Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
m@ster

www.vbs2.com / www.bistudio.com

Recommended Posts

Bohemia Interactive also announces that VBS2 will only be made available to the serious games market and will not be sold for entertainment. Gamers are advised to purchase ArmA: Armed Assault which is also developed by Bohemia Interactive.

Does that mean it will be sold via Online Shop again? And not sold in stores? smile_o.gif Awesome Videos, looking like an Awesome Game. biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bohemia Interactive also announces that VBS2 will only be made available to the serious games market and will not be sold for entertainment. Gamers are advised to purchase ArmA: Armed Assault which is also developed by Bohemia Interactive.

Does that mean it will be sold via Online Shop again? And not sold in stores? smile_o.gif Awesome Videos, looking like an Awesome Game. biggrin_o.gif

As I understand it, it means that unlike VBS1, VBS2 will not be made available in the "general" public domain.

Looking at the Serious Games site, it seems that "Serious Games" encompasses all the areas like Military, Governmental Bodies, Police, Fire, Healthcare, Emergency Planning etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would still be nice of BIA to give at least existing VBS1 owners the option to get a cut down version of VBS2...we will see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Real Time Editor is too awsome for words, its everything ive wanted in a flashpoint game beacuse you can place units exactly where you want them. inlove.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ti0n3r

I just hope some of the VBS2 feats will make it into ArmA... especially the real time editor notworthy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so. Maybe as a modification to a later point but not at the current stage. I really doubt it, but the editor is once again a reason that would make me spend a lot of money on a VBS2 civ. version biggrin_o.gif

Wonder if the base package inlcudes the loadmaster...:

Quote[/b] ]The first two loadmaster systems are nearing completion.

Pictures of the prototype UH-60 mockup are below. Note that door guns are yet to be fitted. The tracking system is a Polhemus Liberty, and the head mounted display is an eMagin z800. In the final version all cables will come down from the roof. Up to 3 load masters can operate within the one mockup (each is tracked with 6DOF and linked back to a VBS1 workstation).

lvrs1.jpg

Weeee, my own little UH-60 in the living room. My missus is gonna love this tounge2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy moses that real time editor was sure a sight to see.

If the technology exists why not just use in Arma too, would sure be a help in making incredible missions...atleast for me. wink_o.gif

Didnt they say the same about VBS1, gamers are advised to get OFP and not VBS1 because it was made for the military?

The online shop just points towards vbs1 shop and everyone with enough cash can buy it. I dont see it confirmed anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]If the technology exists why not just use in Arma too, would sure be a help in making incredible missions...atleast for me.

Maybe in a future extension if we're all very lucky but I don't think that they put a XXX.xxx $ developed tool into a 45€ game...:)

However, there will be a VBS2 lite, maybe the public will be able to get their hands on this after it is released. wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, VBS2 is a testimony (or will be once it's released to the 'TRADE' ) of what we can expect, to a degree, in GAME2. I only base this on the fact that VBS1 is the base, in part, to ArmA.

Very impressed by the Physics involved and the AI. The load master video could, possibly, be an example of the helicopter flight model in ArmA. There are so many elements being presented in VBS2 that I personally would love to see in ArmA...here's hoping some of those elements make it into ArmA...and the rest into Game2... whistle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]iri Rydl: You can’t say this is a special graphics of Game 2 or VBS2. At this time its the same engine for Armed Assault and VBS2. Maybe VBS2 has a little bit more details and a lot of features for combat simulation which are not in Armed Assault. Concerning Game 2 there are only some feature parts work in progress. Be sure that in maybe 2 years the game will look completely different from Armed Assault now.

do you think when he said this he meant the editor will be watered down in arma ?. when i saw that video last night,I think it was a shock ,infact i wish i didnt watch it , cause if that editor aint in arma , it will feel so bad banghead.gif. a little to much to expect for Å50 i must admit but if arma will be the recruiting ground for bis like res was for vbs1 and eos etc , theres got to be alot of vbs2 in arma besides just the engine ? ah well back to dream land lol. gotta say tho theres alot of game2 in that tech video . the planes etc and the canyons where in the game channel vidoe of game2 presentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only base this on the fact that VBS1 is the base, in part, to ArmA.

