Bohemia Interactive's future ARMA 3!

[Deadfast 43]

A modern engine is object-oriented...

Where did you come up with the theory that Real Virtuality isn't?

It is actually written in C++ too, just as you requested.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Deadfast

[MrXToTheN 10]

You should try and mod this game before giving advices like this. The whole config is based on an object orientated approach C++ like, so very easily moddable by simple inheritance.

I admit that I haven't really looked much into coding for Real Virtuality 3. It seems to me though, because of what I've seen so far on the wiki and on the forum, that RV3 is kind of odd in comparison to a western engine like CryEngine 2.

CE2 is very well structured and designed. In matters of modding it let's you compile your own mod DLL which extends the engine, it let's you integrate your own LUA scripts (no command line like coding) and AI Behaviors based on those scripts, vehicles have proper physics, there is an animation graph which you can add to to implement your own animations and more.

I'm sure you can do most if not all of this by using RV3 as well, but CE2 seems much more structured and defined (I worked with it for some months).

Another thing is the editor which Bohemia Interactive let's you use in their games.

It's a mix of UI and command line like code. An example: Let's say you want to give a specific weapon to a grunt. This has to be done by script code.

In Crysis' editor (called Sandbox 2) you do this by using an attribute editor.

In SB2 you create equipment packs, which can be given to any character. You can calso create character archetypes on which to base other characters.

I'm all for scripting where it is needed, but basic things like assigning equipment and setting properties should be done by UI.

The whole system of expanding the game code & content seems much clearer and defined in CE2 (even though I admit that there is very little documentation to be found about how some things in Crysis work which is kind of a bummer, you'll have to find most out by yourself).

RV3 has many strongpoints as well mainly because it is a simulation first and a game second.

I'd like to see the advantages of an engine like CE2 combined with the simulation fidelty of RV3.

I'm not saying RV3 is bad and should be thrown away but it's far from what it could be (not that CE2 is perfect by the way, it has major issues too like no support for streaming in levels).

Where did you come up with the theory that Real Virtuality isn't?

It is actually written in C++ too, just as you requested.

I never said it wasn't written in C++ nor did I say it wasn't object-oriented. I only said what my perfect engine would look like, which also included those concepts.

I stated that I wanted it to be more modular. I'd appreciate it if Bohemia were to implement middleware engines like Havok and Euphoria. I'd also like to add that I would love to see a different archive management system for game files like used by CE2 (and also by it's predecessor) because it would cut down on the time used for patching archives.

RV3 is patched like its predecessors by extracting existing game file archives, overriding obsolete files and repacking said archives. That takes a long time.

In CE2 old archives are left intact, instead new archives are added containing the files which need to be replaced. The new files will than be loaded at start of the game instead of the old ones.

Edited February 26, 2010 by MrXToTheN

[An Fiach 10]

I admit that I haven't really looked much into coding for Real Virtuality 3. It seems to me though, because of what I've seen so far on the wiki and on the forum, that RV3 is kind of odd in comparison to a western engine like CryEngine 2.

CE2 is very well structured and designed. In matters of modding it let's you compile your own mod DLL which extends the engine, it let's you integrate your own LUA scripts (no command line like coding) and AI Behaviors based on those scripts, vehicles have proper physics, there is an animation graph which you can add to to implement your own animations and more.

I'm sure you can do most if not all of this by using RV3 as well, but CE2 seems much more structured and defined (I worked with it for some months).

Another thing is the editor which Bohemia Interactive let's you use in their games.

It's a mix of UI and command line like code. An example: Let's say you want to give a specific weapon to a grunt. This has to be done by script code.

In Crysis' editor (called Sandbox 2) you do this by using an attribute editor.

In SB2 you create equipment packs, which can be given to any character. You can calso create character archetypes on which to base other characters.

I'm all for scripting where it is needed, but basic things like assigning equipment and setting properties should be done by UI.

The whole system of expanding the game code & content seems much clearer and defined in CE2 (even though I admit that there is very little documentation to be found about how some things in Crysis work which is kind of a bummer, you'll have to find most out by yourself).

RV3 has many strongpoints as well mainly because it is a simulation first and a game second.

I'd like to see the advantages of an engine like CE2 combined with the simulation fidelty of RV3.

