Bohemia Interactive's ambitions are always set too high.

[roshnak 41]

Not in the way that I prefer. I'm not just talking military, I'm talking about an FPS style game be it army, cops and robbers, or medieval melee in which i can place units anywhere on the map with tons of editor options and have it play out in a non player-centric way. If you know of any, i'm all ears and my wallet is ready. As far as i know, this is unique to this series and why I care about it so much.

None of this has anything to do with the RV engine at all. You are talking about what kind of games other developers choose to make. I don't even know why you are talking about this.

Just so you know the guys I tried to get into Arma who hated it but loved DayZ brought up that point of lethality.

That's all well and good but DayZ is hardly unique in creating a high lethality environment.

Funny that you wanna jump down my throat about this -what about the guys point I was responding to? No comment when a poster states that any AAA company would have more success than BI should they choose to compete?

That's probably because that guy only made one post about it and it's not an entirely unlikely outcome, whereas you have made pages of posts containing faulty logic and bad or off topic arguments. Basically, he might be a little wrong, but you are very wrong.

BIS isn't staffed by a team of uniquely skilled programmers who are the only people in the world capable of writing code for an Arma style game. If a larger company with significantly more manpower and money were to set out to make an Arma style game, they would likely (not guaranteed; no one has said that in this thread) have more success implementing some of the more ambitious features that BIS would like to implement. The developers of Arma 3 themselves have stated that manpower and money are major roadblocks to achieving what they want to achieve within this game.

I honestly can't figure out why you think a larger team with more money wouldn't have an easier time of making a game of this scale unless you think BIS has some secret ingredient they are mixing into the game. There are plenty of highly skilled developers out there. This whole argument seems especially strange since you have stated that you want to see more competition in the genre. Why are you arguing that other developers couldn't do it?

[froggyluv 2136]

Oh FFS roshnak, your questions are either idiotic or have been answered 10 times over -no wonder I keep repeating myself.

[bad benson 1733]

As far as i know, this is unique to this series and why I care about it so much.

sorry but you are still missing the point of what i said entirely. but yea if all your posts are addressed at the most unreasonable individual you can find then i guess you are right. seems weird that you address it at me then though. it has nothing to do with what i said and you still seem to not get. don't read anything into this. it just seems so. you just keep on making the weird point that the rest of the world first has to prove that it's possible to make something like arma not made by BI because you other wise don't believe it's possible. it's ridiculous.

Entirely speculatory opinion and generalization. The reasons GuyA likes DayZ may be completely different than GuyB. Just so you know the guys I tried to get into Arma who hated it but loved DayZ brought up that point of lethality.

sorry man but you made the generalization first and i corrected the flawed parts of it. you simply tried to use dayZ as a proof that the arma concept is mass friendly or successful beyond what arma did before dayZ. people like dayZ because they like what's dayZ about it. you just said so yourself.:p

and i find it safe to say that the general zombie mania (walking dead, arma's dynamic zombie sandbox even) and the need to play what has been seen in movies is a much stronger argument than some of your buddies' opinions. you also can't accuse me of generalization and then go on making bold general statements yourself.

Funny that you wanna jump down my throat about this

i fail to see how it's funny nor how i'm jumping down your throat. i was simply pointing out that any ambitious but successful kickstarter and statements by BI themselves straight out prove your "theory" about money wrong. sorry if that seemd aggressive to you.

Case in point, look at the two FPS shooters that both Infinity Ward and DICE have made outside of their comfort zone -both mediocre at best. How could that be? They have the money, the ho's, the bling and these aren't super intricate games yet they sucked? Quantum of Silence was worse than Goldeneye BY FAR! How do you think they would do going against a game such as Arma? Thats my point and the only real point I was responding to in this thread.

hm. i'm honestly losing you here. what does all of that have to do with how BI succeed at their goals? what do you not understand? there is not just arma and COD/BF? you seem like you feel the need to defend rather than making solid points. i have no business in the faction wars. sorry if that wasn't clear.

again. yes there are some crazy people here saying crazy things. that has nothing to do with the things i addressed that you said though. nor with the things i said before that. is it really that hard to make the distinction? if you quote what i say i'm assuming you are addressing that. saying you are just fighting against the bad people is a bit cheap since i made fair points against certain things you said.

