I think its time for Bohemia to start thinking about creating a new game engine.

[badluckburt 78]

64-bit / proper multi-threading on all levels would be nice but you lost me when you started comparing Arma to Garry's Mod.

I think BIS' best move would be to focus on making the engine modular so they get to a point where they need to rewrite modules instead of intertwined spaghetti-code. And I believe this is already happening where possible.

[babylonjoke 22]

but there are other engines out where you can have big maps. cryengine allows you huge terrains in arma level, but not everyone has the access for this. you must contact crytek and provide them your work and inform them about your company (if you have one) and inform them about your project etc to get access to the terrain code. but not everyone knows this because of lazyness to research, this is why i read bullshit from some people here saying that cryengine doesnt allow huge terrains.

All of your posts are just talk. You think to have fire in your hands but you got only smoke and ash.

Post your source.

All my research got me to the point where YES technically is possible to do huge maps but whoever have done it had to make it in SCALE, with some MAJOR optimizations. Basically it would look good only for strategy game type, and that would be a waste.

You can complain EVERYTHING of Arma, except the envioriment, don't you even dare touching it :P

Edited January 19, 2015 by Babylonjoke

[mamasan8 11]

I find it interesting that there are so many people claiming low hardware utilisation and poor optimisation.

I can't find any evidence with my system supporting the multi-core / CPU usage, I actually did some tests a while ago: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?183647-Good-Hardware-Monitoring-Gadgets&p=2782966&viewfull=1#post2782966

As you can see by usage and numbers only my CPU would be capable of running another Arma instance but my GPU runs at 99% with reasonable framerates considering the test cases. Of course, these are just numbers of my very own system and can't be seen as representatives for the whole community. But every time I see a thread about low FPS in SP or MP I'm thinking the OPs would help more with providing actual system specs and benchmarked numbers.

Anyway, what makes this engine so different from other game's engines is that one never knows what the users will do to it. Great modding possibilities like we have in Arma come with a certain unpredictability. Also, user generated content is often very pooly optimised or with many AI acting in small space - not necessarily the engine's fault. Plus the engine seems to be designed to be very flexible, it can be used for a wide range of tasks, like different addons, a vast amount of mission types - you can do everything with it. That's really great and one of the things I love about Arma but this generalisation comes with a price I guess. Other really great looking shooters, like CoD, Crysis or Battlefield can be optimised to death (for example with fully scripted AI), the devs of mentioned games know the possible scenarios and can optimise towards these.

As for the latter (poor optimisation) I don't really understand how so many people seem to know so much about that. Do you guys have access to the source code and are qualified to judge where it could be optimised? I don't. I've been studying and working in IT / Software Engineering for around six years now and I think I'm nowhere near the competence and inside knowledge needed to judge if the RV engine is a poorly optimised piece of rust. As most of you, I can only notice and report symptoms. The engine is certainly not perfect and needs a lot of attention to stay up to date. But re-creating an entirely new engine from scratch seems a bit too ambitious (if we want a new Arma game before 2020). Most software iterations rely on older code. I'm no expert but I bet one coudl still find code from the 90's in Windows 8.^^

This is what I see when playing Arma 3. On a local LAN server, just me. For obvious reasons this setup is better than SP missions (AI offloaded to server).

I'm running the server, HC client and game on same computer. 10-20 fps, GPU core is running halfspeed, CPU doesn't really get all that hot (47 C) considering up to 60% utilization. And CPU is OCed to 4.8 Ghz. In other games with less utilization the temp can go up to 54 C. Which tells me the utilization is ineffecient. It's hogging the CPU more but doing less work. Hence lower temp.

Just running server + client on same machine I get approx. same fps. This is on RC (release candidate/beta) and I installed it just to see if HC actually does anything. Only noticed additional bugs being introduced.

What bugs? Like AI stop responding, even tho HC is still connected and is still alive (you should look into making HC invulnerable BIS).

Calling for mortar strikes is random, sometimes they land where I point, sometimes they land 500m away. This is when not using map to do it, just pointing by crosshair. Map-mode seems to work. And it seems to happen more often with MRLS than normal mortars or the third thing, can't remember name. Scorcher I think uses those shells.

Thats off the top of my head.

