Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jonneymendoza

What if CryEngine was used as Arma 3 future engine?

Recommended Posts

face it guys teh CQC combat is shit in this game

What does that have to do with the engine?

CQC is crappy due to small doors in buildings/ and a mess of collision detection problems.

BIS can change all that without having to change to crytek. :rolleyes:

AI could use some improvements too when its in close quarters but this can all be done right now. BIS just needs to prioritize right now they're shipping OA and working on beta patches.

Make an A2 CIT ticket or go vote for the problem of collision detection issues and AI being dumb in close contact instead of saying its shit in here because thats not going to accomplish anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
face it guys teh CQC combat is shit in this game

No it's not. I'm perfectly content with both the scope of close quarters combat in ArmA 2 and the AI's abilities. If you want more, play something designed for close quarters. For a game of ArmA 2's scope, the close quarters combat is actually amazingly good IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does that have to do with the engine?

CQC is crappy due to small doors in buildings/ and a mess of collision detection problems.

BIS can change all that without having to change to crytek. :rolleyes:

AI could use some improvements too when its in close quarters but this can all be done right now. BIS just needs to prioritize right now they're shipping OA and working on beta patches.

Make an A2 CIT ticket or go vote for the problem of collision detection issues and AI being dumb in close contact instead of saying its shit in here because thats not going to accomplish anything.

For fucksakes man have you not read this whole thread? i know i made it and all BUT my opinions have changed and i have said earlier on how the engine needs to be tweaked to had fully destructible enviorments and better CQC. all can be done on the current engine as far as i can see.

No it's not. I'm perfectly content with both the scope of close quarters combat in ArmA 2 and the AI's abilities. If you want more, play something designed for close quarters. For a game of ArmA 2's scope, the close quarters combat is actually amazingly good IMO.

How is the CQC good? please explain how its good. A huge majority of us all think the cqc is terrible. Its too rigid as it is. Look at how well CQC is done on bad company 2. its excellent bar the unrealistic weapon characteristics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is the CQC good? please explain how its good.

Because it works. It doesn't NEED to be any better for this kind of game. BC2 is a different game, a different kind of game at that. And maybe, because I still remember the pains of CQC in OFP, I don't take the many improvements in ArmA 2 for granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CQB is absolute crap in ArmA 2:

- Control is clunky as hell and feels robotic

**** This is always the case in ArmA 2, but it matters a lot more in CQB.

- Grenades are essentially unusable in a CQB context

**** Nearly impossible to aim

**** Bad, slow throwing animations

**** Non-existent (default) or terrible (with ACE) grenade physics

- No way to easily lower your weapon, so it gets "caught" on walls and other shit all the time, making it difficult to turn quickly or at all

**** This problem could be circumvented by removing collision detection on weapons, but BIS doesn't want to do this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CQB is absolute crap in ArmA 2:

- Control is clunky as hell and feels robotic

**** This is always the case in ArmA 2, but it matters a lot more in CQB.

- Grenades are essentially unusable in a CQB context

**** Nearly impossible to aim

**** Bad, slow throwing animations

**** Non-existent (default) or terrible (with ACE) grenade physics

- No way to easily lower your weapon, so it gets "caught" on walls and other shit all the time, making it difficult to turn quickly or at all

**** This problem could be circumvented by removing collision detection on weapons, but BIS doesn't want to do this

A lot of these issues seem to... user issues. Try practicing a bit, it's really not that bad. In fact, none of these things you mentioned is an issue for me. Just seems to me that you're problem is that you just haven't gotten used to it.

Look, I'm not saying it's perfect, and I definately welcome improvement. But the fact is, it's NOT terrible. It's functional, and to a degree that's acceptable for the type of game that ArmA 2 is. Whether or not you can easily master it is another issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must confess hand grenades are pretty bad in Arma in general... and in a confined space it's more a danger to yourself than the enemy... that's why I always stick to smoke grenades myself....

But back on topic, BIS is already working on a new engine for Carrier Command with a lot of fancy stuff. If anything, this is probably the testbed for what Arma 3 engine could be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all CryEngine fans:

I don't think there is a single person that doesn't want ArmA to get a better engine removing several of the limitations and flaws of the current one.

However you have to realize that CryEngine isn't the solution. It is not designed with a game like ArmA in mind. It can't do what ArmA requires. And on top of that changing engine completely is a BIIIIIIIIIIG step for any company to take.

To my knowledge there doesn't exist any engine that can do what needs to be done for ArmA, other than their own RV3 engine.

Who knows? Maybe RV4 (if it comes) will be a completely new engine, scrapping some backwards compatability to allow for larger changes, but a lot in ArmA is done for a reason, even when it comes to engine-limitations.

Several hundred units on-map at the same time, most or all of them AI, multiplayer for a hundred players, a huge world, a 'whole-body'-feeling, the player camera being at the soldier's eyes and letting the player see himself, like everyone else sees him (i.e. no differentiation between 1st and 2nd person view as far as models go). It puts limits on the amount of bandwidth or CPU cycles one can allow a certain thing to use, and it puts limits on how animations and stuff can work.

