VBS3.7 new maritime features possible in ARMA3?

[NightIntruder 710]

Well, I would love to see VBS3.7 "new" maritime features in Arma3. That's more than a year since they've been invented... Take a look what lovely ship wakes and waves could be generated in-game:

 

 

[froggyluv 2136]

Thought this sh*t was for Arma!! 

 

http://imgur.com/a/YHSXO

[target_practice 163]

It has already been discussed at length why this sort of thing won't be coming to Arma; or at least not in Arma 3.

[KokaKolaA3 394]

It has already been discussed at length why this sort of thing won't be coming to Arma; or at least not in Arma 3.

Could u send me a link or the reason why not?

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

VBS naval clients will have paid a lot for that stuff :)

[Greenfist 1863]

Why would features from a different engine made by a different company be added to a game with no focus on naval warfare?

[NightIntruder 710]

Why would features from a different engine made by a different company be added to a game with no focus on naval warfare?

For better gameplay and more realistic immersions, which is what players of this game are seeking and the game itself has been rated for since OFP times ?

Firstly, I don't get the argument that the game is not focused on anything more than "regular infantry soldier simulation". That's why improvements in tank armor were implemented? That's why all DLCs like Go-carts, Heli, Sniper showed up? That's why RotorLib was introduced and volumetric clouds were made for the game (hey the game's allegedly not focused on aerial warfare!) ? That's why scuba diver got its place in the game, finally? Secondly, different company - yes. But, what game engines are you referring to? As far as I know, VBS3 uses the same Real Virtuality 3 engine the ARMA 2 does. ARMA3 uses RV4 which is ...guess what.

That being said, I would love to see more realistic battlefield environment, even if it means that BI would have to outsource the solution from BIS instead of making its own one. If you would take a time to find out how many "external" engines and tools were procured for the game you would notice that's not biggy for the BI.  The only concerns I have regarding such maritime features are performance wise. On the other hand, who wouldn't like to try getting to a beach as a SEAL in Zodiac when a sea state is at 6 ? There're several Marines realism communities that would also love those maritime features, I guess. 

 

VBS naval clients will have paid a lot for that stuff :)

VBS naval clients will never use ARMA3 for training purposes due to the license. They have to pay, but the features were included in the VBS3 for free, AFAIK.

[Greenfist 1863]

I meant that Bohemia clearly has no interest at all for maritime. They have not done anything remotely significant to improve it since Alpha phase. It's barely even touched in the official content.

So it's pretty safe to assume we won't see anything in the future of Arma 3 either. Sure, it would be cool, and you're allowed to dream, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Degman 73]

VBS features are expensive, hence you need monster PCs to run them. BI Simulations is simply for military use and that costs very much .. so much in fact that not every military can afford such a simulator for it's troops.

 

If BI Studio turned into BI Simulations, then you would pay the game approximately as much as you would pay for Star Citizen and these expensive ships in it, and still you would need i7 and GTX 980 to run at medium-high quality settings.

[NightIntruder 710]

you're allowed to dream, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

And that's the problem, you know? To make great progress you better have a vision and dreams, and determination / resources to get to the dreamed "halleluyah". Otherwise, you would never relish.

Sure, BI has no visible interest in that. Because BI has interest in those things that interest players, it seems. If we are not interested in better looking and behaving game they won't provide such product because development costs a lot. However, in one point of a time, they will implement the maritime features eventually. The question is not "if" but "when". It's inevitable due to the fact that gaming is changing -  more power in players rigs, better GPUs thus demands for better looking VR (which is almost here by the way, and in case of VBS3 - already there) is constantly rising. As long as they provide better, more realistic environment, they will be winning this specific group of players we are, and we are luscious treat. BI has sold more than 2 mln of A3 copies and more companies will stand to fight for that prize, I guess.

