Bohemia Interactive's ambitions are always set too high.

[g00d69 2]

You are so utterly wrong. What bis does and the logistics involved uses practicality no short cuts, and I feel strongly that they should not use short cuts. They create a simulation that is logistically better than anything on the consumer market. Cry engine failed and I know not of any other engine that accomplishes what this iteration of arms brings to the table. Bis is at the forefront; I do dought you can argue one engine has done it better. If th fundamentals needs to change than they know that, and that should be the communities focus. Bf4 can't simulate the logistics of war. BIS makes Sims for army's and that is why we play. We make arma not war. Let us not forget the creators

Arma III and his engine are great, but i am not sure that RV engine is the more powerfull engine that exist in this domain ,this is maybe the best for large public simulation games but there are also really more powerfull engines not available yet for ordinary people.:eek:.And i am also sure its actually possible to make an Arma III with a kind of cryengine or something else, but the large public hardwares must follow and that would be actually priceless.Hardwares power is finally the main key before all engines questions :D

Edited January 24, 2014 by g00d69

[NeuroFunker 11]

it's well known, that simulation on cry engine failed, i wonder why we do even talk about?

[vivoune 1]

it's well known, that simulation on cry engine failed, i wonder why we do even talk about?

Because Star Citizen? :)

[NeuroFunker 11]

never knew it's military simulator, you alway learn something new!

[vivoune 1]

never knew it's military simulator, you alway learn something new!

That's not the point. The point is that debating on what engine is best for this or that, isn't as relevant as how modular or specialized an engine can get after it's been worked on for a more specific purpose that intended in its first iteration.

[Tonci87 163]

RTI failed, quite catastrophically too. As far as I could tell from the Demo videos the "playable" ares were just too small and performance wasn´t that good either. It all came down to pretty visuals but less realism and versatility.

[NeuroFunker 11]

That's not the point. The point is that debating on what engine is best for this or that, isn't as relevant as how modular or specialized an engine can get after it's been worked on for a more specific purpose that intended in its first iteration.

the result is what counts, no "what can be done". Where is sucessful military simulation on RTI?

[roshnak 41]

the result is what counts, no "what can be done". Where is sucessful military simulation on RTI?

I'm really not sure what this post means.

[zimms 22]

Star Citizen doesn't count at all. Firstly, until now we have only seen a hangar. Secondly, the black empty space sure is a 'little' bit easier to handle than e.g. Altis.

[froggyluv 2130]

He didn't say anything about RTI and wasn't responding to anyone who said anything about RTI, though? Nothing about his post suggests he is referring to RTI,

You really didn't know what he was referring to given the context or just putting on your best lawyer face :rolleyes:

As a side note: Some posters on this forum display a great deal of hostility towards any game that is not Arma. You guys know you are allowed to like more than one thing, right?

I'd bet a second nut that each and every diehard fan on here would kill for some good competition -I know I would. That competition for the military contracts between VBS and RTI is what directly led to VBS upping their visual fidelity among others. The aversion your seeing is to people throwing up a few RTI tech demos and then lecturing BI like scolding parents "C'mon BI, get it together. Your way behind..." all the while knowing that the competition has failed and it's not gold standard. Personally I'd love to playthat game RTI thought they were making, hell, I'd love to play the game Codemasters also tried to make...

[roshnak 41]

You really didn't know what he was referring to given the context or just putting on your best lawyer face :rolleyes:

This must be a joke. If he was referring to RTI, why did he say that Battlefield 4 can't simulate the logistics of war or whatever? My statements make far more sense when you don't cut them off in mid-sentence.

I'd bet a second nut that each and every diehard fan on here would kill for some good competition -I know I would. That competition for the military contracts between VBS and RTI is what directly led to VBS upping their visual fidelity among others. The aversion your seeing is to people throwing up a few RTI tech demos and then lecturing BI like scolding parents "C'mon BI, get it together. Your way behind..." all the while knowing that the competition has failed and it's not gold standard. Personally I'd love to playthat game RTI thought they were making, hell, I'd love to play the game Codemasters also tried to make...

I'm not referring to competition in the genre. I'm talking about how many people on this forum treat Battlefield like it's the devil, instead of just a different kind of video game. I don't know, maybe I have unusually diverse interests or something, but I enjoy both Arma and Battlefield in different ways.

[froggyluv 2130]

This must be a joke. If he was referring to RTI, why did he say that Battlefield 4 can't simulate the logistics of war or whatever? My statements make far more sense when you don't cut them off in mid-sentence.

