VBS2/3 Discussion thread - the one and only

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

That appears to be Waveworks they're using.

 

 

Or an iteration of it.

 

Which would be actually crazy cool, considering that's basically next gen tech from NVidia. It also looks, an functions great, and i've heard it does sync. It really is an outstanding feature. VBS seems to have Naval assets and features like no other game. Though, i wonder how al of that works, from the massive carrier, jets, and people on board, and moving, in waves. Of course though, it appears they're flight model could use tweaking, an F-18 would not be pull straight up like that upon take off.

[chortles 263]

It is highly unlikely since they have both become completely different products and are developed by separate companies.

That and as per above, BISim is now " solely focused on supporting our military, government and commercial customer base who are the intended users of VBS and the new line up of software we offer" so development priorities (i.e. intended use) will probably continue to diverge: did you know that the BISim co-CEO actually floated the idea of making a Xbox One controller the default VBS control scheme?

By the way, I checked BI's company brochure (dated November 2014) which states that RV is licensed for use in VBS3 -- don't forget that RV was previously licensed for use in Iron Front -- but also that "There is a cross licensing agreement in place between the two companies with regards to the sharing of technologies commercial and serious gaming ." Wonder how that worked...

Incidentally, this tweet might be another indicator as to why they might be diverging more in the future: at the individual or team scales we as mission-makers or modders might be okay with learning a wholly new scripting language, on an enterprise scale not so much...

[target_practice 163]

Yes, it's another one of those threads. I can tell the reason that there are so many threads on this is becasuse the overall answer is no, but I'd like to know why for myself.

 

There are a number of features in VBS, such as underground objects and units walking on moving ships, which would be very useful in Arma.

I am aware that BI Studios and Simulations are two seperate companies; but sim started as a spinoff, and they both have an agreement to share technology (VBS and Arma both run on version of Real Virtuality, and Arma 3 does already use some technology developed by Sim for a start.).

 

I am also aware that the whole reason VBS is far more expensive and with more features is because it is intended as a more robust simulation; which is made with more funding from military customers.

 

But some of it's features, like the examples given above, are the sort of thing that would be perfectly feasable for use in BI Studios' civilian products. Even if technology developed by Simulations isn't direclty used, why shouldn't Studios program their own versions?

[DancZer 65]

VBS is a very robust system. There are lot of modules around the VBS core, which we compare most of the time with Arma. It's like Linux. Linux family tree. Somewhere in the past they have the same roots, but they never merge in the future except the very common root source. Different team with different community and different vision.

[Gruman 123]

Well, many features are great, I agree. Probably the only reason why I install VBS 3.x 3-4 times a year and test it out for an hour. 

-I miss walking in aircrafts (Thanks to RHS we have the first step complete :) ) which only appies to the CH46/47 and C130 and the Spartan

-I miss Fastrope, which is only a scripted solution in VBS afaik

-I miss jumping out of moving airplanes

 

Underground structures would be very handy, for terrain builders at least. But I already see structures with wierd geometry which lets you fall through the floor into infinity :D

 

The rest of VBS is basicly just unneeded complex. No wonder, because that way they can offer courses for users for much money. -_-

[target_practice 163]

I assume other people have already requested ground cutting like in VBS, has there been an answer regarding it?

 

VBS is a very robust system. There are lot of modules around the VBS core, which we compare most of the time with Arma. It's like Linux. Linux family tree. Somewhere in the past they have the same roots, but they never merge in the future except the very common root source. Different team with different community and different vision.

 

In regards to what you said, I can see how successive VBS installments differ more from their Arma counterparts. VBS 1 and 2 looked a lot like OFP and Arma 1/2 respecitively, while VBS3 looks quite different from Arma 3

 

Well, many features are great, I agree. Probably the only reason why I install VBS 3.x 3-4 times a year and test it out for an hour. 

-I miss walking in planes (Thanks to RHS we have the first step complete :) ) which only appies to the CH46/47 and C130 and the Spartan

-I miss Fastrope, which is only a scripted solution in VBS afaik

-I miss jumping out of moving airplanes

 

Underground structures would be very handy, for terrain builders at least. But I already see structures with wierd geometry which lets you fall through the floor into infinity :D

 

The rest of VBS is basicly just unneeded complex. No wonder, because that way they can offer couses for users for much money. -_-

 

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoAw9W9iz7g) and (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q-IuvATr5c) were the kind of things I was reffering to.

[Ranwer135 308]

It is quite understandable that VBS2 is much more complex than Arma's systems. Apparently, DayZ SA has some of those systems within the game. But as before, the program is preferred for military purposes only.

