Anyone know the real reason why the Enfusion renderer will never come to ArmA 3?

[rekkless 240]

So for anyone who has played the experimental build of Dayz (.60) will know:

 

a. Just how freaking beautiful it is now (better looking IMO than the new ArmA 3 renderer)

 

b. Just how massively improved the performance and frame rate has improved.

 

 

Now I'm not a video game engineer but I imagine DayZ would be more resource heavy on the server side than most ArmA missions and game modes and DayZ now runs like a freaking dream, even on modest systems. So one can only imagine what the Enfusion engine would perform like in ArmA 3.

 

I personally always thought it would be a no brainer to bring it over to ArmA 3 and by doing so would solve 95% of the problems most people have with ArmA 3 which is performance. But alas things are never as simple as they may seem.

 

So does anyone know any official reason why it hasn't and more importantly why it won't be ported over to ArmA 3?

 

not hearsay but an actual official word as to why.

[oldbear 390]

On April 12, 2016, Joris-Jan van 't Land has reported in  SITREP #00151

 

 

We will continue to look for optimization opportunities across the board, but it would not be realistic to expect a 'magic bullet' leap forward in Arma 3's lifetime. That also goes for a potential DirectX 12 implementation. After a lengthy initial investigation, we've concluded that this is far more complex than it may seem. It has been decided that our company will first tackle this in the new Enfusion engine, as its rendering pipeline is more compatible. Afterwards we'll still evaluate porting it back (or using the knowledge we'll have gained) for Arma 3. This does mean quite definitely that no DX12 implementation will be part of the platform update that is to accompany the Apex release.

 

Source :  https://dev.arma3.com/post/sitrep-00151

[NeoArmageddon 958]

I personally always thought it would be a no brainer to bring it over to ArmA 3 and by doing so would solve 95% of the problems most people have with ArmA 3 which is performance. But alas things are never as simple as they may seem.

 

Changing engines is not an easy task even when the engines were designed alongside. Also DayZ is still in development while ArmA3 is a released title. They most likely have a different development priorisation, budget and staff assigned to it.

[rekkless 240]

On April 12, 2016, Joris-Jan van 't Land has reported in  SITREP #00151

 

Source :  https://dev.arma3.com/post/sitrep-00151

 

So if I read that right, DX12 isn't planned but Enfusion is? Well good sir that is good enough for me.

[PuFu 4600]

Enfusion is written modular-ly from ground up. it also needs an environment to test it into, and what better place than DayZ development builds.

It is really unreasonable to believe that you can switch engines for a game released in 2013. The possible fuck-ups are really not worth the risks when talking about your flagship product

[Heinrich Kramer 172]

Enfusion is written modular-ly from ground up. it also needs an environment to test it into, and what better place than DayZ development builds.

It is really unreasonable to believe that you can switch engines for a game released in 2013. The possible fuck-ups are really not worth the risks when talking about your flagship product

 

they could go the "remastered edition" way that has become the next big thing in the industry and make everyone hate them for that, though :868: 

 

but yeah, afaik enfusion also uses PBR shading (or will) and i am not sure if classic spec-gloss will even be possible then anymore, which means every asset would need to be retextured and get completely new materials. that would be hella expensive.

[PuFu 4600]

they could go the "remastered edition" way that has become the next big thing in the industry and make everyone hate them for that, though :868:

 

but yeah, afaik enfusion also uses PBR shading (or will) and i am not sure if classic spec-gloss will even be possible then anymore, which means every asset would need to be retextured and get completely new materials. that would be hella expensive.

would you be willing to buy the entire thing, DLCs included once again?

[Heinrich Kramer 172]

to be perfectly honest... i don't know. guaranteed 60+fps + PBR shaders so i can use substance painter the way it's meant to be without working around to create textures... could very well be possible that i would buy the "same game" twice.

still beats buying the same Call of Duty every year :D

 

but when they need to remake all assets they might as well just get a new setting going and call it Arma 4

[nodunit 397]

to be perfectly honest... i don't know. guaranteed 60+fps + PBR shaders so i can use substance painter the way it's meant to be without working around to create textures... could very well be possible that i would buy the "same game" twice.

still beats buying the same Call of Duty every year :D

 

but when they need to remake all assets they might as well just get a new setting going and call it Arma 4

+1 the fps increase would be heavenly on its own but I don't think it can be overstated how helpful something like substance painter materials being useable from the beginning is.

I mean, not only can you paint the model in realtime, on the UV's and have the brush overlap onto connecting UV's which cuts down a LOT of tweaking for seams, but you can paint the normals, specularity, gloss, metallicness, whatever, all of it together at once so you're essentially painting with materials as you go versus painting the diffuse in photoshop, then bouncing into buldozer to fine tune your smdi's and so on, so you could directly see how your specularity is influencing the albedo and normals

Seriously if you are a texture artist and you haven't tried it, you owe it to yourself to do so.

 

https://youtu.be/95XjjNZ1I40?t=1590

 

[skyace65 19]

they could go the "remastered edition" way that has become the next big thing in the industry and make everyone hate them for that, though :868:

 

but yeah, afaik enfusion also uses PBR shading (or will) and i am not sure if classic spec-gloss will even be possible then anymore, which means every asset would need to be retextured and get completely new materials. that would be hella expensive.

I don't see any reason they would need to create new textures, but new materials would absolutely be necessary.

 

 I think if they really do want to keep making more content after Apex then moving to Enfusion should be heavily considered at least.

[Vigil Vindex 64]

I think the DayZ render engine is something Arma 3 could certainly get, but I doubt it would be the "magic bullet" we have been told we can't get for the lifetime of Arma 3. I think the AI and MP engine is what is holding us back from high FPS. Whenever I am in the editor and it is just me in single player or even MP by myself with no AI my FPS is 60+. As soon as AI join it dips, and when that AI starts to see some action when me and my friends start to engage them the FPS both server side and client side tanks. I don't think the DayZ render engine will solve this problem, but of course more FPS is always a boost. If Arma 4 doesn't have infinite (200+ :)) AI in MP with silky smooth 120fps I will be so salty.