deathil93

Most probably. You guys also need to take into account that resource usage optimization isn't the strong side of any ArmA game.

An easier way to make in-game movies (instead of doing scripts for camera movements and stuff like that). Something like the GTA IV video maker would be nice. +1

Actually the whole core of the problem is the lack of a proper physics component in the game. ArmA3 now has a proper physics engine that can simulate anything they want using motion capture as a guideline. I've seen PhysX in action in plenty of games, the most impressive usage of the software being with Mafia 2. PhysX is also somewhat superior to physics engine of BF3 since it is an all-in-one package. It can simulate organic animations (soldiers), destruction, vehicle collision/driving, trees etc... But at the end everything is summed up to the budget. If you want to get a truely realistic game you need a hell of alot of money, cash that I doubt that BI has (I'm talking @ 100 million dollars plus). GTA IV had that kind of budget and it managed to accomplish it beautifully. But with BI's budget constraints I doubt they'll be able to go all out and bring gaming realisim to a new level, but it will still be amazing to watch and play.

Interesting stuff, I also doubt the fact that Israel was invaded. But I find curious is that there are basically re-named Israeli equipment in the Iranian arsenal. Highly unlikely that Israel falls prey to Iran (we haz dem nukez) and it even more unlikely that we sold any kind of technology to Iran. My best guess is that Iran somehow managed to steal Israeli tank/IFV/weapon blueprints and replicate them. It seems abit far off since the technology that we have is beyond the reach of Iran for at least the next 10-15 years. Also taking from the Jerusalem peace accords I believe that Israel is a neutral country, but this scenerio also questionable since we got peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan (who are probably under the protection/influence of the Arab league - which are more likely to be allies with Israel and NATO rather than Iran). If BIS didn't include Israel in the final plotline I would go nuts thinking of all the possible scenerios :P

What I find most bizzare is that Israel isn't mentioned in the general plot. I can accept that it would be politically tricky to do, but if you already get the whole Iran vs NATO thing going, Israel needs a mentioning. After all, you can't mention Iran without saying something about Israel :P I'd like to see Israel being mentioned in some way and I'd realy like to see what BI invisioned happening to it in their storyline.

There should be an option to tone it down. Full Gore, Toned Down, No Gore. I would like to see realistic wounds and limping and stuff like that, AFAIK there is no game that depicts that.

I hope it's a crashed alien spacecraft *trollface*

Politics have nothing to do with it. The Yanks invaded A-stan, thats politics, so why is it mentioned/featured in almost every single FPS? Politics is a problem only if you choose to make it one. ANYWHO, according to the ArmA 3 story, it takes place in a middle eastern island (maybe Cyprus or some sort of a knock off?). We sell hardware to everyone, so it wouldn't be a suprise if you'll see Israeli hardware, but I myself would like to see the IDF as a faction (either integrated into NATO/BlueFor/OpFor). A change from current FPS prespective is always welcome. Too much US/Britan vs Russia/China in recent years. You killed me right there hahahha

I know what is Euphoria's main job, but it is also used to simulate realistic physics (tho I gotta say, PhysX appears to do a better job on the enviornment physics). The sole purpose of a MilSim is to represent combat realisticly, thats why ArmA needs an advanced physics engine. The engine itself is fine (tho I do want to say that there are some problems with the whole particle generation part), hack, its amazing, but the physics engine will only do good. GTA IVs animation and physics library weighs around 1-2GB, so a game the size of 12GB won't do anything, as there are games that weigh the same already and even more (like GTA IV, which takes 16GB and comes in 2 DVD9 discs).

I can't wait for you guys to model the Mk.4! Awesome progress, love it so far :)

They are probably the ones who OC all the components to get uber-FPS and are satisfyed only with 100FPS OR have a realy low-end computer. Still, you gotta admit the physicis simulation in Euphoria is realistic and beautiful. With an engine like that, the game will be realy amazing and it would fill the technology gap :) Also, I believe it is cheap enough for BI to use. My guess, it costs around 20-50,000 dollars. I think BI spends more than that on engine devlopment, so it could be an awesome and realistic choice.

Since '04, my friend gave me his copy of OFP to play cause he didn't play it anymore, I absolutely loved it. Barely managed to finish most missions, but I still loved it :)

PhysX? thats not a real solution for all players, because if the guys at BI decide to go for that, than the ATI users (like me) won't have the same experience as nVidia users. I suggest that if BI wants to go for a commercialy available physics engine, they should either go for Euphoria (GTA IV physics were beautiful) or Havok (not as 'realistic' as Euphoria but also a good alternative). Those 2 are the most advanced (and famous) engines in the market AFAIK. But, if BI wants to develop an in-house physics engine, it would be fine with me :) Dunno what about you, but I have 2 rigs and on my old rig with a P4, HD2400Pro and 1.5GB of RAM, ArmA1 and 2 ran just fine on medium-high settings (30-60FPS). AFAIK, most people out there have way more advanced rigs than a P4. But the main cause of preformance issues are the bugs, there is ofc improvement with each game released. But all that can be fixed with a driver update or a game patch.

Sorry for that, the search came up empty :)

Couldn't have said it better :) I wouldn't mind BI intergrating the Euphoria physics engine in ArmA3 hehe So why BI is waiting so long?