New VBS2 features

[Blue_Flight 0]

I always thought of myself that i would never open a thread about VBS2.

But now look, here I am.

Reason is this page on the vbs2.com website:

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/index.p....emid=79

If you read carefully through this features, i think every OFP and ArmA fan will simply be blown away.

In fact i can say that VBS2 especially with all the new features, is everything i ever dreamt off of a combat simulation or evolution from OFP and ArmA.

Now my hope is that BIS will include some of these features for ArmA2.

What i now would like to know is, if anybody knows some confirmed features for ArmA2 which are now also available for VBS2.

What do you all think?

[Abbe 0]

Makes me kind of drewl...I don't know why...

[W0lle 1050]

AFAIK none of the VTK features will be included in ArmA2 as like the article says they were sponsored by the USMC and UK MoD for VBS2.

The only thing so far which made it into ArmA2 are the tracers (even though they are not as Milspec as the VBS2 ones are) and the USMC units (real MARPAT rather then the current ACU style) and vehicles. Maybe some sort of 3D editor too but that is not confirmed I think.

Note: I let this thread open for now, but beware if it turns into another BIS/BIA bashing thread like the ones we had in the past.

[Heatseeker 0]

AFAIK none of the VTK features will be included in ArmA2 as like the article says they were sponsored by the USMC and UK MoD for VBS2.

The only thing so far which made it into ArmA2 are the tracers (even though they are not as Milspec as the VBS2 ones are) and the USMC units (real MARPAT rather then the current ACU style) and vehicles. Maybe some sort of 3D editor too but that is not confirmed I think.

Note: I let this thread open for now, but beware if it turns into another BIS/BIA bashing thread like the ones we had in the past.

I thought that the a.i. improvements (thru dual core), handsignals, destructible buildings and a few other things were BIS developments for Arma II .

Anyway that is one impressive feature list .

[W0lle 1050]

You might forgive me that I forgot the destructible Buildings.

Handsignals I don't know if they were intented to be in ArmA2, I have not said that they are not included either as I simply don't know what will be in ArmA2

[rainbow 0]

I would named it by one word: Game2

[mattxr 9]

Im guessing most of those features come from Arma II as they are being added into VBS2 as an VTK upgrade.. As for the destructible buildings there prob made by BIA

And probably a few of the awesome looking things come from BIA too e.g. thermal imaging etc.. But know one will knw untill the ArmA II website comes active or more info is released i guess.

[opteryx 1562]

I believe BIS has said NPC's will be able to "gesticulate", so I think we could assume hand signals will be implemented to some varying degree, didn't we even see that in a video released some time ago?

As for deformable terrain... I think it's silly considering the average terrain cell size of the engine. IMO it'd be waste of time to implement in ArmA2 unless the engine could handle higher terrain resolution.

Would be nice with 50k Viewdistance though.

[dslyecxi 23]

There are a number of features cited in that PR that come from ArmAII. Additionally, there are many, many features cited in it that can be done in ArmA1 via scripting and mod development. Some things, like the RTE, AAR, etc, are out of the reach of the ArmA1 community and unlikely to show up in ArmA2 (from what we've heard). Still, at the end of the day, even with all of these improvements, I cannot see how anyone who isn't military could justify spending $1500 for VBS2. $1500 for VBS2, or $30 for ArmA + tons of community content.

Also, bear in mind that there are doubtlessly many features of ArmA2 that have not been made public yet, and the whole "grass is always greener" thing definitely comes into play with regards to ArmA vs VBS2.

My job involves VBS2. I use it daily, and while there are many things I like about it (particularly in the way we use it), and it works very well for what we do, there are many good reasons for why I turn to ArmA when I actually want to have a good gaming experience with actual human beings.

[shinRaiden 0]

To follow up with what Dslyexci said...

Some bits in VBS(2) are code that is/was/will be in the engine that goes into the game products, but for various reasons (such as those recently mentioned by ondrej) were not practical to finish and release.

Some bits are developed and managed entirely by the BIA development team, completely outside any relation to the entertainment development teams.

Other parts, though similar in function, may be vastly different in actual implementation. A case in point is the destructible building prototype for VBS1. It worked, based on modifications done by BIA, but the ArmA2 approach as publicly explained differs radically in actual implementation, for the same net effect.

Many of the differences are due to the overlap and separation of the product development. Again, referencing Ondrej's remarks about the development cycle, engine development and content development are never perfectly in-sync. As a result, engine capabilities developed for future projected gaming products may be stabilized in time for VBS2 releases, which do not conform to the entertainment calendar.

