DeclaredEvol

Wrong and right answer, what I said stands firm. You pay 50-60 Dollars for a game, and you've agreed it is worth the label of a 50-60 Dollar Game. It all depends on the customer and how easy it is for him to want the product, now of course I've been playing ArmA since 2006-2007... so I understand where you're coming from. My major concern is what this will change ArmA into, and originally ArmA was more close to reality than it was to some fantasy op shooter. If ArmA III is successful, then it might just keep going in that direction which people are afraid of. One day you had a game where you could play some neat special operations on ArmA I. And the next you're playing zombie mods, so I think this may end up being more of a sandbox engine than a war engine in the end. The creativity is beyond the roof, which I like... I am not just military player. I've played games since the early 90's before military was truly an option at all. The only thing else I could disagree with you is that you said everyone wants things on a silver platter, and I think you're implying to what I said about the AI. And no, we all want different things and we all except different results. But ArmA being a simulator with educative material means it needs to stand strong when presenting it self, I can't tell you how many times I've had a friend or my dad walk into my room and say what the hell is that guy doing. And that sir is a bot, its not perfect... but it is given basic guidelines. What I don't understand is why its easier for Bohemia Interactive to create integration for PhysX and not enhance some weak areas of their AI such as their survival. Its not long from the start of a mission I see a bot do something stupid like run out while bullets are flying and get hit... or stand up straight in the middle of a field while a technical is near him. The fact that they've not enhanced AI is what I am concerned about, its not about these incredible digital effects anymore... its the game play. Bottle-necking AI for Close Quarters and Survival is what a lot of noobs are going to notice right off from the start. Plus the annoying Microsoft Sam voices lol... (To Be Honest, I was willing to let Bohemia Interactive work till 2013-2014 so we could get a superior engine) And gladly they've taken some more leaps which its wise to be cautious about your release. I HONESTLY hope Bohemia pays attention to all of the AI Modders out there and take them seriously because we as people of great respect cannot fix some of the loop holes they leave us. When the game is out, it is too late and that shit happened to people with BF3 and other games as well. I like a game that takes 5 years, because when it comes out people will never quit playing it and the new players just keep coming. Plus time is money, and a release date being pushed back means less money at first but more in the end. So if they are going to mess around for another few months before it is released, they have to make fast choices of what they truly want to do.

As said in another post I made, Bohemia Interactive does not have Open Source Code for ArmA. Therefore, enhancing the AI to reasonable use would be beyond our capabilities. You'll be playing the same game, with some extra features... and less capability for ACE to turn it into a Simulator again. It almost seems like BI didn't want ArmA III to be realistic?? Putting us into the future with fake materials is going to make it harder for us to work with, requiring people to literally remodel and start from scratch. Nothing is ever easy anymore... Its even MORE harder to work with their new features (PhysX, DX10, More Structures) since its more advanced... don't expect super-awesome mods any time soon :P

The FIRST video games ever made ARE AI Based Games... Simulating Chess, Simulating Sports and Racing. It is the MOST important feature for any video game, any simulator out there. Well you see, its not a matter of opinion at all. In fact, its a necessity for most modders and even just players who want to play without laughing at retarded things like the AI chat spam. Even though you're correct, it is a hassle getting all of this stuff done. It is also a hassle for other game designers that have to work from scratch too, its not like BI is the only independant game company out there. I remember my first game Unreal that was 14 years old today and it was made by a company without gobs of money, and they were able to do perform realistic human survival traits. I'm talking about simple terminology like Attitudes, such as Fear... Aggression... Assertion. The works of the Human Brain and how we manage to survive daily through our lives, none of this is given to AI in ArmA correctly. And it isn't rocket science, I have done the programming too. Without the Source Code of ArmA III, you are asking too much from modders to fix these problems. We're all going to have to wait till ArmA 4 sadly. You know, I just keep seeing AI modders coming around, and them pointing things out like how the AI does not respond to suppression or they keep walking around in circles while bullets fly by them. Or they naturally don't go into buildings, or they stare into space... or they can't re-arm, or they can't survive. The Dev's are being a bit TOO lazy not to cover things like that. While we are not given any SOURCE CODE and only CBA tools to work with. That is bullshit man, this game is not a simulator until you can fight an enemy that survives and I'm not buying into it until I can play the game without killing 500 enemies in three hours of Warfare. We pay these guys decent money and support to implement better and more powerful features for us to work with, and don't take me wrong Bohemia Interactive has accomplished so much for us. My question is why is the AI not important to anyone? The first video games were AI based. After all, the community cannot fix their sloppy mistakes. I am trying to simplify this, its easier for us as modders and gamers to work with smaller parts of the game... while the people we pay to work the bigger parts like Physics, AI, Audio, Graphical and other "ENGINE" related things that us modders are not given source code for. I've been observing the features ArmA III has and I have hardly not seen one bit of AI related material. ArmA III is not a simulator, ACE is. And this game is the partial copy of a true Simulator VBS2. But it lacks so much potential that I am not completely as impressed as I was before, the likely hood of people like ACE wanting to remake the entire game would not turn out so well either. There is a lot more said than done, people do not realize the consequences of them taking the game to a different realm of technology such as the Future. The amount of material to be reworked with is difficult and it would be avoiding the original purposes of ArmA III to go back to modern day war designs. I my self have given up on this Simulation strive people have, and am just going to play it Vanilla. They've only made it harder to work with ;D

