Will the Arma3 be upgraded in the future?

[mojiao 0]

For example, add PBR shader and point light projection. Also did not official personnel tell had this plan? So that this idea of mine can be completely abandoned.

[stanhope 411]

No significant updates are planned to the arma 3 engine as far as I'm aware as arma 3 is reaching/has reached its end of life.  It'll be maintained until the next game in the series is out (as far as I'm aware). 

[JohnKalo 657]

Engine updates most likely not. Arma 3 is far from over however.

Until the new engine is ready an Arma 4 will merely even be mentioned. I mean Arma 4 should take at least a year or two to appear. DayZ has to firstly become stable since the new Arma will be based on the DayZ engine.

Until then new Arma DLCs will appear like the Contact one.

 

 

[Dedmen 2714]

On 5/26/2019 at 1:21 PM, mojiao said:

add PBR shader

Won't happen. The Arma shader developer moved to a different project quite some time ago, he won't be writing new shaders for Arma.

[stburr91 1009]

On 5/26/2019 at 1:18 PM, JohnKalo said:

Engine updates most likely not. Arma 3 is far from over however.

Until the new engine is ready an Arma 4 will merely even be mentioned. I mean Arma 4 should take at least a year or two to appear. DayZ has to firstly become stable since the new Arma will be based on the DayZ engine.

Until then new Arma DLCs will appear like the Contact one.

 

 

 

 

The last information we got from a BI developer was October of last year, and he said Arma 4 is years away from being announced. I purely guessing, but based on that, Arma 4 would be at least 3-4 years away. 

[JohnKalo 657]

6 minutes ago, stburr91 said:

 

 

The last information we got from a BI developer was October of last year, and he said Arma 4 is years away from being announced. I purely guessing, but based on that, Arma 4 would be at least 3-4 years away. 

A strongly supported opinion  

The thing is that Arma 3 has got so much content which means a competitive Arma 4 will need to have even more. A really tough and time consuming task so yes it might indeed take at least 3-4 years.

[Private Evans 498]

Fact is that we really don' t know anything about their plans and what is going on. DayZ at its current state clearly shows that the new engine is light years away from being finished. The lighting for example is horrible outdated, there are no real improvments for terrain making, there is no AI etc etc and even BI mentioned it does not meet Arma quality standarts in this state. We#ve also heard that a larger part of the Arma team is now working on the new tech.  So taking into account that they still support Arma 3 and producing and publishing content it seems obvious that a new game is not on the horizon.

 

The exciting question is...will they slowly implement and merge the new tech into the Arma plattform like they did with DayZ ( as they do vice versa). Do we really need a new title or would it maybe better to upgrade the plattform instead, keeping all the maps and assets and stuff and then create new stuff and features in form of addons and dlc's.  This way they could extend the lifetime of Arma forever and shift resources to new franchises.

 

thoughts 🙂 ?

[Dedmen 2714]

36 minutes ago, Private Evans said:

would it maybe better to upgrade the plattform instead

Just from a business perspective that's a bad idea. Upgrading existing things == noone having to buy new things.

 

Also I really want SQF to be replaced by a better version of enscript (current enscript is terrible)

[Private Evans 498]

43 minutes ago, Dedmen said:

Just from a business perspective that's a bad idea. Upgrading existing things == noone having to buy new things.

 

Also I really want SQF to be replaced by a better version of enscript (current enscript is terrible)

 

Updating would include stuff like...new renderer...animation system...script language etc ( as in Enfusion ) and no I don't think that it is such a bad idea quiet the opposite. This way they could sell Arma addons for ages , done by smaller teams like the one in Amsterdam instead of spending all of their resources for a complete new Arma title doing everything from scratch again. I think times are gone that BI is based on just one franchise. A growing company has to be further set up with different franchises. So why not seeing Arma as a plattform and service that will be updated and improved with new tech, features and content instead of making a complete new title every 4 or 5 years. This would BI give resources to invest into new stuff...buta also keep Arma allivefor decades....

 

 

 

[JohnKalo 657]

@Private Evans If it is possible to move all Arma 3 assets to a new engine ... that would be really nice. It would even block the need for a new game. Because, personal opinion, when we think of an Arma 4, what changes is the ability to walk on moving vehicles, better animations, hand melee, better AI also stealth compatible, better FPS and the ability to use more units when designing a mission without the game lagging. From then on it is indeed new content like naval units, new maps, new weapons, new vehicles and such. Oh and since role playing is used a police, ambulance and firefighter working faction would be really nice.