Your statements made sense either way -but failed to grasp the intent of failberry's post. It was utterly clear he was responding to people both the previous pages highlighting of RTI's tech demos as well as Defunkts mentioning of Frostbite's engine performance capability. His intent was no either game has so far been capable of competing with Arma in its specific niche of wide open, free range cross arm sim/game - so on that level comparisons fail until one achieving the same means surfaces.

I'm not referring to competition in the genre. I'm talking about how many people on this forum treat Battlefield like it's the devil, instead of just a different kind of video game. I don't know, maybe I have unusually diverse interests or something, but I enjoy both Arma and Battlefield in different ways.

Well competition and more specifically comparisons of engine was the current subject at hand -not whether Arma gamers like BF or not so Im not sure why you chose that response to make that generalization. Plenty of Arma players do play BF if that makes you feel any better.

[tremanarch 6]

is there another engine that can handle that amount of objects on a big world with synchronization for~100 clients?

no?

[roshnak 41]

Your statements made sense either way -but failed to grasp the intent of failberry's post. It was utterly clear he was responding to people both the previous pages highlighting of RTI's tech demos as well as Defunkts mentioning of Frostbite's engine performance capability. His intent was no either game has so far been capable of competing with Arma in its specific niche of wide open, free range cross arm sim/game - so on that level comparisons fail until one achieving the same means surfaces.

The second and third paragraphs of my post were all about how no one else (except maybe Codemasters) has tried to make a game like Arma on another engine for the commercial market.

Well competition and more specifically comparisons of engine was the current subject at hand -not whether Arma gamers like BF or not so Im not sure why you chose that response to make that generalization. Plenty of Arma players do play BF if that makes you feel any better.

That's why it was a side note.

is there another engine that can handle that amount of objects on a big world with synchronization for~100 clients?

no?

Probably? Why would you think there isn't? There are plenty of MMOs at the very least that have massive worlds and lots of objects so that's not really the roadblock to making an Arma-like game on another engine. I'm just going to quote vivoune's post because it's relevant reading for anyone who thinks that no other engine on the planet can do what RV does:

That's not the point. The point is that debating on what engine is best for this or that, isn't as relevant as how modular or specialized an engine can get after it's been worked on for a more specific purpose that intended in its first iteration.

[bad benson 1733]

is there another engine that can handle that amount of objects on a big world with synchronization for~100 clients?

no?

i agree with the general perception that cryengine is not the answer to arma's problems but what you describe there is not something arma itself is really capable of. sure you can run a game like that but "synchronization" is a little bit of an overstatement. :p unless you are talking about a totally empty mission. in a realistic situation running a proper complex game mode these are simply made up numbers.

i too think that arma is special in what it does and that there is a lack of "real" comparison but let's not forget why threads and discussions like this one get spawned. it's the simple fact that arma doesn't exactly achieve the things that are supposed to set it apart in the most optimal fashion. otherwise people who complain would hardly have a point at all. that's also what the title of this thread comes from.

to me the size of Altis may be impressive but it causes a lot of problems performance wise and also gameplay wise. size is not everything. you have to be able to deal with it properly too.

so throwing around numbers like 100 clients when hardly any server runs these numbers (for obvious reasons) is a bit much. same goes for objects. object count can very fast become a problem in arma especially in MP and especially when these are dynamic objects (aka mission objects aka not map objects).

when it comes to ofp and the series in general i totally disagree with the title of this thread. the whole industry could use a bit of this kind of ambition that made ofp possible. the problem i see with the latest arma (s) is more lack of ambition to be honest. or bad balance of it. like: a huge map but hardly any use for it gameplay wise. i'd rather have it a bit smaller but better optimized. there is also a lack of ambition when it comes to tackling long overdue old problems of the series. so yea. more of the ambition of ofp times would be great.

[NeuroFunker 11]

i agree with the general perception that cryengine is not the answer to arma's problems but what you describe there is not something arma itself is really capable of. sure you can run a game like that but "synchronization" is a little bit of an overstatement. :p unless you are talking about a totally empty mission. in a realistic situation running a proper complex game mode these are simply made up numbers.

i too think that arma is special in what it does and that there is a lack of "real" comparison but let's not forget why threads and discussions like this one get spawned. it's the simple fact that arma doesn't exactly achieve the things that are supposed to set it apart in the most optimal fashion. otherwise people who complain would hardly have a point at all. that's also what the title of this thread comes from.

to me the size of Altis may be impressive but it causes a lot of problems performance wise and also gameplay wise. size is not everything. you have to be able to deal with it properly too.

