arigram

Really nice job on the Steyr. How is the interior cabin and back modelled?

One of the first screenshots that showed an Iranian soldier being thrown by a blast had if I am not mistaken his weapon clearly separated from his hands , so as a separate object, why wouldn't it follow the same physical forces? So far it has been demonstrated that sea waves, ships, containers, cars and smoke react realistically. My guess is that all objects are subjected to PhysX rules, unless some are coded out on purpose.

Do you think that BI has the resource budget to have a complete modular and/or moddable UI? I seriously doubt that beyond key and controller reconfiguration and possibly some sort of TOH panel rearrangement, UI moddability will remain as present.

I think you guys have run this subject to the ground, without reaching consensus, there is nothing else that I feel could be explored further unless we hear from the developers themselves or until there is more practical testing during the community alpha stage. As long as controls are completely configurable, all sorts of input controllers are taken advantage completely, the UI can be re-arranged and at least basic HIGs and player opinions are put into practice, a solution will be found. There is no perfect control, sacrifices will be made, some people will be more comfortable than others. I wonder if Carrier Command lessons and possibly code (even if its another engine) is going to influence Arma 3. After all, why shouldn't it? The code itself could well be incompatible but the theory and practices of a sister project are valuable.

I for one, am against the idea of having the same keys performing very different actions. Using number keys to select weapons and accessories is one of the most common actions, especially during highly tense situations where their use would be a learned instinctual action of important -personal- gameplay concequences. Squad command can also be intense if you are micro-managing AI during a firefight or like to play removed-from-battle strategy. So, in this sense, the action has important -squad-level- gameplay concequences. These two approaches will be combined in a quick reaction situation but are of different mental processing. In short, they are not compatible actions and same keys should not be used for them. Even more so, if you are using the same keys for example to select vehicle positions or views. It is very much against Human-Interface-Guidelines. Having the keypad handling one thing and the top row number keys another, makes much more sense, the only negative being that it requires a keyboard with a numpad (for some time I used to own one without, so I can sympathise).

Another Gamescom gameplay presentation from GamersPlatoon:

My apologies, has the radial menu from Carrier Command: Gaea Mission been discussed? It looks quite usable and visually appealing.

I don't remember who said it, but it was on an interview eiher of Ivan or Marek about something inspired by Six Updater regarding a tighter and cleaner approach to mod intergration.

- physics effect all smoke it seems, including for example grenades - the loadout editor - better mod selection and intergration

You are most probably right. I am certain that the focus of Arma 3 right now is the new core engine features, such as the PhysX integration, animation system, new lighting and general stabillity and many minor features will be dealt upon when those are in good shape and there is enough time and will to invest.

The Game Jar interview with Bohemian head honcho Marek Spanel regarding all projects, from Operation Flashpoint to now (not just Arma 3): A couple notes regarding Arma 3: - The move to DirectX 10/11-Windows 7 is done more for engine stability reasons - Not really focused on DirectX graphical features (such as tesselation) apart from the improved lighting system - The Editor will remain the same but with new tools such as a loadout editor (most probably that means RT3D is not going to be worked on)

BIS developers have stated that features will be added to the alpha after its release to be tested by the community. The first release of alpha will happen when the testing platform includes the planned features and code status for testing and only the developers can judge when that state is reached, otherwise the testing won't be as useful. The alpha isn't just an appetiser of the main course and a vehicle to deliver wishes and complaints as impatient gamers see it. That's why very specific content will be presented for testing, in the beginning and later on and the better organized the process is, the more succesful the testing period will be. It doesn't matter -when- the alpha is released, it only matters that it is organized and not rushed, not unlike the whole development process. So, be patient. It will be done when its done.

And more of Ivan Buchta, with his presentation of the gameplay showcase for PCGames.de: We get a better glimpse of the claymore mine, but that's all in terms of new information.

The disconnection of the main weapon with the attachments is an important feature that will ease further development and present new gameplay approaches. No, its not important to be presented in a realistic manner in the core game as long as the system is there. Restrictions can be placed by mission and weapon/module designers and animations can be added in, but the system has to be there in the first place. Is it unrealistic perhaps to exchange modules in the middle of a firefight and not have the proper animations of the removal and placement? Restrictions can be scripted in, new animations can be created and the whole concept can be expanded further. If there is a limit of attachments in the present code, maybe that can be improved in the future, like with all other features. As long as the base system exists. If the code exists and its flexible enough it could well have other uses, maybe in relation to vehicles, or other objects, such as having for example weapons or gadgets in pieces that need to be put together before use or further interaction with objects in the environment. I do not know the code, but it could be made to bring up an inventory-like screen when interacting with an object (a vehicle for example) that let's say in the mission, misses a part which needs to be attached or a static weapon that can be "upgraded" with a new attachment or something of that sort. It well could be more than just exchanging scopes in rifles.