I'm not saying RV3 is bad and should be thrown away but it's far from what it could be (not that CE2 is perfect by the way, it has major issues too like no support for streaming in levels).

I never said it wasn't written in C++ nor did I say it wasn't object-oriented. I only said what my perfect engine would look like, which also included those concepts.

I stated that I wanted it to be more modular. I'd appreciate it if Bohemia were to implement middleware engines like Havok and Euphoria. I'd also like to add that I would love to see a different archive management system for game files like used by CE2 (and also by it's predecessor) because it would cut down on the time used for patching archives.

RV3 is patched like its predecessors by extracting existing game file archives, overriding obsolete files and repacking said archives. That takes a long time.

In CE2 old archives are left intact, instead new archives are added containing the files which need to be replaced. The new files will than be loaded at start of the game instead of the old ones.

CE2 was packaged to sell to other developers, VR is not, hence the difference, same with Unreal. Indy developers like BIS create their own engines because the mainstream engines built for making the cookie cutter games we see released all the time do not offer the features that they need to develop their projects. If VR had been designed to be packaged and sold to other development companies it would be much different.

[MrXToTheN 10]

CE2 was packaged to sell to other developers, VR is not, hence the difference, same with Unreal. Indy developers like BIS create their own engines because the mainstream engines built for making the cookie cutter games we see released all the time do not offer the features that they need to develop their projects. If VR had been designed to be packaged and sold to other development companies it would be much different.

I'm not saying they should put their engine together out of licensed parts without making their own code, but maybe there are some things they could integrate.

A proprietary engine has its uses, I agree.

[Defunkt 431]

You know you really ought to find out something about an engine before launching into commentary on it.

RV3 is patched like its predecessors by extracting existing game file archives, overriding obsolete files and repacking said archives. That takes a long time. In CE2 old archives are left intact, instead new archives are added containing the files which need to be replaced. The new files will than be loaded at start of the game instead of the old ones.

I fail to see why adding new content without first removing the outdated content is a desirable patching process but the fact is you could do so with RV (though again I've no idea why anyone would want to). The facility to have the content of one 'archive' supercede that of another is already fundamental to modding RV.

[dmarkwick 261]

I admit that I haven't really looked much into coding for Real Virtuality 3. It seems to me though, because of what I've seen so far on the wiki and on the forum, that RV3 is kind of odd in comparison to a western engine like CryEngine 2.

CE2 is very well structured and designed. In matters of modding it let's you compile your own mod DLL which extends the engine, it let's you integrate your own LUA scripts (no command line like coding) and AI Behaviors based on those scripts, vehicles have proper physics, there is an animation graph which you can add to to implement your own animations and more.

I'm sure you can do most if not all of this by using RV3 as well, but CE2 seems much more structured and defined (I worked with it for some months).

Another thing is the editor which Bohemia Interactive let's you use in their games.

It's a mix of UI and command line like code. An example: Let's say you want to give a specific weapon to a grunt. This has to be done by script code.

In Crysis' editor (called Sandbox 2) you do this by using an attribute editor.

In SB2 you create equipment packs, which can be given to any character. You can calso create character archetypes on which to base other characters.

I'm all for scripting where it is needed, but basic things like assigning equipment and setting properties should be done by UI.

The whole system of expanding the game code & content seems much clearer and defined in CE2 (even though I admit that there is very little documentation to be found about how some things in Crysis work which is kind of a bummer, you'll have to find most out by yourself).

RV3 has many strongpoints as well mainly because it is a simulation first and a game second.

I'd like to see the advantages of an engine like CE2 combined with the simulation fidelty of RV3.

I'm not saying RV3 is bad and should be thrown away but it's far from what it could be (not that CE2 is perfect by the way, it has major issues too like no support for streaming in levels).

There are many things in the BIS editor that could be massively improved you're right. But as I mentioned elsewhere on another thread, you have to temper what "we" are used to and wish to see, against the cultural paradigm of a Czech company. Think "Soviet functionality" :) I quite like it just as I like the Blackberry over the iPhone. Just a matter of functional taste I guess, and "western polish" is as much taste as anything else.

But having said that, an in-editor text editor would be good, as well as full 3D mode etc.

