ArmA II: Operation Arrowhead discussion thread

[AndresCL 10]

Hahahahaha. Serious?

You know the sound engine in VBS2 is the ArmA1 sound engine, right?

You have this "because its VBS2 its omg amazingly better than any of the ArmA products" point of view, and it really is wonderfully mis-informed... :j:

Lot of pepole thinks that BIA makes the engine, when it is really the other way around. BIS makes the hard work and BIA adds units and features requested by militaries to their simulator. Of course, VBS2 has a lot of features, but it doesnt matters how much you add to it, if you dont improve the engine, it will pretty much be the same, BIS is working on that, they are doing a lot of work to improve the engine, and they will release that as an expansion, with an expansion price tag, not a full game price.

So yeah, we should be greateful.

[dm 9]

BIS makes the hard work and BIA adds units and features requested by militaries to their simulator.

I wouldnt let most of the BIA staff hear you say that :rolleyes:

[itsme 10]

After watching the news, I think BI should change the name to 'Operation Moshtarak'

that will give it more publicity :)

btw, do we have a BI member on this forum? if yes then where is he? TALK TO US PLS

[Tonci87 163]

I wouldn´t mind if they would make a complete new full game out of OA

[mosh 0]

btw, do we have a BI member on this forum? if yes then where is he? TALK TO US PLS

Lots of them, if they have something to say they will... and not a minute before.

What exactly do you want to hear? I'll say something if it makes you feel better.

[Kristian 47]

Lots of them' date=' if they have something to say they will... and not a minute before.

What exactly do you want to hear? I'll say something if it makes you feel better.[/quote']

"We have optimized the game so it runs even on low end computers, we also improved all animations, so guns wont be controlled by magic anymore, also we added three more animation types: Kalashnikov, Colt and Bolt action. We also decided to add Navy seals, Desert Marines, Physics system, Fast rope, Ac130, a Small US Based coast island, Rangers, British Units, SAS. We are also glad to inform that we have a certain hired gun from Modding Community making us all brand new particle effects.

-That'll be all. for now" :D

[Zipper5 74]

All of that for an expansion...

Yes, some of you seem to forget that this is an expansion, not an entirely new game.

[soldier2390 0]

@kristian your from BI dude? so we can expect all that in OA? that all sounds great i hope its so!

[Kristian 47]

All of that for an expansion...

Yes' date=' some of you seem to forget that this is an expansion, not an entirely new game.[/quote']

I was kidding, ofc they cant add physics, alot improved anims and so on into

an expansion, C'mon.. :rolleyes:

[Aeneas2020 10]

you do realise kristian that someone will take that quote and plaster it all over the internet as real? lol...oh dear :D

[Flash Thunder 10]

Actually I forgot that OA wasnt going to be sold at full retail price.

BIS is awesome!

I can agree with some of you and richie.

I myself ask for alot of stuff too :o just throwing ideas out there.

But I do want to say that BIS might not have the top priorities straight,

I think the first thing that needs to be done, is cutting down on the ammount of polygons and resolution of textures in each tree model, so they wont kill performance etc, cut down on unnecessary polygons in buildings/vehicles etc.

Then Revamping of the Artificial intelligence system, so it funs better and faster, AI is a Extremely important part of this game for me since I rarely play PVP, AI right now is bad at pathfinding, can hardly enter buildings, missing alot of commands, like smoke'em, enter position, AI piloting is a mess, driving, AI are always super accurate Killing machines no matter what accuracy I give them in options and no matter what difficulty. AI dont engage stuff properly and theres no sense of Humanity in AI, they have no reaction times and mess ups.

Im very glad that BIS is reworking the audio engine, that was one of the biggest complaints from alot of mainstream reviews, and one of my critiques.

I hope they will have some left over time to polish the game before shipping, and BIS hurry up and release them Arma 2 t-shirts!! :D

You could make a new one with Sion Lentons picture and "Nice..." under it. :p

[Defunkt 431]

Aaaaaaaargh! No. Can it be? p75 and Flash Thunder giving us What's wrong with ArmA. IN THE SAME THREAD AT THE SAME TIME!!!.... Oh the humanity!

Must... get... out...

1-1-D 1 (deFUNKt [ANZINS]): Uggh

[Panda_pl 0]

I think the first thing that needs to be done, is cutting down on the ammount of polygons and resolution of textures in each tree model, so they wont kill performance etc, cut down on unnecessary polygons in buildings/vehicles etc.

- Texture resolution is meaningless, it will be dropped down to lower mipmap if you are low on memory, thus reducing texture resolution is not a performance saving operation.

- polygon count is not a problem if you have LOD system. Additionally the Per-Pixel-Lightning shaders that Arma2 models now use by default means that lightning is calculated for each pixel of displayed picture, and not vertex in model, thus calculation of shading for far away object is much faster.

The focus of optimizations has shifted recently due to developments in hardware. Texture resolution and polycount are secondary now, the primary concern should be draw calls for GPU. You can render a forest full of trees easily if you shader sorts them correctly and groups into single call. This is also why section count on models matters, because each additional section is additional call.

So in conclusion if BI says they will improve performance I would bet they will work on their shaders and not sacrifice quality.

[Flash Thunder 10]

- Texture resolution is meaningless, it will be dropped down to lower mipmap if you are low on memory, thus reducing texture resolution is not a performance saving operation.