After watching a few videos and paying attention to the interviews, I have gotten the feel that Arma 3 is a very important release for Bohemia Interactive, more so than most people realize. Its not just an new iteration of the Arma series and the evolving of the RV engine with some modern features bolted on. BI seem to have really studied the concept from the ground up, taking in account the whole design, the main goals, a more realistic approach to available resources and paying attention more what is really important for the players. They seem to have restructured the whole organization of the project and their approach has visibly matured. If Arma 1 was rushed and Arma 2 was more like Arma 1.5, Arma 3 comes out more like a really new game. What in my opinion has happened was that because the development of Arma 3 has been on going, along with the supervision of other projects (such as TKOH and CC:GM), the presentation of the ongoing process has not been perfectly organized and executed because of limitations in team structure and budget. In other words, BI's approach for Arma 3 has been surprisingly intelligent but the nature of their PR was not well organized to really give them justice. Not that they have not been trying. They have passionate development blogs, interviews, videos and interract with the community in the most friendly and informative manner. The problem is that all these views into the development of the game have been somewhat chaotic. We get the blog updated whenever, developers respond in random and information is leaked out by accident as if they are trying to tease the community on purpose. Certainly, there has been cases of BI-sunctioned trolling but it seems that is mostly because the same people are running around like crazy, developing the game, presenting it through official channels and monitoring the gamer's responses as best as they can, but not in a fluid, controlled manner. Arma 3 does not appear to be Arma 2.5, a new island and a few features thrown in the RV engine that should have been there for a while (either because other games have it or players have been requesting it). It may have started like this, but I see that it has quickly evolved to a new gaming platform. Physics will free up the engine to do things that were impossible before not just make nice smoke effects or have cars handle a bit better. Character movements are being investigated through gameplay study. The story, campaign and default missions are in constant change, now seem to be based upon analyzing what Arma gameplay means not not just semi-randomly showcasing game features with gritty story cliches. Third-party involvement is now really thought out, provinding an extensive base platform to build upon the core game and engines and explore in detail elements that budget and time did not let be included in the release. The development of Arma 3 looks to be very fluid with features not only constantly being evaluted and tested but also studied as core mechanics not as "this feature would be nice, can we add it?" but in regards to what's important to the core gameplay experience and to the potential of the platform for further development. If only the presentation of the development has been more tight and clear, the audience wouldn't really misunderstand the fluid process and would trust and communicate with the developers in a more constructive manner. For example, in that last interview, Ivan Buchta mentioned a gameplay-oriented approach to the campaign missions that seemed to be fresh and more mature which built upon many other mentions of the campaign by BI developers before, but such information has not been presented clearly in a more official way, for example the blog and most of the intented audience has probably missed it. Or many other important details that were quickly mentioned in other videos that should have been advertising highlights. Another example is the Alpha build which was planned for this summer but has been delayed for technical reasons. Even though development of the game is continuing non-stop, the alpha is very much needed to get player information regarding core gameplay on which further development will be based upon. That can cause (re)evaluations that can further restructure the development. But in short, I wanted to say that from what I've gathered from information here and there, I have grown to further trust BI. They seem to be handling the development very intelligently but unfortunately their somewhat chaotic approach to PR has, even with their best of intentions, not clearly conveyed that feeling.

I am against an automatic system myself. If you approach a low cover like a chest high wall or an opening like a window, how does the game know what you wish to do? You may not want to expose yourself or aim, but instead take full cover like in situations when you're under fire or stealthy approaching a dangerous zone. Games with a cover system are usually have the whole gameplay constructed around it, with environment and enemies adjusted for that. Usually (but not always) there is no other way to play the game than run from cover to cover and press a key to pop up to shoot back. Arma does not have such a predefined gameplay nor environment (linear approaches and conveniently sized cover) and furthermore, it could very much affect third-party environments and missions which would need to be carefully adjusted to that. BI know what they're doing as they have said they investigated that option and found it that it doesn't work. As they also mentioned, analog control would have been best. I was recently seduced into trying out a gamepad along with the mouse and was delighted to find that character movement responded to the push of the analog stick matching slow walking to full sprinting. It was intiutive and immersive. The way I understand it BI is expanding the analog movement of the character in the third space relating analog controls to the rise of the body. It would be very nice if slow analog stick movements would translate into a slow motion from standing up to crouch and prone in various stages and a quick jerk of the stick to throwing yourself on the ground from running or quickly getting up from the ground. Naturally, the keyboard being a binary device, as BI devs mentioned, it is restricted to controlling the stances via extra keys and modifiers. They will be testing the keyboard layouts people using during the alpha testing and selecting the most common as default, but I believe that they will leave other methods of control for others to explore and use. Now, can we get back into the topic? The subject of character control has split into at least three different threads (CQB, Better Mouse Controls,...).