However, it is very possible to replicate some of the features of VBS into Arma. For myself, my current project DSS will include a feature where you can rotate your character within the inventory.

So in overall, Arma probably won't be getting the full VBS treatment yet.

[artisanal 22]

Yes, it's another one of those threads. I can tell the reason that there are so many threads on this is becasuse the overall answer is no, but I'd like to know why for myself.

 

There are a number of features in VBS, such as underground objects and units walking on moving ships, which would be very useful in Arma.

I am aware that BI Studios and Simulations are two seperate companies; but sim started as a spinoff, and they both have an agreement to share technology (VBS and Arma both run on version of Real Virtuality, and Arma 3 does already use some technology developed by Sim for a start.).

 

I am also aware that the whole reason VBS is far more expensive and with more features is because it is intended as a more robust simulation; which is made with more funding from military customers.

 

But some of it's features, like the examples given above, are the sort of thing that would be perfectly feasable for use in BI Studios' civilian products. Even if technology developed by Simulations isn't direclty used, why shouldn't Studios program their own versions?

 

Well, I'd say it's because of the many private contracts and exclusivity clauses which are made with VBS clients (which are public entities or big companies).

[da12thMonkey 1943]

.... but I'd like to know why for myself.

 

...There are a number of features in VBS, such as underground objects

 

The removal of underground objects as a feature of Arma 3 was explained: it couldn't be made to work with the AI.

 

BIS already get enough complaints about how the AI can't do things that seem logical to us humans, like reversing vehicles properly, crossing bridges, walking through narrow gaps, entering buildings for cover. So why on earth would they willingly decide to add a bunch of stuff that'll make the AI more worthy of complaint?

 

I suspect AI is also a factor in why they don't do walking on moving platforms, and IIRC they elected not to do fastroping for the Heli DLC either since the AI would mostly just walk off too their deaths.

 

Shitty AI isn't so much of a factor in VBS since the humans are often performing all complex tasks in the training scenario.

[Gruman 123]

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoAw9W9iz7g) and (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q-IuvATr5c) were the kind of things I was reffering to.

Yep, I know. Nice Nimitz, completly forgot that they promoted that in this video. Sadly it isnt in the PE version. probably a US Navy only thing.

But that now makes me curious how its solved. If its the same as the C-130 its probably just a fancy script with attachTo and animations. Will try it tonight.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Some VBS solutions are quite 'hacky', put together at request of clients, in spite of engine limitations.

 

Things don't have to be quite as robust if they're not exposed to MP gameplay.

[target_practice 163]

The removal of underground objects as a feature of Arma 3 was explained: it couldn't be made to work with the AI.

 

Source?

[en3x 209]

That is the main thing about VBS - they can take hacky way to implement solutions because they don't have to deal with AI as much as arma 3.

I remember one of the BI developers mentioned similar stuff about VBS3 rivers - they don't really work well with AI and they can have more freedome

as oppose to Arma 3.

[chortles 263]

Well, many features are great, I agree. Probably the only reason why I install VBS 3.x 3-4 times a year and test it out for an hour. 

-I miss walking in aircrafts (Thanks to RHS we have the first step complete :) ) which only appies to the CH46/47 and C130 and the Spartan

-I miss Fastrope, which is only a scripted solution in VBS afaik

Both VBS3 fast roping and sling-loading (along with supply drops and towing) require Editor module placement whereas Arma 3 sling-loading is, if not "engine-native", at least integrated into vanilla helicopter operation without (visible) module involvement. Indeed, from reading the manual on VBS3 fast roping it appears as if the fast rope module is essentially for specific debarkings -- that is to say, you have to place the module (Editor Object) where you want the fast rope to occur, it has to be synced to a transport helicopter with passengers, and the parameters -- hover height, which units will fast rope, whether the rope is subsequently jettisoned or recovered, whether the fast-roping sequence will be triggered by a condition or by proximity to the module -- are presumably for that specific debarking.

 

In turn, sling loading requires placement of an Editor Object specifying "allow carry of nearest object" (default rope length), "rope <length>m on nearest helicopter" (5 to 15 m in 2.5 m increments), or "start carrying nearest object" (with helicopter already Flying so that the cargo is underslung at scenario start); in VBS3 the hook is auto-attached at two (2) meters' proximity to an applicable object (currently "All PhysX land vehicle models") and raising/lowering/releasing of the hook is via action menu.

The rest of VBS is basicly just unneeded complex. No wonder, because that way they can offer courses for users for much money. -_-

No kidding, holy moly, there's even browser-based training:

Some VBS solutions are quite 'hacky', put together at request of clients, in spite of engine limitations.