Something else to consider when comparing to CE2, ArmA2, OFP etc are not player-centric games. This means that whatever you make happen anywhere on the map, no matter how far away from the player, happens just as though the player were there to witness it. This is perhaps the one, single thing that most people do not realise is the greatest difference from *any* other game (aside from perhaps a few simulators like Falcon 4). I guess this functionality might impact on the design considerations of what the ingame editor can do, perhaps not.

[dm 9]

You know you really ought to find out something about an engine before launching into commentary on it.

This.

(Yay, lets launch into a tirrade of "omg this sucks" before knowing anything about it :j: )

[Sith 0]

- LUA as the scripting language (also featured in e.g.: RF:G, Crysis, GTAIV, OF:DR)

- LUA scripted behavior based AI model like in Crysis which means the AI isn't scipted in the usual sense, but decides what to do based on events that happen in the game world and based on the behavior state it is currently in (e.g.: idle, interested, threatened, alerted)

Having worked on games using both BI script and LUA, I can't honestly see why you would consider this to be a prerequisite in your definition of a "modernised" engine. I do recall Codemasters presenting LUA as the be-all-end-all scripting power for DR last year, but don't fall for it. In truth both the function/parameter formatting and level of control it provides within the engine are pretty much entirely up to what the gameplay programmers decide to implement :)

Pointing out legacy line-based functions as BI Script's weakness is a bit of a silly argument, as the script system is very clear about providing three different layers of functionality: Linear SQS, SQF Functions and FSMs. Besides having been a gradual evolution of the design environment, this approach also allows our community to create scripts through a far more organic accessibility curve. The compatibility between these layers results in one of the most powerful script environments I know. Need custom state-based AI routines? Write an FSM. Want to reduce the network load of your mission? Customise your variable handling. Want to turn the game into an RTS, RPG, platformer or Godgame? Don't even worry about knocking on any programmer's door. Yes, it may have its share of quirks and legacy features, but it still blows the LUA games I've worked with out of the water.

- Physics

- Wound system

- Component based damage system

- Context sensitive interaction triggers

- Command menu

- 2D/3D map & mission editor

Again, all of these features are just that ... features. They can be added into pretty much any engine out there, and would be the last thing in the world requiring a completely new engine. Especially middleware like the Havoc/Euphoria systems are in fact designed and supported specifically to be integrated into existing engines. And disregarding ease of implementation, the latter also come at a very obvious performance price tag in a game the scope of ArmA2.

As other posters have already suggested, familiarise yourself a bit with the strengths and advantages of the current system, before condemning the features that may not seem like the best at first glance. An engine's complete feature set is always a case of compromises :)

[Herbal Influence 10]

Wow ... that's a great poll result.

Considerung that people use forums mostly for repairing something etc. ....

Mercedes and BMW would be happy to have such a customer echo. ;-)

And Microsoft has to go Malaria-Fighting to get better feedback again. ;-))

So - for Toyota ... well, should be compared to ... Codemaster DR.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Herbal Influence

[ohara 0]

With DLL aded to engine, this is there in VBS long time. Its design decision to not add it into game version of RV, same as restricted functions for disk & file operations.

[MrXToTheN 10]

Ok guys I clearly was a bit misinformed about RV3 and I'd like to apologize for criticising things that I haven't really looked into.

It really just is a preference of using specific scripting languages and styles on my part, I see that now.

I will look deeper into ArmA II's modding capabilities. Yesterday I was reading some more on the wiki, after I read all your responses. I just learned about FSM in RV3 at that time and I'm curious to take a look about how to change AI behavior a bit even though I've read on the forums that it's not easy to change it without it being overwritten by default behaviors.

CE had a manual (100 pages) about how the AI worked and how to scipt its behaviors.

To my knowledge nothing similiar exists for RV3 (at least not public). It'd love to see something like it. Doesn't anything like this exist within Bohemia and why wouldn't it be released if it existed?

By the way, I know that the engine is not player centric and I think it's the greatest aspect of the engine. Most of RV3's features are implemented more "real" than those any other engine (which is really great) but adding physics would be welcome (in a few years when computers will have increased in power enough to handle it).

My demand of creating a completely new engine is grounded by the believe that the engine certainly would be less buggy (and maybe even better structured if needed) if every now implemented aspect had been anticipated from the start instead of tagging it on later.

That's what I've learned in school, university and elsewhere.