Well, heartbeat has been mentioned in one of the infantry demonstrations (I think by Ivan Buchta) as a sound effect relating to stress and fatigue...

Another interview of Ivan Buchta, this time for InGame.de:

I am sure he means the Pan-Aegean Railway which is a grand project that connects major islands and the mainland using bridges and underwater tunnels through which will run a new generation maglev train. The project has slowed down due to the recent economic crisis but I am sure that in Armaverse it continues, perhaps with the assistance of the occupiers which use it to transfer resources, ammo and slaves.

The interview of Dean Hall on Rock Paper Shotgun is quite interesting: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/08/17/day-z-standalone/#more-120637 I am going to miss his excitement for brutal experimentation in regards to Arma 3 but wish his project all the best. I really hope he gets to push it further and further to the limits of this scenario. There are some interesting tidbits that are of interest even to Arma-only players, such as the assemby of a team with old Operation Flashpoint members and its (at least) initial use of a modified Arma 2 (and not Arma 3) engine both streamlined (with unnecessary Arma elements stripped off) and expanded (such as with limited ragdoll and underground structures). Whether will be any code exchange between Arma 3 and DayZ, well, like with VBS, it will be a bit complicated. Speaking of underground structures, as they are at the moment considering Skyrim-like instancing and not making actual holes in the environment (as it would be with VBS2 objects), that could hint that such functionality is absent from Arma 3 as well or only possible in RV 4 which the standalone DayZ won't use.

Unfortunately none at the BI HQ thought to include a in-your-face pre-showcase option of the AI difficulty labeled "safe showcase" for easy AI that would let the player explore the area in relative safety and one "real gameplay" where the enemy holds a PhD in player-killing science. Furthermore here should be a vivid display of the selection during gameplay to reduce misjudgment by spectators and casual players. I am joking of course. Whiners gonna whine.

Indeed the Hunter is armored, but in my mind it belongs to the "military car" category, in regards to having (apart from wheels) a common car interior with doors, wheel and large glass windshield instead of being a closed up "box" of viewports, periscopes and screens as it would be with ACPs, IFVs, MBTs and other mobile acronyms. The difference is largely the way the crew sees the environment, both the modelled interior and the way they look at the outside world, directly (viewport with simple outside rendering) or indirectly (RTT screens). The Hunter shows active RTT screens (including the mirrors) and one partially or completely innactive, of the gunner position, so its not so far removed from the other type of vehicle. I am pondering though the existence of a more modelled computer interface in aircraft cockpits (detailed HUD and MFDs) and tanks (fire control computer). Oh, I forgot to mention - Physics in particle effects as demonstrated by the downwash of the rotor affecting the smoke trails of the rockets fired by the helicopter. To be pointed out it might well be a complete, global effect and not a pre-scripted visual trick for that specific occasion. If one takes in account the improved smoke particles of grenade explosion (that were mentioned in the very first videos along with ragdoll), PhysX most definitely affects the world beyond character models and vehicles.

Things I've gathered from the video that they're working on: 1) Entering vehicle animations 2) A new in-game UI instead of the "classic" mouse-wheel selections 3) Polishing the new Inventory system 4) The new in-game Help system (the HAL3000 combat handbook) might of course get expanded 5) RTT vehicle screens work in reduced (possibly as mentioned before, customizable) frame rate 6) Extended sound system, including "beefed-up" effects and positioning They may well still be working on particle effects and polishing the interaction with the world objects (such as the mines). Reloading animation I get the feel that they are complete (if not for all weapons) and will remain as presented. Generally it seems that most, if not all character animations are complete, even though we have not seen specific ones such as ladder climbing and static weaponry handling. Some demonstrated actions seem to lack (at least at present) animations, such as changing clothes, weapon attachments, etc. Any fine-tuning and bigger changes will happen after the alpha is out and the testers find something disagreable. We have yet to see in action - Fixed wing aircraft (and their cockpits, HUD and functionality) - Armored vehicles, APCs, MTB, etc (and their interiors) - Vehicle customizations - 2D Editor refinements, including the new language changes and Java - Building and vehicle destruction effects (possibly the current system with more debris particle effects) - Undeground structures (they well could be delayed for a later DLC) - Limnos in its whole glory, Myrina and other large towns (and its acropolis castle, large church and other special buildings), the salt field and other special places of interest. It could come out quite spectacular. Things that will probably remain the same: - Thermal view, night vision, simplified artillery operation and perhaps vehicle penetration, moving in vehicles and radio operation as those are big features that would have been mentioned if they were been worked on. The only thing that I am nit-picking on and wish they could work on, is the absence of any effect of waves meeting the coastal rock formation. I know its tiny detail and silly and it looks like an engine limitation (the rocks are objects placed on the terrain and as such the water doesn't seem to "see" them and it interacts with the terrain only).

Developer walkthrough for The Game Jar: