Imagine What Next Gen In Arma Would Look Like

[sorophx 25]

"NextGen" is usually used to describe the next generation of consoles that have all new hardware. it is not applicable to PC games because all next gen games are made on PCs. Arma 3 already is next gen in that sense.

now, if we drop the label and simply discuss how a next generation of Arma's engine would look like, I'd say it would have to be a completely rewritten engine that reused only small parts of its code. everything about the current version of Arma's engine feels outdated. it looks polished but underneath all the gloss we all know it's not pretty.

I couldn't even name one issue that I'd like to see changed/fixed, because I hate everything about this game now. with a few exceptions (I love the free look option, for example, I miss it in other games)

EDIT: actually, if you follow DayZ Standalone's development, you can see hints at what could change in Arma in the future. net code, rendering, AI - everything is being rewritten because it's not up to today's multiplayer gaming standards

Edited June 24, 2014 by sorophx

[calin_banc 19]

"Next Gen" or next gen should be at least what Chris Roberts is doing now with Star Citizen/Squadron 42. The same level of detail for the vehicles, soldiers, world and so on. That's the new "benchmark".

[bigpickle 0]

"Next Gen" or next gen should be at least what Chris Roberts is doing now with Star Citizen/Squadron 42. The same level of detail for the vehicles, soldiers, world and so on. That's the new "benchmark".

We'll have to wait and see if his devs can achieve his claims, not looking too tasty at the moment. Elite Dangerous on the other hand....

[Fushko 59]

We'll have to wait and see if his devs can achieve his claims, not looking too tasty at the moment. Elite Dangerous on the other hand....

this guy srs? E: D is nothing like SC...

4:00 for awesomeness

Edited June 24, 2014 by FrankHH

[nomisum 129]

I would love some toned down version of those Spintires physics to feel more grounded:

Plus it would kill those fatal-crash-into-a-tiny-rock-physic-bugs once and for all.

More wants:

+ dynamic shadows

+ realistic wounding system (wounds actually hit-dependent)

+ rivers and more beautiful water (its much better than in A2, but not nearly good enough now)

+ realistic looking explosions with thick, heavy, long staying smoke and dust

+ detailed damage model for vehicles and objects, not only "OK" and "broken"

+ good looking terrain destruction/deformation from explosives

+ everything making the game more realism-p0rn

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

should this be an arma3 thread or it should be an ARMA4 wishlist?

If its for ARMA4 it should be made taking the best of the futures APIs, in arma3 is not used all the tricks available from directx11 neither from physx, also even when the huge map is awesome i dont see anyone using all of it, maybe if we have ships and aircraft carriers and trains or proper misiles not scripted like the scud from arma2 if the map will get exponentially bigger we need better vectors. And something that is missing from all arma series.. virtual systems, radars, firing directors systems, comunications systems(like ACRE) but implemented directly into the game engine, the "nextgen" ARMA should have the inputs to create the more important systems in todays battlefields information systems with less scripting, we need awacs, longrange radars linked(maybe via modules) to AA stations, also the capability to transmit information from one vehicle to another, in aircraft the datalink is something that cannot be missing

This thread does not focus on Arma 4 in General (if it even exsists >.>), but more on things Arma in general could be like with what is available out there on "Next-Gen" game engines, or if it's current Engine could pull off those types of feats.

I would love some toned down version of those Spintires physics to feel more grounded:

Plus it would kill those fatal-crash-into-a-tiny-rock-physic-bugs once and for all.

More wants:

+ dynamic shadows

+ realistic wounding system (wounds actually hit-dependent)

+ rivers and more beautiful water (its much better than in A2, but not nearly good enough now)

+ realistic looking explosions with thick, heavy, long staying smoke and dust

+ detailed damage model for vehicles and objects, not only "OK" and "broken"

+ good looking terrain destruction/deformation from explosives

+ everything making the game more realism-p0rn

ooo, this is a good one. =D

[enex 11]

Visually:

Water streams

[Gera_CCT 12]

Visually:

Water streams

All of these please! Awesome!!

[zooloo75 834]

Sometimes I want to believe Realtime Immersive is just BIS playing a huge April Fools prank on us.

[ric 1]

Next Gen? that would be a game engine that could fully utilize the power of modern multi core proc's, the rest is just details.

[chortles 263]

Sometimes I want to believe Realtime Immersive is just BIS playing a huge April Fools prank on us.