P.S.: btw we should just stop here. we are totally ruining this nice topic. everyone said their stuff. and i think the discrepancies have been pointed out. no need to repeat.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Bad Benson

[Kid18120 10]

I'll give it a try and drop my 2 cents, hopefully someone will get my point.

I've been reading trough the whole thread by now and the majority of posters seem to be stuck on the "but the engine X looks better and runs smoother than RV" matter.

Let's take Frostbite 3, for example. I'm refering to this engine simply because BF4 is my 2nd most played FPS, A3 being the 1st.

Frostbite 3 is capable of great graphics, great sounds and runs with solid 75+ FPS maxed out on my rig.

Arma 3 is capable of great graphics too, enjoyable sounds and runs on a stable 40 FPS (MP) on my rig not with some tweaks here and there in the graphics.

Now, at this point, some may just tell "see ?! Frostbite outperforms RV !".

While it's somewhat true (FB3 is better optimized towards multicore CPUs and multiple GPUs), there are still some factors to keep into account:

- Map sizes: The scenes rendered by BF4 are comparable (in size) to what A3 does with a single city

- Calculations: Games like BF4 are and always be different from games like A3 in the amount of calculations (read CPU-sided)

--- A3 AIs are somewhat "dynamic" and unscripted, they do react to the situation and try (sadly most of the time fail :P ) to adapt and overcome

--- BF4 AIs are scripted. Replay the same missions and you'll always get the same situations, eventually with slight differences if you kill that specific AI later than you did before

--- Bullet drop in games like BF4 is just a set of numbers that define where the "laser beam" being your shot will land

--- Bullet drop in A3 is calculated over a (not sure how much) realistic set of factors, where even the bullet itself is an object and not just a client-side texture (hence more shit to calc)

--- More examples on the same path as the previous ones

What i'm traying to explain is that there is and always will be a difference between a game and a realistic-feeling game (yes, i'm not calling A3 a simulator because it's far from it) that lie in the area that isn't clearly visible to non-developers users.

Sure, RV would benefit a lot from multi threading optimization, x64 exes and so on, but i wouldn't expect a miracle.

Even if RV would be replaced by a more modern and optimized engine, with the amount of calcs needed just for AI's pathfinding, the game would run just as "bad" (if 40 stable fps are considered bad, that is).

To experience my point yourself, just play a coop against AIs, then play a pvp without AIs, on the same mission, same area, everything exactly the same.

There you have quite a difference on performance. Right there, with the exact same mission.

[NordKindchen 12]

I found this topic very interesting to follow. Even through all the ranting on the last pages.

The quintessence I got from reading it is following:

While there is no dire need to take a completely new engine it is obvious that RV has its flaws and is not well optimized.

It may be right that theres no other engine that succeeds in every way the RV engine tries to succeed.

Still as pointed out several times in this thread this is mostly because the developers of said engines aim at completely different properties.

The RV engine was constantly updated to keep up with the time. (Even though its still falling behind)

The same can be done to any other engine. Because of this an engine that is well designed from the beginning would be a better starting point. (for example the use of multiple cores and more than just 4 gig ram)

Of course the time needed to upgrade a new engine is a strong argument against this since the work can be put into fixing and upgrading the RV engine.

Still I slowly get the feeling that its harder to change the RV engine to current standard than to upgrade an existing proven engine to the needs of Arma.

The number one reason I believe this is because Arma is restricted to the usage of maximal 4 GB Ram and one core since forever. And I read a long time ago that BIS has a hard time upgrading the engine because the guy responsible for the development left the company a long time ago. And on top of that left barely any documentation behind. That makes it so much harder to actually change core features of the engine.

Now lets take a look at what makes Arma an Arma.

For me Arma is defined through:

a sandbox with a huge customisation (editor)

a big island

a realistic approach

combined operations

sophisticated AI (that doesnt really work and therefore is not necessary for my Arma experience - still a big part of Arma)

massive multiplayer

mods!

What distincts Armas engine from different tripple A engines is

the sandbox

the AI

the size of the map

MODS!!!

