New VBS1 videos

[redface 1]

A friend sent the videos today, and it looks.. tempting enough to buy VBS1 for it alone

Yeh I know it's a complete rip-off, but I play OFP enough to merit it

- Ben

hmm I appreciate your enthusiasm but those videos were already mentioned in this thread

[Batukhan 0]

Yes.. the very thread IS about those videos.. hehe..

[ThruYerStErNuM 0]

Since this kind of speculation doesnt seem to warrant a locking...

So you guys are rather sure it won't be in AA?

Im sure it wont.

It seems the only reason people have for doubting that these improvements will be in ArmA are that 'theres no reason to believe they will'? I would need a better reason than that considering games like Soldner look worse than ArmA and still have dynamic buildings and excellent physics. My reason to believe dynamic buildings and near-Game2 physics will be included is this statement by Marek in the letter to the community

Quote[/b] ]Good news for addon makers is that porting their work into ArmA will help prepare them for future releases of our engine, which in the coming years will expand over many areas the ability of our technology.

Maybe porting INTO ArmA means we have to take our old models and do something in the new model editor to make them work with the physics engine features? Such as having sides in models with certain strengths and mass and properties. There is no need to break up the model in the largely complicated way that DIB does when the game engine has a "reworked physical simulation and collision detection". Why would they rework the physics and leave out these features in ArmA but not Game2!

[nephilim 0]

as vbs1 arma wont use any diffrent model format

itll still be p3d as it is in vbs1

[esti_the_big 0]

I'm kinda confused now... I mean, the video with dynamic destruction is something being developed for vbs1. Now, it seems its going to be dynamic - so its pretty sure going to be a change in the core of ofp or vbs1. I now read theres already something seîmiliar in development by falklands mod. but that seems to be using setpos commands, its heavy scripting, but not really dynamic. So you cant compare that with the DDS in the videos.

But why is it so impossible to include dds in AA? Why can't or won't BIS just simply replace the ofp building models with the new dds building models, that doesn't mean they have to replace every house or object in the island, theres enough ways to solve this pratically. I mean, AFAIK the forests in AA will also be "destructable" meaning the trees can now be overrun (so the forest objects have been altered and enhanced) so why is it so impossible to have enhance buildings as well?

And when it comes to damage with the cars, maybe BIS is doing some practical solution, maybe allowing both types of vehilcles in the game. The included vehicles in AA already have improved damage models, the community addons that will all work in AA simply won't have them except the authors edit the vehicle so it can benefit from the new damage model...

And as said correctly above, BIS wants to prepare with AA the community for game 2. That means they might even want AA addons to be game2 compatible, and game 2 will obviously have big changes in physics. Game 2 vehicles will pretty sure have a very improved visual damage system. So its quite possible AA will already have the new damage features of game2.

For me game 2 won't be really the great leap in graphics and physics, in the core elements of the graphics engine. To me, the big engine improvements of game2 are going to be in AI, scripting and especially mission and campaign structure. Most of the work is going into those, enhancing the ofp engine with better physics and making it more modern in terms visual aspects isn't nearly as much work as actually changing the whole structure of gamplay (hell, its going to be completely dynamic, thats the big amount of work BIS has to do...)

So really, is it so uneralistic that dds and vehicle damage are going to be implented in AA?

[nephilim 0]

its not impossible

it simply wont be featured in arma

thats all

[DBR_ONIX 0]

hmm I appreciate your enthusiasm but those videos were already mentioned in this thread

Oh, sorry, just never payed attention to this thread till I saw those to videos, but they weren't impressive enough for me to go though a few hundered posts for

Anyway.. It's possible that BI could include (realisticly) desroyable buildings, but chances are they wont. I it is possible in ArmA, but it wont come with the game. Someone else will have to include it (unless...)

But it is deffintly in "Game2", proof.. here

- Ben

[Heatseeker 0]

...For me game 2 won't be really the great leap in graphics and physics, in the core elements of the graphics engine. To me, the big engine improvements of game2 are going to be in AI, scripting and especially mission and campaign structure...

You seem confused, if you compare Game2 and Arma pictures the diference in graphics is huge, Game2 will be a great leap in terms of graphics judging by the pictures.

Regarding dib, dib is a modification/addon CK started working on, its not a engine upgrade, its an addon with buildings that can be blown up resorting to external scripts. Its not a upgrade that will make all buildings in the game colapse nor would BIS use this aproach to model damage in the whole game i think.

I believe dib will give users the possibility of placing and using some destructible buildings on their maps for specific reasons/objectives and thats it.