The fact BI is working their hineys off to completely rewrite the memory management of the game engine (check beta patches) and adding proper support for multithreading says quite a lot about how serious they take the performance-issues though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact BI is working their hineys off to completely rewrite the memory management of the game engine (check beta patches) and adding proper support for multithreading says quite a lot about how serious they take the performance-issues though.

Could'nt agree anymore on this.

Also with OA having more optimized terrain and vegitation along with all the other new features +patch 1.06 and the current beta patches Arma 2 is getting some awesome performance upgrades.

People take BIS support for granted alot of the time.

God Bless BIS. And cant wait to see what they prototype for the carrier command engine sounds extermely promising. :yay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I think Outerra should be the new engine for ArmA III. It's a planatery renderer that can support vast maps as large as Earth itself. It has huge view distances, it supports flight model planes, realistic vehicles, villages, roads, trees that don't lag up your game and more. This seems like much more of a practical solution then Cryengine 3.

XGMs7Iem3Vg

gf8YQ9WSdiw

rvuc52kZYOk

RNw7_lyxPmA

izyZ1kKQzbE

LC9FOHwNw9o

Features Summary

Realistic looking terrain with high detail

Unlimited visibility, detail ranging from thousands of kilometers down to centimeters

Real time atmospheric rendering

Rendering of vast dense forests

Seamless transition from space down to the planet surface

Adaptive LOD with continuous transitions. Elevation data are preprocessed using special wavelet compression, the required level of detail is extracted effectively on the fly

Partitioned compressed dataset can be downloaded progressively over the web

Fractal refinement mimicking the natural processes (erosion, rocks, overhangs)

Procedural texture generator combining mathematical models and climatic data

Bitmap overlays for specific areas

Vector data - roads, rivers, land class polygons

Dynamic shadows

Fully asynchronous multi-threaded design able to utilize all available CPU cores

Terrain and fractal algorithms runing completely on the GPU

Stable frame rate system

Supports arbitrary and varying resolution of elevation datasets, refined to centimeter resolution by fractal algorithms

Embedded web browser allowing for direct web service integration

Supports COLLADA 3D model file format

Integrates a Flight Dynamics Model library for high fidelity simulation of aircraft, rockets

Global physics engine for simulation of vehicle physics and collision detection

http://outerra.com/index.html

Also some more pictures on ModDB:

http://www.moddb.com/engines/outerra-engine

Edited by D00mbuggy
adding on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This problem could be circumvented by removing collision detection on weapons, but BIS doesn't want to do this

There are pro's and con's to doing that. In CS:S for example, a game that has probably the best CQB of any game anywhere, there is no collision detection on weapons and as a result you can move around smoothly and such. However a long standing bug in that game are a whole host of problems where your weapons clip through doorways and walls so plainly that illustrates the downside of removing it.

What's needed I think is for the game to have a little more "do what I mean" logic in it where if you're trying to go through a door and your weapon is in the way it helps you out by raising/lowering your weapon or making whatever adjustment is required.

Of course there is a cost to that too--it's complex code, and even if done right it'll be expensive.

I note however that BI solved this for AI's by having them have virtually no collision detection for lots of situations. When there's a fence with a gap underneath that you can prone your way under you will routinely see the AI's just walk right through the wall as if they were ghosts.

So I don't know what the right answer to this is, other than that I agree it's a problem that absolutely should be solved--so I'll just throw in my vote for "please do something" and leave it to the experts to figure out what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly I think Outerra should be the new engine for ArmA III. It's a planatery renderer that can support vast maps as large as Earth itself. It has huge view distances, it supports flight model planes, realistic vehicles, villages, roads, trees that don't lag up your game and more. This seems like much more of a practical solution then Cryengine 3.

Outerra seemed groundbraking for me at first until I noticed that all trees are just billboards aka sprites even up close. That will work just fine for flight simulators but not for games that try to simulate ground forces. If however Outerra crew manages to make a very smooth lod system for all kinds of flora I'm sold.

As for A3 I would take the radical step of removing the current animation based infantry movement. Replace that with something like seen in the newest Red Orchestra videos and A3 will take a giant leap forward in playability and CQB possibilities. IMO the current system simply creates more trouble and limitations than it's worth in immersion.

Also I would try to remove the clumsy action menu and place most of the actions directly into game world. For example if I wanted to board a tank and get in as driver, I would only need to "use" the driver's hatch and not go through the action menu.

Edited by Norsu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In CS:S for example, a game that has probably the best CQB of any game anywhere

FPDR

If your idea of best is flashbangs every 5 seconds and completely random ballistics, then sure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FPDR

If your idea of best is flashbangs every 5 seconds and completely random ballistics, then sure...

You'll get kicked off a good CS server if you flashbang every 5 seconds... they'll call you a CoD n00b and boot you for team flashing :)

Is it your opinion that ballistics are a significant factor in CQB? What do you figure the drop of a bullet is over, say, 15 meters? Just assume all the sights are zeroed for CQB and you don't need ballistics in a game with maps that small. Really.