- polygon count is not a problem if you have LOD system. Additionally the Per-Pixel-Lightning shaders that Arma2 models now use by default means that lightning is calculated for each pixel of displayed picture, and not vertex in model, thus calculation of shading for far away object is much faster.

The focus of optimizations has shifted recently due to developments in hardware. Texture resolution and polycount are secondary now, the primary concern should be draw calls for GPU. You can render a forest full of trees easily if you shader sorts them correctly and groups into single call. This is also why section count on models matters, because each additional section is additional call.

So in conclusion if BI says they will improve performance I would bet they will work on their shaders and not sacrifice quality.

Well that approach does make more sense, hopefully they just get it done, i dont see myself buying an SSD anytime soon JUST for Arma 2 or OA. :)

[PuFu 4600]

Well that approach does make more sense, hopefully they just get it done, i dont see myself buying an SSD anytime soon JUST for Arma 2 or OA. :)

read what panda said, It is CPU cycles rather than read spead of the HDD. Of course that matters as well, but not the main issue (good example is better performance on each Mhz added opposed to better performance on high end CPUs with hyper threading).

@Panda: yeah mate, i never said it is impossible due to actual game engine limitations, or that was not what i meant. But besides BIS priority list, there could be another reason, such as performance issues.

Render to texture means at least 1 more call for the CPU, hence more strain. The example from A1 is proof it could be working, but not necessary means it would be working as a general implementation.

Not really sure of the reason, but since this very thing could add a lot to the way such things are solved by community, and BI devs as well, makes me think there could be yet another proper reason for it bar the bottom list position it probably stands on

[EricM 0]

If feasible in this engine, Render to texture could be the one technical feature with the most impact on gameplay for all things HUD, MFD, and TV related, including rear-view mirrors and periscopes for tanks and APCs.

"Glass cockpits" without proper screens are pretty limited. You still have WWII instruments.

[Defunkt 431]

If you ask me the biggest problem with what most people expect render-to-texture will facilitate is still the cost of rendering TWO 3D viewports in ArmA. A more realistic goal would be the ability to draw bitmaps, text and geometry onto 2D canvas in the 3D view. You could do an awful lot of instrumentation like this.

[dm 9]

If you ask me the biggest problem with what most people expect render-to-texture will facilitate is still the cost of rendering TWO 3D viewports in ArmA.

This.....

[nomdeplume 0]

Indeed... I also find the ongoing discussion of it as if it's something BIS has simply neglected and could be added easily if only they'd listen to reason to be pretty funny.

People point at other games that have the feature as proof that not only can it be done, but it can easily be done, as if the features of a different game engine somehow have any relevance whatsoever to Real Virtuality.

It's pretty much inconceivable that BIS are unaware of the usefulness of the feature, not only to modders but also for themselves. Its continuing absence is therefore a pretty strong indicator that there's significant technical barriers to its implementation within the current game engine.

Either that, or BIS have a really sick sense of humour. ;)

[max power 21]

If you ask me the biggest problem with what most people expect render-to-texture will facilitate is still the cost of rendering TWO 3D viewports in ArmA.

I don't know why people have to be reminded of this immalleable fact every two months. I'm just glad it wasn't me this time.

BIS will implement multiple viewports in ArmA 2 iff they do a performance analysis and they find that it is acceptable and they feel they really need it for their gameplay / campaign for one reason or another.

I can guarantee you that 'nice to have' isn't a necessary or sufficient condition for any feature to make it into a final product.

[icebreakr 3157]

Will ballistics be finally effected by wind?

[SASrecon 0]

If feasible in this engine, Render to texture could be the one technical feature with the most impact on gameplay for all things HUD, MFD, and TV related, including rear-view mirrors and periscopes for tanks and APCs.

"Glass cockpits" without proper screens are pretty limited. You still have WWII instruments.

While BIS are still busy making ww2 vehicles,

"the vast majority of the [CM] team are already busy planning the future of modern combat."

just thought I'd mention that comparison between the two simulator series :D

lmfao

Seriously now; I'm guessing BIS have considered render-to-texture already and this discussion isn't helping. They are either keeping it a secret and are surprising us with it later or it is too heavy a hit on performance that they're leaving it out.

Edited February 19, 2010 by SASrecon

[Kristian 47]

While BIS are still busy making ww2 vehicles' date=' just thought I'd mention that comparison between the two simulator series :D[right']lmfao[/right]

Seriously now; I'm guessing BIS have considered render-to-texture already and this discussion isn't helping. They are either keeping it a secret and are surprising us with it later or it is too heavy a hit on performance that they're leaving it out.

I thought of this too, but I tested it on Source engine, and having one, or multiple RTDs on map did not affect performance. NOTE: I used source engine just to test RTD screen out, This does not mean ArmA2 OA would have Render to Texture, or that my test results would be anyhow compareable to ArmA2 engine

[Defunkt 431]

One thing I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned is the similarity between BIS' new HUD (now seen for some vehicles in 1.05) - square boxes tracking multiple targets (rather than just the currently selected target as a real HUD would do) and Mando Missile ArmA. Obvously the pop-up RWR visible in this latest video is another exact match, this aircraft systems upgrade seems very clearly inspired by Mandoble's work.

Let's hope they will add Line-of-Sight checks to the contacts in 'their' new HUD as presently there is no way to hide from it, engine off or not.

[SASrecon 0]

Aaaaaaaargh! No. Can it be? [Defunkt] giving us What's wrong with ArmA.... Oh the humanity!

Must... get... out...

1-1-D 2 (SASrecon): Uggh

lolol see what I did there?