Now lets look at the list:

-the sandbox is without any restrictions well implemented. Arma is a mission makers dream if I am not completely misguided. However the engine doesnt react well to mission placed objects.

-the AI is just far from perfect. It may be true that it can do a lot on paper but it falls short in every aspect in a real game situation. Wayfinding?: Did I not just read about how AI is not capable of driving over bridges?; Convoy traveling?: Cant do; Fighting in houses?: No; Realistic behavior: If the AI spots you you are INSTANT spotted for every unit connected to the spotter. That means 10 guys instantly starting firing at you for example. Ai has a shooting behavior completely different to humans. It can burst way better than humans can. AI cannot be supressed. etc etc etc. So in the end the AI is not even a big plus of the Arma game. Yes it is more sophisticated than most other current AIs but that doesnt stop it from falling short.

-The size of the map, as stated before, is to big in my opinion. Chernarus was big enough allready. Even there hardly any mission used the terrain in full potential. Even half the size would allow for 80% of the current missions. On top of that the size of map is responsible for many of the performance flaws and took a huge amount of the development time. Also a smaller map would have helped to avoid those awfull midrange textures. Still one of the bigger flaws for me

- Mods are what keeps Arma alive in my opinion. Thats a huge and important part of it.

Now if we look at current engines, for example the cryengine since its been talked about a lot.

-mapsize: We havent seen any maps in the size of Arma in this engine. However I highly doubt that it isnt possible to update the engine to fullfill this part.

- the sandbox: The creation of a sandbox is just a question of development.

- AI :On top of that it contains a very sophisticated AI. HOWEVER the Ai is player centric. That would be a big part of work to improve. However Armas AI is not that close to perfection in the first place.

- Mods: Cryengine is modable out of the house.

Now I just wrote this list to make it clear what we are actually talking about. IT IS possible to fullfill the needs of Arma with other current engines.

What does BIS need to improve on the other end to compare to AAA-engines?

- real time shadows (deferred lightning e.g.)

- network optimisation

- performance and usage of the current hardware

- new animation system

- new particle system

- new destruction system

- new sound engine

- a new system for the midrange environment! How about more than one 500x500px texture for more than 250km2?mh?

Thats a lot of work too!

I am not here to say they should switch to the cryengine. I am here to say that the RV engine has lots of flaws that need urgent work.

And I have to agree that companys with more money wont necessarily build better games. If you look at all the AAA titles of the last time that fell short its obvious.

However the miliarty simulation genre strongly needs competition! Arma at least didnt fullfill my hopes sadly...

Now on the other end it seems as if the Arma community doesnt even long for current state graphics. Why else would All in Arma be so successfull.

In the end its a godsent still that we have a game like Arma. Without it it would be even more of the mainstream shooters. We just need more Armas!

Best regards

[chortles 263]

In the end its a godsent still that we have a game like Arma. Without it it would be even more of the mainstream shooters. We just need more Armas!

Wrong, what we need is more developers and publishers who want to make "more Armas" enough to actually try! (In the sense of seriously putting resources, personnel, and time towards it... to be honest, Rockstar Games may never intend to do a milsim, and they are of course both known for "scale" and as importantly their successes at marketing their games on the basis of scale... but frankly? To me they stand out among AAA publishers (and may be compared to BI in parallel) for their willingness to actually allocate/fund/resource for that!*

Gotta say, reading the February 2014 issue of GameInformer's article called "Fall of the Empire" (starts on page 11) about just what went wrong at LucasArts, and Polygon's fascinating article about the downfall of Kaos (formerly of THQ, most infamous for Homefront, though previously also creating Frontlines: Fuel of War -- though the article reveals that Kaos already had a target on their backs by the time they pitched what would become Homefront) makes me happy that BI probably isn't like either of them... although there's an absolutely fascinating anecdote about what went wrong with the cancelled Battlefront III (to be developed by Free Radical), with one of Free Radical's founders admitting that their initially pitched-to-LucasArts vision -- seamless transition from planetary combat to space combat in 100-player online MP -- was where "the seeds of disaster were sown", because according to him "I think that core design pillar of the game was slightly untenable because of the scale", and the developers spent over two years trying in vain to get this aforementioned vision to actually work...

