Not just yet. But Next Gen is Possible.

[babylonjoke 22]

when a new VBS arrives with new features, VBS3´s features might be present in Arma 4. So there´s always a gap.

I really don't think so. Most of the feature requested from A3 users are around from far long time.

The problem is that BIS actually make the technologies just to let strictly fit in their game/scenario, without giving a shit about mods. And it's a bit strange if you think that this game is alive because of the mods :P

[Tonci87 163]

This is very strange. Wasn´t the lack of Rivers and Streams on both Chernarus and Altis explained by saying that the engine/game has problems with that? Why does it work in the VBS Engine? Or is that a new Feature of VBS?

[dm 9]

VBS3 is the reason we don´t have it. Because how do you justify corporations buying VBS3 if Arma 3 is identical in features and size? You can´t so what you do is nerf Arma 3 to create a separation of the two.

This is so misguided its painful :/

[RushHour 11]

This is so misguided its painful :/

It´s really not.

All you have to ask yourself is how do you justify VBS3 if Arma had the same features. Really, ask yourself that.

It´s the same engine, same physX.

[ProfTournesol 956]

It´s really not.

All you have to ask yourself is how do you justify VBS3 if Arma had the same features. Really, ask yourself that.

It´s the same engine, same physX.

You do realize you're talking to a BIsim insider ? I'm afraid he's better informed than you are.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

This is very strange. Wasn´t the lack of Rivers and Streams on both Chernarus and Altis explained by saying that the engine/game has problems with that? Why does it work in the VBS Engine? Or is that a new Feature of VBS?

I believe the rivers are in for VBS 3. And with the new underwater capabilities of arma 3, i could great use in river operations in various situations and terrain settings, like dense forest and bushes in hostile territory.

[Gera_CCT 12]

Understand that ArmA players are BIS large beta fest for VBS.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

If that were the case... Don't you think at some point we would get the fast ropes, the ability to have man and vehicle classes waking on moving Aircraft Carriers and Medium Attack boats, or walking through the hull of a medium Submarine submerged in the waters of Altis, a better flight model, that uses thrust and maneuverability realistically, more weather features, and an outstanding audio environment improvement?

Edited December 21, 2013 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[roshnak 41]

You do realize you're talking to a BIsim insider ? I'm afraid he's better informed than you are.

Regardless of whether or not it's true (and I'm not saying it is), being an insider would make him the last person to say that Arma is intentionally limited in features to justify the multi-thousand dollar price tag of VBS.

But being an insider, maybe he can explain why VBS has features like the ones in my earlier post, and what utility they add to the simulator. I've seen several military trainers and none have ever had Grand Theft Auto style doors on their vehicles or water like in the video in the OP. Those are incredibly gamey features.

Edit: Furthermore, they are features that come in plenty of games that don't cost $3000. I can understand features like their AAR system, Integration with other products, ability to modify missions on the fly from a trainer role, and ability to dynamically change vegetation generation, but water that flows around rocks has been a thing in games for years now. Why is it falling to the military simulator branch, which has no use for such features, to pioneer these things on this engine?

Edited December 21, 2013 by roshnak

[Gera_CCT 12]

If all you sugested were included in ArmA, VBS project would be not worth at all. ArmA is like a "light version" of VBS with a PUBLIC BETA TEST name on it. That´s how i see it.

[becubed 24]

It´s really not.

All you have to ask yourself is how do you justify VBS3 if Arma had the same features. Really, ask yourself that.

It´s the same engine, same physX.

You do realise that when a large corporation purchases software the actual cost of the software is the smallest component of the amount that they are charged?

Included in the price for it will be service level agreements, if they have an issue they log a call and get a reply within an agreed time frame. If they log a bug they get a fix within an agreed time, if they don't then there are penalties applied to the vendor. Support from the vendor will be what really seperates VBS from ARMA not features.

[kilroy the nerd 14]

Just wanna point out there's a reason VBS PE is 500 and Arma 3 is about 60. VBS has a vastly larger amount of content by comparison, and it adds up.

[RushHour 11]

Regardless of whether or not it's true (and I'm not saying it is), being an insider would make him the last person to say that Arma is intentionally limited in features to justify the multi-thousand dollar price tag of VBS.

But being an insider, maybe he can explain why VBS has features like the ones in my earlier post, and what utility they add to the simulator. I've seen several military trainers and none have ever had Grand Theft Auto style doors on their vehicles or water like in the video in the OP. Those are incredibly gamey features.

Edit: Furthermore, they are features that come in plenty of games that don't cost $3000. I can understand features like their AAR system, Integration with other products, ability to modify missions on the fly from a trainer role, and ability to dynamically change vegetation generation, but water that flows around rocks has been a thing in games for years now. Why is it falling to the military simulator branch, which has no use for such features, to pioneer these things on this engine?

Agreed on every point made.

