Confirmation of new Engine in development?

[dcal 16]

An article just posted by PC Perspective seems to inadvertently confirm BI is working on a new Engine for future Arma games?

Article: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/Interview-Bohemia-Interactive-ArmA-3-Developer-Expansion-Optimization-Roadmap?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

"Our new engine (not for Arma 3) will likely use more modern approaches and handle advanced hardware more efficiently."

[Jackal326 1181]

An article just posted by PC Perspective seems to inadvertently confirm BI is working on a new Engine for future Arma games?

Article: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/Interview-Bohemia-Interactive-ArmA-3-Developer-Expansion-Optimization-Roadmap?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

"Our new engine (not for Arma 3) will likely use more modern approaches and handle advanced hardware more efficiently."

Not necessarily for ArmA4 either though. Could be for another project like a Carrier Command sequel or some-such.

[l337acc 15]

I can't imagine that they would be building a new engine and not eventually use it for future Arma games, though.

[semiconductor 309]

I can't imagine that they would be building a new engine and not eventually use it for future Arma games, though.

For some reason I tend to agree with Jackal326. My guess is that BI planning to create a separate game (or update DayZ's engine) which will be similar to Wasteland/Altis Life gamemodes and will include in-game purchases, strong anti-cheat protection, inability to use mods and other attributes of MMORPGs. Given the popularity of those gamemodes and willingness of average TF2/Dota/CS:GO player to regularly spend money on in-game cosmetics I think BI could expect a decent amount of money flowing into its bank accounts each day if such game will come to life.

This is only a guess though.

[dcal 16]

He brings it up as a counter point about performance in an article about Arma 3. If the new engine is for a different game or series why would he bring it up? The new engine will probably have multiple game spin offs is would guess. If they are writing a new engine it would be smart to make it versatile and multi use.

[haleks 8212]

quote : "VAN ‘T LAND: We don't have plans for Mantle support at the moment."

:(

[badluckburt 78]

That quote does make a bit of sense since Marek was pretty excited about DX12.

And this quote proves he's well versed in the art of saying nothing:

VAN ‘T LAND: Very little at the moment; your readers will need to wait a while longer. We can say that progress has been good, and the terrain is looking better and better every day. It's feeling fresh and contrasts the existing Altis and Stratis terrains. In terms of production, the environment team has sculpted the height map, determined key points, and even installed many placeholder objects.

Not even a hint of how it 'contrasts' the Altis and Stratis terrains :(

I should add though, the interview was a nice read.

[windies 11]

No offense meant honestly but that interview firmly cemented to me that BI seem hellbent on blaming performance issue's of the core game on mods and also shows me that BI are the masters of saying a lot while actually saying nothing. Ultimately it's disappointing at best. Personally if I devoted a lot of my time to developing any mods or content on this platform I would be a bit miffed at them trying to pass the buck to me when it comes to their engine. Granted mods can affect performance, but it's been shown time and time again that the main issue's lay within the engine, not mods.

Also with the semi confirmation that the new engine won't be used in Arma 3 and with the ethos of developing on the Arma 3 platform for a long time, My guess is this will be the last Arma we see for awhile, if we ever see a new release.

[naizarak 4]

probably referring to the new dayz engine that supposed to work on consoles

also what i got from that interview was a lot of "no's" and excuses

[Maio 293]

The new engine is called "Enfusion" and was announced last year via BI's corporate brochure (I think :confused:) It's a mix of the RV and Enforce engines.