There's also some interesting anecdotes about how LucasArts literally could not hire quality talent fast enough, "especially engineers with PS3 experience", to meet the original goal of releasing both an Indiana Jones game and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed in 2007, to the point that they ended up moving half of the Indiana Jones over to The Force Unleashed and funneled most of their new hires towards that game, yet not even 'solving' the manpower problem could prevent further development problems from pushing The Force Unleashed out of 2007, and the literally-halved Indiana Jones team was now too small to "make legitimate progress". (Ironically, one of the biggest blows to the Indiana Jones game would be when a group of its devs gathered in a demo room to check out Naughty Dog's new Uncharted: Drake's Deception -- and found to their horror that Naughty Dog had literally "effectively out-Indy'ed Indy.")

Gee, there's a lesson somewhere in there about the idea of simply hiring more devs, huh?

I won't get into some of the GameInformer article's allegations about George Lucas' personal interventions, since I genuinely do not believe that Maruk is secretly so... mercurial... behind closed doors.

* Kotaku's own take on the downfall of LucasArts revealed that an early conception of what would become Star Wars: 1313 was in fact an "open world" (Coruscant-based) GTA-style game... but when LucasArts staffers plotted out the amount of developers and money to build games that could be compared to what Rockstar and Ubisoft put out, the LucasFilm executives balked -- "there was no appetite to make that kind of investment". Of course, conversely Rockstar and Ubisoft were both capable and willing to do so, hence their big hits. (Incidentally, this article has a fascinatingly revealing comment from a former LucasArts dev on the down sides of a company that isn't answerable to profit-chasing stockholders... but rather to George Lucas.)

[froggyluv 2136]

I like your synopsis Nordkindchen. I'm curious why you say Cryengine contains sophisticated AI though? I messed around in the editor with them before and they didn't seem all that sharp. Thats part of the reason I asking if anyone had done a reality or military type mod at all. Overall good points in which the majority Im in agreement.

@Badbenson: Yes you are right of course in that I wasn't entirely fair as my responses were getting convoluted in face of a multi-tierd, 5 prong prosecution :o

[chortles 263]

Interesting how he however qualifies the "sophisticated AI" bit with "doesnt really work and therefore is not necessary for my Arma experience - still a big part of Arma".

[kavoriken 1]

Good post Nordkindchen, although i disagree with you on 4 things.

Mapsize: Big maps are always good as long as that doesnt mean loss of detail. First of all you will play this map for years to come and it's great to constantly have something new and fresh to look at. Also with the recent release of ALIVE and their profiling system, war simulation scenarios covering the entire map are definately a thing now. The only thing i'd say is that the diving aspect of Altis couldve easily been left out. It`s a gimmick barely anyone uses. If instead they invested that development time into more vehicles, or even *cough* furniture, that would`ve added a lot more to the game.

Animation system/particle system/sound engine: Don't agree about these ones, they are good enough as they are. Sure, they couldve learned from mods like Blastcore or JSRS years ago, so it's annoying that such essential things still need to be modded, but at least the mods show that the core systems are fine IMO. Or at least they'd be somewhere at the very bottom on my priority list.

I doubt we will ever see BIS switching to the Cryengine, it would probably be too much of a risk for them to take. Porting over all the aspects of the Arma series would be an absolute nightmare, if possible at all.

[chortles 263]

The only thing i'd say is that the diving aspect of Altis couldve easily been left out. It`s a gimmick barely anyone uses. If instead they invested that development time into more vehicles, or even *cough* furniture, that would`ve added a lot more to the game.

To be honest though, for some reason I sensed more "actual passion" out of the devs for the underwater diving aspect than for "more vehicles", which in retrospect seem like they were almost an afterthought.

At the very least, that's certainly how the jets feel... it's one thing to only have one jet "complete" in time for an already-set-in-stone release date with no further delays (in shipping the game) allowed, it's another when 'development priorities' -- namely, conscious choices in how and when to allocate Arma 3's limited resources -- mean that the BLUFOR and OPFOR jets (aka "the ones that vocal people on the BI forums seem to care the most about") are going to come out at best around a year or more after the public alpha release.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Chortles

[Tyl3r99 41]

but there's hardly anything you can do under the water... lol except dive which yes its a massive step forward.

under water AI combat is appalling so are you sure they have concentrated on the underwater side?

