Not just yet. But Next Gen is Possible.

[scrim 1]

And here's the downside of the underground objects: The AI can't use them, they're glitchy, as in they love to jump right up out of the ground/hundreds and hundreds of meters down into the ground beyond reach when you try to place them, and even the slightest mismatching between e.g. opposing trench sections makes it impossible to pass where they meet, turning something as simple as trying attempting to construct a small trench into several hours worth of work to get it right. The underground objects like sewers or bunkers don't have any way of linking up with other parts beneath ground, so you're stuck with fairly basic underground structures in that regard. There just won't be anything like constructing a complex sewer system beneath the streets of a city, or a bunker complex.

So, it works just fine for a training tool that soldiers are ordered to "play", but for gamers to pay for and try to derive any sort of long term enjoyment, no.

[roshnak 41]

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

Sometimes I wonder if you havve even played the games that you're constantly ranting about.

DM, thanks for the answers. To be clear, I'm not really saying VBS shouldn't have these features. I'm saying that these features are not uncommon in other current gen (and in some cases previous gen) games, and VBS clearly demonstrates they are possible in this engine, so BIS should probably work on bringing these features into Arma 3. Also, with respect to the water in the video, I was referring more to the visual effects of it flowing around rocks, which is pure eye candy.

[Nicholas 5]

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

Authentic and realistic are the same damn thing.

[progamer 14]

Sometimes I wonder if you have even played the games that you're constantly ranting about.

I have played Medal of Honor, and did so a lot when it was released. It was made to be "authentic" and to not turn away the Battlefield players.

---------- Post added at 01:07 ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 ----------

Authentic and realistic are the same damn thing.

Authentic: is not false or copied; genuine; and/or real.

Realism: interest in or concern for the actual or real, as distinguished from the abstract, speculative, etc.

They are pretty similar, not sure they mean the same thing though.

[Nicholas 5]

Authentic: is not false or copied; genuine; and/or real.

Realism: interest in or concern for the actual or real, as distinguished from the abstract, speculative, etc.

They are pretty similar, not sure they mean the same thing though.

I said realistic, not realism. Realistic and authentic both mean true. Although, realism happens to mean truth. All three are pretty much the same thing.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Sometimes I wonder if you havve even played the games that you're constantly ranting about.

DM, thanks for the answers. To be clear, I'm not really saying VBS shouldn't have these features. I'm saying that these features are not uncommon in other current gen (and in some cases previous gen) games, and VBS clearly demonstrates they are possible in this engine, so BIS should probably work on bringing these features into Arma 3. Also, with respect to the water in the video, I was referring more to the visual effects of it flowing around rocks, which is pure eye candy.

Exactly. These features exist in other of games today. The thing is, there in other games. Why not show that the RV4 Engine can do the same, even better, or even something not seen in other games. Make it close to next gen. Or at least up to par, with next gen.

[RushHour 11]

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.

No they are not. BISimulations is merely a spinoff of BIStudio. Don´t try and skew the facts because of your stupidity.

Arma does not look better in any way. No there´s not reason for Militaries around the world to buy VBS3 if Arma 3 had the same features.

It´s not the other way around, it´s the obvious way around. the kids create Arma 3. the professionals handle VBS3. WITH THE SAME ENGINE.

---------- Post added at 22:19 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ----------

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.

Wrong. A dumbed down version of VBS3 will beat Arma 3 any day of the week. Plain and simple.

---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:19 ----------

And here's the downside of the underground objects: The AI can't use them, they're glitchy, as in they love to jump right up out of the ground/hundreds and hundreds of meters down into the ground beyond reach when you try to place them, and even the slightest mismatching between e.g. opposing trench sections makes it impossible to pass where they meet, turning something as simple as trying attempting to construct a small trench into several hours worth of work to get it right. The underground objects like sewers or bunkers don't have any way of linking up with other parts beneath ground, so you're stuck with fairly basic underground structures in that regard. There just won't be anything like constructing a complex sewer system beneath the streets of a city, or a bunker complex.

So, it works just fine for a training tool that soldiers are ordered to "play", but for gamers to pay for and try to derive any sort of long term enjoyment, no.

Oh bollocks. A.I is done just fine in other games. You should specify your talk to what the capabilities of BIS can do and not the rest of the world.

[Dwarden 1124]

No they are not. BISimulations is merely a spinoff of BIStudio. Don´t try and skew the facts because of your stupidity.

Arma does not look better in any way. No there´s not reason for Militaries around the world to buy VBS3 if Arma 3 had the same features.

It´s not the other way around, it´s the obvious way around. the kids create Arma 3. the professionals handle VBS3. WITH THE SAME ENGINE.

BI and BISIM are two completely separated companies (i wonder how many times i need repeat that)

separated CEO, BOD and other execute staff, most of investors unrelated too, aims for different markets, goals and technology solutions ...

only what makes the companies 'close' is

shared past,

part of names ad part of logos

some core parts of engine

and that some staff member known the other staff members...

and you wrong the engines aren't same for quite some time ...

[artisanal 22]

Hi everyone. Regarding the RV4 engine, one subject picks my attention sice the announcement of arma 3, precisely about directx 11. Does someone actually know what the dx11 support has brought to arma 3 ? I mean, i don't see any "star feature" of dx11 implemented in / supported by the game (such as tesselation or some nice 5.0 shaders...) .

[Placebo 28]

Any VBS discussion should be undertaken in the existing sole VBS thread please.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?109702-VBS2-Discussion-thread-the-one-and-only