Of course I can't tell if the engine suffers from any problems related to that. I have no insight into it but I think there would less bugs if it was to be reimagined.

[Ish 11]

I would probably buy A3 irregardless since the genre doesn't really have any clear competition. But there is tons to improve upon. The core of the game feels exactly as it did almost ten years ago (OPF). I have little understanding of how a game is built etc, but it feels like they've just rewritten the engine slightly and upped the texture size as hardware got better :/

No wonder the non-hardcore milsim fans doesn't even give this game series a single glance when it hardly runs on midrange computers. A shame if I may say so.

[Flash Thunder 10]

I would probably buy A3 irregardless since the genre doesn't really have any clear competition. But there is tons to improve upon. The core of the game feels exactly as it did almost ten years ago (OPF). I have little understanding of how a game is built etc, but it feels like they've just rewritten the engine slightly and upped the texture size as hardware got better :/

No wonder the non-hardcore milsim fans doesn't even give this game series a single glance when it hardly runs on midrange computers. A shame if I may say so.

Yes, somethings that havent been significantly improved is the Lighting engine. Still uses the basic cone lighting, which is really resource sufficient, but it would be nice to see some upgraded shaders, like Differed lighting (Seen in OFP DR), so we can have more than 8 light sources on any scene at once without any performance impacts, shadows ingame could be massively improved aswell.

A3 and RV4 or whatever by that time should have standard support for 32bit and 64bit OS, with all the frills that comes with, like 4GB+ RAM, caching assets, and if so DX10 and DX11 support.

Of course it would be nice too if BIS had the money and time to polish it up as much as possible aswell as Arma 3.

[joey 10]

PHYSICS

I just want more realism especially when it comes to ballistics and materials

In real life when you fire an rpg at a tank, as we all often do..

You want to go see what kind of damage you did, where it hit etc. You want to see debris scattered everywhere. The way it its, its always the same same canned scene (a burnt husk of a tank)

I wish that could be simulated better. When an aircraft crashes i would like to see it carve a path into a forrest, craters and other destructable envoirnment.

I think worrying about being able to drag bodies and other such things is spreading the game too thin. its awesome that this game is so big, but its spread extremely thin. More work on the engine basically

---------- Post added at 04:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 AM ----------

Digital Molecular Matter

I made a video using After Effects and Premiere to fake DMM in ARMA 2:

Thats sorta the idea, but buildings dont fall apart like theyre made of styrofoam lol

yes that, but um, more realistic

To simulate somthing even more realistic looking would take less calculation than that did

Edited March 2, 2010 by joey

[Herbal Influence 10]

Since you asked, if you really wanna know it ... :eek:

I would chose freedom and intelligence! :confused: :p

Arma3 should be the first game delivered with it's own operation system for BIS to have full control of it all. If interested read here.

[LJF 0]

I'd like to see proper vehicle physics too, anyone who's played DCS will know what I mean, crashlanding is by far the most awesome thing to do in an aircraft .... or maybe I'm just strange ...

To be perfectly honest I don't think there is a need to expand the audience too much, I mean, that isn't always a good thing, you don't want the realism diluted any more after the moaning complaints of thousands of angry idiots after they were killed running around like ... well like idiots :D

[Drumheller 19]

Just to touch on this:

"Losing remaining ammo if reloading before a clip is empty."

You do see those little bag looking pouches hanging off every marine model in the game right? They're called "mag dump pouches" and they're for... well... dumping your mags when you reload specifically so that you DON'T lose your remaining ammo when you reload. This is why when you cycle through all your mags you start getting mags with 5-10 rounds each in them, because you already shot up the ammo in them.

In terms of "realism", losing all your ammo on reload is completely unrealistic in the modern battlefield.