[roshnak 41]

Wrong, what we need is more developers and publishers who want to make "more Armas" enough to actually try!

Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen. The market for this kind of game is probably just too small to get any kind of real money involved.

I like your synopsis Nordkindchen. I'm curious why you say Cryengine contains sophisticated AI though? I messed around in the editor with them before and they didn't seem all that sharp. Thats part of the reason I asking if anyone had done a reality or military type mod at all.

AI sophistication is really going to come down to how the developer decides to program it. It's not really an engine feature in the sense that people are using it. This is one of the reasons that this whole engine discussion is kind of pointless. Game engines are really broad frameworks and aren't usually defined as "has good AI" or "has sandbox elements" or "accurately simulates ballistics" or these other game mechanics that people keep bringing up.

I'm also not sure how player-centric the AI is in Cryengine. I haven't really done that much research, but the only way that the AI would be player centered in the sense that people are using the term in Arma is if the game basically turned off AI that were too far away from the player. I guess Crysis might despawn AIs, but again, this wouldn't really be a hardcoded engine feature, more of a game feature.

Mapsize

The thing about really big maps like Altis is that they still aren't really negatively impacting performance that much. The major way that huge maps are probably negatively affecting the game is in drawing time away from the art department. Ironically, that is quite possibly one of the reasons that the houses aren't populated with furniture and stuff (the other, more likely reason being that it would probably be a lot of work to optimize).

To be honest though, for some reason I sensed more "actual passion" out of the devs for the underwater diving aspect than for "more vehicles", which in retrospect seem like they were almost an afterthought.

The whole underwater thing is just so weird. How many people were really like, "Gee, I sure wish I could scuba dive in Arma?" Honestly, the gameplay potential, at least in a military sense, isn't really that high either. It's not like underwater firefights are particularly practical, and the more likely scenario of an underwater insertion is only going to take up a small percentage of most missions. Maybe I don't have a good enough imagination, but I can't even really think of any great uses for diving mechanics outside of military scenarios.

There are so many things that would have been better to work on.

[chortles 263]

Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen. The market for this kind of game is probably just too small to get any kind of real money involved.

In a perhaps-odd way, that's why I find the arguments about BI and Real Virtuality to some extent ultimately futile: there's no cavalry coming over the ridge to save us, BI/RV/Arma are literally all there is on this front because no one else has publicly declared intent to do something like it, and even BI's Arma 3 devs have in some people's eyes turned away from "milsim" (as some think of it).

There are so many things that would have been better to work on.

To me it seems like someone made the call either to allocate resources to it because someone in BI wanted it enough*, or alternately decided that "underwater" was already far enough along to be acceptable to keep (in the sense that there'd be no real benefit, i.e. in gained "resources to be reallocated", by scrapping it).

* These days I think some people on here are still not used to thinking of BI as publisher and not just as developer...

It looks like a 18th century linebattle

As someone who plays Napoleonic Wars (the DLC for Mount & Blade: Warband), this doesn't bother me nearly as much as seemingly intended. :lol: Edited January 28, 2014 by Chortles

[Tonci87 163]

What you fail to grasp, for one reason or another is the follwoing:

1. Just because RV engine is capable of doing something, that doesn't automatically mean it is the only engine out there capable of it, nor that other engines couldn't do the exact same thing. You already said you need to be proven otherwise you don't really believe it. Each with it's own i suppose.

2. Just because RV engine is capable of doing something (read AI, huge sized terrain, etc) doesn't mean it does it well. My own view on the subject is that A3 is the proof that RV cannot handle quite everything it is being trown at it. Poor performance, unable to scale correctly, physx errors, random crashes etc is just to start with.