[343guiltyspark 10]

Why don't you and the "the entire pissed of community" move on and go play some of the super awesome 60fps games instead. Then us "fanboys" can stick around with this old wrecked engine.

Everyone knows about the performance limits. There is no magic fix and pointless threads like this in not gonna make BIS flush 15 years of work down the toilet and start from scratch. Enjoy the game for what it is now, or move on to something else. Sitting around waiting for pipe dreams to come through are not very constructive.

Wat?

So instead of facing the issue nobody wants to talk about (the age of the engine and its growing incompatability with new computer hardware and software engineering)

we should just leave and play ubisoft games?

How about this. The community realizes that a 3 year wait for anything new is a better solution than waiting a few months for UI updates and 1.5 years for arma 3.5.

Remember. The engine is a foundational element. It will support potentially a decade or more of new games and content. Where as the engine we are using now has already exceeded its lifespan by a long shot.

The experience BIS has had working with this engine and adapting it to work well for such a long time leaves them with a bank of knowledge that is incredibly useful for making a brand new , next gen engine for the future of military games. They will know exactly how to code the engine for better unseen developments in hardware and software. Where as with their current engine they are forced to work with what was made in the early 2000s before the concept of multiple core cpu's , hyperthreading , and multiple GPU's existed

This current engine is not going to cut it anymore. You can keep trying to adapt it , but its always going to fall short.

BIS has everything to gain by investing in their future , and everything to lose by releasing another community flop like arma 3. (sorry for those who enjoy it)

[Jona33 51]

Wat?

So instead of facing the issue nobody wants to talk about (the age of the engine and its growing incompatability with new computer hardware and software engineering)

we should just leave and play ubisoft games?

How about this. The community realizes that a 3 year wait for anything new is a better solution than waiting a few months for UI updates and 1.5 years for arma 3.5.

Remember. The engine is a foundational element. It will support potentially a decade or more of new games and content. Where as the engine we are using now has already exceeded its lifespan by a long shot.

The experience BIS has had working with this engine and adapting it to work well for such a long time leaves them with a bank of knowledge that is incredibly useful for making a brand new , next gen engine for the future of military games. They will know exactly how to code the engine for better unseen developments in hardware and software. Where as with their current engine they are forced to work with what was made in the early 2000s before the concept of multiple core cpu's , hyperthreading , and multiple GPU's existed

This current engine is not going to cut it anymore. You can keep trying to adapt it , but its always going to fall short.

BIS has everything to gain by investing in their future , and everything to lose by releasing another community flop like arma 3. (sorry for those who enjoy it)

The community isn't going to wait three years, they will wait forever because building a brand new engine from scratch will mean no releases for three years (why would you make a new game that will you will make obsolete so soon) which means BI will be broke, as in non-existent. You seem to think that building a new engine from scratch is so easy, just because they've worked on one engine doesn't mean that they're going to be able to knock up a new one with the ease you suggest. It makes no sense to throw away years worth of work to build a new engine, that will become obsolete again by the time it is released, it makes far more sense to upgrade something that basically works than to go from the beginning.

[Furret 0]

Right now we are still having to deal with a decrepit engine from the early 2000s.

Would you be willing to have no updates/content for around 4 years for this new game to be built?

How should BIS go about funding this new game for the next 4 years?

[IndeedPete 1038]

This is what I see when playing Arma 3. On a local LAN server, just me. For obvious reasons this setup is better than SP missions (AI offloaded to server).

I'm running the server, HC client and game on same computer. 10-20 fps, GPU core is running halfspeed, CPU doesn't really get all that hot (47 C) considering up to 60% utilization. And CPU is OCed to 4.8 Ghz. In other games with less utilization the temp can go up to 54 C. Which tells me the utilization is ineffecient. It's hogging the CPU more but doing less work. Hence lower temp.

Just running server + client on same machine I get approx. same fps. This is on RC (release candidate/beta) and I installed it just to see if HC actually does anything. Only noticed additional bugs being introduced.

What bugs? Like AI stop responding, even tho HC is still connected and is still alive (you should look into making HC invulnerable BIS).

Calling for mortar strikes is random, sometimes they land where I point, sometimes they land 500m away. This is when not using map to do it, just pointing by crosshair. Map-mode seems to work. And it seems to happen more often with MRLS than normal mortars or the third thing, can't remember name. Scorcher I think uses those shells.