[Rayers12 19]

I would really like BI to up their game on realism and functionality of weapons, such as sighting in snipers or resting MGs. Also, a brutalized experience would work great, A2 feels a tad too... clean.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

crashlanding is by far the most awesome thing to do in an aircraft

My ultimate goal is to have my logbook indicate an equal amount of takeoffs and landings ;)

[*LK1* 10]

i really would like to see a sort of steel beasts procedures to command/shoot with a tank

in this game.1 of the aspect i prefer of this game is the utilization of vehicles.

please remove the radar which has no sense to exist.and add flir/nv for commander and gunner.remove the diamond and the TAB command..

consider also that make the procedures to aim at a target and shoot him,in a realistic way,is not so difficoult.

you can put,for example,a key able to activate the laser range finder and the

ballistic computer.so when you are aiming at a tank and you press that key after a couple of second( in real life or in steel beasts it needs 3/4 sec.)the cannon is automatically following the target and you can shoot.

but for who want to shoot by proving their skill(:rolleyes:) you can of course give the opportunity to shoot in manual fire mode,without being assisted.

so everyone can be satisfied.

i mean the best tactical shooter of the future( and they will do it..)will be a total simulation( or close to be..)of infantry-vehicles-aircraft/choppers.it's dream and i hope to see this dream becoming truth before i become to old.

but of course it present some problem.a game like this will be very difficoult

and will not be for everyone.

but here ,with arma 3..or maybe with a patch for arma 2,we can start step by step to reach this goal;aircraft are no so easy to be used and it take a lot of practice with simulative flight mod.so the current flight model for arma 2 is not bad at all,is a good compromise.

but with vehicles this problem doesn't exist.they are more easy to be used and they dont require and huge amount of time to get in confidence with the target acquisition sistems.

so we can have a better game.the infantry simulation is the most realistic avaible.why we can't have also more realism concerning vehicles?

p.s.

i know there is a diamond avaible if you press TAB .but is a fake way to simulate target acquisition sistems plus it doesn't

give you the right idea where you have to shoot,is just a suggestion.

making vehicles with FLIR/NV and the stuff ive told you before would be amazing and will give to the player a real sensation to be involved in a modern battlefield.

Edited March 28, 2010 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[MulleDK19 21]

I got back to playing GTA IV, and I still love running down all those crazy pedestrians, and watch them fly, mwuhaahahaha.

I mean, imagine Euphoria in ARMA... Imaging being shot in the leg, falling to the ground, and still be able to somewhat aim and shoot.

Or standing somewhere, get shot in the shoulder, fall backwards, across a low brick wall, then call for a medic.

Or drive by going 30 kmh (18.6 mph) jump out of the car, start rolling, bump into an enemy, and see him fall to the ground, then get up and blast him.

The possibilities!

If BIS won't make the greatest war game with Euphoria (And beat the current greatest war game :P), then I will! xD

Edited June 13, 2010 by MulleDK19

[tacticalnuggets 24]

We need more memory based physics than cpu based physics. We have LOTS of memory. It would be better to have a large capacity static based physics system than a high cpu stressing dynamic based physics systems. Basicaly have a massive data collection of physics anims and possibilities. This is similar to what arma2 uses already except for some reason BIS is afraid to add in more data for some reason. EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE HUGE HD's AND MEMORY AMOUNTS NOW!

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I'm only on a 2GB system, and I'm constantly getting into memory problems. As I use Arma to also make stuff with (as opposed to only play), I have a ton of web pages up at any given moment, probably some Photoshop or Audition, pluss fsm and code editor up as well. Memory is a concern.

As for more data on disk, well, sure, size of HD is not an issue. But it would take longer to access it.

[Fox '09 14]

I got back to playing GTA IV, and I still love running down all those crazy pedestrians, and watch them fly, mwuhaahahaha.

Or drive by going 30 kmh (18.6 mph) jump out of the car, start rolling, bump into an enemy, and see him fall to the ground, then get up and blast him.

The possibilities!

If BIS won't make the greatest war game with Euphoria (And beat the current greatest war game :P), then I will! xD

possibilities, yes, but this is a mil sim, not an action movie (sim?) game

It's probably nowhere near as easy as you guys say to implement these features.

[katipo66 94]

possibilities' date=' yes, but this is a mil sim, not an action movie (sim?) game

It's probably nowhere near as easy as you guys say to implement these features.[/quote']

Having some if not all those features would surely increase sales 2fold, also having those features could only enhance the milsim claim... nothing great was ever easy.

But before any of that i would prefer AI and modules that were more real life than current, example would be AI that doesn't run around in the open when a fire fight is in progress, or anytime they are on the move... Arma2 with AI is pretty much just a turkey shoot in big open worlds 95% of the time... especially when you catch them in the open, which is most times.