When you have a product like VBS3, it makes no sense whatsoever to have Arma 3 in any way to challenge that product.

Just wanna point out there's a reason VBS PE is 500 and Arma 3 is about 60. VBS has a vastly larger amount of content by comparison, and it adds up.

So basically what you are saying is that it´s more cost effective to instead of copy and paste the graphical fidelity from VBS3 to Arma 3, you spend years developing a system you know is inferior.

Makes sense. (not)

Edited December 21, 2013 by RushHour

[progamer 14]

If you have been following the VBS thread on the forums here, you would gain some valuable insight from the CEO's posts. Like how they are thinking of alternative pricing along with more accessibility for the VBS3 Personal Edition, if they call it that. I assume alternative pricing means less than $500 dollars.

In the thread, the CEO also goes onto explain various features and the relationship between BIS and BIsim. He seems like a really great guy. No one should go and start asking him to give stuff to Arma.

Source: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?109702-VBS2-Discussion-thread-the-one-and-only&p=2575812&viewfull=1#post2575812

[roshnak 41]

I think the point is more that BISim manages to implement a lot of stuff that we have been told is impossible or exceedingly difficult in Real Virtuality. And much of it isn't stuff that is specific to military uses, it's stuff that has been in other games for a while now.

[Valken 621]

I watched the video in the first post and WOW... I love the lighting, the model details (look at those interiors which are lacking in ARMA3), water shaders, and etc... Just wow...

From a business standpoint, I have to agree a lot with Roshnak.

There are no viable reasons that "features" of VBS should not be in ARMA 3 game engine especially if they are game centric, despite the price. If you look at the evolution of the CryEngine and the commercial application version, it is much closer than VBS and ARMA.

The high price contracted to commercial entities is usually way beyond the game "engine" needs such as support, custom content and specific feature requirements. Think of it as basically hiring your own development team based on a subscription model for x time and it justifies that man power costs.

For a multiplayer based game engine, more features would draw more buyers, increase the user base and more community (non-pro) developers and in return, would increase player count and again possibly more developers. The end goal is a sustaining eco-system of end user clients and non-pro developers.

Look at UT engine, idgame engine, source and other game, game engines that has mod support. Those game engines have paid for itself with updates and a growing user base. That is one way to amortize game features by spreading the development cost having more eventual consumer level buyers.

Sure it will be slower to get updates than a commercial version (due to lack of source code and hacks required) but it should not be a reason why ARMA 3 would not be able to have better shaders, particles, or multiplayer client / server architecture.

You can't tell me VBS would be limited to less than 100 player clients while ARMA 3 is less restrictive but cut down on the fidelity. What kind of PCs would a contractor use vs hard core ARMA players? If the engine can scale, there should be no cap on fidelity if the consumer will pay to play. It is already obvious with all of the high end systems users on this forum asking why their performance is low vs other high end games such as BF4 (up to 8 cores and multi GPU) or Metro LL (6 cores cpu and multi GPU).

If you build it, we will come (pay). :D

[progamer 14]

BIsim is a completely different company, and one that may want to compete with Arma in the future. It makes perfect sense why they don't copy VBS features to Arma. Two different companies that have different goals, budgets, ect...

As the BIsim CEO said in the VBS forums, we should ask BI to try to do these things in Arma and not ask for BI to take the code from VBS.

BIsim got the engine from BI and built onto it, Arma is not VBS lite. It's a different game on version of the engine without those modifications.

Edited December 22, 2013 by ProGamer

[dm 9]

to say that Arma is intentionally limited in features to justify the multi-thousand dollar price tag of VBS.

Is an incredibly naive way to look at it...

explain why VBS has features like the ones in my earlier post, and what utility they add to the simulator.

Why? Either they were a required step in the development of other things (GTA style doors that fall off seems like a good one there - note that this doesn't actually happen in VBS, as it was a stepping stone towards physically animated models), or someone really liked the idea and had time to implement it. Who knows...

I've seen several military trainers and none have ever had Grand Theft Auto style doors on their vehicles or water like in the video in the OP. Those are incredibly gamey features.

Neither of these features are "gamey", you just don't understand how they can be used for training:

Openable doors are important for training for one very simple reason: opening the doors removes their protection for the occupants of the vehicle, and is a real issue in combat. Especially in the MRAP/IED style conflicts currently. The Canadian vehicles ingame have GTA style doors which open when you get out, and feature a user action that allows you to close it. I can only imagine this is important to their training because once you open the doors on an MRAP it no longer protects its crew from IED blasts, so you have to train the procedure into the soldiers to always close the doors after them. Which is exactly what VBS is for - procedural training.

Water crossing is one of the most hazardous things you can do, so training it virtually is a pretty good idea:

Why is it falling to the military simulator branch, which has no use for such features, to pioneer these things on this engine?

Well, see above for "no use", as for pioneering things, we're told that there are at least 20 programmers working on VBS, and only about 7 (in total) working on Arma, so obviously they have more capacity to do such things there. Things that might not be deemed important to the actual development of Arma.