so throwing around numbers like 100 clients when hardly any server runs these numbers (for obvious reasons) is a bit much. same goes for objects. object count can very fast become a problem in arma especially in MP and especially when these are dynamic objects (aka mission objects aka not map objects).

when it comes to ofp and the series in general i totally disagree with the title of this thread. the whole industry could use a bit of this kind of ambition that made ofp possible. the problem i see with the latest arma (s) is more lack of ambition to be honest. or bad balance of it. like: a huge map but hardly any use for it gameplay wise. i'd rather have it a bit smaller but better optimized. there is also a lack of ambition when it comes to tackling long overdue old problems of the series. so yea. more of the ambition of ofp times would be great.

just played 110 people WoG games, http://arma3.swec.se/game/data/1130946 3 rounds, the last mission on takistan was abit laggy because of summond civilian cars on the map. First round on altis was perfect, 30-40 fps while i was recording, no major lag or anything what could ruin the gaming. Second round on cherno was fine was well, but like i say it was a bit laggy on takistan. So depens on the server and the mission like i said many times. I'm uploading recordings of all 3 rounds if you want not to believe me, and post links here later.

Cheers

Edited January 24, 2014 by NeuroFunker

[roshnak 41]

FPS =/= lag, guys.

Also, Bad Benson did say "hardly any server," not "no server."

[hellfire257 3]

Oh how I love these threads.

RV is like the wife you always come back to. She may not have all the shiny stuff that the newer kids on the block have, but she's the right woman for you.

Most of the whelps who cry for new engines probably don't have experience with RV. Once you get into how the game works you begin to realise that nothing can replace it. Sure, it can be improved as all things can be, but there is no alternative to it simply because it is so powerful.

It is funny though, RVs strengths create its flaws.

[Sealife 22]

just played 110 people WoG games, http://arma3.swec.se/game/data/1130946 3 rounds, the last mission on takistan was abit laggy because of summond civilian cars on the map. First round on altis was perfect, 30-40 fps while i was recording, no major lag or anything what could ruin the gaming. Second round on cherno was fine was well, but like i say it was a bit laggy on takistan. So depens on the server and the mission like i said many times. I'm uploading recordings of all 3 rounds if you want not to believe me, and post links here later.

Cheers

Not really selling it when only 19 people out of 110 actually took part in the scoring tho really , I was on a server with more in ofp when gotf did a record attempt , the head count proves nothing .

I agree with others that the niche of this engine was once the map size and the number of objects with good capable missions , however recently the price you pay in fps and desync and cheating script kiddies isnt worth it anymore imo.

I would rather have a 20k map with 10 m or even 15m cell size and good ai than sacrifice 2 to 3 years making a 7.5m cell 30km map that the ai cant handle and most servers and personal pc cant either .

Seems to me physx and the strive for pretty broke this engines back . TvT and PvP or life mods will probably survive but co op is doomed in the short term , again imo .

[bad benson 1733]

@Neuro:

i said hardly. :rolleyes:

saying that some servers can provide that running decently (100 players at 30-40 FPS max without desync) at times (probably after server/mission restart) doesn't prove anything and is not something i disagree with. although i'd like to see those videos still (don't talk about them. just upload). they might make me more confident in buying a new CPU to finally enjoy my outstanding 40 FPS max...at times. ;)

besides as always you use classic TvT as an example. the mode that is the most light weight and can hardly be used as a benchmark for arma which prides itself with being capable of a lot more than team deathmatch.

your 30-40 FPS in some situations, which happen to be the ones that demand the least of arma, how convenient, doesn't make RV an engine that is optimized well for the tasks it challenges itself to.

i don't deny that a high end rig can do high FPS numbers at times but i'd like to see that proven as an average (it should be average or gtfo) using the game to its full extend, otherwise it's just an empty claim using rounded up numbers to make it sound good.

40 FPS max on a strong rig is not good. especially in a game like arma that likes to drop FPS very far below that when shit happens or for some random reason like actually being put to the test. so yea. the game doesn't crash but it doesn't cope in a way that can be called "pulling it off". don't you ever ask yourself why BI never drop numbers like that in their PR campaigns?

don't get me wrong. i'm a long time admirer of the RV engine. but when you post, all i read is blablabla. too one sided and exaggerated to be taken seriously. and always short of proof.

having said that, i have high hopes for the new MP fixes. haven't tested them yet. we'll see. fingers crossed. i hope i can at least play smooth TvT at some point.

