VBS2 1.22 ADF, NZDF and SDF Screenshots

[dm 9]

I am apauled that a constructive negative response is not tolerated and defended with indirect excuses

I'm sorry, but when did

Its sad to see really that the community here has released addons with visually far greater quality than these screenshots present. What is BIA wasting money on?

Normal maps were deemed useless it seems for the vehicle and the soldier which looks at best like a good OFP addon

Become considered constructive?

[bravo 6 0]

I'm just trying to say that with time ArmA, ArmAII will possibly be as good as VBS2 or even better if you consider the things they don't want to implement, such as simulating a realistic world nature eye candy. Eye candy can also create some feelings in peoples head, conditioning some behaviors.

Again, to be honest, i don't care if they don't want to create, improve the natural world terrain it self. They do what they want, and people buy if they want. My opinion was posted for those who are interested, for those who don't care, ignore it.

I still don't understand why VBS2 personal are creating/simulating a realistic combat program for the military personal and don't simulate the terrain as natural as possible aswell. As we all know the terrain it self in reality is also a aspect to consider in military tactics, and sometimes things change due to them, even psychologically.

Also, instead of trying to improve the terrain technology, preparing it and making it better for the future they rather wait and do nothing about the terrain it self. Without the so called eye candy, the military personal will train under a program that completely ignores the feeling it can generate to the human mind.

Peace,

and thank you BIS for ArmA and ArmAII.  

[dm 9]

Eye candy can also create some feelings in peoples head, conditioning some behaviors.

As has been said already, the "eye candy" parts of the training are done in the real world. VBS is more for the conditional training - what to do when your convoy is IED'd etc etc. Doesnt need to be overly pretty to do that.

Again, to be honest, i don't care if they don't want to create, improve the natural world terrain it self. They do what they want, and people buy if they want.

As far as I understand it, they do what the customer wants, not what they want. According to the website, development was driven be USMC and ADF requirements, and I'm sure some of the other bigger customers had some input too. BIA isnt like a mod team who can do what they want, they get contracted to make specific things/functionality for the customers.

I still don't understand why VBS2 personal are creating/simulating a realistic combat program for the military personal and don't simulate the terrain as natural as possible aswell.

Biggest limitation here is the size of the terrains the customers want. 100+ km terrains with the current limitations of the tools are quite hard to populate realistically. Hell, even when we [bAS] were looking at Tonal remake for ArmA, we came up with numbers like; ArmA object density = approx 1 object per square meter, whereas real world density can be more like 5, 10 or even 20 or more depending on the location and terrain. Couple with that limited grid size, the real world has a "land grid" with resolution in mm, whereas the engine is limited to 5 or 10m. As a terrain developer yourself, you should appreciate the limitations, yes?

Also, the terrains in VBS do appear to have vastly improoved over the last few releases, with much more detailed and "pretty" terrain being produced.

Also, instead of trying to improve the terrain technology, preparing it and making it better for the future they rather wait and do nothing about the terrain it self.

I'm interested to know what you know about the technological developments that may or may not have been made over the last year or so by BIA or BIS? It seems you have intricate knowledge of what goes on in BIA in order to make such statements?

Without the so called eye candy, the military personal will train under a program that completely ignores the feeling it can generate to the human mind.

Having had the chance to try loadmaster and the Sniper Trainer first hand, I can say that it sucks you in completely, even with the "poor models" and "ugly terrain". Have you had chance to try similar things yourself to be able to make such statements?

Just a few more cents for the pile...

[nephilim 0]

Add few bucks of mine DM

[bravo 6 0]

Also, instead of trying to improve the terrain technology, preparing it and making it better for the future they rather wait and do nothing about the terrain it self.

I'm interested to know what you know about the technological developments that may or may not have been made over the last year or so by BIA or BIS? It seems you have intricate knowledge of what goes on in BIA in order to make such statements?

Along the years they have spoken and talked about their ambitions, their developments and plans for the future, and what i said was based on that, because normally they say what they pretend to do in pre-hand, and nothing was mentioned.

That kinda technology was already spoken and mentioned in the past.

So, please, don't corrupt things again, as you use to do occasionally.

Without the so called eye candy, the military personal will train under a program that completely ignores the feeling it can generate to the human mind.

Having had the chance to try loadmaster and the Sniper Trainer first hand, I can say that it sucks you in completely, even with the "poor models" and "ugly terrain". Have you had chance to try similar things yourself to be able to make such statements?

Just a few more cents for the pile...

Unfortunately i hadn't such luck, but i don't really mind.

We all know, for years, that you are a great privileged. Im glad that you have the possibility to try out in first hand, and happy that you shared such information.

I'm also glad that you can have such equipment at home so you can train without any dependency. I bet a lot of people that will have VBS2 will also have the conditions you have, but some with VBS2 won't have such possibility in the future.

anyway...  if you reread the "stuff" i wrote, it was referring to the terrain it self. (what you See, Not what you use)

[shinRaiden 0]

@soul_assassin:

My only comment is one is not better than the other, they're just different.