This is correct but it would also be correct to say that OPFR is partially, the base of Arma wink_o.gif .

I really love that desert terrain (elevation/textures), havent seen anything like that in Arma so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is most bloody annoying is soon as VBS gets a feature it seems it is blacklisted for implementation into the game version.

I understand that BIS needs to keep VBS attractive to it's military clientele, however surely it could do this without completely alienating the gaming community from features that would be greatly appreciated.

Here are some features that have been deemed purely 'military use only' with some examples of how they can be very useful in many other games and in OFP.

Replay Function - Was around in games long before it was in military simulations. Gran Turismo, Il-2 Sturmovik. Football games even have it. A lot of people like to review what they have done so they can improve, not just people wearing uniforms.

Observer Function - Running a league match, admins from the league can administrate matches in real time, ensuring no cheating occurs etc. A LOT of people in OFP play competitively.

Cooperative missions could also be made a lot more dynamic and interesting by dynamically adding shit.

As for all the graphical fancy stuff and animals ... that is not important. I am really quite dubious as to how you got the military to buy such a load of fluff in the first place. I am not one of those people who loads up the editor and takes screenshots all day, I actually play the game. Graphics are 10% of the game to me and they seem to be 90% of VBS.

If you were to include such functions in a later patch for Armed Assault, I don't think the military users would drop all their investments in VBS and start playing as Sam Somebody on the island of somewhere. They have their special licensing already and can just ask for stuff which BIA or whoever is obliged to make for them, something they couldn't get if they used a game version.

It makes no sense to deprive a loyal community of such useful features and the 'military applications only' is just complete bollocks. I didn't have to stretch the imagination very far to see some very cool uses in current OFP, let alone ArmA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

notworthy.gif the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

of course the other reason is that the community would make better stuff than the military does for vbs and so questions would be asked, why are we paying for sheep and mini me soldiers when these gamers get better addons/scenarios/missions and ambience just by clicking on ofp.info.

said without desrespecting the initial work on the engine of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]It makes no sense to deprive a loyal community of such useful features and the 'military applications only' is just complete bollocks. I didn't have to stretch the imagination very far to see some very cool uses in current OFP, let alone ArmA.

You can always contact BIA for a VBS enterprise license if you like. There is some features that have been developed on contractors request. So if a certain contractor payed xxx.xxx $ to get this done do you really think that the same contractor want to see this in the game version? I doubt it. Cause then Armed Assault would be called something like Americas Army - public version.

You should be happy that many of the engine improvements that come form the VBS dev work have been implemented in ArmA already. That would be more productive than having half the people here bitching all the time either about a release date or "I want this too mommy..."! Get yourself VBS1 on 1200$ first before you start crying about not being able to get VBS2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going absolutely nowhere fast, the only thing useful is a thread-lock since it's impractical to try to explain to you all as to why it's utterly impractical and unrealistic technically to implent what you're asking for.

band.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]You should be happy that many of the engine improvements that come form the VBS dev work have been implemented in ArmA already.

I am very appreciative of the confirmed new features that will be in Armed Assault. The fact that it took VBS and military input for them to actually get done is what I am annoyed about.

Quote[/b] ]It's impractical to try to explain to you all as to why it's utterly impractical and unrealistic technically to implent what you're asking for.

You know very well your chatting shit, the fact that you are heavily connected to VBS makes your answer almost formulaic.

Quote[/b] ]There is some features that have been developed on contractors request. So if a certain contractor payed xxx.xxx $ to get this done do you really think that the same contractor want to see this in the game version? I doubt it.

This is how technology is done, the first guy to pick up the bill (usually the military finding new ways to kill people) pays inordinate amounts of money and someone makes an easy killing. Then soon the technology becomes widespread and eventually it is almost impossible to distinquish between military and civilian versions of the technology. e.g. GPS - 5 metres for military, 20-30 metres for civilian. On the scale of the size of the world, very small difference.

