Arma 2 the last game to use this engine?

[bonchie 39]

Whatever...

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

8-O

I'd imagine you'd lose a ton of the sandbox/large scale warfare features with such an engine.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Cry engine suffers from same problem as DR a ragdol type physics engine that can never work across Multi Player or scale to the size of the Real Virtuality engine.

Kind Regards walker

[GLeek 10]

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:

serious flaw ! just try to manage a team , in town ... i really hope arma2 will resolve that.

[Maizel 10]

I really don't care what engine they use.

As far as I;m concerned They can use this engine for as many games as they'd like. As long as the games improve on one another.

[m@ster 0]

I am for ArmA3 to 2011/2012

Multiplayer for 256 players

and ArmA2 Engine + :D

[Betabyte 10]

Developing an engine takes years, so they could be working on one as we speak. Never assume we know everything Bis is developing/prototyping.

[Maizel 10]

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.

The system requirement it takes to run the game to it's full potential is no way to determine 'futureproofage'.

The game could be horribly unoptimized.

It's a pretty game, but, as far as I'm seen, Nowhere near top of the line.

There are 2 year old games that look better and , judging from what I've read, run better.

[=Spetsnaz= 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.

i agree there needs to be alot of work done on the physics and animations

[Snots 0]

Wasnt it that old Falcon4 that kicked ass for so many years and was one of the first pc games to use dual cores. Im not an expert but to me it seems that some game engines just get better and better so its time to enjoy this one.

BIS would be crazy at this point to spill the beens and get us all fired up about a new engine so were probably better off ramping up the pressure on the BIS to continue to optimise this engine.

In relation to next generation complex pc game engines, DirectX is a concern if im reading things right.

[Heatseeker 0]

Unreal, unreal 2, unreal 3.

Cry engine, CE 2, CE 3.

They are not new graphics engines.

You cant just stop the wheel and wait for a new one untill you can roll again..

[FraG_AU 10]

Unreal, unreal 2, unreal 3.

Cry engine, CE 2, CE 3.

They are not new graphics engines.

You cant just stop the wheel and wait for a new one untill you can roll again..

I disagree, the current engine is well outdated, and there comes a point in software where its no longer sustainable to maintain/enhance the software.

Building a "ground up" approach does not mean you throw away the entire engine, but since the engine was launched 8 odd years ago technology has come a long way, and there are many approaches you take in early engine building that could benefit from this. I am sure BIS would have loved to have made different decisions "early" on that would help the performance or useability of the engine now, but unfortunately these changes are too far back in fundemental design approach to be changed.

This software engineering approach may work for business software (long term) that adapts to business needs, but a graphics engine to remain cutting edge needs to be rebuilt from the ground up every so often.. Unreal and Cryengine etc were mentioned earlier, heck unreal came out in 99 odd and people were amazed (was ground up then), cryengine came out 2004 odd and people were likewise amazed.

Like in engineering, when new materials or manufactuyring process become available you adapt and use them, often this may mean to approach the said problem in a new way..

[sakura_chan 9]

If I remember my BIS history correctly, this engine in one form or another dates back much farther than ofp. The Poseidon engine came before or was a tech demo of the Real Virtuality engine, and it had been in development for a long time before that. I remember reading the history about it on the old forums, but I can't find that post any more. The post included a working version of the Poseidon engine, you were in a chopper and this annoying tank would follow you around. It had all the file formats like paa and p3d, but it didn't have any infantry simulation going. If someone could find it you get 1,000,000 useless internet points!

[ck-claw 1]

If someone could find it you get 1,000,000 useless internet points!

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Poseidon

[Andi 10]

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Poseidon

Hell yeah! And what i find even more interesting is the Before Flashpoint category! Didn't know BI did any other games. Gonna check out Fairytale

[CHB68 10]

I disagree, the current engine is well outdated, and there comes a point in software where its no longer sustainable to maintain/enhance the software.

Building a "ground up" approach does not mean you throw away the entire engine, but since the engine was launched 8 odd years ago technology has come a long way, and there are many approaches you take in early engine building that could benefit from this. I am sure BIS would have loved to have made different decisions "early" on that would help the performance or useability of the engine now, but unfortunately these changes are too far back in fundemental design approach to be changed.

This software engineering approach may work for business software (long term) that adapts to business needs, but a graphics engine to remain cutting edge needs to be rebuilt from the ground up every so often.. Unreal and Cryengine etc were mentioned earlier, heck unreal came out in 99 odd and people were amazed (was ground up then), cryengine came out 2004 odd and people were likewise amazed.