Additionally, VBS2 project development started well after ArmA development was underway, and thus had a 'clean slate' to learn from and compensate for many of the lessons learned from the ArmA development process.

Another aspect is that VBS2 is marketed as a multi-year platform, while Armed Assault necessarily follows the whims of the entertainment market. Without access to actual numbers from either product, I'd guess that the bulk of ArmA sales were made within the first six months of release, with a steady decline in sales following that, with a bump from the QG expansion. That's how the game market works. Conversely, in the VBS2 market, initial sales would have been consciously limited to 'launch customers', with sales and installed base increasing as time goes on, rather than decreasing as an entertainment product does.

As a result, the volume of financed development increases as time goes on for products in VBS2's market, while the entertainment market requires a new product for the new year. This is why BIS saves 'new stuff' for revenue-generating 'new products' and only releases non-revenue bug fixes to provide warranty service and maintain goodwill.

Quote[/b] ]My job involves VBS2. I use it daily, and while there are many things I like about it (particularly in the way we use it), and it works very well for what we do

Same here, and I can think of countless experiences I've had from the support side as an observer. I've seen a field exercise replicated in 15 minutes and run so well that nothing short of ordering KFC would slow down the success. Perhaps the best complement to the work of others is one remark made at a trade show by the spouse of someone in the industry :

Quote[/b] ]"I'm not a gamer, but I understand what you're doing there on the computer, it's that simple that even I could use it. And it's intuitive enough that I can immediately see how it could be used to provide supplemental training."

In regards to specific applications however, I would caution folks that it can be very hazardous to your health to take the helm of the boat when Dslyexci decides to toss you an LGB. There's a reason they put seat belts in the Mark V's, would be nice to have on the Sea Arc's.

[walker 0]

Hi all

VBS is intended for a different market.

Military want the same scenario run hundreds of times until the SOP, training factors are second nature. Gamers would get bored long before this.

The military want every thing and all metrics recorded, where you were second by second, which way you were looking, did you follow the ROE, did you get to the FUP at the designated time, did your team leader pass on the RP, what were your squads accuracy, why did the blue on blue occur, why did your squad loose that soldier, did you use your compass, do you know how it works, etc. They will do hours of AAR and debrief as well as analysis, both comparative and research. Gamers just want the score and most of us do not even want that. Few if any would sit round for a 1 or more hour debrief, or write their AAR.

There are addons to VBS that are classified. Because of international treaties certain weapon systems such as MANPADS are illegal to put in a civilian simulation. Ditto certain TTPs.

You will not find any campaigns in VBS. The Military are rarely interested in narrative (with the exception of historical narrative which is better done in ArmA anyway)

VBS customers will put up with crappy building textures, what they are interested in is the layout.

VBS customers do not want to see the inside of a tank unless it is part of the training system. They have the real thing to train part task on and if they want a desk top trainer for a part task it will be way beyond what a gamer would do and again comes under that classified header and so is an addon to VBS and not in the core product.

The VBS VTK is about giving the customer the ability to make classified content; because VBS is an international product and each country wants its own security cleared people working on their products, not a bunch of foreigners. There are also a whole bunch of business model reasons why BIA and BIS do not do this, that I will not go into.

Kind Regards walker

[RN Malboeuf 12]

Quote[/b] ]There are a number of features cited in that PR that come from ArmAII. Additionally, there are many, many features cited in it that can be done in ArmA1 via scripting and mod development.

can you specify whar theoretically can e made in Arma1 and what not ? I remember thermal vision was discussed - it was said there's no way ((

[frostwyrm333 1]

i think handsignals were shown in some of the first trailers.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

If you had to choose a single one feature from VBS2 to implement in Arma2, what would it be, and why?

For me, I'd have to choose the "Realistic Inventory" which is weight based that affects fatigue and that supports "containers" (I guess that means sacks and pockets).

As mission designer, I am now forced to limit equipment (i.e. only ammo in crates, and "simple weapons") in order to achieve a little bit of realism, with constant complains about why they can't get M4M203 ACOG, NVG, Binocs, 3-5 AT-4s (I guess that is simulated tubes since ArmA only allow a single tube), and 8 M203 HE. If this system was implemented, I could allow them to carry whatever they want, but they add penalties to themselves which they may not want.

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]There are a number of features cited in that PR that come from ArmAII. Additionally, there are many, many features cited in it that can be done in ArmA1 via scripting and mod development.

can you specify whar theoretically can e made in Arma1 and what not ? I remember thermal vision was discussed - it was said there's no way ((

A lot of my answers are going to involve ACE, and this is primarily because of how close I am to the project. There are other mods that can do various aspects of the VTK's featureset, but I'll cite ACE primarily.

Breaching

This could be done. We've had missions in the past where breaching is modeled to an acceptable gameplay level.

Destructible Environment

We know this will be in ArmA2. It can technically be done in ArmA1, it just requires an obscene amount of effort that isn't worth it.

Updated fatigue/morale/suppression models

Aspects of this can be done. For instance, ACE has an extremely robust stamina system that probably is more in-depth than the VBS2 version (though I will have to wait to check out the final VTK release to be sure). Suppression is a very likely aspect of the ArmA2 AI, and it may have even been confirmed already. Morale - need more details to know what to say here. In ACE, for example, morale can be modeled further by having units surrender based on various realistic influences.

Handling of Wounded & Enemy

ACE has "battlefield clearance" (dragging wounded), and it's just as good as the VBS2 version. ACE has POWs/surrendering enemies, as mentioned in the previous point.

Realistic Inventory

ACE has a weight-based inventory, but also takes it a step further and introduces volume. The weight has an impact on the stamina system. ACE has rucksacks as well that can hold extra gear, and the interface for it is very slick and easy to use. I know that there are some eventHandlers and scripting commands that make the VBS2 system a bit more technically advanced, but the ACE system is 90% the same end result.

Thermal Imaging

It's not possible to get a perfect solution here, but based on the VTK screens you can find, the VBS2 version of thermal imaging is far from perfect itself. ACE has a kinda-sorta thermal effect in it, but, as said, it's not anywhere close to perfect. It's the best that can be done for now.

Armored Gunnery Enhancements

We all know the answer to this. NWD's Tank FCS is a more robust simulation of gunnery than anything in VBS2. VBS2 has the commander override system, but that's all it has over NWD's mod.

Non-Lethal Weapon Simulation

This can be modded to a large extent in ArmA. A common example from public play would be the 'stun guns' in certain missions.

NBC Simulation

This could be modded/scripted in ArmA. It would not necessarily have all of the features of the VBS2 version, but for the purposes of gameplay, a similar system could be created if desired.

Incident Response Simulation/IED

An IED system can easily be made in ArmA via scripting and modding. I'm not sure how easy it would be to replicate the bomb dog functionality, but I would imagine that if someone really wanted to do it, they could figure it out. The hardest part would probably be the animations.

Ok, those are the ones from their PR that stand out to me as possible in ArmA1. I won't even go into the subject of things that ArmA mods (particularly ACE) can do, that VBS2 doesn't currently support. Two perfect examples from ACE are crew-served weapons (which we have a full, working implementation of, better than the WGL version) and the robust medical and wounding systems of ACE. You can't currently find either in VBS2.

Again, though - VBS2 is awesome for what it's meant for. I enjoy working on it, and the products we use it in (ie: convoy simulators, shooting simulators, aircraft simulators [AVRS]) are amazingly cool. However, I am not going to blow smoke and pretend that VBS2 is somehow the 'ultimate combat sim' worthy of a civilian to spend $1500 on it. I don't believe that's the case. If the price ever changes, my tune may change, but so long as it's $1500, it's not worth it for a civilian user. Take ArmA, add on some good mods, and you have a similar (better in some ways, worse in others) product for a tiny fraction of the cost.

[mattxr 9]

Wow that mod sounds really cool.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Quote[/b] ]VBS2 now supports gestures (separate upper torso animation), which are used to provide hand signals and also reloading on the move.

Well I guess this confirms what we saw in the ArmA II trailers. Assuming said feature is as developed in ArmA II as it is for the VTK, I hope BI's artists/design team take advantage of this as much as possible. With proper implimentation it could very well completely alter the infantry perspective in ArmA II, allowing for more fluid movement and overall better animation quality.

Actually thinking about it now, the ArmA II team's implimentation of this feature could either make or break ArmA II. I think it's safe to say most people who play the OFP/ArmA/VBS series spend a lot (if not the majority) of their time in game/sim just walking around on foot. Even subtle changes in the character movements can have quite an impact on the user experience, and this in my opionion is a huge change.

This applies to all products that will include this update too; support for this feature will enable more realistic movement and will make new moves easier to impliment. For example, tied to a reload (recharge, not magazine reload) controller, the arms could be animated for pump/bolt action weapons without the concern of interupting movement.