Thats off the top of my head.

So, you're running all this HC magic in a LAN server on your own machine? How should that deliver better results than simple SP if everything runs ont he same hardware? Doesn't it only increase the communication needed between the HC and client? I can see the advantages of dedicated servers or HCs in a real LAN / Internet setup but everything on the same machine seems pointless to me.

I'm not much of an MP player, so my experiences are very little in that area. I've played a few coop missions, one regularly for testing with a buddy over internet (I was the sever). Didn't notice any performance difference compared to playing that stuff in the editor / SP, aside from typical lags on his site occasionally. And as you can see in my linked post my CPU uses every core on around 50%, just the GPU is loaded up to the max. And with reasonable framerates on maxed out settings (view distance aside). These are just my personal recordings though. As usual I'd expect hardware setup, drivers, settings, used mods etc. to have some impact on the framerate.

Edited January 19, 2015 by IndeedPete

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

All of your posts are just talk. You think to have fire in your hands but you got only smoke and ash.

Post your source.

All my research got me to the point where YES technically is possible to do huge maps but whoever have done it had to make it in SCALE, with some MAJOR optimizations. Basically it would look good only for strategy game type, and that would be a waste.

You can complain EVERYTHING of Arma, except the envioriment, don't you even dare touching it :P

you are the best example of the lazy guys im talking about. here it didnt took me 2 seconds:

http://www.cryengine.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=314&t=74175

https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cryengine+3+MMO+terrain+streaming

https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cryengine+3+large+terrains

now, look around.

and about the environment: arma 3 environment looks Ok and im fine with arma 3 environment, but still, there are better looking out there.

---------- Post added at 18:05 ---------- Previous post was at 18:03 ----------

i love how every game from bohemia (not only arma, but dayz, take on helicopters etc etc) has bad performance, yet some fanboys blame players for it.

[343guiltyspark 10]

The community isn't going to wait three years, they will wait forever because building a brand new engine from scratch will mean no releases for three years (why would you make a new game that will you will make obsolete so soon) which means BI will be broke, as in non-existent. You seem to think that building a new engine from scratch is so easy, just because they've worked on one engine doesn't mean that they're going to be able to knock up a new one with the ease you suggest. It makes no sense to throw away years worth of work to build a new engine, that will become obsolete again by the time it is released, it makes far more sense to upgrade something that basically works than to go from the beginning.

lol what?

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 18:09 ----------

Would you be willing to have no updates/content for around 4 years for this new game to be built?

How should BIS go about funding this new game for the next 4 years?

this is just my opinion but the setting of arma 3 is trash and updates to a game that has a lame setting/world is not something i care about.

i would care very little waiting 4 years for a new engine and game. (as long as said game is more like arma 2 in setting and less like ghost recon advanced warfighter greek edition)

As for funding there are more options then ever for funding. including kickstarter (which is how they funded arma 3).

[luki 53]

In a technical aspect the RV Engine is pretty rock solid, the part that holds it back and cripples performance is the way textures are rendered, as stated the engine is old and they use a pretty old technique for rendering the game. As obvious as it is the rendering part does not fully utilize a persons GPU. The engine was reviewed about two years ago by Nvidia and they gave their assessment on the engine which was stated above. If they actually spent the time to go through and get rid of some of the old ways and bring it up to current times I think with my opinion it could be one of the best engines out there from a technical standpoint. As far as being user friendly well we all can't be like CryEngine or Unreal Engine which is made in mind to be user friendly. You don't just design and program something to be user friendly unless you are looking to outsource it, if you know the ways who cares about the other people.

I see a lot of people complaining about the engine being old and all these graphical problems but lets be honest, what game have you seen that builds open terrain on the scale that Bohemia does and keep some-what high-fidelity? I would love to know because I don't know of any. Games built on this scale look like utter crap if you ask me and mainly because they are not meant to look great, hell ARMA 2 has some really sexy angles to it and that game was built in/around 2008 and released in 2009. If you have a problem with the engine then by all means go make your own, have fun dumping 5-6 years into that while also spending millions. No one re-invents the wheel anymore because it costs to much and it's not like they can switch because Bohemia is not the type of company to use another engine that they don't own rights to nor will any studio/publisher out there. They all use their own proprietary engine and software so stop barking up that tree.