 

@Dedmen As to the business perspective they can make Arma, Apex, DLC pack 1 and 2 the base game and then continue adding DLCs from there. But BIG dlcs. Dlcs which would be worth buying. The problem when making a really good game like Arma 3 is that a 4 would likely not be bought by a big number of players since it will not be worth it. It will have to be something different like future like and maybe that is why the new Contact DLC is at the works. To see how many players are interested in such a perspective.

[Dedmen 2714]

51 minutes ago, Private Evans said:

I think times are gone that BI is based on just one franchise. A growing company has to be further set up with different franchises.

DayZ, Take on Mars, Take on Helicopters, Vigor, Argo, Ylands.

 

Making a new game that everyone has to buy is much more efficient money wise than making optional expansions that a large part of the user base doesn't even buy.

 

You do realise that making a new game is basically the same amount of work as completely reworking Arma to run on Enfusion?

 

The Expansions and DLCs made by smaller teams can be done the same way on a new game. But then you have the money from the game+dlc's instead of only dlc money. Always have to think from a business perspective. If BI doesn't get the money to keep working on Arma, we won't get anymore Arma.

 

33 minutes ago, JohnKalo said:

The problem when making a really good game like Arma 3 is that a 4 would likely not be bought by a big number of players

People said the same about Arma 2 when Arma 3 news came out. You can see where we are today.

[JohnKalo 657]

Quote

People said the same about Arma 2 when Arma 3 news came out. You can see where we are today.

True but it was a time where graphics and computer engines got way better each day. Technology is still greatly boosted but it is also so expensive to buy it that it might take years for it to be purchasable. That is why lately graphics tend to remain the same unless you buy specific games and have a really expensive PC. In any case I really hope an Arma 4 will have such a great 2-3 upgrade 

[Private Evans 498]

Yeah for sure it is no easy task to implement new tech...but it could be done over time. The current engine DayZ is running on is nothing else than a mix out of new tech mixed with Arma 3 tech and some outdated legacy stuff. For the games you mentioned...Argo is dead...Vigor is free to play and xbox only...Dayz is burnt....take on games a very small niche games...which just leaves Yland....

A complete new Arma title featuring a new setting, new maps, new assets, new campaign etc etc will take years and require nearly the full company to work on it. If they even wait for the Enfusion engine to be completted we are talking about what ...4  to 6 years from now on. I can not imagine that this is the plan....

 

[lex__1 422]

3 hours ago, Dedmen said:

DayZ, Take on Mars, Take on Helicopters, Vigor, Argo, Ylands.

 

Making a new game that everyone has to buy is much more efficient money wise than making optional expansions that a large part of the user base doesn't even buy.

 

You do realise that making a new game is basically the same amount of work as completely reworking Arma to run on Enfusion?

 

The Expansions and DLCs made by smaller teams can be done the same way on a new game. But then you have the money from the game+dlc's instead of only dlc money. Always have to think from a business perspective. If BI doesn't get the money to keep working on Arma, we won't get anymore Arma.

Since, there is the desire of the Arma team to switch to Enfusion, but there is no transition project - what facts are there in the contents of the Arma3 DLC confirming the transition of Arma to Enfusion?

If we consider DayZ, as an example of the transition of Arma to Enfusion, we can find a promising perspective. But this perspective is only for some of the problems that could not be solved for Arma3 in VR. DayZ will not be able to give a full perspective that this is suitable for all Arma content.

[pierremgi 4900]

The fact is we can't see any official BI "survey" on what could be Arma IV. It seems to me the community has written a lot of feedback, opinions, requests and wishes. But Is there any draft for Arma IV? With BLU/OPFOR like Arma III ? Will A4 be a simple A3 transfert on Enfusion engine? If we consider the gap between A2 and A3 (3den, maps, vehicles & units, scripting tools....) Well, what could be A4 and how much the community will be involved in this "idea/project/alpha test", whatever the actual status is?

[froggyluv 2136]

Original OFP devs said we are 15 years away (at time of Game 2 development) from making the military game everyone wants -dynamic destruction house & vehicles, advanced AI etc....... ............... .............. .... .. .eye still on that prize?