As for the interview, it was ok. Balanced and cautious answers, considering the scope of Arma :)

Edited February 25, 2015 by Maio

[jumpinghubert 49]

the info isn´t that bad the only company that makes games like arma3 have future plans in a new engine. Maby not enough for a "hurray" but for a lets wait and have a look later....in the meantime we can play all the alternatives to arma3 :p

[teilx 4]

Haha BIS is gonna go crazy

“Being multi-core†is a bit too simplified in our opinion. We do use multiple cores and threads for various parts of the simulation.

fail

“large-scale MP performanceâ€

since OPF they never reached and always promised

We're investigating ponds, but cannot promise they’ll be included. Flowing rivers and similar water bodies are not planned for Arma 3.

lol

PC Perspective: What new features can we expect to see in the ArmA 3 Expansion mentioned in the Roadmap?

good question.... maybe BIS could anwser :" let's see what the Com will develop"

Interview is a big lie and fail in my opinion xD

Edited February 25, 2015 by TeilX

[Maio 293]

Interview is a big lie and fail in my opinion xD

The point of a interview is to obtain information from a source.

If the interview is not staged (masked press release, etc) then the interviewer has no guarantee over the quantity of information extracted from its source (BI in this case), nor the value of said information to its target audience (the readers).

Calling it a "fail" is understandable, as it offered you and others no new information of value, but calling it a "lie" is a little impractical :)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

To cut it short, the Engine is NOT for Arma 3, or 4. I couldn't see them using an Engine so very close to RV4 for another Arma game, that should be next level. It would be a surefire setup for failure. Though, they are working on a new Engine, they're next game is probably still, DayZ, as it hasn't left Beta yet. In fact, it's almost as if it's still Alpha.

[vegeta897 13]

To cut it short, the Engine is NOT for Arma 3, or 4. I couldn't see them using an Engine so very close to RV4 for another Arma game, that should be next level. It would be a surefire setup for failure.

I don't see the logic of that. Why would they throw out all their work on a new engine? Every Arma game has been built on the previous game's engine. Why would this be any different? Were all the Arma games failures? Certainly not, so I don't see how you can assert that their strategy of building upon the engine they've been working on is a setup for failure. There seems to be a common belief that starting from scratch is a better choice and will fix all problems. Programming doesn't work like that. There are no permanent parts of an engine that require they abandon the entire engine just to get away from. Anything can be redeveloped if it has problems, in a modular fashion. That's what they've been doing with Enfusion. Anything that they would do differently in a brand new engine is something they can already do on top of the engine they already have. So why throw out work? Enfusion is already looking like it will be the most drastic change in the RV engine ever, and they're designing it with future games in mind. What part of that is not "next level", and how is it a surefire setup for failure?

In fact, it's almost as if it's still Alpha.

It is still alpha.

Edited February 25, 2015 by vegeta897

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I don't see the logic of that. Why would they throw out all their work on a new engine? Every Arma game has been built on the previous game's engine. Why would this be any different? Were all the Arma games failures? Certainly not, so I don't see how you can assert that their strategy of building upon the engine they've been working on is a setup for failure. There seems to be a common belief that starting from scratch is a better choice and will fix all problems. Enfusion is already looking like it will be the most drastic change in the RV engine ever, and they're designing it with future games in mind. What part of that is not "next level", and how is it a surefire setup for failure?

It is still alpha.

Good for confirmation. But, i wouldn't say they'd throw out all their hard earned work and go ahead with a new Engine. They would probably do something along the lines of HEAVY DUTY overhauling, that is, if they are willing to change the key aspects that need changing, in order to vastly improve the game in Area's where it can be something more, bigger improvements. There is hope for this, as they've stated that BIS is growing as an idie Company, and hopefully we can see advances in the Engine come the next Arma. But with simple things the Engine should be able to do, for example, it can't even handle animated attachments for guns. This is a big sign that the Engine needs massive Overhaul. I don't know exactly what they did with the Engine compared to Arma 2, i'm guessing it's more basic given Arma 2 terrains and such can still be used in Arma 3's Engine, but Lighting, Optimization, Underwater Features, are some of the biggest things they overhauled for RV4. Admittedly Lighting being the best, it looks good, but now it has to feel even better if they are going to be making a next level game. who knows. But as we know for now, the Engine isn't for the Arma 3, and i would say it has to go through stages to reach acceptable Arma 4 level of optimization.

[vegeta897 13]

But with simple things the Engine should be able to do, for example, it can't even handle animated attachments for guns.