PS.: i just joined a 90 players PvP server with 53 players actually on it. 15 FPS. in the editor in the most optimal situation,aka nothing is happening, i get 50 FPS. yup...not quite there. will be looking for the servers you keep talking about. the coop one you suggested in another thread had 15 FPS when i actually tested your claims. so my hopes are still high for the PvP one. didn't test that one yet.

about comparing engines. let's put it this way.

if arma is so amazing that it can sync 100 clients in PvP with 40 FPS max on a high end PC (which still is just a claim without context). what makes you think that an engine like frostbite, that can have 64 players with vehicles and pretty amazing dynamic destruction and overall high fidelity when it comes to effects and physics, at beyond 60 FPS on a high end PC, could not do what arma does if you would remove the destruction and anything else it has that arma hasn't (dynamic sound engine, actually fully implemented physics) and simply make the map bigger instead. i fail to see how that makes sense...you can't on the one hand reduce arma to TvT on a huge map and on the other hand say other engines can't do what arma does when they do more than just that. arma has another focus. that's why it lacks in any other department except scale and AI.

arma providing people with highly unstable FPS that is always lower than other games is the opposite of arma "pulling its special thing off". it's more like "barely making it work". it's an interesting engine but it can't really handle its own scale. especially since BI keep expanding it without making it able to cope with it.

...sorry for the wall of text but i felt that i needed to point out a few things that should be obvious.

TvT and PvP or life mods will probably survive but co op is doomed in the short term , again imo .

i get 15 FPS on pretty much every big wasteland (PvP) and altis life server. smaller PvP servers are just barely better at around 20 max. i honestly wished that PvP and Life would run properly right now. i wouldn't complain at all.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Bad Benson

[roshnak 41]

Oh how I love these threads.

RV is like the wife you always come back to. She may not have all the shiny stuff that the newer kids on the block have, but she's the right woman for you.

Most of the whelps who cry for new engines probably don't have experience with RV. Once you get into how the game works you begin to realise that nothing can replace it. Sure, it can be improved as all things can be, but there is no alternative to it simply because it is so powerful.

It is funny though, RVs strengths create its flaws.

Maybe you could list some actual examples of what makes RV so great and why nothing else can replace it instead of using vague analogies and marketing speak.

about comparing engines. let's put it this way.

Or how about this way: If RV is so much more amazingly powerful and capable than all of those other engines out there, why aren't companies breaking down the gates trying to license it?

Once again, I'm not actually saying that BIS should actually adopt some new engine, but all of this talk about how no other engine can do what this one does is completely unproven.

[NeuroFunker 11]

@Neuro:

i said hardly. :rolleyes:

saying that some servers can provide that running decently (100 players at 30-40 FPS max without desync) at times (probably after server/mission restart) doesn't prove anything and is not something i disagree with. although i'd like to see those videos still (don't talk about them. just upload). they might make me more confident in buying a new CPU to finally enjoy my outstanding 40 FPS max...at times. ;)

besides as always you use classic TvT as an example. the mode that is the most light weight and can hardly be used as a benchmark for arma which prides itself with being capable of a lot more than team deathmatch.

your 30-40 FPS in some situations, which happen to be the ones that demand the least of arma, how convenient, doesn't make RV an engine that is optimized well for the tasks it challenges itself to.

i don't deny that a high end rig can do high FPS numbers at times but i'd like to see that proven as an average (it should be average or gtfo) using the game to its full extend, otherwise it's just an empty claim using rounded up numbers to make it sound good.

40 FPS max on a strong rig is not good. especially in a game like arma that likes to drop FPS very far below that when shit happens or for some random reason like actually being put to the test. so yea. the game doesn't crash but it doesn't cope in a way that can be called "pulling it off". don't you ever ask yourself why BI never drop numbers like that in their PR campaigns?

don't get me wrong. i'm a long time admirer of the RV engine. but when you post, all i read is blablabla. too one sided and exaggerated to be taken seriously. and always short of proof.

having said that, i have high hopes for the new MP fixes. haven't tested them yet. we'll see. fingers crossed. i hope i can at least play smooth TvT at some point.

