Bohemia eyes persistent multiplayer battlefields

[MehMan 0]

I want to stab you all for making that pyramid.

[Silent N Deadly 0]

This is light years away for BIS considering how long it's taken to develop AA, look for it in 2015.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

A quote from a great man.

He is wrong, though.

We heard of ArmA in May 2005, and it's first release date was Q4 2005.

How I know this? Cause I started my website in August 2005 - which would be kinda weird if the game development started months after...

Why, oh WHY are you saying this again?

If you actually read the quote, you'd see that I do infact state that ArmA was announced in May 2005... How does that POSSIBLY conflict with your info?

Take like 2 mins to actually read the quote, then have a poke around the screenshots on your site. You'll see that I'm correct...

Sorry, my fault mate.

Although I still cannot see why you can say the game development first started in 2006. That the screenshots are alot nicer is very clear, but that is IMHO part of the development of a game.

The game has been under development far longer than what we assume, just look at those littlebirds and rotor wash... I have seen them somewhere before - and of all people, you should as well.

That and the fact that it is simply a build on an earlier engine.

Maybe it was from ofp leet? and that littlebird sure looks like the BAS model...

At what point though do all models start to look alike and become nigh impossible to tell apart without an exaustive raw model audit?

Besides, iirc only the UH 60 and CH 47 models were significantly new, the OH 6 and OH 58's were tweaks and mods of the BIS models.

but arent the BIS models the BAS ones ?

No, we're saying the BAS models are BIS models, not that BIS models are BAS models.

No, his saying BIS models are BAS models. thats what i've been saying from the start. i mean why would BIS make new models if BAS had better ones?

No, I said BAS edited BIS models for the OH 6 and OH 58, and integrated small portions of the BIS models for the CH 47 and UH 60.

Which was wrong, because the OH-6 was an entirely new model at the time we released it (the OH-6 had never been an "official" part of any BIS product until it was included in VBS1)

People, some folks like ArmA, and some don't...can't we just leave it at that without discussing every detail of every aspect of its flaws and shortcomings?

Abs

Look Mr. Abs, some of us who paid $50 for this game have a right to complain about this product. if its all imported BAS stuff i will be asking for my money back.

Yeah, who knows what sort of chaos there would be if it were all Combat! rips instead of BAS ones.

I don't see Combat! mentioned anywhere?

Nice job taking this off topic shinRaiden. can we get back to the topic at hand now?

It wouldn't be that weird if modding teams would cooperate. Look at VBS1 addon packs.

@mehman, I'd like to stab you for threatening to stab others.

Btw I agree...

[hoz 0]

Lets put an end to the ridiculous quoting and get back on topic. Next person to quote like that WL+1.

[rekrul 7]

I don't see how Arma ever can manage to have 50+ players on a server. The processors aren't getting faster, they're just adding more cores which the devs have said they're not going to add support for due to enormous restructure of code.

I would like a decent server every day of the week, compared to persistant battlefield.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that ArmA development started the second BI was finished with OFP:R.

ArmA as we know it only really came into existance in late 2005, infact I'm more inclined to suggest that in its current state it probably didnt come into existance until early 2006.

Look at it like this: in mid 2005 (at E3 or whatever expo it was) BI announced ArmA. Look at the screenshots of ArmA back then, it was the OFP:E engine brought back to PC. Look at ArmA now, it's totally different and looks a bit like Game2 was starting to look like ~10 months ago. What can we deduce from this? We can deduce this: ArmA as it was when it was announced, is NOT the same ArmA as we have now. Therefore, ArmA we have now is <1 year old. Not bad when you consider the dev time for most other games (excluding the bullshit movie tie ins and all that other crap)

this should be required reading for all future posters

the quotes..... mesmerizing, I cant stop looking at it

[MehMan 0]

I don't see how Arma ever can manage to have 50+ players on a server. The processors aren't getting faster, they're just adding more cores which the devs have said they're not going to add support for due to enormous restructure of code.

Yet. They said yet. For now they have to worry about final distribution of the game, doing some things for the publisher and fixing the games major problems such as the preformance issues on high end machines. I do believe multicore and multithreading is a concern for BIS, but not at this very moment. And if they do ever release something for that, I think it would strictly be a dedicated server release as they would probably benefit from it the most. Maybe if they are planning an expansion I'd guess we can expect that there, stuff like multithreading support, multicore support, SLI support, perhaps if an expansion is in plan and far enough in the future, Dx10 could be used to optimize the game and improve preformance.

But these are just my wishes/presumptions.

[Pierrot 0]

Maybe if they are planning an expansion I'd guess we can expect that there, stuff like multithreading support, multicore support, SLI support, perhaps if an expansion is in plan and far enough in the future, Dx10 could be used to optimize the game and improve preformance.

Even MSFSX does not support multicore proccesser. Works for support multicore doesn't pay considering its performance. BIS however should work on primarily; upgrade for AI strategy, more detailed damage model, proper grass management, bullet penetration and deflection not only through static object but also through human body and vehicle.