Jump to content

OChristie

Member
  • Content Count

    528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by OChristie


  1. I can't take you seriously when all you're doing is repeating marketing talk - you're no better than ProGamer in that respect. Have you actually had MP experiences that took advantage of any of the things you cite? Honestly? The smugness of your prior bit:

    and the false nature of that claim, makes you a pot-stirrer. Your glittering words work great on ProGamer types - people who have no actual VBS experience and just gobble up every piece of PR with gusto - but they don't have the same impact on people like Nou or myself, who have actual no-kidding experience with VBS and have a far more grounded understanding of what it is and where it succeeds.

    You're just repeating marketing talk, and you're trying to put VBS out as some sort of 'better-than-Arma' product - it's just not true. It's for a different market, it works great for that, but I would personally never choose VBSx over Armax for gaming. The most I want from the VBS<--->Arma relationship is to see some minor features and scripting commands carried across - and that's all it is to me, just some minor features that would be nice to see in Arma. Trying to pass VBS off as some 'perfected' Arma is misleading and dishonest.

    First off, ive owned VBS2 since its release and used it to its full potential.

    Edit: I never said it was better for gaming. Although there are elements within the VBS engine that, if applied in that environment, would be great!

    Yes I have actually, on many occasions, used it to run mission rehearsal and to simulate all levels of the Battle space. Training sections, platoons all the way up to company wide and even battle group level. It is used by all Tiers of the military for a good reason, its is applicable to many training needs.

    So not at all am I talking without experience. I have used it a lot and still do, right now.

    Its marketing talk because its true and it outlines the capabilities of the engine, which I am a massive fan off because I have seen its potential and its use in many different applications.

    :)


  2. It is bloody good though!

    • A redesigned, cleaner, and simpler user interface
    • Support for larger multi-map terrains (over 2000km by 2000km), including high-detail insets
    • Improved network performance, allowing for increased number of clients and AI entities
    • Improved procedural and multi-map terrain rendering
    • Support for high-fidelity graphics
    • Improved support for the maritime environment, including large and high-detail ships
    • Improved physics via PhysX by Nvidia middleware
    • Reworked animation system for increased realism
    • Improved after-action review (AAR) capability, including AAR editing
    • Robust and proven HLA and DIS interoperability
    • Integrated digital chalkboard for military overlays in both 2D and 3D

    Not bad, eh?


  3. The best data would be a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) they are usually around 5 meter post spacing which means that every data point gathered is 5m apart, giving a very accurate representation of the land mass in question. With all data the newer the better depending on what the purpose of the project is.

    USGS is the United States Geographical Service or something similar they manage data for organisations and 3rd parties they also manage the National Map, which is really one of the best sources out there. Find it here: http://nationalmap.gov/

    When it comes to the 'best data' you would be looking for the better quality.

    Example:

    Elevation of 5mps and Imagery of 0.25cm per pixel. From this source data, albeit massive and very resource heavy, would be ideal for any base project that requires a non-ai infantry presence.

    The reason I suggested a US territory is because 99.98% of the US is Digitally available and the usage restrictions are very sparse.


  4. Not necessarily my friend. Having owned VBS2 from its release I agree with him because I see the potential for a small community, the capability is there and server hosting is free under a certain license. If they were to do a different PE version with a better price tag, then more people would pick it up, even if it was only for V4.


  5. A good shout will be an island because developing terrains with multi-purpose rolls is what it is all about. I would recommend the Pacific because of the data available for them. The closer to the US the better as they have Ultra High Resolution Datasets for the entirety of the continental US and its outlying islands. For example, a pacific Island is a good choice because the US NOAA has hydrographic 5m elevation data for most of the US territories in the pacific. That also means there will be some 0.25cm Imagery available most probably. Obviously from that you can trace your shapefiles etc! :)

    Edit: Hydrographic DEM means that there is elevation data for the sea bed, which comes in handy when you are making an Island with a pesky coast.


  6. I love seeing people picking up and getting violently infected with the terrain development bug! That is brilliant! If you need any advice feel free to ask and ill pitch in! But that is down to some values in your config either being overwritten or replaced. I cant find the values exactly but it basically dictates to the game at what point the density of trees and width of roads start to become visible. :)


  7. It would make sense to release new tools for the community pre-contents.

    Until then, the power of V4.

    image.png

    Although this is teasing a little bit, Bush has some valid points about the process of generating a Geo-Specific terrain in V4, BUT, I will always stick by my guns when it comes to the bold statement of V4 being a lot better and more fluid than V3. I hope you all get it with the new tools package, we will start to see some lovely looking terrains pop up.

×