Arma 2 the last game to use this engine?

[sakura_chan 9]

I'm wondering if Arma2 is going to be the last incarnation of the real virtuality engine. Its a great engine, but I would wonder what it would be like if BIS took everything they learned and built a brand new engine from scratch. I mean totally new, new scripting language, file formats, animation system, ai handling, everything. Are they already working on it, or are they going to discontinue the whole ofp style game after Arma2?

[whisper 0]

Why everything? There's certainly a lot that can be taken from it in its strong points, scalability and terrain streaming.

If you want to know what a brand new engine can do, wait for OFP DR

[cm 0]

The only thing that needs a major overhaul in arma is the physics and animation system. Everything else is pretty much fine.

Wether or not a new enginer is needed for that.. well, only time will tell, but I doubt they will be creating a new one.

[dmarkwick 261]

Would be nice indeed. It would be a long time coming though :D but it would be nice to see things like node-based editing and deferred lighting etc.

[odjob 0]

I dont know how the different parts of the engine work together (graphics/physics/sound/input and so on), but even todays computers cant run Arma2 on everything high, 10000 viewdist and fillrate 200% so i belive atleast the graphics part of the engine is somewhat futureproof.

[dale0404 5]

, but even todays computers cant run Arma2 on everything high, 10000 viewdist and fillrate 200% so i belive atleast the graphics part of the engine is somewhat futureproof.

oops read it wrong, sorry.

[dunedain 48]

BIS took everything they learned and built a brand new engine from scratch. I mean totally new, new scripting language, file formats, animation system, ai handling, everything.

There is 8 years between Ofp and Arma2, Building a brand new engine would mean no sequel until i'm retired "i'm only 21" .. :p

As it has been said so many times, modern physics and animation system is what the current engine really lack of, but it doesn't necessarily mean a brand new engine. I hope they'll work for long on Arma2 with expansion as good as Resistance was. :rolleyes:

Edited June 17, 2009 by dunedain

[walker 0]

Hi Sakura_Chan

For complex software engineering systems; the build a brand new engine approach has been comprehensively debunked. Mostly by a list of failed government and big business software projects that have cost billions and resulted in nothing, nada, a big fat zero.

I think Codemasters approach with DR also proves how wrong this approach is as do a mass of other failed continuously cancelled game projects.

No major developer does what you suggest.

Windows is built on a long heritage of legacy code as are all other major OS's most are now decades old.

Ditto all the major productivity packages such as word processors, databases and spreadsheets and again most are now decades old.

Sure there are new products that come out but to survive they have to pursue the legacy code route same as every other long term successful developer.

In the modern software engineering school it is Rapid Application Development, modular, Object Oriented, legacy code archives and code reuse that are now emphasized.

You do not reinvent the wheel.

You start with an open ended development project then you refine, optimize and increase capability.

Sakura_Chan you mention several improvements you would like to see but not one of them actualy requires an engine rebuild, they can all be implemented in the existing engine.

That is the modern software engineering principle anything else is business suicide.

That is what the the Real Virtuality engine is based on and why it will continue to succeed.

Kind Regards walker

Edited June 17, 2009 by walker

[SaOk 112]

Whats wrong with this engine? There have been major updates from OFP to ArmA2. Animation system feels/looks much better than in ArmA1 - how you know that it will not get better in future too? And what is preventing to get better physics to this if there is much more CPU to use someday? Now I would only like to get better driving skills for AI and much more missions to play. I hope that we will get more official campaigns (nonUS ones) to this which each would offer at least 20 hours of playtime. Campaigns in OFP were the biggest part for me which made it the best game ever (with Mafia).

[Placebo 28]

The game isn't released yet worldwide so bit early for such speculation don't you think?

[Desert 10]

It would be nice to hear a Preanounce of ArmA3. :p

[Alex72 1]

ARMA2 is the end of FPS brilliance for grown ups. When *WHEN!!!* we grow bored of ARMA2 there will be only consoles left in our more and more out-spiraling whacked out crazy fucked up world where its all about money and quick fixes...

Maybe a bit negative, but thats how it feels.

However we have years of great awesome fun ahead of us! Starting for me on friday. Cant wait to see what ARMA2 will bring in gameplay online and addons etc. Its going to be sweet years.

But after that... The end or consoles. I choose the end. :D Seriously! If however BIS or someone would pick up and make a combat sim again with new tech a few years from now - count me in!

Alex

[InFireBaptize 0]

I'm wondering if Arma2 is going to be the last incarnation of the real virtuality engine. Its a great engine, but I would wonder what it would be like if BIS took everything they learned and built a brand new engine from scratch. I mean totally new, new scripting language, file formats, animation system, ai handling, everything. Are they already working on it, or are they going to discontinue the whole ofp style game after Arma2?

Why reinvent the wheel?

[walker 0]

Hi Sakura_Chan

For complex software engineering systems; the build a brand new engine approach has been comprehensively debunked. Mostly by a list of failed government and big business software projects that have cost billions and resulted in nothing, nada, a big fat zero.

I think Codemasters approach with DR also proves how wrong this approach is as do a mass of other failed continuously cancelled game projects.

No major developer does what you suggest.

Windows is built on a long heritage of legacy code as are all other major OS's most are now decades old.

Ditto all the major productivity packages such as word processors, databases and spreadsheets and again most are now decades old.

Sure there are new products that come out but to survive they have to pursue the legacy code route same as every other long term successful developer.

In the modern software engineering school it is Rapid Application Development, modular, Object Oriented, legacy code archives and code reuse that are now emphasized.

