Dynamic shadows possible in Real Virtuality?

[calin_banc 19]

Usually, any questions or requests for some extra detail(s) to the game go(es) like this:

-> could we have X?

-> no, it's far to complex/unimportant/others need to be fixed first/this is a sim, it's not about that/best game in it's class, no other can do this, so it's ok/no other engine comes close to RV etc.

When ArmA will get better?

1. When competition like with Day Z will force them into action;

2. After Day Z completion, the extra man power will start to fix and improve the game (or start working on ArmA 4);

3. A miracle in which the team already works on it now.

Probably 2nd option will happen.

[roberthammer 582]

Well arma needs a rival - like the Flashpoint DR was but with much more advanced graphics (using all modern dx11 features) , more realistic gameplay and mechanics

Dayz SA will take min 2 years to be "done" , so after that time BIS might start doing on ArmA 4 with their hybrid engine (RV engine + Enforce engine)

but who knows ...

[artisanal 22]

I'm still wondering if the solution found by the dayz devs is actually usable without having to play at 3 fps... ,

Also, I don't exactly see why this feature could'nt be integrated into arma 3 (yes, yes, RV4 isn't Enfusion, but still), because Dean H explained that it's mainly because the new engine is going to support DX10/11 that dynamic lighting/shadows will be possible. And as you know, Arma 3 is directx 11.

Edit : on the fact that dynamic shadows are secondary, I don't completely agree, because this feature would finally permit us to use flashlights in towns, behind walls at night without getting spotted by the whole island!

[roberthammer 582]

Also, I don't exactly see why this feature could'nt be integrated into arma 3 (yes, yes, RV4 isn't Enfusion, but still), because Dean H explained that it's mainly because the new engine is going to support DX10/11 that dynamic lighting/shadows will be possible. And as you know, Arma 3 is directx 11.

Edit : on the fact that dynamic shadows are secondary, I don't completely agree, because this feature would finally permit us to use flashlights in towns, behind walls at night without getting spotted by the whole island!

Yes possibility is there but i wonder when they been doing arma 3 - while updating to dx11 and working on those lights - noone from BIS never thought to use deferred lighting to prevent fps issues and having lights how much you want?

instead we got weak , limited dynamic lights with stencil shadows ...

also the light goes through objects issue - this should have been fixed in the first place

Edited June 15, 2014 by RobertHammer

[bad benson 1733]

Usually, any questions or requests for some extra detail(s) to the game go(es) like this:

-> could we have X?

-> no, it's far to complex/unimportant/others need to be fixed first/this is a sim, it's not about that/best game in it's class, no other can do this, so it's ok/no other engine comes close to RV etc.

When ArmA will get better?

1. When competition like with Day Z will force them into action;

2. After Day Z completion, the extra man power will start to fix and improve the game (or start working on ArmA 4);

3. A miracle in which the team already works on it now.

Probably 2nd option will happen.

yup. you got that right :D

[frostwyrm333 1]

Arma 3 will get DLC and an expansion, so there are still 1-2 years of active game life while DayZ gets forward with technology.

Whatever Arma 4 runs on, it will be something very advanced but unfortunately different. I'm especially looking forward on what can they with the AI pathfinding and multi CPU stuff.

Dynamic shadows are exciting but they do little for the gameplay.

[calin_banc 19]

Everything does "little" to everyone, all together do a lot.

[tpw 2315]

Dynamic shadows are exciting but they do little for the gameplay.

Au contraire. For me, being able to hide in the shadows, or not spot an enemy doing the same (eg Metro 2003 or last light) would make an enormous difference to night gameplay. On top of the massive increase in immersion. If the engine is capable I'd dearly love to see it bolted on.

[babylonjoke 22]

[Furret 0]

If only all RV-engine based games could all use the same revision of the engine. Any changes made to the engine on behalf of a game are committed to a central repository, benefits to DayZ have the side effect of benefiting Arma3, and vice versa.

I like to think it would reduce overhead of multiple people working on multiple revisions of the engine.

I don't see a good business case to support Arma3 when DayZ is clearly the better moneymaker, this is probably why the team working on DayZ is many times larger than Arma, right now it feels like its classified as an afterthought.

[bad benson 1733]

i just hope that there's still enough real dev enthusiasm left in the team so that they will finally do what they are doing with dayZ now and really develope the core and tackle the problems like real devs who want to make stuff happen and not what they did the past years. it's almost like the COD series. tiny tiny steps as long as it sells enough.

dayZ is just a tiny fraction of what could be possible with this engine(mods! addons! this game would be dead without them) if they would really work on it. dayZ is still arma and arma is what is still good about dayZ (for me the only part). i hope they don't forget that and give us a real evolved arma some day.

i only have a tiny bit of hope left. dayZ is gonna probably suck them dry and turn out to be the same boring short lived concept it always was. except with some more features (and maybe finally vehicles?).

let's hope all this infusion (enfusion?) mumbo jumbo will spawn something useful for this series' future. otherwise i don't see a bright future. maybe we will at least get a shitty implementation of dynamic shadows like with physX now. just on top of the old stuff making everything run a lot worse. better than nothing i guess ;)

[vegeta897 13]

If only all RV-engine based games could all use the same revision of the engine. Any changes made to the engine on behalf of a game are committed to a central repository, benefits to DayZ have the side effect of benefiting Arma3, and vice versa.

I like to think it would reduce overhead of multiple people working on multiple revisions of the engine.

I don't see a good business case to support Arma3 when DayZ is clearly the better moneymaker, this is probably why the team working on DayZ is many times larger than Arma, right now it feels like its classified as an afterthought.