Sometimes they're even exclusive to specific clients -- for example, select features for the upgraded Eurocopter Tiger ARH were ADF-exclusive until VBS v3.6.

[ProfTournesol 956]

https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/105547-vbs23-discussion-thread-the-one-and-only/

[target_practice 163]

There was a reason that I didn't post it there.

[chortles 263]

But some of it's features, like the examples given above, are the sort of thing that would be perfectly feasable for use in BI Studios' civilian products. Even if technology developed by Simulations isn't direclty used, why shouldn't Studios program their own versions?

It's not a matter of "should", because they've already done that with sling loading as per the above comparison, but the different devs are also driven by quite different priorities and no-longer-overlapping different target markets, some of which have been alluded to/discussed above, i.e. VBS3 customers letting slide hacky or not-across-the-board implementations that Arma players might not.

[target_practice 163]

As I've already mentioned at the start of this thread, I know that this sort of thing will not be done, but I just want to know why.

[dr. hladik 231]

Well, it is not as easy as you might think ;).

Some VBS solutions are just quick hacks, some are not compatible with other A3 features, some ignore AI, some have huge impact on performace, some would require huge changes in A3 code, some are not linux (server) friendly, some are just for effect, some are awesome and are merged (one nice VBS optimization should come with next patch).

 

For example FLIR, FFV and sling loading had to completly rewritten. Fast roping doesn't solve AI on roofs. Huge moving ships are not supported in A3 engine. Underground structures are not AI friendly. Aircraft carrier is awesome, but not a priority for A3.

 

Today VBS is very different product with very different customers.

[x3kj 1247]

 

Underground structures are not AI friendly.

And also big performance hogs for whatever reason...

I can only imagine what it would be like to play a big OP at a training center at 20 fps :D

[Dwarden 1125]

also underground structures in VBS2 weren't exactly lighting and shadows friendly ...

[target_practice 163]

I always did assume that the technology would be easier to recreate than port over, but atleast I do now know why that isn't happening either.

If RV4 did support large moving objects that would have been amazing :)  

[froggyluv 2136]

Well, it is not as easy as you might think ;).

Some VBS solutions are just quick hacks, some are not compatible with other A3 features, some ignore AI, some have huge impact on performace, some would require huge changes in A3 code, some are not linux (server) friendly, some are just for effect, some are awesome and are merged (one nice VBS optimization should come with next patch).

 

For example FLIR, FFV and sling loading had to completly rewritten. Fast roping doesn't solve AI on roofs. Huge moving ships are not supported in A3 engine. Underground structures are not AI friendly. Aircraft carrier is awesome, but not a priority for A3.

 

Today VBS is very different product with very different customers.

 

Please for the love of all things holy -sticky this!!!!!111

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well, it is not as easy as you might think ;).

Some VBS solutions are just quick hacks, some are not compatible with other A3 features, some ignore AI, some have huge impact on performace, some would require huge changes in A3 code, some are not linux (server) friendly, some are just for effect, some are awesome and are merged (one nice VBS optimization should come with next patch).

 

For example FLIR, FFV and sling loading had to completly rewritten. Fast roping doesn't solve AI on roofs. Huge moving ships are not supported in A3 engine. Underground structures are not AI friendly. Aircraft carrier is awesome, but not a priority for A3.

 

Today VBS is very different product with very different customers.

What about medium ships that provide more game-play opportunity, such as for example, the mod Mk V Soc? I believe there is some use for features like being able to not be in a seat, on a moving vehicle. That feature for example, can be done in Arma 3 already, but in a messy way, and without smooth transition from getting on or off of said vehicle. However, in VBS, there has been few videos showing the smoothness of the feature, on a more unstable platform, cargo aircraft. Do you think that the feature would have more use on a simple sea platform?

[chortles 263]

some are awesome and are merged (one nice VBS optimization should come with next patch).

IT BEGINS  B)

For example FLIR, FFV and sling loading had to completly rewritten.

I will highlight that the OP did inquire "shouldn't Studios program their own versions" re: some of what you've identified as not yet supported or merged (i.e. lack of huge moving ships or why the aircraft carrier isn't a priority for A3) even it they had taken a complete rewrite relative to the VBS3 counterparts.

Speaking of a complete rewrite, I must wonder how-so in the case of FLIR? I've already elaborated on sling loading (the experience alone is enough to imply the complete rewrite) and I understand that there's a seeming trade-off between capability and "smoothness" in A3's FFV, but I'm not so aware of how the FLIR implementation differed from what was available in VBS beyond the lack of contrast adjustment beyond BHOT/WHOT.