A rather different interpretation of RTI by a former BISim support manager can be found here, and I've excerpted my favorite line:

Units want "here and now" not "see ya in 10 months" once you figure it out.

[roshnak 41]

A rather different interpretation of RTI by a former BISim support manager can be found here, and I've excerpted my favorite line:

Yeah, but how relevant is that to a commercial video game? Obviously VBS stuff doesn't have to look very good or be that polished. It's just got to be functional enough to satisfy the client's needs. Do the advantages VBS has over whatever RTI is putting out apply to a $60 video game in which the customers don't have the full time support granted to the military?

On the other hand, I also don't understand what people think is so great about RTI's stuff. As far as I can tell, the only thing we really know about it is that it has good graphics. How do AI behave? How are weapons implemented? What kind of damage model exists for humans and vehicles? How are vehicles simulated? Is there an inventory system? How does it work?

If all people are interested in is better graphics, they may as well stick with Arma, since it's the one thing you can count on improving in each release.

Edit: Also, every time I see that Battlelog quote in your signature it makes me want to tear my hair out. I hope that's not what "next-gen Arma" looks like. :(

Edited June 25, 2014 by roshnak

[chortles 263]

On the other hand, I also don't understand what people think is so great about RTI's stuff. As far as I can tell, the only thing we really know about it is that it has good graphics. How do AI behave? How are weapons implemented? What kind of damage model exists for humans and vehicles? How are vehicles simulated? Is there an inventory system? How does it work?

This is actually why I posted that link and quote. :lol: Not least since to date, the 'LCS courseware' trailer was one of only a few of RTI's official videos that I remember actually showing what it's supposed to be able to do (or rather, what it's supposed to facilitate)... whereas I can't recall a thing about their latest trailer, the "spec ops underwater" video, that couldn't be done in Arma 3 with the SDV and divers.

Linking back to that old post was simply someone pointing out specific issues with RTI but also generally meant as a reminder of RTI being not a be-all, end-all, "RV killer." Alternately, "what is supposed to be so special about RTI that can't be pulled off with enough money, talent, and CRYENGINE?"

Edited June 25, 2014 by Chortles

[Leg 10]

There's lots of things that can be improved, fixed, or added, but that is why there is a system. Of course, only 'realistic' requests would be accepted. They aren't going to do an overhaul of new content/features just because you posted some TLDR wall of text full of ideas of features. I'm content with Arma3 at the moment, it just needs a more fun playerbase perhaps, or some new gearing towards missions and people who want to play it for fun, yet have a bit of a challenge and master the game a bit (at least most of the time).

For example, in OFP (and Arma3) I can snipe a moving target. People typically shoot so bad in Arma3, even if they play it way longer than me.. and thus I have no luck finding 'good players' who could move in and coordinate in an effective/fun way. Even if there was just 4-5 copies of me, I could probably do what a typical 30 player co-op server does in terms of 'clearing a town', and that is saying something really generically. I think the engine is fun, it's big, openworld, etc. but I typically get bored of it quickly and don't find any reason to stay; there's no reason to master being the best at PvP, the best sniper, best at anything. It just degrades the whole 'game' into being a simulator, which I suppose it is, but computer illiterate people playing the game just make you gag sometimes with their stupidity. The 'mainstream coop' system online is full of kids and it's rare to see a coop server with good pilots, at the very least having enough coordination to just have helicopters ferrying players near to the hostile zone, etc.. (preferably, better, with air support and organization). Most of the time, you end up dying multiple times due to friendly fire, bad pilots crashing, etc.. and from there, 75% of the time the AI is so laggy on the badly optimzed server (at least, not all of them, but some of them) that CQB is impossible, so I always just snipe them all from long range to avoid being shot from the air. The mainstream stuff is usually crap other than like King of the Hill which is a basic PvP type thing (although I'm glad it's there at least, it's usually the only thing I find worthwhile joining). I'm just not sure. I feel like I expect Arma to be fun, but it just isn't; hasn't been. I thought OFP was fun, playing it as a child, and I've grown up expecting Arma to be fun. I've experienced just about anything on this engine, interms of players, groups, missions, but now I'm coming to the conclusion: perhaps Arma's just 'not' fun, although I know for certain it's because of the players being bad/boring like 75% of the time. The best interaction I get on this game is from trolling on some roleplay (Altis Life) servers hah.. that's really the full truth. Well.. improve it any way you want. I'm not sure how you can fix a playerbase on a game like this, but as for content, anything is welcome!