If abused however, infantry combat in ArmA II could for example become much more fast paced and unappealing to veteran fans.

Anyway, that's what I'm looking forward to in ArmA II.

[RN Malboeuf 12]

@Dslyecxi

Quote[/b] ]A lot of my answers are going to involve ACE, and this is primarily because of how close I am to the project. There are other mods that can do various aspects of the VTK's featureset, but I'll cite ACE primarily.

Quote[/b] ]Again, though - VBS2 is awesome for what it's meant for. I enjoy working on it

You mean VTK is created with the help of arma modders ?

or it's ACE is created with bis/bia employees efforts ?

anyway - looking forward to your ace release

Quote[/b] ]Breaching

This could be done. We've had missions in the past where breaching is modeled to an acceptable gameplay level.

Destructible Environment

We know this will be in ArmA2. It can technically be done in ArmA1, it just requires an obscene amount of effort that isn't worth it.

i guess it's something less advanced then in Red Faction (one game i can think of with destrictable landscape) ?

[Maddmatt 1]

or it's ACE is created with bis/bia employees efforts ?

ACE is a mod, just like any other mod nobody is paid to work on it.

[mattxr 9]

If abused however, infantry combat in ArmA II could for example become much more fast paced and unappealing to veteran fans.

i highly doubt this.

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]You mean VTK is created with the help of arma modders ?

or it's ACE is created with bis/bia employees efforts ?

None of the above. My professional real-life job involves VBS2. I do scenario design for a simulation company that uses VBS2 as the basis for live-fire and virtual (laser-based) firearms training.

In a completely unrelated note, I also participate in the ACE development as a hobby. There is no relation between ACE and VBS2, no shared development, nothing. ACE is for ArmA and ArmA2, VBS2 is for the military, and VTK is for VBS2 and has absolutely no association to ACE.

[shinRaiden 0]

Quote[/b] ]You mean VTK is created with the help of arma modders ?

or it's ACE is created with bis/bia employees efforts ?

None of the above. My professional real-life job involves VBS2. I do scenario design for a simulation company that uses VBS2 as the basis for live-fire and virtual (laser-based) firearms training.

In a completely unrelated note, I also participate in the ACE development as a hobby. There is no relation between ACE and VBS2, no shared development, nothing. ACE is for ArmA and ArmA2, VBS2 is for the military, and VTK is for VBS2 and has absolutely no association to ACE.

The point is that much of the content in VBS2 is just that, it's content, that could be done largely (but not always completely or simply) in ArmA. The difference is that BIA has the ability to make engine changes as required to implement non-existent capabilities (eg thermal, engine-side AI behavioral hooks, etc) as required.

As for any collaboration, while various Bohemia Interactive and partner company employees may be privately involved with various community projects, this is an individual and private matter, and has nothing to do with Bohemia Interactive or any BI product.

[RN Malboeuf 12]

Quote[/b] ]None of the above. My professional real-life job involves VBS2. I do scenario design for a simulation company that uses VBS2 as the basis for live-fire and virtual (laser-based) firearms training.

i bet a lot of mission makers can only dream about your job

Quote[/b] ]There is no relation between ACE and VBS2, no shared development, nothing

i just can't believe that you have the same editing experience actually working on bis product as all the rest

...nevermind though, it's a curiosity - i know that job is job, hobby is hobby, even though it's great if you can combine it

[W0lle 1050]

Quote[/b] ]None of the above. My professional real-life job involves VBS2. I do scenario design for a simulation company that uses VBS2 as the basis for live-fire and virtual (laser-based) firearms training.

i bet a lot of mission makers can only dream about your job

I wouldn't say that. It's a difference if you create scenarios for your private entertainment/sharing it with others or if your job requires you to do them. While the community let's you get away with not 100% perfect scenarios, your supervisor/CO/customer expects 101% no matter what it takes.

If Dslyecxi can combine both, enjoying creating scenarios and get paid for it - then even better.

I have a million of half-finished scenarios here which never will see the light of day. I can do that and if I never finish them it's the communities loss, but if I get paid for creating them I can't drop one idea and start the next, just to drop it again after I get bored.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

@Dslyecxi: I've been waiting for that sort of info on ACE for a while, yet you just said it then as though you could have at any time. I understand that everything's WIP and not all features done and dusted but any chance of the ACE website including this sort of detail? Or maybe in the ACE thread? It sounds great.