You do not reinvent the wheel.

You start with an open ended development project then you refine, optimize and increase capability.

Sakura_Chan you mention several improvements you would like to see but not one of them actualy requires an engine rebuild, they can all be implemented in the existing engine.

That is the modern software engineering principle anything else is business suicide.

That is what the the Real Virtuality engine is based on and why it will continue to succeed.

Kind Regards walker

Hi all

I would add to my previous comments that none of the benefits of backwards compatibility would exist if ArmA II was not built on the existing engine.

You have only to consider the speed with which ArmA I mods and islands are being adapted to ArmA II to see the obvious content development benefits of generational development.

Kind Regards walker

[djewt1 0]

Upgrade the sandbox, don't try to reinvent it!

OFP / ARMA, even with it's flaws, is the best game series out there IMO :bounce3:

[sakura_chan 9]

Why reinvent the wheel?

we don't still use the first wheel we invented right? We make better, stronger, bigger wheels. I didn't necessarily mean a whole new never before seen engine, but there is no reason that they couldn't at some point make a version that was different enough that it could be considered new. I personally would like to see a huge, full scale upgrade to weapon handling. Something along the lines of Mando's work, but also a complete fundamental change to both vehicle and soldier based guns. The ofp series doesn't really model rifles very convincingly. You can't animate the sights, your grenade sight is always up, you can't hold the weapon correctly if it is an MG or something with a foregrip, the muzzleflash is maybe the worst i've seen in a game, you reload every weapon exactly the same way (within 4 seconds BTW), you can't use bipods/bayonets/lasers/flashlights, and every ejected cartridge glides out in a perfect arc without any other effects. Now don't get me wrong, I love this series more than most of you, but it could be so much better. Imagine for a minute. What if you started your mission at base with an m4. You walk over to a gear table and select 'set up weapon'. You can choose your sight, what you want on the front rails ie laser, flashlight, m203 sight, choose your stock and magazine, and finally be able to select the color/skin that you want and also add a clan logo. Imagine being able to adjust the sights by actually turning the sight adjustment on the rifle or scope. Instead of a boring ugly generic huge muzzle flash, it is mostly smoke with a smaller flash that only happens once in a while. It would be awesome to have working night gear like in this vid

. That would be the cool stuff. Anyways it was just something to talk about on my day off while I was checking to see if the demo was released!

[bonchie 39]

I'm no expert, but dealing with Microsoft flight Simulator, another game that has a long running engine that's been constantly refined, there seems to be a point where an engine is old enough that it isn't efficent anymore. With FSX for example, you can put the latest and greatest hardware on it, 3 years after it's release (and it's a 10 year old engine), and it still doesn't run well. Same for alot of the original limitations that are still present from FS2000 to FSX (such as problems with texture loading, ATC logic, etc.).

I see alot of this in the OFP series. The Graphics are certainly better, but alot of the same limitations from OFP are still there, gameplay wise and graphics wise. I don't think it's "hating" on BIS to point out that the engine is great but is dated in other areas alot.

I hope whatever their next project is, that they overhaul the engine enough to overcome alot of this and future proof it for another half decade or so, not just base graphics wise, but physics, animations, gameplay, etc.

[froggyluv 2130]

^^^All of those things would be nice be I'm sure all the die-hard fans also have a vast array of 'imagine this..." ideas. My personal, imagine if the Ai behaved like Swat 4 and cleared a building using real strategy.At least now when I hide out on the 4th floor of a building, the Ai almost always hunt me down which is a huge improvement since the OFP days.

[Cellus 10]

I think the worst mistake (commercially) BIS made was claiming Arma II was built on the same engine. Left4Dead is built off the original Quake engine, but they introduced each major update as though it was a new engine. I think it is four generations since original.

[electron-libre 10]

It is always fun to see people speculating over thing they dont know at all.

Most the time when someone start a thread about Arma Engine, he does not know anything about game engine, world engine, rendering engine, or software developpement.

Basically they are using engine like a unique magic word (I cant remember the Marry Poppins word) to designate something, maybe they should use "It" or "Thing" this could be less ridiculous.

More funny , those persons seem to think that they can assert and give advices to the engeneer of these thing they do know understand (even cant just guess what it is).

Happy BI Developpers, I guess you may sometime lought (or be affraid) wile reading those forum.

[Steakslim 1]

I think the worst mistake (commercially) BIS made was claiming Arma II was built on the same engine. Left4Dead is built off the original Quake engine, but they introduced each major update as though it was a new engine. I think it is four generations since original.

Left 4 Dead uses the Source engine, not Quake.

[dvolk 10]

It is always fun to see people speculating over thing they dont know at all.

Meh, you'd be surprised how many people on the Internet are bored programmers, either professional or hobbyist.

[no use for a name 0]

I dont know how the different parts of the engine work together (graphics/physics/sound/input and so on), but even todays computers cant run Arma2 on everything high, 10000 viewdist and fillrate 200% so i belive atleast the graphics part of the engine is somewhat futureproof.

yes, but with a newer engine they could probably better optimize it for current hardware so it will run more smoothly. i.e. use the GPU for physics, use more processor cores more efficiently, have better memory management, better support for SLI, etc.

[Nev1571 0]

Left 4 Dead uses the Source engine, not Quake.

And the Source engine still contains code from the Quake engine.

[=(+)=TheVoodoo 0]

Whatever...

Can you imagine how arma would look like if it was made with the cryengine2 ?

8-O