Like in engineering, when new materials or manufactuyring process become available you adapt and use them, often this may mean to approach the said problem in a new way..

Cheers mate ! I was more than disapointed to find the outated engine when I started ArmA2 the first time. I spend 45,00 Euros for an oldfashioned game with cheap graphic effects in order to deliver good looking screenshots. The missing FSAA and the graphic configuration is an impertinence. The all game suffers due to this engine.

For the rest of the world; your copy is already pressed......;)

[MBot 0]

While the engine of Arma 2 provides some impressive results regarding terrain size and vegetation details which are certainly top-of-the-line today, I agree that there are some aspects that made little progress since OFP and that are in need for a major overhaul. The thing in Arma 2 that reminds me of the OFP heritage the most is the sloppy collision detection/the animation system, or simply how your character moves close to objects. Moving inside houses or close to objects is still twitchy and stuttery for the lack of better words (while it isn’t as bad as in OFP, anyone who has played it will recognize what I mean). Crawling against a pile of rocks means you character first sinks in with his first half, then he stands up completely. If it is actually because of imprecise collision detection, the stubborn animation system or a combination of both I don’t know, but by today’s standards it leaves a bad impression. My guess is this is also the reason why such important features such as resting your weapon on objects or more dynamical character adaption to cover is not implemented in Arma 2.

One thing that could be improved for the future, although certainly not bad by today’s standards, would be micro-detail of the terrain. From the perspective of an infantry man searching for a fighting position, the terrain of Arma 2 is basically flat. You are either in LOS with the enemy or behind a hill, but the terrain does not offer the detail to find cover. I understand that this is would be a demanding feature that could not be expected from Arma 2 but I think it would be an important aspect for the future.

[Steakslim 1]

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

Doesn't make it the Quake engine. Why is this being argued?

edit: yeah...late response.

[Leopardi 0]

More authentic sounds, better animations and physics => ARMA 2 would receive 10/10 everywhere and make it GOTY with ease.

[chops 111]

It does seem pointless (pardon the pun) to model laser pointers on weapons and not have that function. Several people have tried but failed to get a working torch (flashlight) on a hand-held weapon in OFP.

It seems great leaps forward have been made in terms of graphics from OFP, but it doesn't seem like functionality has kept up. With the exception of multiple turrets, vehicle combat is the same in Arma (I'm guessing Arma2 as well, from what I've seen) as it is in OFP, just with prettier models and textures.

Arma was pretty much abandoned once Arma2 was announced, compared to the continual patches and upgrades OFP went through.

Perhaps there will be a Resistance-type upgrade to Arma2's engine at some point? Though if BIS are working on a console version I wouldn't hold my breath.

Most of the time, when suggestions are made for improvement in the game, there comes the inevitable cry of "leave it to the mods". My point is that unless advances are made in the engine, enabling mods to do their thing, we won't see new features in the game, ie laser pointers/sights/illuminators whatever.

[Nev1571 0]

Doesn't make it the Quake engine. Why is this being argued?

edit: yeah...late response.

Correct, it doesn't make it the Quake engine. Just like ArmA 2 using a bunch of ArmA source-code doesn't make it the ArmA engine.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

Walker seems to be a traditionalist :D

There is nothing against keeping basic concepts, because without that it would not be OFP anymore if they would change it.

And I am not against taking over working methods of even code if it is possible.

But if you renovate from scratch...

- damage handling

- physical simulation

- basic concept of the human body model

- collision handling....

...then we talk about a new engine IMHO. Trying to tweak within the boundaries of the initial design of the engine brought some results, but it is IMHO not sufficient to call it a "simulation of modern warfare".

We had the same discussions BEFORE ArmA 1 and ArmA 2, BIS stressed that the engine is still good enough to deal with the tasks they want to put on.

Playing now Arma 2, I must say I have to disagree, I see huge graphical improvements, but the changes to the core functions of a "war simulator" are rather cosmetic IMHO.

Good enough to to call it "a nice game with impressive capabilities to simulate complex military operations in an virtual environment".

But if it comes to the actual physical simulation of all related events underneath, BIS is far, far behind today's possibilities.