http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/arma3_lightning_bonus_e3_4.jpg I've grown fond about ArmA 3, and like what I see. Especially with all of the enhanced combat features now, and I also saw this photograph recently. Is there any confirmation of what may be enhanced Close Quarters Engagements for Buildings??? It is 'one' thing to give players more animations and control, but it is another to give AI that as well. For instance, the SMK Animations for ArmA 2 was not fully optimized for the AI and they didn't know how to get out of some of those animations like Sniper Sit. And on this, would AI effectively know where to take cover in buildings. My guess from the Photo that may had been a staged photograph with the Player doing the leaning while the others are doing standard things. The MAIN issue I have seen is the AI's Situation awareness in buildings being a struggle, they stare out into space for some reason or another and seems like they still think they are fighting outside. I am only wanting some confirmation on the AI for Close Range engagements because originally the game was really only good for terrain based combat. And not everything is like that in war zones...

I've put mine on very low for a while now, and its a little ugly like plastic on the ground but its not so much of a noticeable thing under combat :)

Actually 8) BF3 does have some dynamic path finding skills... they just go through a flow chart of animations and instructions. Though the characters throughout story mode you play with are instructed to do specific things... For BF3 To be more descriptive, the engine has a built in cover system for AI. And it tells the AI if they can take cover or not near objects... they usually just place the little path nodes in front and behind the objects and synchronize the object and the node together so the AI recognizes the object at hand. For instance, you wont see AI run up to little rocks that were blown off from a grenade because it wasn't compiled before the game began. The reason they never included AI online is because it would be too complicated for the AI to look good like they did in Campaign. So yeah, you're right and wrong at the same time...

Over the past few years, I've been trying to figure out what might be a way to get ArmA II with massive amounts of AI running good. I've gone from one thing to another but FPS only gets boosted by slim amounts. Of course there probably is no cure for such amounts of ai but I was thinking it would be worth it to just ask. Is it possible to run ArmA II higher than 20fps with 500+ AI? Are there any ways to Optimize CPU usage so that way if you've got 500+ AI running on a mission, you can still withstand at nearly 30+ fps? I have probably one of the best PC builds around, but it isn't enough to handle such incredible amounts of AI. I run the game usually at 50+ FPS, and whenever AI get busy or there are many AI it becomes almost natural for it to slow down by 40 FPS total. The game takes a bit of a upper cut whenever the CPU portion of the game kicks in. None of the issues are Graphical, therefor I should only need help specifically for getting my CPU Usage concentrated on running ArmA II. The optimization of the game as of now is in fact so good that I am running it on a SSD Hard Drive. I'd be amazed if anyone has ever got 80+ FPS with ArmA II in a sandbox, my guess is that it will never happen because ArmA II is not optimized for neither Extreme end PC's or Low End PC's. In fact its not optimized for any of them since the game runs typically low FPS at any given time. IF!! Anyone has some methods, please share... I think I've tried everything out there and I am a true ArmA::Holic.

Just going to let you guys know, if you're near trees or bushes... your GPU will be put to the test. This causes -20 FPS to your video game, secondly... it can be even WORSE if you have Post Processing enabled. The reason being is that Ambient Occlusion (SSAO) is sort of a tested beta feature of ArmA II. And it isn't well optimized to be on the game even for people with good enough computers in the first place. So firstly, put your Terrain detail on Very Low or Low and you'll notice an extra boost of performance very fast. Secondly put your Post Processing off and you'll notice a severe increase of performance there too. It seems that Terrain Grass, Trees and Bushes don't get along too well with the Post Processing. My FPS stays at 50+ and sometimes up at 80's. But with Terrain Detail higher than low, and Post Processing on past Low... I'll immediately drop to 30FPS and lower. Just giving you guys a heads up, Post Processing and Terrain Detail are most likely your Graphical problems. You can use Anti Aliasing but you also have to realize your Anti Aliasing wont look 'as' good as it would with Anti Aliasing Post Processing enabled... so if you can find a comfortable range of Post Processing... you should have your self set :)

Hmm, well I am curious now... what is your FPS on the Complex Demo? And if you're running any mods, what would they be?