PS.: i just joined a 90 players PvP server with 53 players actually on it. 15 FPS. in the editor in the most optimal situation,aka nothing is happening, i get 50 FPS. yup...not quite there. will be looking for the servers you keep talking about. the coop one you suggested in another thread had 15 FPS when i actually tested your claims. so my hopes are still high for the PvP one. didn't test that one yet.

about comparing engines. let's put it this way.

if arma is so amazing that it can sync 100 clients in PvP with 40 FPS max on a high end PC (which still is just a claim without context). what makes you think that an engine like frostbite, that can have 64 players with vehicles and pretty amazing dynamic destruction and overall high fidelity when it comes to effects and physics, at beyond 60 FPS on a high end PC, could not do what arma does if you would remove the destruction and anything else it has that arma hasn't (dynamic sound engine, actually fully implemented physics) and simply make the map bigger instead. i fail to see how that makes sense...you can't on the one hand reduce arma to TvT on a huge map and on the other hand say other engines can't do what arma does when they do more than just that. arma has another focus. that's why it lacks in any other department except scale and AI.

arma providing people with highly unstable FPS that is always lower than other games is the opposite of arma "pulling its special thing off". it's more like "barely making it work". it's an interesting engine but it can't really handle its own scale. especially since BI keep expanding it without making it able to cope with it.

...sorry for the wall of text but i felt that i needed to point out a few things that should be obvious.

i get 15 FPS on pretty much every big wasteland (PvP) and altis life server. smaller PvP servers are just barely better at around 20 max. i honestly wished that PvP and Life would run properly right now. i wouldn't complain at all.

all your so to say "60FPS frostbyte" arguments fail, since the maps are the size of a coin. You can't compare this 2 games in any way, unless we have both similar map sizes and amount of players, then it will make sense to try to compare. You can enjoy 64 games with like 50-60fps on stratis, in more simple missions like TvT, heck, you can run up takistan and enjoy your damn 120 fps on all ultra with about 60 players. But you obviosly know, arma 3 engine is cpu limited, you want to have higher fps, and you just say, "maybe you will think to get a better cpu"? Thats a strange logic :p

---------- Post added at 02:26 ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 ----------

Not really selling it when only 19 people out of 110 actually took part in the scoring tho really , I was on a server with more in ofp when gotf did a record attempt , the head count proves nothing .

i don't think i did get it at all you just said.

---------- Post added at 02:27 ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 ----------

Once again, I'm not actually saying that BIS should actually adopt some new engine, but all of this talk about how no other engine can do what this one does is completely unproven.

then prove that it is unproven? What engine can do same or even better?

P.s if you wait about 30 minutes (20 mins left to upload, and will take like 10 to process if not more) you can watch 1 hour gameplay video of me and our squad with 110 people on server. 2 other vids still to come in hours.

Here is the link, which will be active in like 30-40 mins

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti6DJGmGkVo

Edited January 25, 2014 by NeuroFunker

[bad benson 1733]

all your so to say "60FPS frostbyte" arguments fail...

why did i even bother? you read like 4 words of what i wrote. you 100% fail at even grasping my argument about focus and then you still retain your arrogant way of just saying stupid things with the most confidence? it's frankly mind blowing. my hat is off to you. you either lack the mental capability to even be able to participate in the discussion while acting like you outsmart everyone here or you are the most elaborate troll i've ever seen. again. mind = blown...

i also like how you completely ignore the part where i actually addressed your post/claims. i guess it had not enough trigger words like "frostbite" or "60 FPS" or "battlefield" in it. not much there for you to apply one of your 3 premade variations of what you have to say...

the best part however is how after being explained how irrelevant your isolated experience is since it doesn't match most of arma's MP you still post a "proof" video which on top of it all doesn't have an FPS counter. are we supposed to count the frames by hand? FPDR ...you are really one of a kind.

don't get me wrong. as i said i don't disagree that some performance is possible in some cases. it's like barely any relevant percentage of all MP in arma though. and that's being generous. besides your insufferable way of posting i really want what you say to be true for all of arma but it just isn't. :(

[roshnak 41]

then prove that it is unproven? What engine can do same or even better?

How, exactly, do you expect me to prove that something is unproven?

P.S. You are a terrible poster who brings down the quality of discussion in every thread you post in. This could easily be avoided if you read the entire post before replying.

[windies 11]

Truth is that the engine needs to improve. Sometimes I think, can they actually fix RV, I mean is it doable to "fix", so to speak, the things wrong with it? I know it's not easy feat to implement a parallel environment into an engine not designed for it, but it's doable and the thing is I think we are in dire need of it. The things this engine needs are the hard things to implement and at times I wonder if we don't have them because BI isn't up to the task. I know it's critical to say and negative to some degree, but I honestly wonder if the reason we don't see improvements in the problem area's is simply because they can't be improved, the team lacks the skills to improve on them etc...?

I'm not trying to insult anyone, but skill limits are skill limits and It's one of the main reasons why I wonder about why we don't get any real engine improvements besides beautification it seems most of the time.