't always better. The problem here is that ARMA has no direct competition.. The closest that comes to mind is DCS World and soon War Thunder but both are so far off. I think competition would benefit us greatly

DCS isn't so far off. I see hints that Wags may actually be considering things ( though they'll never admit it ). One guy slipped and said Wags had been in discussion with the Outerra people. Now we see EDGE that is coming near Arma 2 graphics. Just needs better textures, some grass, etc. And it can do HUGE landscapes, oceans, etc.

Here's there version of a French island. This would be my candidate to replace Arma, since it has already has awesome flight simulation. Be sure to play it in 1080p.

[dayglow 2]

And on the DCS forums you'll see endless bitching about under utilizing of CPU and GPU, stutters, etc. Strangely familiar.

[Harbinger2456 10]

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

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

LOL, yeah, reading the top part, I was just about to point out the uncertainty principle when I saw you beat me to it. :P

And on the DCS forums you'll see endless bitching about under utilizing of CPU and GPU, stutters, etc. Strangely familiar.

Lol, not like in Arma. Arma is FAR worse than DCS. I can play DCS on a laptop. Playing Arma on the same laptop, I get about 5-8 FPS. And thats on ALL Low.

Besides, those people complaining about stuttering are using SLI and Crossfire. And we know all games can have stuttering problems with that.

[Azzur33 1]

Playing Arma on the same laptop, I get about 5-8 FPS.

Playing Altis?

Yeah, that Corsica map looks ok, from few hundred meters up.

On the ground not so pretty. And no enterable buildings.

Some (a lot) more stuff on the ground, (a lot) better textures, (a lot) more complex models, enterable buildings, and so on.

And let the slideshow begin.

PS. I'm not defending anything. I'm not saying that RV4 is the best there is.

I'm just saying that it does the job. It may do the job better in the future.

If A4 ever arrives, it will have RV5(?).

Edited September 29, 2013 by Azzur33

[Harbinger2456 10]

Playing Altis?

Yeah, that Corsica map looks ok, from few hundred meters up.

On the ground not so pretty. And no enterable buildings.

No, playing Stratis.

And yeah, we would have to put in Arma style grass and trees, etc. Then I think we could get it up to Arma 2 graphics. Some DCS modder was already trying to make grass and shrubs for DCS and it looked pretty good at ground level. And personally, I don't expect all buildings in a map to be enterable. Thats just unnecessary. We just need it in certain areas of the map where we know missions and such are going to take place. Then you can stick in furniture, lights, etc. that make it all more immersive.

As for comparing it to the speed of Arma, DCS runs a lot better than Arma. Probably because its a newer engine. Battles happen all over a map that is God knows how many times bigger than Altis, and thats with having to run very complicated flight simulation calculations. And yet I can get 15 - 20 fps on my laptop compared to 5 - 8 at all low on Arma.

If A4 ever arrives, it will have RV5(?).

I remember someone quoting some dev interview, where the dev said he didn't think there would be an A4. By that time I think the RV engine would be totally obsolete. Happens to every engine eventually.

[RushHour 11]

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.

How exactly would that ruin your experience?

Please write down in detail how that possibly could affect your mission. You don´t need to simulate a battle you can´t see. You only need to know the result of it.

[Harbinger2456 10]

How exactly would that ruin your experience?

Please write down in detail how that possibly could affect your mission. You don´t need to simulate a battle you can´t see. You only need to know the result of it.

I see what your saying, but there still would have to be the calculations. It just wouldn't have to be drawn. And probably in a CPU dependent game like Arma, thats a killer.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Arma should use COD engine so then it can run at 60fps

[calin_banc 19]

You could "roll a dice" and that's it. Already there is "something" going on because if you look at a fight you'll have bigger frame drops than being further away.

Arma should use COD engine so then it can run at 60fps

You forgot about AI on the fish! :cool:

[novemberist 2]

Frankly, I don't know anything about 3d engines or programming , but whatever BI will be doing for Arma 4, i hope they will jump on the linux bandwagon and consider favoring OpenGL over DirectX.

[dmarkwick 261]

How exactly would that ruin your experience?

Please write down in detail how that possibly could affect your mission. You don´t need to simulate a battle you can´t see. You only need to know the result of it.

....And when you get there, what do you see, randomly placed dead units I expect? Randomly fallen trees? Randomly destroyed structures? Randomly depleted ammo etc?

I prefer the fidelity of the actual battle outcome thanks :) I think you're just not appreciating one of the joys of the RV engine.

But: if it makes you feel better, I often make use of a script suite called DAC, which will reduce distant groups to one representative unit, and will rebuild the group(s) when that group meets another, or comes within a range of the player. This way, some performance is preserved by not navigating every single unit while they're just traveling/patrolling, but is still preserving the fidelity of actual battles.

[Azzur33 1]

How exactly would that ruin your experience?

Please write down in detail how that possibly could affect your mission. You don´t need to simulate a battle you can´t see. You only need to know the result of it.

And you mean what?

If I put some units fighting for an airport and others trying to stop or slow down supporting convoy, there should be some coin toss or throwing dice of the outcome?

Or If I was on that convoy, trying to get to the airport. If I survived, and the convoy moves near the airport to join the fight, the flipped coin would have decided how many of our troops are still alive and where the bodies are scattered? Maybe some burning tanks here and there, randomly placed for the atmosphere.

Do I really have to explain this.