Perfect example of what I mean. Animated attachments are on the roadmap for DayZ, so it's going to be within the capabilities of Enfusion. Enfusion is a whole lot of heavy duty overhauling (that's why DayZ is taking so long), though you can bet there will be even more necessary to suit the engine back into milsim purposes for Arma 4.

[brightcandle 114]

Extremely disappointing to see it once again confirmed that BI considers the entire performance problem is scenarios and mods, despite all the tests showing the opposite. I called it 3 months ago when they added the boolean into the game that would tell them if the game was vanilla or not and right here we can see their true intention was never to improve performance in the game (which has barely moved since Alpha) but instead to ultimately blame the mods. The engine IS NOT MULTITHREADED, I have a lot of pictures showing that this is utterly untrue, categorically false, a complete fabrication, a lie plain and simple. This interview cements once again that Dyslexi was used to calm the complaints from the customers so they could keep shovelling this rubbish in our direction and tell us we are the problem while never ever fixing the game.

I hope a competitor realises the market potential of these types of games and releases a decently performing alternative, because I would switch game in a heartbeat.

[frostwyrm333 1]

No need for emotions. The engine does use multithreading, check wikipedia to find out what that means.

And it is true that some scenarios are horribly optimized.

You need to understand that they can't say anything bad about their product. He acknowledges its far from ideal and that its going to fixed in a new engine.

No competitors, they all failed. Big publishers care only about wide demographics.

Its kinda strange that DayZ turned from polished standalone mod to engine overhaul operation but its better than nothing I guess.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

No need for emotions. The engine does use multithreading, check wikipedia to find out what that means.

And it is true that some scenarios are horribly optimized.

You need to understand that they can't say anything bad about their product. He acknowledges its far from ideal and that its going to fixed in a new engine.

No competitors, they all failed. Big publishers care only about wide demographics.

Its kinda strange that DayZ turned from polished standalone mod to engine overhaul operation but its better than nothing I guess.

If you want to prove someone wrong, the best way to do it is not to bring Wikipedia into it. Ever. Not saying it may not be true, but it's not a rock solid source.

---------- Post added at 01:30 ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 ----------

Perfect example of what I mean. Animated attachments are on the roadmap for DayZ, so it's going to be within the capabilities of Enfusion. Enfusion is a whole lot of heavy duty overhauling (that's why DayZ is taking so long), though you can bet there will be even more necessary to suit the engine back into milsim purposes for Arma 4.

That's pure basic's though. What i'm thinking in terms of "Next Level" game, is something like... Idk, i cant bring up a good enough Engine, because not many things do what Arma does. Mainly though, it's things like when you switch weapons, sometimes your character will dive prone, switch to that weapon, switch back, stand up, and then switch to the weapon you wanted to use in the first place. Can't tell you when the last time this happened, but it's quite frustrating. Secondly, things like fluent animations, are a big BIG disappointment in the current RV4 Engine. Magazine's do not follow the hand, are not connected to the reload animation it'self. In fact, you can see this worse with rockets and underslung grenade launchers. Reload, and watch the hand closely. Vaulting is basic, kinda glitchy sometimes. There are a number of things about a hundred other people on this forum can explain better than i can that shouldn't make it into Arma 4 because it shows the rustiness of a long existing Engine that, some of those things still to this day, have not been fixed. I'll leave it at that.

[jumpinghubert 49]

I hope a competitor realises the market potential of these types of games and releases a decently performing alternative, because I would switch game in a heartbeat.

The first realistic point of view...congrats! Thats the only way to get a better game, from BIS because now they have to compete or from the new competitor.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Extremely disappointing to see it once again confirmed that BI considers the entire performance problem is scenarios and mods, despite all the tests showing the opposite. I called it 3 months ago when they added the boolean into the game that would tell them if the game was vanilla or not and right here we can see their true intention was never to improve performance in the game (which has barely moved since Alpha) but instead to ultimately blame the mods. The engine IS NOT MULTITHREADED, I have a lot of pictures showing that this is utterly untrue, categorically false, a complete fabrication, a lie plain and simple. This interview cements once again that Dyslexi was used to calm the complaints from the customers so they could keep shovelling this rubbish in our direction and tell us we are the problem while never ever fixing the game.

I hope a competitor realises the market potential of these types of games and releases a decently performing alternative, because I would switch game in a heartbeat.

I wouldn't say they're blaming it on mod(der)s, given that some mods by far, appear to be better additions to the game. Some modders even appear to absolutely shatter the Fabric of RV4 Engine, such as Make Love Not War and ProGamer's walking on moving vehicles script, and that one guys wizardry that creates a universe where you can fly outer space from Stratis or Altis and to the moon. Then there are sound mods like Laxemann's Soundscape that makes Arma sound 3D, and not 2D. The MK V. SOC that makes vnilla bots look like absolute crap compared to. That mod sets the standard for how boats SHOULD be in Arma 3, and yet, It's Not even Out yet. Blaming modders? No possible way they could do that. No way no how. That's what keeps their game alive sometimes. It's the things we turn to until BIS adds new things that make the game essentially better. They've done great some things with Arma 3, but they probably could've done ten times more if it weren't for Backwards compatibility, which is needed for modders.

Edited February 26, 2015 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[Misfit Leader 1]

It only happens when you switch from binocular from what i remember (old bug on the official tracker). Not for the weapons (at least not the vanilla).

To stay on the topic, it's clear that ArmA series need a new engine, it's one of the most demanding game for the CPU (in online game) and for the third installments of the series it's still using 2 core max.

The "next-gen" engine (such as CryEngine 3, or Watch Dogs' one) are using 4 or even 6 core. I am sure we are already trapped to 2 core until we move on to ArmA 4 which is a sad news (because it's a long way !).

Seeing my "old computer" (first i7 generation) perform so badly in online game but using only half of the ressource is killing me :/

[the_demongod 31]

I hope a competitor realises the market potential of these types of games and releases a decently performing alternative, because I would switch game in a heartbeat.

Same here, I'm really curious as to whether something could arise out of UNIENGINE, or some other Outerra based software like TitanIM. To be quite frank, they show a lot more promise as a base engine for a game like Arma than any other. In fact, because of how scalable they seem to be, it wouldn't be entirely crazy to try and build some sort of Arma + BMS/DCS mashup. Plus realistic transportation ranges, artillery ranges, air to air and surface to air engagement ranges, etc.

The cool thing is, with such a scalable system, your terrains could range from anywhere between small areas for those of you who like to play Wasteland, KoTH, A3L, etc. (the kids who seem to make up a significant chunk of A3 sales), to entire continents or even an entire planet. I assume these engines could have the game world be an entire planet at flightsim levels of detail, with "smaller" (altis sized or bigger) inset areas of high detail for infantry/vehicle operations (I know for a fact that VBS3 can do this). Outerra looks like it has both integrated terrain editing, and the added capability to generate a planet from scratch, so actual basic map creation/customization wouldn't be that hard.

Imagine a milsim game that includes space logistics and communications. U2-esque spy planes, ASAT missiles to cripple enemy satellite datalinks, actual radar, or even suborbital transport. Having such a flexible platform would mean the sky's the limit (actually, space, but whatever) when it comes to features and content, which would be a massive step up from our current situation (wanting to overstep this outdated engine's already overstressed boundaries).

EDIT: Messed around with the Outerra demo a bit. It can't generate terrain like I though it might be able to, its clouds and trees are shitty 2D billboards, the current terrain resolution is 100m so the terrain is very bland... BUT: it looks very good from any distance (from 10m to outer space), runs fairly well (much better than arma, although there aren't really objects so it's hard to compare), and seems to have better vehicle physics already. I'm sure it supports the capability to have hi-def terrain insets.

Edited February 26, 2015 by the_Demongod

[Lavish 10]

This would be awesome.