Nowhere have i said RV engine should be scraped (looney idea most likely coming from people who have nothing to do with this industry), or replaced with engine X or Y. What i am saying is that while you keep repeating the same thing over and over again (and others as well, NeuroFunker who seems to be very vocal in his own ignorance), stating that this engine does wonders and it is the perfect fit for this sort of game. It might be, but just like you, i don't quite believe it unless i see it actually work correctly. And even now, after patch 1.10, it doesn't quite work as it should, does it?

And before you open the talk about FPS, no, i don't want it to run at a solid 60FPS on ultra settings, but i want it to work at above, and most importantly stable 45FPS on any fucking settings, without stutters, without huge dips due to weird constant HDD (even if it is a SSD) stream of data...

3. Even after the updated to DX10/11, for a game released in 2013, it's far from shoulder to shoulder with other engines out there. And i am not even talking about DX11 features here, i am talking about being able to have more than 1 light source casting shadows at a single time. Have it forward rendered or deffered rendered, i couldn't care less. Having GPU soft shadows instead of CPU stencil shadows. Having a game that can use RAM available (up to 4gb if 32bit binaries is used) the way it should be: as a buffer instead of grabbing all the data directly from HDD.

4. I know that there is no alternative to Arma. But that hardly makes anywhere near perfect. And while you and others are saying that is a good thing, because BI actually cares about their community and other similar stuff, unlike other developers out there interested only in the financial aspect, you might also forget that a bit of competition makes this world go around.

Don't get me wrong, i like the game or i wouldn't be sticking about, but forcing the same reply time after time, that this game and it's engine are in perfect relation, and there is hardly anything to do about it, because it achieves so much, is just, from my own pov, wrong way to think about things.

I for one would have preferred a game that works, maybe with less bells and whistles if that would have meant less headaches altogether. And since this game is constantly supported by the modding community (who hardly gets their questions answered - and i am not evet talking about holding their hands here), let them push the boundaries.

But as it is, it seems that BI is trying to sell some jewelry in a soggy old and wore sock. No one asks them to chage the fucking sock with a different one, but have the courtesy to saw the sucker before trying to sell it...

Quoted for truth

This engine needs at least the ability to cast shadows for more than one lightsource at once. Ever wonder why there are no searchlights in Arma 3? BIS tries to circumvent the problem instead of fixing it properly. That is why we have headlights that illuminate only a small area in front of the car and flashlights with the power of a candle....

About the diving:

The underwater stuff is pretty dull shit because of the following reasons:

1. You can´t do anything under water. You can´t open you inventory, or someone elses. You can´t throw anything. You can´t place explosives. etc.

2. Underwater AI is borderline stupid.

3. You can´t fire or reload on the move, both limitations are unrealistic.

4. There are no lightsources for nightime operations (you can´t drop chemlights, the weapons can´t mount flashlights (wich would be pointless anyway since they have the power of a fucking candle), etc.), NVGs can´t be used.

5. Combat is incredibly stupid and boring because of number 3. It looks like a 18th century linebattle

6. There is not really that much to explore.

7. It should get a lot darker the deeper you go, but they can´t do this because of #4

I made a thread about that stuff many months ago with lots of suggestions and constructive criticism. No one from BIS took the time to answer or explain a few things. That pretty much told me that diving is nothing more than a gimmick and won´t be developed further.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?156740-What-is-fundamentally-wrong-with-the-underwater-combat&highlight=diving

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149102-Feedback-amp-Suggestions-Diving-and-underwater-combat

Edited January 28, 2014 by Tonci87

[five_seven5-7 56]

Underwater combat only serves to make insertions, there´s no content to better development:

- there´s no long bridge connecting west to east side willing to be destroyed

- there´s no pipeline underwater (oil, electricity, drinking water, comunications) for sabotage

- there´s no cargo shipping routes

- there´s no naval fleet

[Alwarren 2767]

Underwater combat only serves to make insertions, there´s no content to better development:

- there´s no long bridge connecting west to east side willing to be destroyed

- there´s no pipeline underwater (oil, electricity, drinking water, comunications) for sabotage

- there´s no cargo shipping routes

- there´s no naval fleet

Nor is there anything worth infiltrating underwater. Regardless of what one thinks about Call of Doody, the flooded tunnel in MW3 or the oil platform in MW2, or one of the subs, or any larger, relevant sea vessel, would go a long way towards making the underwater aspects of this game worthwhile.