[froggyluv 2135]

....And when you get there, what do you see, randomly placed dead units I expect? Randomly fallen trees? Randomly destroyed structures? Randomly depleted ammo etc?

I prefer the fidelity of the actual battle outcome thanks :) I think you're just not appreciating one of the joys of the RV engine.

But: if it makes you feel better, I often make use of a script suite called DAC, which will reduce distant groups to one representative unit, and will rebuild the group(s) when that group meets another, or comes within a range of the player. This way, some performance is preserved by not navigating every single unit while they're just traveling/patrolling, but is still preserving the fidelity of actual battles.

Can't believe this is even up for discussion -this IS BI's games hallmark feature. The world is happening in real time irregardless of what the player is doing. Besides, in Arma 2 I had huge amounts of remote battles taking place in CTI and it was not a performance killer.

I don't want random shit placed haphazardly -that's just game dressing. I want to know how those 2 APCs, 1 Shilka, and 2 Inf AT squads that I sent to the NW quadrant of the map played out when I get there.

[fabio_chavez 103]

What it does, it does really well.

They're pushing it and so far they're succeeding, I would want more done in the way of AI, but its gone a little too MP orientated for that to happen, maybe always has been.

I make missions in the Editor, that's where the game is really, I would be quite happy to just have that and nothing else, scrap the rest and put all that power into the editor, keep me happy, although most of the power is already in there anyway, seems to me.

may god destroy your home.

[Opticalsnare 12]

BIS don't want to change engines because one it costs money to licence a new engine and two they have to re-learn a bunch of new code and how it works.

So they are sticking to what they know and how to use it, which is fair enuff but imo is now actually beginning to harm them than actually improve their overall product. You can only go so far with an existing product before it reaches its limitation of usefulness. Sure you can upgrade it and slightly increase its lifespan but as soon as you start reaching that limited threshold for performance and functionality then to me thats a good sign to start looking elsewhere for a more suitable replacement.

This was made fully aware in A2's lifespan. And with A3 we still have the same core engine and its issues, but with ALOT of make-up plastered on it and features that were implemented poorly to mask its age.

Its like a 60 year old woman trying to make herself look 25 again and try and run the 200m hoping nobody will notice that she only gets 50m and ends up having a bloody heart attack. But hey its the taking part that counts right?

But personnaly imo i think thats it, A3 will be the last of the breed. Perhaps this is why we never got a replacement engine because BIS knew that the franchise was done after A3.

It was too much cost to them to invest into a different engine and far too much risk involved, and they are now insted moving onto something different.

- Game Over - :(

[Flash Thunder 10]

its crazy how a game like GTA 5 can have as much view distance as Arma 3 and actually have better looking terrain, im guessing that is because its cell drawn anywho I wouldn't be surprised if BIS is completely burnt out on Arma and even more so because it got 2 of their guys held in prison over the project...

[novemberist 2]

Can somebody enlighten me, why is the age of an engine so important i.e. why would it under any circumstances be more efficient to completely start from scratch when you could just overhaul and improve the existing engine keeping all the good stuff and code? Aren't there so many things that will never get "outdated" despite the progress and harware developements and would you thus not be able to always keep an engine up to date? (asked from a completely clueless perspective)

[JdB 151]

What engine should BIS have used to create Arma 3 in order to give players what they want?

Answering that question takes a lot of intricate knowledge about engines which if I had it would mean I would be working for BIS or another game developer right now.

How can we solve the financial crisis?

How can we undermine the popular support for terrorism in certain parts of the world?

How do we go about establishing a sustainable base on Mars?

Where is the tomb of Alexander the Great?

How do we win WW3 without nuking the planet into a sea of molten glass?

As I lack the necessary knowledge I will refrain from addressing these issues as well. Naming random engines that looked good in a 3 minutes Youtube clip is easy, coming up with a viable replacement that doesn't bankrupt BIS to license takes an extensive research and evaluation effort that none of us are capable of.

[Flash Thunder 10]

BIS seem to be co conspirators with the hardware makers they keep luring us to buying new expensive CPU's and GPU's and selling us a new Arma game with alittle 'moar framez' as a selling point to each iteration as Jay Crowe the head honcho said himself.

Conspiracy Theory!

That or maybe they didn't click the optimize code button enough times perhaps they broke all their mouses???

[Opticalsnare 12]

Can somebody enlighten me, why is the age of an engine so important i.e. why would it under any circumstances be more efficient to completely start from scratch when you could just overhaul and improve the existing engine keeping all the good stuff and code? Aren't there so many things that will never get "outdated" despite the progress and harware developements and would you thus not be able to always keep an engine up to date? (asked from a completely clueless perspective)

Because this engine has reached a limitational threshold, mostly being unable to adapt current hardware technology and use it efficiently.

[Harbinger2456 10]

Because this engine has reached a limitational threshold, mostly being unable to adapt current hardware technology and use it efficiently.

This. Its hardware. And its HELL to go back into an engine and rewrite all the code to change it. Me and other forum goers had numerous discussions about this in the Crysis forums. That's why engines eventually expire.

[novemberist 2]

Because this engine has reached a limitational threshold, mostly being unable to adapt current hardware technology and use it efficiently.

And it's impossible to keep the stuff that works well and just rework the foundation?

edit.

This. Its hardware. And its HELL to go back into an engine and rewrite all the code to change it. Me and other forum goers had numerous discussions about this in the Crysis forums. That's why engines eventually expire.

thanks for the clarification.