[lex__1 422]

5 hours ago, pierremgi said:

The fact is we can't see any official BI "survey" on what could be Arma IV. It seems to me the community has written a lot of feedback, opinions, requests and wishes. But Is there any draft for Arma IV? With BLU/OPFOR like Arma III ? Will A4 be a simple A3 transfert on Enfusion engine? If we consider the gap between A2 and A3 (3den, maps, vehicles & units, scripting tools....) Well, what could be A4 and how much the community will be involved in this "idea/project/alpha test", whatever the actual status is? 

Even if Arma4 will be presented as a transfer of Arma3 to Enfusion, this is a very big step, this is a new presentation of the game and a new round in development.
I really like the maps Chernorus, Tanoa and others, which, due to the limited performance of the VR engine, often produced a negative experience. How many unclaimed cards exist in Mods, which are of great interest, but the performance hits them in the side. And so many other problems did not reveal the entire tactical potential in Arma3. Arma3 remained not fully disclosed on the VR engine. For the entire period Arma2-Arma3 I did not get a decent pleasure from the Chernorus card, as I receive it now in DayZ.
If the pre-order Arma3-Enfusion had been introduced now, I would not have thought it over for a long time, I would have already bought it. There is no desire to buy DLC extensions for Arma3 VR, Arma3 VR narrows any extension.

[tpw 2315]

I have to admit the whole "Arma4 is years away from even being announced yet alone released" vibe does not fill me with joy. BI are obviously committed to providing more content to us and money to them via various DLC and expansion initiatives. But the engine this income stream runs on was basically multiple generations behind state of the art when A3 was released 6 years ago, and is only going to fall further behind in the years to come. I don't think it's unreasonable for the player base to expect that at some stage our beloved series will transition to something that properly leverages the fast multicore CPUs and decent GFX cards most of us have, to provide the graphical immersion and performance the series so desperately needs.  

[Dedmen 2714]

12 hours ago, lex__1 said:

what facts are there in the contents of the Arma3 DLC confirming the transition of Arma to Enfusion

None.

 

12 hours ago, lex__1 said:

could not be solved for Arma3 in VR

RV* The engine is called Real Virtuality.

 

11 hours ago, pierremgi said:

The fact is we can't see any official BI "survey" on what could be Arma IV.

They simply don't want to announce a game while they are not sure when or if they might actually make it.

They will announce it if they have something playable, at basically the state that Arma 3 alpha was.

 

13 hours ago, Private Evans said:

A complete new Arma title featuring a new setting, new maps, new assets, new campaign etc etc will take years and require nearly the full company to work on it.

Bohemias bottleneck are skilled engine programmers. Not designers, terrain makers, texture artists and so on.

You can easily see that on Arma actually, engine fixes are rare, engine features we aren't getting any anymore, but what we get is Old man campaign, Contact DLC with tons of assets, even Laws of War had lots of creativity focus, but barely any engine work. Encore DLC, Warlords gamemode.
Why is that the case? Well because the programmers are missing, and the artists have free time on their hands that they need to fill with something useful.

[Grahame 94]

15 hours ago, froggyluv said:

Original OFP devs said we are 15 years away (at time of Game 2 development) from making the military game everyone wants -dynamic destruction house & vehicles, advanced AI etc....... ............... .............. .... .. .eye still on that prize?

 

They were absolutely right about that... VBS3 from BISIM (a separate company now) has fairly recently added those features you mention and a lot more too

[NeoArmageddon 958]

4 hours ago, Dedmen said:

Bohemias bottleneck are skilled engine programmers. Not designers, terrain makers, texture artists and so on.

Why is that the case? Well because the programmers are missing, and the artists have free time on their hands that they need to fill with something useful.

 

This!

I often see the argument that Real Virtuality is an outdated engine and A3 would be so much better with a new engine.

That statement  is not correct and makes little to no sense from a software engineering standpoint: Every engine can be upgraded to modern standards. It just takes work and skilled software engineers. In todays RV engine we see stuff, that people said were impossible with the engine a few years back (like bipods, graphics like sunrays, fire from vehicle, 64bit exe etc).

I fiten read from people that some stuff is not possible with the RV engine, but that is wrong, it is just not feasible for BI.

 

A compeltly new engine takes as much or even more working hours than modifying an existing one. That is the reason that in the past 17 years we have seen the same engine with huge upgrades between the games.

