Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You do realise a good PC/Server would be needed for that sort of setup.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the planetary map itself doesn't necessarily need a good computer to run, since it's partially procedurally generated (like minecraft). 

TitanIM's planet itself is rendered by its Outerra engine, which by itself has lower requirements than Arma 3.

You can check out the requirements and download an Outerra demo here.

 

The recommended 2-Core CPU and 2GB graphics memory is surprisingly low for rendering a planet.

Even when offline, you can explore up to 90km of terrain, with near unlimited render distance.

 

Server though could be a different story. 

 

 

If you think gameplay springs out of scale

Smaller maps are better for certain scenarios  :)

 

I do agree that smaller maps are better for certain scenarios. But a planet is a like a map, made up of thousands of smaller maps isn't it? I bet you can even find Altis and Stratis in Outerra :D  (Maybe without the buildings)

Good missions should limit the scale of the play area, like the vanilla A3 campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I can't see full planetary simulation really adding much substance to the game. RV Is already capable of handling maps in excess of several thousand km^2.

What Arma 4 really needs is simply to enhance the capabilities of the series; making use of modern tech for full hardware usage, leading to better physics, handling mass numbers of AI and players, allowing for deformable terrain and ground cutting etc.

 

Another area that can see improvement is the detail of the game's simulation. For instance, if the ACE devs are capable of creating a ballistics system as detailed as they have as a purely script-based system, there's nothing stopping BI doing it even better at the engine level.

Such a thing could also be enabled and disabled, like RotorLib, to allow the game to remain accessible to more casual players.

 

That's what Arma needs; all the terrain in the world won't save it if the game itself is limited.

 

Ok, lets assume Arma 4 has all the improvements you mentioned. It offered Deform-able terrain, mass AI and a fantastic ballistics system.

As a customer, I'd say that's nice, but there's no innovation.

 

Then I look at TitanIM. They offer PLANETS (plus deform-able terrain, mass AI and  ballistics system).

Innovation like this gives a "WOW" factor bigger than any of Arma's features.

Instead of a "meh", I get a "HOLY SHIT" reaction. 

 

Now, I like Arma. I want Arma to stay number one.

But to sustain that, future milsim's will need implement innovations like planets (or even VR) to stay competitive.

World-wide combined arms is the future!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the last thing Arma needs. Arma isn't player centric contrary to most other fps games. AI is simulated all over the map, living its own life, which isn't realistically possible on a world sized map.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really fail to see how Arma would benefit from planet wide maps... This is a a combined arms tactical shooter with a well rounded sandbox element. A video game, not a training tool.

 

You can already have pretty big maps on Arma. I'ld rather they improve performances while increasing complexity of future Arma maps rather than make vast but ugly and empty worlds.

 

If anything Arma should focus on improving CQC with support for large and complex underground structures and AIs that can actually perform in interiors.

 

Anyway VBS does the planetwide rendering as well. It probably doesn't have deformable ground, but still looks as good if not better than TitanIM.

 

https://youtu.be/N39Vn3rY8rY

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that TitanIM most likely does not have "ArmA quality maps" all over the globe. Best case scenario is probably that it has vegetation and ground textures and that the cities (which are poorly detailed as far as I can tell) in the demo video were specifically made for the demo video. So in terms of playability, you may have the full planet, but Altis is FAR more detailed and playing in any place on the planet feels like playing anywhere else and thus the full planet makes little difference.

 

I think it would be awesome for ArmA 4 to have a fully detailed Earth populated with every stop sign in every city but that is both unnecessary and isn't going to happen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that smaller maps are better for certain scenarios. But a planet is a like a map, made up of thousands of smaller maps isn't it? I bet you can even find Altis and Stratis in Outerra :D  (Maybe without the buildings)

Good missions should limit the scale of the play area, like the vanilla A3 campaign.

It's not the map scale that's the thing - we'd all like bigger maps if they came with the same quality of denseness and detail as hand-made maps, but that's not going to be the case :/ a map of a planet-wide scale will be a procedurally populated map and they just won't have the same game experience IMO. Yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway VBS does the planetwide rendering as well. It probably doesn't have deformable ground, but still looks as good if not better than TitanIM.

 

https://youtu.be/N39Vn3rY8rY

 

VBS3 Blue looks very impressive but not available to the consumer audience right? Its special interests only?

 

With TitanIM,  I believe it will be available to gamers. 

 

And with open mod support, over time it can be very good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, afaik they stopped distributing personal editions of VBS a while ago.

 

We'll see how TitanIM will turn out over time.

 

It has whole planets, okay cool, however the fidelity on the ground, from what they showed, doesn't seem quite rich and detailed enough to make a fun and rewarding tactical shooter imo.

 

It seems like, once more, people are getting overhyped over the vastness of procedurally generated worlds.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Expecting a first generation release with planet side scale to have fidelity down to stop sign level is a bit much eh...?

 

 First off, any fan of cross arms military sandbox should applaud the competition and any advances it may bring along with it. Remember the one built on CryEngine expected to compete contractually with VBS that never materialized? While it never made it to fruition -it did raise the stakes (and imo cemented) dedication to Higher Fidelity Graphics to Bohemia who had previously argued against its 'effectiveness'. That argument fell on deaf military ears who and I quote "wanted it to look more like Call of Duty".... :P

 

As a previous owner of VBS, I was very disappointed with what they offered on the surface and what was actually 'ingame' if i can call it that. I literally bought it to check out the "xaitment AI"* but that wasnt even included as was pretty much every thing else cool i wanted to try -they were extra plug-ins or built for specific clients. Thats fine and good and I chalked up the$500 loss with minimum crying, but if all this is offered on one purchase - I for one will be mighty pleased.