Different games have different requirements. Having the same exact engine for all the games is a terrible idea. It's the reason why DayZ had to have so many modifications done to the engine, many of which go directly against Arma's needs. Unless you're talking about a highly modular engine, which I don't see the benefit of. It's not like BIS has dozens of games or are selling the engine to other developers.

Arma's team has expanded since DayZ's success. The reason the DayZ team is currently larger is because it's actually in full development, not after-release support and DLC. Let's not start questioning the developer's commitment to their games or playing favorites. We are not informed enough to make such judgments.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

i just hope that there's still enough real dev enthusiasm left in the team so that they will finally do what they are doing with dayZ now and really develope the core and tackle the problems like real devs who want to make stuff happen and not what they did the past years. it's almost like the COD series. tiny tiny steps as long as it sells enough.

dayZ is just a tiny fraction of what could be possible with this engine(mods! addons! this game would be dead without them) if they would really work on it. dayZ is still arma and arma is what is still good about dayZ (for me the only part). i hope they don't forget that and give us a real evolved arma some day.

i only have a tiny bit of hope left. dayZ is gonna probably suck them dry and turn out to be the same boring short lived concept it always was. except with some more features (and maybe finally vehicles?).

let's hope all this infusion (enfusion?) mumbo jumbo will spawn something useful for this series' future. otherwise i don't see a bright future. maybe we will at least get a shitty implementation of dynamic shadows like with physX now. just on top of the old stuff making everything run a lot worse. better than nothing i guess ;)

Touched on an important factor here. Dayz was popular because of the realism aspect for the most part. That being Arma 2's main feature. Now, take away Arma's base functions from DayZ, it would be just like WarZ, or any of those other arcade like ones that others tried to push out to steal the whole "survival" theme. That is what DayZ needs, is a more survival focus. But yeah, Arma has that Large Terrain with places of interest (airports) and what not. But for the most part, it's the engine that shines in that place. Though, it could use that kind of enhancement. I was playing Dayz the other night, friends throwing flares, and well, we were in a court yard. the light was on the ground on a hill far away, and all through the city, as if the buildings never existed.

[babylonjoke 22]

What BB said.

The problem is that Arma will be always 1 step (5 to 10 years) behind any actual game engine (in terms of graphic/tech) and you know why?

We will have to wait other 4-5 years to get these features (MAYBE) in the next chapter, and they will probably be broken. In these 4-5 years I don't even want to imagine what other engines will implement, and we will keep requesting as far as the others advances. If you need to implement these things you gotta do it NOW.

FFS, they are now using PBR and we are still with that Specular shit of the 2000s. Come on BIS. It's pathteic.

Then you wonder why the big part of the modder artists wont touch Arma.

What will happen when other game engines will support larger terrains (we're not far imo) and BIS will have not yet have implemented PBR?

GG.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Babylonjoke

[roberthammer 582]

What BB said.

The problem is that Arma will be always 1 step (5 to 10 years) behind any actual game engine (in terms of graphic/tech) and you know why?

We will have to wait other 4-5 years to get these features (MAYBE) in the next chapter, and they will probably be broken. In these 4-5 years I don't even want to imagine what other engines will implement, and we will keep requesting as far as the others advances. If you need to implement these things you gotta do it NOW.

FFS, they are now using PBR and we are still with that Specular shit of the 2000s. Come on BIS. It's pathteic.

Then you wonder why the big part of the modder artists wont touch Arma.

What will happen when other game engines will support larger terrains (we're not far imo) and BIS will have not yet have implemented PBR?

GG.

Oh yea PBR ... maybe in arma 5 :D

[calin_banc 19]

Different games have different requirements. Having the same exact engine for all the games is a terrible idea. It's the reason why DayZ had to have so many modifications done to the engine, many of which go directly against Arma's needs. Unless you're talking about a highly modular engine, which I don't see the benefit of. It's not like BIS has dozens of games or are selling the engine to other developers.

Arma's team has expanded since DayZ's success. The reason the DayZ team is currently larger is because it's actually in full development, not after-release support and DLC. Let's not start questioning the developer's commitment to their games or playing favorites. We are not informed enough to make such judgments.

Cry Engine does just that: when it's updated, all the features are automatically available for the developer to use. Perhaps a new melee system is not required in ArmA (well, it doesn't have one aynway), but some graphical options would help, probably some UI, performance tweaks and so on.

BTW, if you read their brochure, they are working on combining RV with Enforce engine (which is multiplatform). I wouldn't be that surprised if next ArmA will land on consoles as well, with all that such move implies.

http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/company-brochure

Edited June 19, 2014 by calin_banc

[roshnak 41]

BTW, if you read their brochure, they are working on combining RV with Enforce engine (which is multiplatform). I wouldn't be that surprised if next ArmA will land on consoles as well, with all that such move implies.

I know this isn't really the thread to discuss this in, but I cannot think of a less marketable game for consoles than Arma (that's not true, but it's a pretty poor fit regardless).

I think it's pretty funny that they are talking about "unifying" RV and Enforce for future games, since at this point they have been branched off from eachother for precisely one game. It's also not really unexpected that they would choose to use the modern features and enhancements brought about for DayZ for future games. I think what most of us are hoping for, though, is that some of those features get backported to Arma 3.

[Deadfast 43]

BTW, if you read their brochure, they are working on combining RV with Enforce engine (which is multiplatform). I wouldn't be that surprised if next ArmA will land on consoles as well, with all that such move implies.

Real Virtuality is already technically mutiplatform, Arma 2 was supposed to be released on Xbox 360 (and you can still see the proof of that within the game's configs). I can only assume this plan was dropped when BI realized there is no way to get the game to run properly on 360's hardware.