Quote[/b] ] My reason to believe dynamic buildings and near-Game2 physics will be included is this statement by Marek in the letter to the community

Quote[/b] ]Good news for addon makers is that porting their work into ArmA will help prepare them for future releases of our engine, which in the coming years will expand over many areas the ability of our technology.

IMO this could be regarding the use of diferent texturing type and techniques (arma soldiers look somewhat normalmapped), pixel shadders and other visual enhancements on the models and textures, etc. This is how i think arma will help prepare addon makers for future engine versions, graphics wise mostly, afterall arma is still a 1.5 version of OFP engine and Game 2 is still in early development .

[esti_the_big 0]

Quote[/b] ]

You seem confused, if you compare Game2 and Arma pictures the diference in graphics is huge, Game2 will be a great leap in terms of graphics judging by the pictures.

To be honest, I don't think its so huge. Yes, BIS is going to create all new models for game2, a much higher polycount, far better and advanced texture techniques, far more detailed vegetation. But thats all artist work, I don't think the technical features of game2 will be really that different as in AA. They'll upgrade the engine so its state of the art when its released (newer dx maybe), but AA already includes all necessary features: A faster. more modern core (allowing more detailed models for example), new textures (normal mapping), new features for island making (the forests for example), probably new physics (for vehicles etc), and maybe Dynamic Destructable buildings. Thats all graphic or physics in the end, AA is never going to look as good as it could because BIS is not redoing all the models for islands, troops, vehicles, thats saved for game 2.

Now that the graphics engine has been actually built resp. updated, BIS can start working on the artistic part and especially on the new mission system and AI for game2, which are obviously tightly connected. This new mission structure is the hard part of development I'd say, a completely dynamic war isn't easy to program, and that is going to be the really new thing in game2. The graphics engine of course will still be enhanced so its state of the art, but its core is finished, and combined with ofp1 it gives us AA.

This is the reason why I believe AA will or at least could contain dds. I hope they'll at least provide us with the technology, the community will surely do some island remakes with dds for all buildings.

[Heatseeker 0]

I dont think Arma and Game2 will be so close in technology, game2 will need to be alot more powerfull to draw all that quality we have seen in large scale, i dont think arma engine could handle anything like that plus alot of arma will still be OFP like the a.i. and gameplay problably, i think the fact that one is basicaly a improved OFP and the other is a whole new game speaks for itself, i also dont think arma will get rid of all the major limitations we currently have but game2 problably will .

[DBR_ONIX 0]

AFAIK Game 2 uses the Poisendon2 engine, where as OFP uses Poisendon 1 engine, and VBS1 uses an expanded version of this, and ArmA is a more expanded version of this also.. {edit:} then VBS2 will use an expanded Poisendon 2 engine etc..

- Ben

[ThruYerStErNuM 0]

Quote[/b] ]basicaly a improved OFP and the other is a whole new game

Quote[/b] ]VBS1 uses an expanded version of this, and ArmA is a more expanded version of this also..

Why do you both believe its still the old engine when he says

Quote[/b] ]reworked physical simulation and collision detection

I think that maybe because the content of ArmA is the same as OFP, one would think the engine is still the same, but if the content is fully compatable with Game2, and if they say the engine is 'REworked' and not 'improved' then the engine will be much closer to what they now have in Game2.

So I agree with esti_the_big but I dont see the reason for the assumption that ArmA is anything like OFP1 or VBS1 considering the amount of time BIS has been putting into improving the engine. They ported all the content to the XBOX console with a new engine, and they made a playable demo for E3 for Game2. Engine comes first, content second.

[DBR_ONIX 0]

I think the important word in your post is "reworked", not "remade".. It's an improved versoin of the engine, like I said.. well, ment to say (it was kinda obvious I ment that.. I hope.. it still uses the OFP1 engine though)

Even Posiendon 2 will use bits of OFP1's code I'm sure, unless BIS are writing a TOTALY new engine

..meh, who cares, it's all semi-pointless guess work, really

- Ben

[snoops_213 74]

Guys the info is already out there.

Because XBox has such low specs BIS had to opitmize its core code for it to even boot properly on XBox. This means that most if not all of it has to be re-written. BIS have already said that ArmA is being made with lessons learnt from Ofp Xbox and VBS1.

Why wouldn't we see some new things in ArmA then? There is an interview with BIS that says that there are requests made to BIS/BIA that come from both gaming community and the Armed Forces requesting the same thing, ie multi-gunner, moving around in vehicles, DDS etc. Now BIS have an oppertunity to incorperate alot of these into th core, instead of using scripts and updates, which can cause conflicts.