However I am not asking the BIS people to launch bloody satellites. I am asking for a civilian version of features that have been implemented already.

This is amazing, I am asking a game developer for a simple replay feature so I can watch a battle again and people are treating it like I am asking for NASA software, the word I mentioned earlier was blacklisted.

The only reason stopping this development is dodgy politics, not technical unfeasability.

This is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]This is going absolutely nowhere fast, the only thing useful is a thread-lock since it's impractical to try to explain to you all as to why it's utterly impractical and unrealistic technically to implent what you're asking for.

it would be utterly impractiable and unrealistic to implement aar in arma ? its already been done for ofp , why would it be so hard for arma , i dont understand your logic at all , if indeed there is any logic to your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is going absolutely nowhere fast, the only thing useful is a thread-lock since it's impractical to try to explain to you all as to why it's utterly impractical and unrealistic technically to implent what you're asking for.

band.gif

LOL.. yeah whatever.... I dare you to try and explain it to me.

shinRaiden's snobbish comments aside, I do understand why someone else who foots the bill does not mean everyone gets it. Jinef, your concept of "how technology is done" is valid on some levels but not all. There are cases where cooperative licensing does not allow a developer to use features in a different product because the other "licensee" holds a partial license - I do not know if this is the case, but I can guarantee there are agreements in place that speak about this topic. Only BIS and the Third-Party would know.

As far as features, I hope some of these are implemented. They are VERY nice. If not, it's no skin off my back... what they said is already included is plenty for me to this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]However I am not asking the BIS people to launch bloody satellites. I am asking for a civilian version of features that have been implemented already.

That's exactly what you're getting with ArmA... rofl.gif

And this kind of discussions are exactly one of the reasons why VBS has quite a few community. Cause BIA can't be asked to keep up with all the moaning going on... apart from the other reasons mentioned before.

Even if they wont release VBS2 or VBS2 lite to the public I be happy for quite a while with Armed Assault and what has become of what used to be OFP for the last 5 years. BIA actually made the impossible possible by keeping one game alive for over 5 years now and now they even top it with the upcoming Armed Assault that will show us what BI has learned in them 5 years...

I don't understand why some people just can't stop to mock about stuff all the time and just be happy for once in their lives. Some here start to sound very bloody german to me. I only need to open the door to see all this "happy faces" banghead.gif

As for content.

There has been maps made for VBS as well based on Satellite data that have never been sold to the public VBS owners. Including the Baghdad Green Zone and other OP areas. This maps have been excluded from the Terrain Pack that was sold to the public for example.

So if the ADF paid for this to get them done for OP training do you really think they want this being released to the public? (And this is just one example of quite a few)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most current VBS tools that im aware of are not practical for gaming, the real time editor for example would be hard to integrate in a gaming environment without disrupting gameplay, for gaming i believe editing and playing should never be "combined" has not to be abused. Same can be said about an observer/spectator interface and other tools, malicious users would hack them in no time and abuse them in MP gaming sessions... a dream would easily became a nightmare for the users and for BIS too. (patch>hack, patch>hack, etc).

On the serious games market they dont have to worry about this (no punkbuster there i guess biggrin_o.gif ).

The ability to record a session would be nice, i have to agree with that (heck, GR had this) but we must consider that they have to give some distinction and value to the "serious game" product. It wouldnt be fair for some "obscure organisations" to grab a dozen copies of Armed Assault and get the full functionality and features of VBS, especially if these developments were requested, sponsored and tested by military orgs..

Lets be fair...

Some of the features that Arma will have might be the result of military specific developments (i.e. new editable a.i.).

With very few "game" releases the sim market is most likely of great importance for BIS, they might depend more on it than we know... to keep things going and everyone happy.

Armed Assault will be a dream game and BIS will release editing and content creation software for it, they are achieving behiond our expectations (atleast mine), i strongly believe that we (gamers) will get more from Arma than we would from VBS2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×