And while the DayZ engine is called a "new" engine, I see many similarities which make me think it is rather a large refactor of the RV than a new engine. In the end, an engine is defined by its subsystems, and when model and terrain format is nearly the same (p3d, wrp, etc) I am not sure when you can call an engine "new" instead of refactored or redesigned.

 

IF we see an A4 someday, I am pretty confident we will see many familiar stuff.

There are also many parts of RV that are already good as they are and even if you write a completly new engine, an software engineer will design it the same way.

There is a really good book about engine architecture by Jason Gregory (worked for Naughty Dog on Uncharted and The Last of us) and you will find a lot of similarities between how he describes a good implementation of a game engine and what the RV does nowadays.

 

While this may read like I am a total fan of the RV engine, I have to admin there are many parts that are outdated and need a rework, like the config inheritance, animation system and the actual implementation of multithreading.  I don't say that the engine is anywhere near perfect, I just want to stress that the majorities demand for a "completly new engine" is just unrealistic and needless. The current problems can be solved by a team of software engineers/programmers and probably it will be faster and cheaper than a new engine, that basically does the same as the current one.

 

P.S. To conclude and answer the first post: Yes, I think we will see further upgrades of A3, which might be called A4.

 

[Private Evans 498]

Yeah exactly..and again there is and there was so much official talk about Arma being a service and plattform ( for the years to come) that I am pretty sure they are going this route, upgrading the plattform over time instead of waiting years to make a complete new title....and i would be absolutely fine with this 🙂

[Grahame 94]

Going to be careful about how I say this... but I do get very irritated with all the recent public criticism of RV Engine, with people online who say that Bohemia dumped RV Engine for enfusion in DayZ SA which is what makes it so much better than it was... (note: DayZ SA is so much better, but it is still RV Engine and enfusion so...). Some of this is the confusion created by Bohemia itself tbh with the 1.0 update which many people interpreted as being a pure enfusion release.

 

I have seen major streamers go on and on after DayZ SA's 1.0 release saying that the the reason that the game was so much better was because RV Engine was removed... Which it sort of wasn't... 🙄

 

RV Engine does have its issues, many of them... but we ARMA folks work with and around them mostly... Would love to see that engine get some love before ARMA4... but if the RV folks are working on enfusion now (don't know whether they are, but they would have to be in order for it to be fit for purpose for ARMA) then I would be happy to continue playing and enjoying ARMA3 while I wait.

 

Also hope that the shader guy or gal is working on enfusion now...?

[lex__1 422]

15 hours ago, Grahame said:

Going to be careful about how I say this... but I do get very irritated with all the recent public criticism of RV Engine, with people online who say that Bohemia dumped RV Engine for enfusion in DayZ SA which is what makes it so much better than it was... (note: DayZ SA is so much better, but it is still RV Engine and enfusion so...). Some of this is the confusion created by Bohemia itself tbh with the 1.0 update which many people interpreted as being a pure enfusion release.

 

I have seen major streamers go on and on after DayZ SA's 1.0 release saying that the the reason that the game was so much better was because RV Engine was removed... Which it sort of wasn't...

At least 3 years ago, the official BIS statement was about the new Enfusion engine, which was also tested by the guys from the DayZ team.
I do not know what DayZ looked like before 1.0, I purchased it after release 1.0.
I can not say that the similarity of DayZ with Arma can be interpreted as a reworked RV.There are some similarities between RV and Enfusion code, but Enfusion creates frame rendering faster. There are a lot of visual differences - the type of environment, susceptibility of the environment, transmission and penetration of light and shadow effects, high performance and multithreading, stability in performance, etc. ...

The only thing that makes it look like Arma - in a network game a server lags when on the server many players (40+).

This review is in Russian, but you can see the main important details of the differences.

Or that

But I will clarify with a slightly simple expression, Enfusion is the platform on which to build the game. But for DayZ, there are far fewer tasks in creating a game on this platform than there are tasks to create to create Arma on this platform.

[Dedmen 2714]

On 5/30/2019 at 12:14 AM, Grahame said:

but it is still RV Engine and enfusion so

RV and Enforce are fused together -> Enfusion.

On 5/30/2019 at 12:14 AM, Grahame said:

which many people interpreted as being a pure enfusion release

Well.. It is.

 

On 5/30/2019 at 12:14 AM, Grahame said:

Also hope that the shader guy or gal is working on enfusion now...?

Nope. Atleast not the guy who made Arma shaders. Don't know if they have others.