Edit

MBot: While the engine of Arma 2 provides some impressive results regarding terrain size and vegetation details which are certainly top-of-the-line today, I agree that there are some aspects that made little progress since OFP and that are in need for a major overhaul. The thing in Arma 2 that reminds me of the OFP heritage the most is the sloppy collision detection/the animation system, or simply how your character moves close to objects. Moving inside houses or close to objects is still twitchy and stuttery for the lack of better words (while it isn’t as bad as in OFP, anyone who has played it will recognize what I mean). Crawling against a pile of rocks means you character first sinks in with his first half, then he stands up completely. If it is actually because of imprecise collision detection, the stubborn animation system or a combination of both I don’t know, but by today’s standards it leaves a bad impression. My guess is this is also the reason why such important features such as resting your weapon on objects or more dynamical character adaption to cover is not implemented in Arma 2.

Arrrg, could have saved some words, you wrote it already.

One thing that could be improved for the future, although certainly not bad by today’s standards, would be micro-detail of the terrain. From the perspective of an infantry man searching for a fighting position, the terrain of Arma 2 is basically flat. You are either in LOS with the enemy or behind a hill, but the terrain does not offer the detail to find cover. I understand that this is would be a demanding feature that could not be expected from Arma 2 but I think it would be an important aspect for the future.

This would require a new body model knowing much more positions and transitions between.

Edited June 18, 2009 by S!fkaIaC

[MBot 0]

Walker seems to be a traditionalist :D

There is nothing against keeping basic concepts, because without that it would not be OFP anymore if they would change it.

And I am not against taking over working methods of even code if it is possible.

But if you renovate from scratch...

- damage handling

- physical simulation

- basic concept of the human body model

- collision handling....

...then we talk about a new engine IMHO. Trying to tweak within the boundaries of the initial design of the engine brought some results, but it is IMHO not sufficient to call it a "simulation of modern warfare".

We had the same discussions BEFORE ArmA 1 and ArmA 2, BIS stressed that the engine is still good enough to deal with the tasks they want to put on.

I have to disagree, I see huge graphical improvements, but the changes to the core functions of a "war simulator" are rather cosmetic IMHO.

Couldn't have said it better.

[whisper 0]

Not denying it may be good to "make a new engine" (even though I don't get the real concept behind, like said above, HL engine is Quake engine but not considered such, why is A2 engine considered as OFP engine?), just don't forget to take into consideration that the "MMO-like needs" of the entire point of Virtual Reality Engine (scale) probably puts huge restrictions on what you can do regarding little features added to individual entities, because the engine is built to be able to handle many of said entities, ie each lil change made on 1 entity can have a huge impact, more than other more "normal" engines.

Just to say, it would probably help, but I don't think it would be a revolution

[walker 0]

Hi S!fkaIaC

Sit down and do the math on what each calculation you wish to add per entity is.

Tell us how many calculations are involved in the "basic concept of the human body model" change compared to the current system in ArmA II

Then fire up a spreadsheet put in the figures and multiply by 1000 entitities. By the way I have run ArmA I with 3000 plus entities.

Now work out which number of calculations are required to sychronise a client in an MP game per frame.

Then multiply that by 100 players.

Tell me what the number is, your working out is required.

Kind Regards walker

[FraG_AU 10]

Hi S!fkaIaC

Sit down and do the math on what each calculation you wish to add per entity is.

Tell us how many calculations are involved in the "basic concept of the human body model" change compared to the current system in ArmA II

Then fire up a spreadsheet put in the figures and multiply by 1000 entitities. By the way I have run ArmA I with 3000 plus entities.

Now work out which number of calculations are required to sychronise a client in an MP game per frame.

Then multiply that by 100 players.

Tell me what the number is, your working out is required.

Kind Regards walker

Wow, obviously there is a blend realism and achieveable results. He made an example of what the engine lacks..

I could name 1000 things I would like to see in the engine, and I agree 100% above, Arma 2 == Arma 1.5 with new textures and other crap thrown in ontop.. Cars drive the same, controls the same, sounds the same, what is different? Textures? This amazing AI which is usless can't even drive from point A to B..

Don't get me wrong, I really liked Arma, and I really like Arma 2 (will like it more once it works on my PC) but there is a huge amount of fanboism on this site with respect to the game. Healthy constructive criticism is what makes things happen. What I liked about Arma is that you could play a game with people who were not just 10yr old kids running amuck on daddys PC, better yet the modding has been the best I have seen for any game which is the reason I bought it... I know I can come back to it in 8 months and there will be so much more.