Regarding graphics, we figured out pretty early on that there were two main drawbacks to adding normal and specular maps:

* - Increased system requirements

* - Increased development time

The only immediate benefit is that objects so modeled look prettier.

If customers require that, then of course it can be contracted. However, when VBS2 was launched, similar to the ArmA discussions here, many military customers had to run VBS2 on VBS1 spec hardware for some time, and immediate system upgrades were not an option.

Secondly, various applications of VBS2, such as the aircrewmen trainer, use lower-fidelity system components. For example, the emagin z800 headsets seen in the AVRS media have a published spec of 800x600. They are effective in their use, but normal and specular maps would be completely wasted in those contexts.

As for scripting, yes it's true that ArmA content may in various cases have more intricate scripted systems for individual content items than VBS2 variants, eg the RKSL announcements for example. However, that's based on a different design approach taken by the different designers. BIS in OFP and ArmA tends to put their scripted systems into scenarios. Community addon makers implement content-specific systems. BIA prefers to implement integrated backend systems like a tightly managed super-mod. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, one's not 'better' than the other, just different.

Of course you might see something that might be prettier or might have more features in ArmA as opposed to VBS2. That doesn't mean however that the VBS2 customers aren't getting a fair contract, or that they're not satisfied with what's been delivered.

For me, the nerd I am, tbh I could care less about more shiny. When someone points at a screen and says

Quote[/b] ]That helo you see in VBS2 with everyone in it? AVCATT's flying that, not VBS2

That to me is awesome. Or when VBS2 creates a new capability, like being able to turn actual incident reports into instructional content within 96 hours of the actual incident, that to me is epic. (Link here)

[soul_assassin 1750]

You guys must think im freakin blind or somethin why keep repeating the same thing? pretty graphics not needed for the purpose of VBS2? fine I get it...that is why pretty graphics are not utilized. All you guys are doing just backing up my point and adding sorry excuses for it.

Im done with this. Please stop addressing me in thread we keep on repeating the same thing for 3 pages already.

[dm 9]

Along the years they have spoken and talked about their ambitions, their developments and plans for the future, and what i said was based on that, because normally they say what they pretend to do in pre-hand, and nothing was mentioned.

That kinda technology was already spoken and mentioned in the past.

Well yes, thats usually how it happens. But I can assure you that advancements have been made. Theres enough documentation, not to mention the product its self as proof to that.

So, please, don't corrupt things again, as you use to do occasionally.

Heh, I like that I have a reputation as "the corruptor" (er?)

Without the so called eye candy, the military personal will train under a program that completely ignores the feeling it can generate to the human mind.

Having had the chance to try loadmaster and the Sniper Trainer first hand, I can say that it sucks you in completely, even with the "poor models" and "ugly terrain". Have you had chance to try similar things yourself to be able to make such statements?

Unfortunately i hadn't such luck, but i don't really mind.

We all know, for years, that you are a great privileged. Im glad that you have the possibility to try out in first hand, and happy that you shared such information.

I'm also glad that you can have such equipment at home so you can train without any dependency. I bet a lot of people that will have VBS2 will also have the conditions you have, but some with VBS2 won't have such possibility in the future.

I certainly dont have it at home! Dont have the space for a full sized mock-up of a UH-60!

I do think that you are thinking "inside the box" and thinking about VBS too much like ArmA. Yes there are some "Serious Gamers" who have VBS and use it very much like ArmA, but the scenario changes once you start talking about VBS when deployed with real military units. You just have to read the quotes from the various reports as to how the users get sucked in, regardless of the models, textures or terrain. Once you're focussed on your task how pretty things look tends to go out the window.

anyway...  if you reread the "stuff" i wrote, it was referring to the terrain it self. (what you See, Not what you use)

And so was I, AVRS and the Sniper Trainer are just two examples of using VBS. You're still in the same terrain, using the same models and maps. They are "just" keyboard/mouse replacements.

@Soul_Assasin

I'm still not sure how you think your original comments were any more relevant/better than the ongoing discussion. Which is why people keep bringing it up.

And your original "point" was that the ArmA community makes better content than what is included in VBS2. And that BIA were wasting their money on content development. Which in both cases is not true. Hence the points being made to counter that statement. (There is a LOT more to content "quality" than just looking pretty...)

[Pathy 0]

Soul Assassin, there is nothing substandard about UKF's work, but if you think they don't meet ArmA standard then perhaps we ought to bin it all and not release anything, so we can wait on your own high quality UK addons....

Yeah, thought not....

[spooky lynx 73]

Emm... What is SDF and what side utilises BRDM-2 and Su-17 in this version of VBS?

[max power 21]

Empty threats are so tiresome and boring.

[VXR 9]

Emm... What is SDF and what side utilises BRDM-2 and Su-17 in this version of VBS?

SDF..

I think it is:

-Singapore Defence Forces

or

-Sweden Defence Forces

[mr.g-c 6]

Probably Singapore, because east-timor like mentioned is relative "near" to it...

