Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

z0rrer0

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    8

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by z0rrer0

  2. Posted · Edited by z0rrer0

    changing the engine would mean starting everything from scratch, learning the nuances and limits of those engines. A new editor would have to be made (if it could) and entirely new toolkit which would take a long time to set up then make user friendly and document.

    Also what the engine can do must be explored, the problem is for all their beauty most engines today just don't do what RV does, take Crysis for example, beautiful engine but when employed AI must be set up with where they can walk, out of bounds areas, where they take cover, what weapon they have can they be in vehicles and all this must be done on a per mission basis.

    Then you look at the vehicles, very simple stuff, one button to move at a given speed, no need for secondary crew since the driver controls everything, while the editor is nice and all the area of operation is still far more limited in comparison.

    Just about all engines are similar in how they act, driver=gunner, vehicles=1 set speed, at the current battlefield has the most advanced flight physics for mainstream games and from what I've seen on BC that actually dropped since BF2 nose down twisting gravity be damned.

    Looking at the RV engine you can- place infantry types on the spot and they will control themselves, vehicles have more depth in that they have different speeds, this may seem trivial but it actually does come in handy, multiple crew making cooperation and teamwork a necessity, a huge map range for operations and so on.

    Then you take a look at the community aspect, what can we do there as opposed to what we can do here..well, between diverse community projects it has been proven that Arma can be turned into a full blown simulation in many aspects, tanks with FCR and penetration, infantry with bleeding, white/black outs gas masks stuning weapons and so on.

    Ground missiles with tracking systems of long range and precision, air units with diverse weapons loadouts, communications mirroring how it works in reality with distance and obstructions and much much more.

    In the end it boils down to cost vs time vs capability, how much will it cost to move, how much time will it take to adapt, what can the engine do as opposed to what we have.

    Well, I think I understand your point. But I mainly refer to the base. I think all those things you mention can be established on a new engine base. I'm not talking bout changing everything. I think they can adapt those things to a new base.

    What I want bout that new engine base is:

    - Optimization. I don't wanna get the snipe out with an ACOG and see how my fps goes down to crap with an i7, 6GB RAM on triple channel and a GTX card.

    - Better stability

    - Better animations

    - Move fluid. I don't wanna take control of a robot. See how BF3 feels on that

    These changes are needed to have a real experience on this game.

    Everything acomplished is wonderful, that's why I love this game, it's incredible awesome. But I really think too that it needs some changes on the base to feel it even better.

    I don't care bout particles and those new physics and swimming and tank crates if I don't have a strong and fluid base to take them into.

    So for me, and in my humble opinion, what is needed first are those base changes. Don't patch the actual ArmA 2 to look better. If they do, It will become a game with pretty damn good features but unplayable.

    I hope you guys understand me

    Cya around

  3. Posted

    Current game-technology is irrelevant. Gameplay must come first.

    I can easily live without opening doors in cars, rolling barrels (which engine can do btw) and reload animations as long as the gameplay is being improved.

    As for AI - I truly don't know any other game out there that provides AI on a par with what we have in AA2 right now. So basically AI in BIS games is 'current game-technology'.

    Of course I'm not saying they shouldn't make it life-like - a point which it is still far from.

    As for netcode. I don't really know any other engine that can have, say, 80 human players running around all while sending hundreds of bullets with proper ballistics out there and back - lag free.

    Absolutely true

    +10

  4. Posted · Edited by z0rrer0

    I'm going to assume that you're not trolling.

    You just haven't the slightest clue when it comes to video games, do ya?

    :p

    I'm not trolling, it's just my opinion. Could you explain yourself a bit more?

    Regards

  5. Posted

    All these things are ok but superfluous. In my opinion, all arma 3 needs is a brand new engine to keep the gameplay more fluid and immersive. Maybe a better netcode yeah and of course better AI behavior.

    But the main thing is the game engine... please make a new one from scratch

    Regards

×