As it is now, I get the impression it was left in only because it was announced.

[Tonci87 163]

Nor is there anything worth infiltrating underwater. Regardless of what one thinks about Call of Doody, the flooded tunnel in MW3 or the oil platform in MW2, or one of the subs, or any larger, relevant sea vessel, would go a long way towards making the underwater aspects of this game worthwhile.

As it is now, I get the impression it was left in only because it was announced.

Sadly the community has almost no innitiative to make such assets. Even with such things, the underwater gameplay would still suck.

[Alwarren 2767]

Sadly the community has almost no innitiative to make such assets. Even with such things, the underwater gameplay would still suck.

Yes, but it could make it essential as an insertion method. The combat is a different story.

[Tyl3r99 41]

Yes, but it could make it essential as an insertion method. The combat is a different story.

as far as im aware you cant even do the old helicopter drop with the divers... its awful

[nomisum 129]

This engine needs at least the ability to cast shadows for more than one lightsource at once. Ever wonder why there are no searchlights in Arma 3? BIS tries to circumvent the problem instead of fixing it properly. That is why we have headlights that illuminate only a small area in front of the car and flashlights with the power of a candle....

yes i wondered, about those headlights too. anyone knows if this is mainly GPU related? because in a CPU bottlenecked game my GPU is bored most of the time and could use some work :P

[Alwarren 2767]

as far as im aware you cant even do the old helicopter drop with the divers... its awful

There's actually animations for that (dropping off the Littlebird into water), but they're unused.

There is also no underwater flashlights, and I'd like to see some individual scooter-type of transport. And real submarines where you can swim out of.

I do not consider combat to be worth while, but at least a few of these things could make it a viable insertion method that actually makes sense. As it is now, the only underwater insertion I've seen in the campaign was onto a guarded beach and didn't make any sense at all (at least hold in periscope depth for a moment and see if there is anything). Potential is there, but just not realized.

[Smurf 12]

As it is now, I get the impression it was left in only because it was announced.

Wish it was the same for other things....

[windies 11]

as far as im aware you cant even do the old helicopter drop with the divers... its awful

Nope, in fact I tried it with a mission of mine and gave up in frustration.

As for the engine discussion on BI's ambitions being too high, It's blatantly true. Look at soldier protection, their ambition is set on implementing it as realistically as they possibly can with what they currently have, but it's completely over ambitious to think you could realistically implement soldier protection in the way they are doing it without other systems in place to enhance and support things like body armor with knockdowns and wounding or incapacitated states. Over-ambition has been a natural occurrence through every iteration of RV and every iteration of ArmA/OFP. It's not exactly something to be crucified for, but it does tend to leave things in an unfinished state because you initially think "I'll fix this when we have the proper systems in place" and they never are put into place and before you know it it's been 12 years and it's been a bug in your software for that long and you're struggling to fix and catch up all these bugs and oversights from over-ambitious goals.

[Tyl3r99 41]

There's actually animations for that (dropping off the Littlebird into water), but they're unused.

oh well maybe one day it may be possible then...

---------- Post added at 16:41 ---------- Previous post was at 16:39 ----------

another thing... the game is couple of months from the anniversary of the alpha release and the game is still broken

[Tonci87 163]

oh well maybe one day it may be possible then...

---------- Post added at 16:41 ---------- Previous post was at 16:39 ----------

another thing... the game is couple of months from the anniversary of the alpha release and the game is still broken

Yay, some quite horrendous bugs will soon be there for over a year.

Just to leave this here: I won´t buy a single DLC for this until I feel that the game is actually moving forward instead of sideways or even backwards. For me that means: Finally fixing the directional sound problems (they are there since the Alpha), implementing usefull and much wanted features like Bipods, giving us any kind of reasonable first aid system, properly implementing PhysX and ragdoll, Finally getting the body armor stuff done properly, implementing more content (I wonder where the weapons went that were visible on screens before the release) and starting to work on the multiple lightsources stuff.

I start to feel that the only way to focus BIS attention on the obvious problems is to deny them any further income until some progress is made.