 

*Xaitment was a scam anyways as the AI couldnt do any thing that Arma 3 Ai can do -probably less.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill tell you what, i have Outerra, but it's performance is not that great, and i run it on fairly standard/low settings. So for a complete title, with more detailed roads, terrains, features, AI, and so on, so fourth, will be more demanding. Outerra has a hell of a lot of potential, and with TitanIM(Vangaurd), we can see that. I have a feeling, over time, maybe not net year, or the year after that, but in say 5+ years we may see something that will truly be a Title reminiscent of an Arma/DCS merger. However, this WILL be extremely demanding. PC's will need to be powerful to handle it. Oh, and with the mod support, there's no telling what amazing/hilarious things we'll see come from TitanIM Sandbox.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topic header maybe should've some hint of Titan Vanguard, so topics about every new video aren't made.

This was just posted today

 

 

They seemed to hide the trailer in the front page and released a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn‘t seem to be a direct competitor to ArmA. From what I've seen this seems to deal with grand strategic simulation of warfare. While typical ArmA gameplay is 50v50 battle in mp or combined arms special operation with one squad sneaking against the unaware AI base or directly assaulting and clearing it, I don‘t see it in this beast – the game is not detailed for that kind of thing, well, at least graphics-wise, haha :) It‘s hard to understand why soldiers are so clunky – is it because the project needs more time to develop, or is it intentionally to sacrifice for the quality of the large-scale battle simulation performance. And anyway... to motivate/push ArmA (competition etc etc), like some people hope here, they need at least to release this game for the public. Their webpage states that it’s for the military and some companies only. So yeah, ArmA is still alone and seems to remain so for the time being.
P.S.: Absolutely disagree about the necessity of ultra-large maps for ArmA. Altis is already damn huge, I think 270-300 sq. km of good quality detailed map is pretty enough, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2016 at 1:15 AM, bullsh said:

TitanIM is scheduled for release this year!

Still scheduled for release this year...

Though it did get shown at I/ITSEC last year, maybe we'll see more this year. Thought the name has changed to Titan Vanguard.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, here are the things I noticed and my thoughts

 

Ai lags, gets stuck on objects

No enterable buildings

Very low poly models for a first person game

Hud on vehicles

Impressive map editor with drawable grounds

 

I think this game will suck at infantry type of gameplay because of ai and bad models, but there will be mod support so I don't really know how it will end up. On the other hand, it might be a great flight simulation with a living world(at least when you look from above). I want to see a gameplay before I say more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, papanowel said:

Impressive.

 

I really hope it will still be available for us.

just as much as VBS2/3/blue is/gonna be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2017 at 11:08 PM, PuFu said:

just as much as VBS2/3/blue is/gonna be...

Any day now... 

 

Though they originally announced a entertainment version for release under the TitanIM title.

 

Honestly looks pretty great as a vehicle/armor/air sim but seems pretty jancky from a infantry perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scarecrow398 said:

Honestly looks pretty great as a vehicle/armor/air sim but seems pretty jancky from a infantry perspective

 

Thats where ArmA comes to shine, though quite often I wish a Full Spectrum Warrior like MOUT system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the tank physics in that video look far worse than Nvidia PhysX...  physics feature level: "it bounces"

Infantry, physics (notice the trailer2016, where the ship rear just casually lifts off the water in even calm water) and also graphics look really poor, especially animations and particles. Even if it would be accessable for public, it looks far too janky for me to consider playing "for the fun".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everybody heard about TitanIM and Outerra   http://www.outerra.com/  http://titanim.net/www/

But my question is  what are possibilities of Arma 4 with Outerra to be used as a map??

I know Bohemia is using their own engine etc. But what are possibilities of BI devs to use outerra tech it in their game?
Outerra has some pretty interesting tech from witch Arma would probably benefit.  I know i am shooting in blind here but this is just question/discusion because we have so manny talented moders around. And a lot of fans of the games who would probably love to see something like this :D (including me) :D
Imagine a ARMA game where you dont need to worry about will you play on altis or stratis or older arma maps. But you just put your finger on Globe and bam, start makeing missions :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Bohemia (simulation) has a engine that generates the entire globe, you see it on VBS. I don't exclude that in the future we could also see him on the ArmA series

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, DJankovic said:

bam, start makeing missions :D

I believe that this part should go like this "bam, start making unbalanced, unrealistic, uninspiring missions on bland, generic and boring featureless terrain brought together by an mindless algorithm".

 

While I'm really exited about the TitanIM and your idea sounds great too, we've got to face the hard truth: the absolute majority of custom made missions for Arma have unplayable low quality any auto generated entity tends to be shit, SHIIIT. I'm willing to bet my digital watch that in comparison with the Outerra (or VBS for that matter), the Fallujah* map will be an apotheosis of creativity, complexity and ingenuity. Just look at the Elite: Dangerous - yeah, the entire, full-scale galaxy sounds exiting until you buy a game, hop in your ship and realize that you're stuck in the gameplay-less game with a unreasonably vast completely dead map divided into indistinguishable sectors.

 

* that is not to say that Fallujah is a bad map or something, it's quite authentic but lack of details inevitable in a game world makes it somewhat repetitive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is allowed their own opinion and tastes. Looked at both of these (just downloaded Outerra actually) and have to say I'll stick with the engine Arma 3 uses.

 

Both of these bring something new to the table, however they sacrifice some of the features I personally enjoy in Arma 3. The same can be said for the wishlists and arma 4 speculations found in numerous threads around this forum.

 

I'm enjoying the game in the here and now and feel BI have earned enough of my confidence to find their way to the next generation :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×