Anyway, can't understand the discussion... i think the showed VBS2 Vehicles and stuff looking pretty good even without those fancy texture shading....

Textures (ok desert sand-color ones are a bit "boring" or more extensive wheatering is missing) are looking very good IMHO...

And the Islands are simply amazing.... i mean guys look at our ugly sahrani (especially North Sahrani - South is way better) compared to those... Sahrani look really artificial... the textures from Sahrani (Sateelitempa aswell as close-distant textures) compared to those VBS2 screen are really a joke...

Can't all dedicated Island-creators of Arma stick together and make some 1000 sqKM and bigger Island?

I mean we see tons of Afghanistan/Iraq maps already released or in the make, but they are all so tiny....

And Sahrani is way to tiny too, for some real-life like game with support, artiller, whatever....

[cozza 24]

but there are Swedish units in some of the pics  

swedish troops

[Serclaes 0]

Probably Singapore, because east-timor like mentioned is relative "near" to it...

Actually, Australia is much closer to it than Singapore. And i guess it is for the ADF since they were there for a UN peacekeeping(?) mission.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

yes it was a UN peacekeeping mission. Australia was asked because of its proximity.

I read the thread, but not realy sure why. The little flame war was terribly circular.

Just a theory but ther may also be another issue in play here. There is a thinking amongst many in military circles and particlarly law enforment that a sense of the 'ultra real' in a simulator is not neccessarily a good thing. They don't want thier folks exposed to a repeated experience of total emersion (helped with lashings of eye candy)in what could be a fake death. Something about desensitizing emotional resposes during critical decision making moments. That control over the level of emersion may be a difficult thing when you understand the toys these boys are using to play on it.

So VBS instead turns its resources to more practicle 'realities' such as exacting variants of vehicles and real world terrain data. A more detaied penetration system and mission editing on the fly. Because its all about simulating proceedure. Learning about what to do under certain situations and the consequenses of doing the wrong thing.

At any rate I think the pics look Ok. In fact they kind of make me think that the normal maps and, inparticlar the specular maps, are layed on a bit think in Arma to the detriment of 'reality'.

[spooky lynx 73]

There's very nice Su-17M4 on the screenshots. But it has one noticeable bug... Pylons which are only for R-60 anti-air misiles are used for carrying bombs.

[W0lle 1052]

Empty threats are so tiresome and boring.

Would you stop spamming the forums? May I remember you that you're on probation after your WL removal.

SDF = Swedish Defense Forces most probably.

BRDM and Su-17 are used by "Generic OPFOR".

As for the Su-17 Pylons... I guess it doesn't matter as like said they are used as OPFOR vehicles where details and 100% realism doesn't matter. But good eyes you have, right now none of us noticed that.  

[spooky lynx 73]

One more question. How much does full VBS2 package with all available to non-military customers modules cost?

[Namikaze 0]

One more question. How much does full VBS2 package with all available to non-military customers modules cost?

You would need to contact sales@vbs2.com to get that information.

[W0lle 1052]

One more question. How much does full VBS2 package with all available to non-military customers modules cost?

It should be added that there are no modules or addons anymore. You purchase the whole package, addional units, vehicles etc. are provided by for free via patches.

No discussion about the pricetag here.

[jakerod 254]

Gnat @ Jan. 10 2009,12:05)]The second picture, is that vehicle on fire (different ... "partial" fire effect) or has it simply parked on a camp fire ?!

The front right wheel is just on top of a camp fire  

I don't know about that. In this picture: Picture you can see a bit more clearly that the wheel is supposed to be on fire.

[NoRailgunner 0]

This looks more like a placed "fire lit" object.

[Maddmatt 1]

Gnat @ Jan. 10 2009,12:05)]The second picture, is that vehicle on fire (different ... "partial" fire effect) or has it simply parked on a camp fire ?!

The front right wheel is just on top of a camp fire  

I don't know about that. In this picture: Picture you can see a bit more clearly that the wheel is supposed to be on fire.

And you can also quite clearly see that there is a fireplace under the wheel, partly hidden by some kind of conveniently placed mound of sand (part of a new fireplace object maybe).

I can spot that old campfire effect a mile away

I suppose they tried to make it look like a small landmine went off under the wheel.

[jakerod 254]

Gnat @ Jan. 10 2009,12:05)]The second picture, is that vehicle on fire (different ... "partial" fire effect) or has it simply parked on a camp fire ?!

The front right wheel is just on top of a camp fire  

I don't know about that. In this picture: Picture you can see a bit more clearly that the wheel is supposed to be on fire.

And you can also quite clearly see that there is a fireplace under the wheel, partly hidden by some kind of conveniently placed mound of sand (part of a new fireplace object maybe).

I can spot that old campfire effect a mile away

I suppose they tried to make it look like a small landmine went off under the wheel.

It appears though that it is supposed to be an effect. I was saying that in the BRDM picture that I don't think it was supposed to be a camp fire but that the vehicle was supposed to be on fire. It maybe an actual campfire but it is supposed to represent the vehicle being disabled not a vehicle driving over a campfire. I should've made that more clear.