I think they have been on the right track for 5 years now slowly getting up with the times and chucking out old parts that are obsolete but they are really just focusing their time on the wrong parts which is one of the problems with ARMA 3 as a game is currently facing, development being spent on the wrong problems, more focus towards the easily fixed problems but ehh.. That's game development/business for you.

That's just my two cents on the RV-Engine, I think it is a Splendidâ„¢ engine overall and have no doubt that it will see further improvement once they shift development of it in the right path and no I am not a fan-boy of Bohemia, actually the opposite.

I see that exactly as you, thanks for that post!

Would love to see more support for modders, the time you have to spend on some stuff is just ridiculous and sometimes it's hard to continue.

The Engine itself and what you can create and do with it is just amazing.

ArmA3 looks sometimes photorealistic, models and textures are extremely detailed, terrain and vegetation the most natural and real one I ever saw in any game, amazing AI, almost endless editing possibilities.

[343guiltyspark 10]

In a technical aspect the RV Engine is pretty rock solid, the part that holds it back and cripples performance is the way textures are rendered, as stated the engine is old and they use a pretty old technique for rendering the game. As obvious as it is the rendering part does not fully utilize a persons GPU. The engine was reviewed about two years ago by Nvidia and they gave their assessment on the engine which was stated above. If they actually spent the time to go through and get rid of some of the old ways and bring it up to current times I think with my opinion it could be one of the best engines out there from a technical standpoint. As far as being user friendly well we all can't be like CryEngine or Unreal Engine which is made in mind to be user friendly. You don't just design and program something to be user friendly unless you are looking to outsource it, if you know the ways who cares about the other people.

I see a lot of people complaining about the engine being old and all these graphical problems but lets be honest, what game have you seen that builds open terrain on the scale that Bohemia does and keep some-what high-fidelity? I would love to know because I don't know of any. Games built on this scale look like utter crap if you ask me and mainly because they are not meant to look great, hell ARMA 2 has some really sexy angles to it and that game was built in/around 2008 and released in 2009. If you have a problem with the engine then by all means go make your own, have fun dumping 5-6 years into that while also spending millions. No one re-invents the wheel anymore because it costs to much and it's not like they can switch because Bohemia is not the type of company to use another engine that they don't own rights to nor will any studio/publisher out there. They all use their own proprietary engine and software so stop barking up that tree.

I think they have been on the right track for 5 years now slowly getting up with the times and chucking out old parts that are obsolete but they are really just focusing their time on the wrong parts which is one of the problems with ARMA 3 as a game is currently facing, development being spent on the wrong problems, more focus towards the easily fixed problems but ehh.. That's game development/business for you.

That's just my two cents on the RV-Engine, I think it is a Splendidâ„¢ engine overall and have no doubt that it will see further improvement once they shift development of it in the right path and no I am not a fan-boy of Bohemia, actually the opposite.

This is honestly a silly argument. Here is why. As far as game engines go , there are very few uniquely purposed game engines. Almost all of the proprietary engines are universal in function for various genres of games like unreal and cryengine. this means they are ALL AROUND engines. Where as the engine for arma is designed specifically for large enviroments with high fidelity.

There is a reason there are no other engines to compete with the one we have now. There is no actual demand because BIS has always delivered everything the genre needs.

BIS could make a giant leap in technology if they put time and money into it. So that question you asked about other engines would actually be answered by BIS making a new engine , not by strawmanning by saying nobody else has an engine like it.

[Jona33 51]

lol what?

Didn't think that was a very tricky concept myself.

They have an engine

They have worked on this engine

The engine is significantly better than when they started*

You propose removing this engine

All work done on this engine is wasted

Building a new engine will bring in far more bugs than it will solve

They will then need to do more work on this new engine to bring it up to the same standard

*I'm almost certain you'll try and deny this, so let me spell it out

-Graphics, looks better. Starting easy

-PhysX, obvious really

-Slingloading, a new feature

-Firing from Vehicles, a new feature to the engine

-Performance, maybe it was just me, but ARMA II ran like crap and looked pretty poor. ARMA III runs badly (I should note my machine is pretty low-spec, I don't have much hope on this score) but even on low it looks better.