Edited June 25, 2014 by Leg

[mamasan8 11]

Grass that reacts to gunfire.

Say you are lying down in the grass and start firing away, the grass should move out of the way.

Foliage we can see through. If a blade of grass is in my guns sight, I can't see anything.

2nd, make grass grass, not some wheatfield that looks like grass.

I agree with Leg above.

I play Coop only.

Pilots that can't land a chopper, pilots that hover the chopper 500m over the AO. Yeah, I wonder why we got blown up...

And the friendly fire is ridiculous sometimes. You can ID your targets if uncertain but besides that, it shouldn't take more than a day to figure out the differences between the uniforms and identify friend from foe by eyesight.

I have taken to ramboing mostly. Most efficient for me, online. Less friendlyfire, less relying on others to do basic stuff etc.

Maybe its the fact that we can respawn any time we want and be back in the action within 5 minutes. In OFP I used to play on servers that didn't have respawn. You died, you stayed dead and were stuck spectating the rest of the mission. Or you had a limited number of lives. 3 or so. That brings tactics out in a hurry =).

Edited June 25, 2014 by mamasan8

[artisanal 22]

Grass that reacts to gunfire.

Say you are lying down in the grass and start firing away, the grass should move out of the way.

Foliage we can see through. If a blade of grass is in my guns sight, I can't see anything.

2nd, make grass grass, not some wheatfield that looks like grass.

Yeah well, grass rendering is most certainly the hardest part for any engine. There are really few games out there who make something near to convincing but for Arma's needs, all the solutions would'nt really fit, as for this game it's in the distance that grass rendering would be the most profitable. See link : http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3505

[calin_banc 19]

We'll have to wait and see if his devs can achieve his claims, not looking too tasty at the moment. Elite Dangerous on the other hand....

They are doing a great job already. The ships are no short of amazing and the simulated flight model in space is true to life. For me that is the only "next generation" of game out there, something what a PC game should be.

[mamasan8 11]

I don't like grass in Arma 3 at all. It should be ankle height, not chest height like it is now.

@nograss-mod for the win. I don't care about distant grass (because I've never seen it and don't really care about it either). I mean grass you are stepping on or 20 metres in front. It's like wading thru the woods. And of course AI sees right through it all. While I can't even see the AI for all the grass.

[sanguinius51 11]

Next gen in arma is VBS3, with EVERYTHING that VBS2 had.

Why not dream? I mean, we can. VBS3 is running off RV4, and with tweaking by a large team... The Ultimate ACE Experience would arrive.

It won't happen, but it will at least keep me happy at night.

[subs17 9]

How about a MP connection for DCS aircraft to fly in the same area as Armas map.

[zimms 22]

I don't like grass in Arma 3 at all. It should be ankle height, not chest height like it is now.

@nograss-mod for the win. I don't care about distant grass (because I've never seen it and don't really care about it either). I mean grass you are stepping on or 20 metres in front. It's like wading thru the woods. And of course AI sees right through it all. While I can't even see the AI for all the grass.

I think you are talking about parks or football pitches. In the nature grass is pretty high.

[CaptainObvious 95]

I don't like grass in Arma 3 at all. It should be ankle height, not chest height like it is now.

Where can I find chest height grass? :eek:

[pete10 0]

More human like animations and better blending of animations. That's all I want.

[Jona33 51]

How about a MP connection for DCS aircraft to fly in the same area as Armas map.

Somebody found a way to interface BMS and ARMA 3, it's obviously very basic but the ability exists.

[subs17 9]

Somebody found a way to interface BMS and ARMA 3, it's obviously very basic but the ability exists.

Maybe it would be better to have a common theatre like Korea for Falcon 4 only in DCS with the dynamic campaign running in Arma where players influence the campaign through missions and capturing strategic locations. The basic BMS Arma mod is not enough because you need to be able to hit the BMS players with SAMs/AAA and not just the BMS player bombing Arma tgts although a full on BMS F-16 in Arma would rock(or any DCS addon even the FC3 aircraft would rock in Arma).

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

Where can I find chest height grass? :eek:

Australia and it sucks because there are snakes and all sorts in there, not fun for a grunt at all lol.