Could Arma 2 become a de facto Steel Beasts Pro PE?

[Baff1 0]

Could say nothing about the AI beside that all i have test so far, point that the AI dont consume anything.

It is like you said the animations and the models, the textures consumes only RAM,(what i can see) and thats not a problem.

Anyway i was using 64x64 textures in all FPS test i made.

And there is so many animations thats not needed.

so i link here, it almost the same thing.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=78221

RAM is a problem, it's the biggest problem of all.

Because the game can't load all it's graphics into the RAM, it is constantly streaming textures and GFX from the hard drive. Symptomatically, during this process your CPU load will be high.

[chaplainDMK 10]

I doubt polygons affect that much, the AI and animations are the real killers.

Make 3 or 4 squads of soldiers. Have them stand around doing nothing for a while, then have them move to a town wait there a bit (check the FPS when standing and when moving). Then have them engage some soldiers while standing still. And remember to have a control experiment with the same patch of map with nothing on it.

I cant try this yet since my PC is broken and im a on a laptop for a couple of days.

Would be nice to see the resoults.

[Baff1 0]

When you aren't moving, your FPS should always be high. The screen isn't refreshing anything. Nothing is being updated on your display so FPS will be high.

Towns lag even without AI, they have lagged since OpF.

It will lag more when you move because you are streaming more textures from your HDD.

To check the FPS change for AI, stand in a field and look at the sky. Get lots of AI to do lots of stuff while you are still looking at the sky, if the FPS changes, the AI is the cause.

There are no polygons being displayed, no new textures loading.

Look at the sky only, for 20 minutes in a warfare game for example. If your FPS changes, that's the AI.

[Monkwarrior 0]

This discussion seems to be focused on one thing: fps and drawdistance.

There are however many more factors which make a game feel and act like a tanksimulator.

I'm member of a group of tanknuts/modders who are willing to make a ww2-based tanksimulator with this engine.

Currently we are trying to improve lots of other tank-based properties for arma2. Things which are far more important when it comes down to multi-player experience like detailed damages, notification of damages, sounds, tankbehaviour , gears, stalling, maximum climb-angle, weight distribution, turning-speed, optics etc etc etc.

Is this the ideal engine for tanking: no. But it's probably the best commercial non-tank engine around. So that's why we are here.

See you on the battlefield gents.

Monk.

[Baff1 0]

I'd like to see tanks that sink in soft ground.

Probably not a goer on this engine, but testing the ground before an advance is a big part of tank manouvre.

Perhaps bridges with weight limits?

So a medium tank can cross, but a heavy tank collapses it.

[arma2disapointed 10]

I doubt polygons affect that much, the AI and animations are the real killers.

Make 3 or 4 squads of soldiers. Have them stand around doing nothing for a while, then have them move to a town wait there a bit (check the FPS when standing and when moving). Then have them engage some soldiers while standing still. And remember to have a control experiment with the same patch of map with nothing on it.

I cant try this yet since my PC is broken and im a on a laptop for a couple of days.

Would be nice to see the resoults.

Dont think you should count the actual bullet fired from the riffle as the AI. The bullet fired give hell of a lag, but it have nothing to do with the AI as well as moving units have to do with the AI, and it´s one reasone to that.

And thats is MULTIPLAYER IS NOT AI. You have same moving units and bullets shoot in multiplayer, and it gives the same lag (almost i think or a little bit less in theory) And that difference is the AI.

The way of the evolution pointing to not a war sim but a wild west sim, where it is 100 meters viewdistance and 50 meter drawdistance and only two units mano vs mano. But hell so nice it is and everything moving, the wind is blowing away real sand witch in the end hits one of the shoters in the eye and he lose and die.:(

[cadmium77 16]

This discussion seems to be focused on one thing: fps and drawdistance.

There are however many more factors which make a game feel and act like a tanksimulator.

I'm member of a group of tanknuts/modders who are willing to make a ww2-based tanksimulator with this engine.

Currently we are trying to improve lots of other tank-based properties for arma2. Things which are far more important when it comes down to multi-player experience like detailed damages, notification of damages, sounds, tankbehaviour , gears, stalling, maximum climb-angle, weight distribution, turning-speed, optics etc etc etc.

Is this the ideal engine for tanking: no. But it's probably the best commercial non-tank engine around. So that's why we are here.

See you on the battlefield gents.

Monk.

I would love to see this come about...Kursk modeled would be fantastic.

[Rak 0]

No. Graphically yes, but realism and immersion wise - no. BIS is just not willing to put more "armoured warfare" features into the game, they're happy with incremental graphics updates.

[arma2disapointed 10]

No. Graphically yes, but realism and immersion wise - no. BIS is just not willing to put more "armoured warfare" features into the game, they're happy with incremental graphics updates.

I would say that what they dont have a choise really, if you just look at todays hardware, you would understand that.

They could do a game physically realistic, but nobody would ba able to play it, if not buy some other hardware.

Edited July 24, 2009 by arma2disapointed