When you have a product like VBS3, it makes no sense whatsoever to have Arma 3 in any way to challenge that product.

Except that Arma does not challenge VBS in any way?

Edited December 22, 2013 by DM

[scrim 1]

VBS3 is the reason we don´t have it. Because how do you justify corporations buying VBS3 if Arma 3 is identical in features and size? You can´t so what you do is nerf Arma 3 to create a separation of the two.

The existence of VBS3 is harming Arma 3 in my opinion.

when a new VBS arrives with new features, VBS3´s features might be present in Arma 4. So there´s always a gap.

The stupidity, oh the stupidity.

For starters, as has been pointed out, BI and BIS are two DIFFERENT FLOPPIN' COMPANIES! They don't develop things together.

You can justify militaries and such buying VBS even if Arma looks better for a very very simple reason: It's against the EULA to use Arma for military purposes. And it's very obvious that militaries will buy VBS even if Arma looks better, because guess what? Until the release of VBS2 2.0, Arma looked a hundred times better, because VBS2 was still based on the Arma 1 engine. And now that we have VBS2 2.0 that's based on the Arma 2 engine, we have Arma 3.

The gap that you speak of is there, but it's the other way around.

[Alpha Whiskey Romeo 17]

I own VBS2, as do others on this forum. We can tell you first hand that VBS2 isn't what most of you think or imagine it to be.

The screenshots and videos of the addons and features tend to get people up in arms for some reason, which invariably leads to the endless posing of nonsensical questions such as: "Why don't we have [insert feature] in ArmA?" Why? It's simple. From a game standpoint it makes absolutely no sense to have those types of in-depth components in ArmA, because at that juncture it ceases to be a game, and becomes a training tool. Would it be neat to have superficial things like animated doors, crew hatches and the like? Sure, but bear in mind that stuff like that isn't limited to VBS2, and could be implemented by the developers or even modders should they ever choose to do so. Pretty much anything that can be done or implemented in VBS2 can be be done in ArmA, it's just that it might take a bit longer. I will say that the only thing VBS2 has over ArmA is the development suite/tools, which as a whole, is far more intuitive and powerful than anything BI ever releases, but that's pretty much it.

Once you have VBS2 installed, have your DGL plugged into it's USB port and the HASP upgraded, you peruse the editor and play around a bit, the modicum of entertainment wears off rather quickly. Why? Because it's a training platform, period.

[[evo] dan 79]

Surely if they charged less for the VBS 3 PE, then wouldn't the development costs be spread over more copies and it would make sense to have it sold as a "game"?

[Alpha Whiskey Romeo 17]

Dan;2584153']Surely if they charged less for the VBS 3 PE' date=' then wouldn't the development costs be spread over more copies and it would make sense to have it sold as a "game"?[/quote']

But it's not a game. Why people have a hard time understanding this I'll never know. VBS2 has Fusion, Fires, DIS, AAR, HLA, MC Image Generation (VTS related stuff), and a variety of other components you'd never, ever touch. They wouldn't build and upgrade these features in the next version, at great cost by the way, only to have to simply remove them for a game version. Which is what they'd have to do to keep it semi-affordable, and that's just not cost effective when looking at the big picture from their perspective.

I think people tend to make more out of VBS2 then what it really is. Hell, if you thought character movement in OFP through A2 was clunky, then take a look at VBS2. It's downright ugly. Aesthetics aren't their primary concern. Training the troops is.

I spent in excess of $500 for my Personal Edition almost three years ago. It now occupies a space on my shelf where it's currently gathering dust, and has been for two years.

[scrim 1]

If they tried to market VBS2 more as a game, it'd end badly. The whole business idea is set up with mainly militaries in mind, so what the gamers would want wouldn't really be taken into account, which would lead to a lot of pissed off people saying "screw this, Arma is better", because it is for gamers. The only way they'd ever sell any large amount of copies would be thanks to the hype made up mostly by people who don't have it due to the price tag, since there's a whole lot more of those than there are people who actually own it and try to convey the message that it's a training tool as opposed to a game to people.

[progamer 14]

People want VBS because Arma is now "authentic" like Medal of Honor.

[djporternz 27]

Took a look at the first video posted. I'm impressed. Looks incredible. But so do the shiny flyers that come through my mail slot.

Had a look around at some of the other videos of actual use of the engine, and it looks remarkably similar to what have with the current ArmA 3 engine. In some places it looks even a little less impressive than we have. Each serves its respective audience well. We've still got ACE/ACRE to look forward to (hopefully ;-) ) and a truck load of user created content and assets to look forward to. I don't think we'll do too bad.

That being said, there are some VBS things I need right now!

I'd even settle for the terrain editor they get to use. Please... Pretty please.... BI.... Are you there?

Edited December 22, 2013 by DJPorterNZ