Alot of people saying its in VBS1 but it wont come to ArmA, why? If ArmA is an optermized Ofp1/VBS1 engine then it would be the logical step to include everything into the core while they have a chance. If ArmA is so much more stable and runs better than Ofp1/Vbs1 why wouldn't BIA use ArmA engine as its next big upgrade to VBS?

Just my 2 cents

[Colossus 2]

I have no dout* that the Xbox version has made the codes more "lighter" then what OFP originaly had.

Multi-gunners is a likely possibility and so is moving around in vehicles, but I think they will leave some goodies until "Game 2" (Like dynamic buildings)

*(Not sure if it's spelled like that)

[snoops_213 74]

Yes I think they will leave some goodies till game 2 but why would you leave something out that is already incorperated into the previous game? If anything is left till game2 i think it would be multi gunner(check latest screens, new M1 without commander or loaders MGs) but things like dynamic destruction(already done? wip? for VBS1) would be included.

The movies on this thread are what I'm talking about. Why leave these feature out now, only to impliment them a couple of months down the track with the use of scripts and patches when they could just hard code it in? Why not optermize them with the engine? Why add to development costs in the future when it could be implimented right now?

For now all we can do is pray and wait. Reality is, I'm not not to phazed, I will buy it just to support BIS/BIA for their future project(s).

PS @colossus I consider Game2 a "goodie" all to itself, as we will have seen nothing like it before or for a long time after it comes out!

[DBR_ONIX 0]

I have no dout* that the Xbox version has made the codes more "lighter" then what OFP originaly had.

Multi-gunners is a likely possibility and so is moving around in vehicles, but I think they will leave some goodies until "Game 2" (Like dynamic buildings)

*(Not sure if it's spelled like that)

Of course, the xbox is 700mhz, and has 64mb ram.. It wouldn't run OFP, espically to any decent playable level.. But.. the developers know EXACTLY what hardware is in it, so they can create the game so it'll run best on that system, where as with PCs.. look at the "post your specs" threads.. They vary a *little*

("Doubt" btw )

I think, if they include the moving around in vehicles thing, I dont see why (If it's not included in the shipped game) someone couldn't use the fact you can move an object around "pefectly" (Compared to what it is now ) in the vehicle, and sit a second, third, 80th machinegun in the heli. Just like you can drive a car into the back, shove a MG and it should follow it, no?

Thats assuming they do include it, which as two people have pointed out seems reasonable.. Espically as it's a patch (The moving in vehicles thing) I think they ("hope they" anyway) include this, but the destructable buildings thing is an addon-pack to VBS1, which will be out not long before/after ArmA, and I dont know if they would want to include this in the Å30 game, rather than the Å80 + Å40 "Simulation"/addon pack (From which I'm sure their get people buying other packs too, so another Å50 or more). Thats what I would be sure many companys would do, but BIS, maybe not

Something in the "DIB in ArmA"'s favour is that VBS1 is basicly made so the millatry can use it (They aren't allowed to use OFP as a training thing, it has to be aimed at the millatry, I guess this is so people can't use the "OH NO MY CHILDREN ARE BECOMMING TRAINED KILLERS" argument against OFP.. ), and a large ammount of what VBS1 is about is letting whatever-area-of-the-shooting-other-people-company's request specific modifications to be made for them, so it's different from OFP/ArmA, and hopefully they will try to make ArmA a step up from VBS1, then VBS2 a step up from ArmA, and Game2 a step up from VBS2.. Seems very logical, their's an incentive for people to buy the new "civillian" game, and also better code to improve upon (Which will be tested, and the community reporting any bugs, and suggesting new features etc like the what-you-want-in-Game2 threads, and here )

Same kind of thing, but you don't want Game2 to just be a graphical update for ArmA, by including everything

But I'm sure we'll find out in a few months when the game is released..

*Prods conversation back to VBS1 videos..*

- Ben

[4 IN 1 0]

we still dont know if they have found someone to publish it (or if they will publish it themself)DBR_ONIX, so it seems to be a hell of a waiting........

welcome to the real world m8

[brataccas 0]

so with that vid with the jeep driving in the back does that mean u can say u need to quickly load up, u can just stuff the cargo by dropping guns in the back and shove litter like loads of barrels too and when u take off they clatter about or just stay static? :S

[DBR_ONIX 0]

I guess they'd stay static, but it wouldn't be a huge job to make them roll about, assuming you can get a list of all things in the cargo for example.. Assuming also that you can work out when they hit a wall. Using the get-pitch thing, setvelocity and the games phyics (Aslong as it stops the object going though the wall, which OFP's phyics does), should work

- Ben