 

VBS3 needs monster rigs because the scale of military scenarios are usually multiple times bigger than those created by player communities / clans. They already use 4000km x 4000 km terrains in A2 game engine which we thought is impossible to achieve. They also already use VBS Blue, which is project aimed to bring the whole planet with seamless connections between stratosphere and procedural generated ground (with custom objects as well). And the military forces usually is trying to simulate behavior of bigger enemy units than a platoon or an infantry company, which is the scenario we usually create. That's what all those powerful PCs are for. Do we need such huge terrains or attacking enemy brigades? Hell, no! What we need is more and more realistic battlefield and environment. And big applause for the BI they recently improved lighting towards better and more realistically looking terrain.

 

Anyway, I am not complaining about current state of the game. It's rather progress than a revolution, especially due to PC's performance limitation. I said "would love to see" not "I demand" because any single voice won't be noticeable by BI at all, multiple voices or voices in mass - will, especially if they sound reasonable. And maybe here's the problem? Perhaps, I don't sound reasonable? I don't know...

You decide, world! ;)

[[evo] dan 79]

I'm not sure if i would go with having much larger ships, but I do think Arma 3 is missing out on a lot of smaller patrol boats, landing craft and ferries which would be useful for players to get around.

[fareast 20]

helis downwash is still terrible tho but i like the boat foam trail..if they ever gonna implement vbs feature in a3 i rather have this

 

[NightIntruder 710]

helis downwash is still terrible tho but i like the boat foam trail..if they ever gonna implement vbs feature in a3 i rather have this

 

Have not it been already implemented in A3 sniper DLC ? Also, I think ACE3 with its advanced ballistics has the same feature.

[dragon01 902]

Yeah, windage would be really great to see and unlike ship wakes, it doesn't require purchasing a ludicrously expensive 3rd party tech.

[dmarkwick 261]

Yeah, windage would be really great to see and unlike ship wakes, it doesn't require purchasing a ludicrously expensive 3rd party tech.

Third party tech? VBS solution is native to the engine.

[dragon01 902]

Are you sure? Quite often, this kind of technology is externally developed and bought by the devs to integrate into the engine. BI didn't invent rotorlib nor the tech used for cloud generation in ArmA3 and TOH, for example.

 

That said, now that I looked at it, the trail doesn't really look like anything special, just a texture on the water (I thought it simulated the actual wake, but this doesn't seem to be the case). Now, a large ship moving around without any problems, that would be new.

[dmarkwick 261]

Very sure :)

 

There is bow wake, and stern wake. That video doesn't make it very clear but both are simulated.

[dragon01 902]

Hmm, now that's interesting. I'm not sure if there's any point in them in ArmA (especially since large ships are largely static and it looks like it's going to stay that way), but a visual effect would certainly be nice. Not that it'd ever be a high priority, seeing how little use boats seem to get in ArmA. For all the hype regarding water and underwater warfare during pre-alpha phase, the whole aspect was used for a brief sequence in one campaign mission and one showcase. Boats show up at all in only a handful of others.

[HorribleGoat 1473]

Just that you know the water effects are just simple particle effects much like exhausts on cars in Arma. They float for a time on the water and dissappear. I think such particle emitter could be configured into Arma as well, but really no magical tech is involved.

Also there is a dedicated thread for VBS discussion since its not affiliated with Arma..

[NightIntruder 710]

Not that it'd ever be a high priority, seeing how little use boats seem to get in ArmA. For all the hype regarding water and underwater warfare during pre-alpha phase, the whole aspect was used for a brief sequence in one campaign mission and one showcase. Boats show up at all in only a handful of others.

 

Not all players play the game in SP only. I can give you several examples of single/multiplayer scenario that can utilize both big ships and new water effects. And the missions aren't only aimed to have better realism and immersions but base solely on those two features as a crucial elements of the gameplay. One of the scenario you could see on the trailer movie - SAR mission.

 

Also there is a dedicated thread for VBS discussion since its not affiliated with Arma..

 

Yes, it is as the title of this thread says.