Yes CS:S has probably the best CQB of any game. Would it work if you had huge maps like ArmA? Obviously not. It's an entirely different game trying to be entirely different.

Maybe some day we will have a game that is as good as CS:S for CQB and as good as ArmA for scale and combined arms.

Until then I'll continue playing both.

What loses out for me are games like battlefield which appear to be the best at neither, where they have combined arms in what amount to CQB maps. To me that's silly. Only ArmA really gives the breadth and scale to make intelligent use of armor and choppers (although I question the use of jets in ArmA, maps still aren't big enough for them). In ArmA you can put your tanks on a nearby hill and protect them with infantry. In BF games you nonsensically drive them into the thick of things be AT'd by random people. In CS thankfully there are no tanks so you can concentrate on the small arms stuff.

For me ArmA = win, CS = win, BF/CoD/etc = lose but I'm sure everyone's opinion is different.

Edited by Polar Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outerra's scale is impressive, but can it handle terrain and object alterations on a large scale? If I destroy a forest and a city and fly around the world to the same position, will they stay destroyed, and more importantly how many changes can I make in the world before the engine chokes on the memory usage caused by having to remember the state of fractally generated objects and terrain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outerra is impressive for wild outdoors, but how much content would you have to create to populate such a world with the right diversity (houses, flora, fauna...) and density needed for an FPS...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever hear SWAT4 ?

IMHO Swat 3 was better than Swat4, there was tons of quality mods, PVP was 10 times better and Coop was awesome when playing in clans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont see how any of this is relevant, if and when arma 3 comes out im sure they would consider using a new engine because by the time arma 3 is even released the old engine would not be able to cut it amongst the new generation of games.

But even if they did decide for a new makeover and use another engine it would not be the cryengine due to mainly cost and other things such as licensing etc, your also talking as if this is around the corner ffs arma 2 just came out dont get to excited.

Going on BIS's history ARMA3 will probably be another update to the current engine, maybe improve lighting and shadows among other things like water/rivers. BIS has never aimed the game at the 3d shooter market and hopefully never will but I do look forward to a much improved ARMA engine in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray tracing is far more than just rays of light beams, maybe I had not mentioned. But, moving on. Ray tracing is also when light is observed by objects; and absorbed or repelled dependent on the objects color or density. If the object has dark colors, it will absorb the light. If the object has bright colors, it will repel. If the object is opaque [solid] then it will in fact show density of color depth. If the object is translucent or transparent, it will simply ignore light. What games of today do not have is color and light reflections, Crysis is simply the closest game to it. Other than Far Cry 2, but anyways... coming down to my conclusion. Movies of today, such as Avatar and other stunning 3d worlds use Ray Tracing as its primary pool of graphical effects. Other wise, it would look like something from 10 years ago that is displayed on games of today. Btw, look up Ambient Occlusion and Field of View to see a little more compatible version of Ray Tracing... it can be activated through Nvidia Control Panel in the 3D Application Settings dialog.

Here is a good example of light and color; compacting and repelling.

Image 1 [Density]

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9...ses800edit.png

Image 2

http://www.cs.utah.edu/~sparker/imag...at/bigcbox.jpg

GTA4 Ray Tracing with ENBSERIES

http://img.youtube.com/vi/ZOQviyZ1IC0/0.jpg

[Ambient Occlusion - Edge effects]

http://scottdewoody.com/images/tutorials/occ10a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'll get kicked off a good CS server if you flashbang every 5 seconds... they'll call you a CoD n00b and boot you for team flashing :)

Is it your opinion that ballistics are a significant factor in CQB? What do you figure the drop of a bullet is over, say, 15 meters? Just assume all the sights are zeroed for CQB and you don't need ballistics in a game with maps that small. Really.

Yes CS:S has probably the best CQB of any game. Would it work if you had huge maps like ArmA? Obviously not. It's an entirely different game trying to be entirely different.

Maybe some day we will have a game that is as good as CS:S for CQB and as good as ArmA for scale and combined arms.

Until then I'll continue playing both.

What loses out for me are games like battlefield which appear to be the best at neither, where they have combined arms in what amount to CQB maps. To me that's silly. Only ArmA really gives the breadth and scale to make intelligent use of armor and choppers (although I question the use of jets in ArmA, maps still aren't big enough for them). In ArmA you can put your tanks on a nearby hill and protect them with infantry. In BF games you nonsensically drive them into the thick of things be AT'd by random people. In CS thankfully there are no tanks so you can concentrate on the small arms stuff.

For me ArmA = win, CS = win, BF/CoD/etc = lose but I'm sure everyone's opinion is different.

aa3, a free game is light years ahead of css. i've seen free to play korean rpg/fps hybrids that are more realistic and involve more tactics than that run and gun fest css.

go back to your cod or whatever. real tactical shooters are obviously too complicated for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×