Absolutely, I had tried something similar last night. I wanted their firing mode to be Never Fire and their Attitude to be careless, the game was about 20FPS better however... when the AI wants to start moving around it brings the FPS down some.

Typically, as long as AI is doing something other than just standing in a Spot I begin to get choppy. Even with with just a single opfor and blufor group of AI. HAC Scripts don't affect the FPS but when the AI begins to move, the CPU Usage becomes extreme. My FPS is usually 45+ on Chernarus, and whenever at least two groups of AI begin to move... it drops down to 30 FPS and less. But the more and more the AI decides to do the more I get choppy, that is when I go down to 15 FPS. For instance, ASR AI... the AI does specific things while under combat. It seems that threading for all of these units is too difficult, but if they were all just sitting in a spot not doing anything the CPU doesn't have much to work with. In fact I've put 1000 Units on a Mission before, all scattered out and it runs fine. As long as they are not doing anything...

Naw 8) You just mis-understood my point, I am running an i7-2700k @3.5ghz+. I disabled the virtual cores for its optimization because ArmA doesn't really understand those cores. Now when I said FPS low at any time it is actually true, I did a test just last night trying 'only' a Blufor Squad vs a Opfor Squad and I made a script for both of them to not move period until I radio in. And the performance was 50+ FPS, and as soon as I radioed in to let them start moving. The FPS went super fast down to 25 FPS, and the answer why would be because let the AI Scripts commence. CPU Core Threading for Micro AI and Waypoints are not good enough to resemble a well playing game. I don't want to make anyone angry by saying that, but I have no choice. I'd rather give everyone the proof than to sit back and say the game runs fine. That right there is a sign that ArmA II is typically running on a low fps all of the time. Because you would never fight just one single unit, its more than likely the game has little optimization for cores and threading. Last night Gambla, I ran the game at 200% potential without AI. My FPS at times was 50+, the only times I went down to my 20's were when I was in forests with tons of leaves. I had my 3D RES at MAX, AA at MAX, Graphical Settings at max. The game 'was' choppy, but not in every place which tells me that its not a matter of Graphics. If you have a good Graphics Card you should be able to run ArmA II, but even if you have a good CPU Processor its not going to work good enough if you're not playing on someones server. As mentioned before, the optimization is neither for low end nor extreme end PC's. You might as well play on what you got, because I usually have about the same FPS as anyone else offline.

I'm using too many mods, pretty much anything you could think of. Do mods slow the game down? I tried playing the mission without mods and it still only gets 15 fps...

Ryd, how do I make the Complex Demo run good. Its sooo choppy that it takes forever for the ai commanders to make orders. I am running probably one of the best computers around atm, but its still no where even possible to play this lol

Will we get to play Czechers on ArmA 3 :bounce2:

These cam guys are DIGGING arma haha

Noooo the camera went dead again >:( they see bohemia interactive dammit

I was really hoping they were going to do ArmA 3 CQB :(

I helped out CAM 1 with them finding ArmA 3 :D <------ HD3DButthole alias

I think it would be a nice accessory to open car doors and sit down on chairs and lay down... you know... just basic things we all do...

I've been curious about how much object interaction there will be, concerning sitting down on chairs... to Weapon Resting. At times, players may want to sit down or use objects... maybe pick objects up and move them... As a whole, exactly how much will players be able to do with interaction???

oh ok, well I saw that Infantry Armor in the older version of WarMod. I think it was A2WarMod, maybe it isn't in the new one. But it came along with Infantry Stealth and Recognition Skills etc... But its still up to you, my mod will make the game realistic but the only area a person cannot be killed so easily is the chest. Otherwise, your character will take severe blood loss or death.

Gunter will you add my Enhanced Impact Simulations once I release it??? The Infantry Armor mod in your COWarMod is extremely outdated and does not work with OA, CO, ACE, SLX, and Custom Units. My mod will be supportive for all, and it will also have some more features like limping and blur effects when bullets impact. And some few miscellaneous effects concerning smoke screens, like smoke flying up when firing around dirt. All of this stuff will make engagements longer lasting and less unrealistic, I am doing this stuff because I find ArmA's wounding system and even the ACE system over-powered. Of course a bullet can severely injure one but military grade armor is either only going to leave bruises or pop blood vessels. Which could cause a bleedout and could lead to fainting after a while and then fatal death, but in standard ArmA and ACE you immediately pass out which is not realistic a bit. Though I may still add possibilities of immediate passing out or death, the likely hood of just being hit by three bullets would not be life threatening. I hope you take me up on my offer, it might change the way ArmA is played and enhance longer fights. ~Sincerely, Evol

:pet5: thats ok man, you do a great job on everything :) Keep up the good work!