Also, please don't bring confusion - one who was looking at the movie with enough attention would clearly see that there is at least physical bow wake created by big ship passing by (at 00:10), which is NOT attainable with current A3 engine, and it is NOT just particless nor textures only behind all the water effects. I cannot agree also that there's nothing sophisticated behind such water behaviour from technical point of view, because otherwise BIS DevTeam wouldn't have issues trying to implement them into the platform. For instance, one of many factors to consider is PhysX vessels integration.

[dmarkwick 261]

Just that you know the water effects are just simple particle effects much like exhausts on cars in Arma. They float for a time on the water and dissappear. I think such particle emitter could be configured into Arma as well, but really no magical tech is involved.

No pfx, it's a continually generated track that can widen over time, and fade. It conforms to the surface of the ocean.

[HorribleGoat 1473]

No pfx, it's a continually generated track that can widen over time, and fade. It conforms to the surface of the ocean.

 

 

Yes, it is as the title of this thread says.

Also, please don't bring confusion - one who was looking at the movie with enough attention would clearly see that there is at least physical bow wake created by big ship passing by (at 00:10), which is NOT attainable with current A3 engine, and it is NOT just particless nor textures only behind all the water effects. I cannot agree also that there's nothing sophisticated behind such water behaviour from technical point of view, because otherwise BIS DevTeam wouldn't have issues trying to implement them into the platform. For instance, one of many factors to consider is PhysX vessels integration.

 

Did not mean to cause confusion just tried to clear things up, I have access to the latest VBS 3.8.1 through work and it is particle emitter, just double checked it from the configs just for you. It does have better interaction with water surfaces than Arma particles, but it still is particles.

The water surface movement is its own thing, and looks great, ships physx on the other hand do not always handle high waves too well and there can be peculiar incidents. 

What I intended to convey is that while VBS sometimes seems to have better features than Arma. Its not magically better, I woulds say it concentrates on different aspects.

[NightIntruder 710]

Did not mean to cause confusion just tried to clear things up, I have access to the latest VBS 3.8.1 through work and it is particle emitter, just double checked it from the configs just for you. It does have better interaction with water surfaces than Arma particles, but it still is particles.

 

I also have an access to the latest VBS3.9.1 and apart that there are samples available, didn't know that configs can be read, but got it 3 days ago :) PM sent!

Anyway, I agree that it's not a magic. Also, it's not so easy to implement as well. Yet, I would love to see such high waves in-game even though it would need to rework those few boats that are accessible in Arma3. Sometimes, in fact the game engine dictates what you will get eventually. I think there would be more and better ship addons if sea environment wouldn't be so ignored by developers and there were no Geometry limitations. However, I looked at bugtracker today and clearly saw how many more urgent and sever issues dev team has to deal with and I understood that more realistic and beautiful battlefield is something we shouldn't expect soon in the A3... 

[dmarkwick 261]

Did not mean to cause confusion just tried to clear things up, I have access to the latest VBS 3.8.1 through work and it is particle emitter, just double checked it from the configs just for you. It does have better interaction with water surfaces than Arma particles, but it still is particles.

The water surface movement is its own thing, and looks great, ships physx on the other hand do not always handle high waves too well and there can be peculiar incidents. 

What I intended to convey is that while VBS sometimes seems to have better features than Arma. Its not magically better, I woulds say it concentrates on different aspects.

Just to be clear: are you trying to describe the method for the stern trail on the video in the first post, at 00:40 seconds to 00:46 seconds, or the bow wave at 00:10 seconds? I can absolutely assure you it is not achieved by particles. :) only the bow splash and the propeller splash (which you can only just make out) are pfx.

[bad benson 1733]

but what is the gameplay value of this?

 

i'm not opposed to any new tech being implemented as long as it doesn't kill FPS (more). i'm just wondering what this would bring to the game aside from that one situation where that large ship drove by and your boat started shaking.

 

but since we're talking about waves. i don't liek how uniform the waves look in arma. i mean the 3d ones when you crank up the values. i wonder if the algorithm could be altered a little to add more randomness to it. also some more elaborate foam shader for wave peaks would be cool instead of just increasing normal map depth. but maybe my view is outdated. honestly haven't looked at the water in detail for a while.