-The scripting engine that accompanies the game, that's been developed over the years

-The inventory system, backpacks weren't even possible until ARMA II OA for god's sake.

-Advanced flight models, not a feature we've seen before.

-Ragdoll physics (needs some expanding but it's there).

And I only really started at ARMA III, I'm sure there's plenty more.

Obviously this wouldn't take the same time span to produce, but it would still be essentially wasted work.

(Also where did you get the information ARMA III was funded from kickstarter, I can't find anything about that at all).

EDIT: And what the hell has the ARMA III setting got anything to do with this, personally I like it but it doesn't matter at all when talking about the game engine.

[343guiltyspark 10]

Didn't think that was a very tricky concept myself.

They have an engine

They have worked on this engine

The engine is significantly better than when they started*

You propose removing this engine

All work done on this engine is wasted

Building a new engine will bring in far more bugs than it will solve

They will then need to do more work on this new engine to bring it up to the same standard

*I'm almost certain you'll try and deny this, so let me spell it out

-Graphics, looks better. Starting easy

-PhysX, obvious really

-Slingloading, a new feature

-Firing from Vehicles, a new feature to the engine

-Performance, maybe it was just me, but ARMA II ran like crap and looked pretty poor. ARMA III runs badly (I should note my machine is pretty low-spec, I don't have much hope on this score) but even on low it looks better.

-The scripting engine that accompanies the game, that's been developed over the years

-The inventory system, backpacks weren't even possible until ARMA II OA for god's sake.

-Advanced flight models, not a feature we've seen before.

-Ragdoll physics (needs some expanding but it's there).

And I only really started at ARMA III, I'm sure there's plenty more.

Obviously this wouldn't take the same time span to produce, but it would still be essentially wasted work.

(Also where did you get the information ARMA III was funded from kickstarter, I can't find anything about that at all).

getting rid of the engine does not = getting rid of the experience they have made working with it. It only enhances their ability to make an even better engine for the arma environment.

An engine is more than just features , its the way the code is written. The way the code is written in arma 3 is using the same dated patterns of the early 2000s.

This is why there are so many bottlenecks and needs for the devlopers to bend over backwards to add relatively simple features. Its because the devs have to find tricks and workarounds to the old code to get things to work. Things like PIP should not be a landmark feature of an FPS in 2014.

As for kickstarter , i mispoke , they used early adoption , which is essentially the same exact thing.

[Jona33 51]

Yes but it does mean writing the code from scratch, and knowledge =/= a working engine. If you haven't noticed they are improving the code, yes some stuff needs re-writing, but re-writing everything is completely pointless. Then you also have the modding community to consider, e.g. a new engine means nothing from previous games will work anymore, new configs, new tools, possibly a new scripting language. About the only thing that would be transferable would be raw 3D models. Look at how many mods are at least developed from A2 assets and have a think about if it's a good idea to throw them all away. This is a game that depends on user content to a great extent, even I use a few mods (and I'm mostly averse to it).

[343guiltyspark 10]

Yes but it does mean writing the code from scratch, and knowledge =/= a working engine. If you haven't noticed they are improving the code, yes some stuff needs re-writing, but re-writing everything is completely pointless. Then you also have the modding community to consider, e.g. a new engine means nothing from previous games will work anymore, new configs, new tools, possibly a new scripting language. About the only thing that would be transferable would be raw 3D models. Look at how many mods are at least developed from A2 assets and have a think about if it's a good idea to throw them all away. This is a game that depends on user content to a great extent, even I use a few mods (and I'm mostly averse to it).

bro take one look at arma 2 server list. Its garbage filled with role playing and zombies. Nothing of serious value will be lost short of ace mod which content is mostly sounds and models. Its functions are easily replicated if the engine is modernized.

Them creating a new engine will make modding easier. Them using modern language will make modding quicker.

none of your arguments make any sense. The engine is old. the content you are able to add to these games is reaching its limit. With each new implementation this engine is straining under features it was never designed to have from the beginning.

Re-writing from scratch with better language will solve more problems than you can imagine.

will there be a long wait? sure. It could be 3-5 years....

Will it be worth it? definately. Imagine what arma would be like if you could max it out and have 256 player games. That type of stuff is possible if they re-write the engine correctly.

Imagine an engine with for example built in terrain deformation / interactive foliage / fire propagation / electricity propagation / and even destructable buildings.

All of this is possible for one reason , its a specific , purpose built engine. Not a universal engine like cryengine or unreal that has to adapt to many different genres and thus maxes out its graphical fidelity but limits its raw distance rendering and AI limits.

By streamlining the engine from the start for a future of arma games , they can truely make some magic.

but it will require full commitment from the devs and the skeptical community who love abuse.

[babylonjoke 22]

you are the best example of the lazy guys im talking about. here it didnt took me 2 seconds:

http://www.cryengine.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=314&t=74175

https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cryengine+3+MMO+terrain+streaming

https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cryengine+3+large+terrains

now, look around.

Lol, took me 2 seconds to confirm my hypothesis.

A small quote from someone who knows more then me and you:

"1. AIon is CE1. NCSoft is using their custom version of CE1. Not CE2.

2. You can make bigger map. 8096x8096 is recommended biggest size. You can make much bigger size. But it sometimes make huge performance drop and graphics bug."

They all talk about "technically possible" (as I said) but no one shown A DECENT exemple of what it can be achived.

And why do you think none of these projects has ever been released?

Edited January 19, 2015 by Babylonjoke

[IndeedPete 1038]

An engine is more than just features , its the way the code is written. The way the code is written in arma 3 is using the same dated patterns of the early 2000s.

This is why there are so many bottlenecks and needs for the devlopers to bend over backwards to add relatively simple features. Its because the devs have to find tricks and workarounds to the old code to get things to work. Things like PIP should not be a landmark feature of an FPS in 2014.

How can you know that? Again, do you or anyone else have access to actual source code or information about the game's architecture? And if so, are you qualified to judge if code is written in the same dated patterns of the early 2000s? (Whatever that means, anyway.)

[343guiltyspark 10]

How can you know that? Again, do you or anyone else have access to actual source code or information about the game's architecture? And if so, are you qualified to judge if code is written in the same dated patterns of the early 2000s? (Whatever that means, anyway.)

we discussed this yesterday

[IndeedPete 1038]

we discussed this yesterday

Uhm, going through yesterday's posts in this thread I can't find anything answering my questions. Could you point me to it?

[devilslayersbane 28]

getting rid of the engine does not = getting rid of the experience they have made working with it. It only enhances their ability to make an even better engine for the arma environment.

An engine is more than just features , its the way the code is written. The way the code is written in arma 3 is using the same dated patterns of the early 2000s.

This is why there are so many bottlenecks and needs for the devlopers to bend over backwards to add relatively simple features. Its because the devs have to find tricks and workarounds to the old code to get things to work. Things like PIP should not be a landmark feature of an FPS in 2014.

As for kickstarter , i mispoke , they used early adoption , which is essentially the same exact thing.

Actually it's a lot more than "the way the code is written" since the logic behind most languages is extremely similar. It's more of what is actually written. Also, for those of you claiming that CryEngine is this godsend that can create giant terrains like ArmA's engine, no. People have done it and you loose all detail to the terrain since it's so large. While yeah they can create terrains of up to 262kmx262km (actual maximum size from the editor) you won't have any detail.

Now as someone who can't look at the source code, I can only report the symptoms, JUST LIKE YOU 343 (go imagine). That means that even if we're both the most prolific coders in history (which we aren't, neither of us have heard of each other) than we cannot assume to know the problem. The only thing I do know is that my Core 0 usage spikes whenever I have AI on a map. What this means is that AI probably is only loaded on a single core. What it doesn't mean is that AI is the only thing slowing the game down. There are many other possibilities out there such as a workaround to make sure that all of your precious modern-day content from arma 2 could be ported over with relative ease (which is fine as long as it's not holding the engine back). The game's setting is not the issue here.

As for the concept that no one wants to talk about performance: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=716 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1264 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=815 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3505 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=4635 http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12658

Nobody want's to talk about it? It would seem here that there are plenty of people talking about it; you just didn't want to do your research. Hell, there are even people willing to help the devs find the source. But here you are shouting "new engine, new engine, throw away the 10 years of work you've put in to make this engine what it is and make a new engine!" Do you not see how childish you sound/look? Take a look at my signature for a second and realize that most of the people on these forums are here for more than just complaining that an engine that is 10 years old is running poorly and that they should replace it. Some people are actually trying to help Bohemia fix the engine that goes into more than just ArmA (which it does) because they have a mutual trust that the community cares enough about the game to report issues and that bohemia cares enough about their community to fix the issues.

That being said, the Arma 3 team is comprised of humans who can't get to everything that needs to be addressed right away. So, if you want to talk about fixing the engine, by all means, join the discussion. If all you want to do is spam the forums with another useless discussion, just sit here and complain about how arma needs a new engine. The choice is yours.

[Defunkt 431]

So, if you want to talk about fixing the engine, by all means, join the discussion.

At some point though some actual meaningful progress has to be made or one can only conclude that it's beyond BI's ability to fix this engine. The very same topic has been repeating over and over since ArmA 2 released over 5 years ago. Will you still be in favour of fixing this engine if we get to 2020 and we're still seeing ArmA running like arse because it can only fully utilize one of our (by then 16) cores?

[Arma3goodCPUlowFPS 12]

Lol, took me 2 seconds to confirm my hypothesis.

A small quote from someone who knows more then me and you:

"1. AIon is CE1. NCSoft is using their custom version of CE1. Not CE2.

2. You can make bigger map. 8096x8096 is recommended biggest size. You can make much bigger size. But it sometimes make huge performance drop and graphics bug."

And why do you think none of these projects has ever been released?

oh god you are fucking stupid and didnt read my post before. it took me 2 seconds to confirm what i thought, that you didnt done your research nor didnt read my post before.

to the first point: this is what i talked about, you have to contact crytek and then they may give you (if you prove them you are working on this and this and has the teampower etc) the source code for the terrains and then you have to code your terrain system into cryengine for your game. and if CE1 or CE2, what does it matter ? its possible to code large terrains in every version of cryengine. oh and every company / team who use cryengine for theyr games, customize the engine to make it fit to theyr game so @the end, it is a custom version.

to the second point: yeah. thats for the standard user, for those who use the free ce3 sdk or the newer version which can downloaded via steam but it costs $10 per month. (the free sdk is unsupported now, they wont working on it anymore, if you want the updated and supported cryengine 3 you need to get it from steam for $10 per month). but still if you use the updated and supported version, you can NOT have huge terrain sizes in standard, you still has to contact crytek and prove them you are working on a game which use cryengine and you made progress etc etc etc...

and making huge terrains works different than in arma, you cant simply have ONE 40960 x 40960 meter in cryengine, this is not how it works in cryengine, here is a example of one method how it works in cryengine:

there are some projects out which are working with terrain streaming, just do research yourself.

with this:

"1. AIon is CE1. NCSoft is using their custom version of CE1. Not CE2.

you knocked out yourself, first saying that large terrain isnt possible, but then quoting a project which confirm what i wrote: that you have to code it into the cryengine to have large terrain available.

and for your last question: i dont know what you mean, i didnt talked about any project specific in my previous posts and it doesnt really matter if these projects are going to be released or not. fact is that its possible to have large terrain in cryengine (and for you: doesnt matter what version since different projects are working on different cryengine versions) and that these projects showed us that is possible to have large terrains (again for you: large terrains works different in CE than in arma)

i hope this time you understand.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Arma3goodCPUlowFPS

[zukov 489]

the max size in cryengine 2 is 100 km2 (water included), achieved by a guy for a airplanes's mod, the ground textures was very low and the mod was full of bugs. http://www.cryengine.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=25876

i repeat from other posts the problem in arma 3 are the HUGE terrains ! this giant islands are without sense for small amount of players and always a huge demand of system resource s

why BIS doesn't try a map like archipelago with small island , the FPS suddenly will grow up!

better map/island design this is the key

Edited January 19, 2015 by Zukov

[nikiforos 450]

Main problem with the engine is not the map size but the AI calculations. I have over 110 FPS on Stratis and on Altis in empty editor but as soon as AI start to work FPS will drop instantly.

[il_padrino 1530]

models and textures are extremely detailed, terrain and vegetation the most natural and real one I ever saw in any game, amazing AI, almost endless editing possibilities.