Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'real virtuality'.
Found 2 results
LSValmont posted a topic in OFFTOPIC - Games & GamingI know everyone is comparing Arma 3's Real Virtuality 4 engine performance to that of DayZ's Enfusion Engine but that is NOT a fair comparison by any means because: - Arma 3 has a far more complex Ai Ecosystem than the barebones Ai framework that DayZ currently has. - Arma 3 has far more assets and objects to support all its diverse maps, factions and ecosystems. - DayZ has a far more complex Lightning system. - DayZ has a fairly different Server-Client infrastructure. Clients feel smoother in DayZ just because much of the load is handled by the Server while on Arma 3 the Server and Client load (when hosting) is handled under the same system/core. The weird thing is that on players only Arma 3 servers (no Ai) such as the ones on most Life Servers I get the basically the same very high FPS I get on similarly sized DayZ servers (amount of players) which leads me to believe that under similar conditions (No Ai) both Engines run at about the same FPS even thou Enfusion uses more cores but in the end how players measure performance is by their FPS and not the resource utilization, and also it makes no sense to optimize the engine to use more cores but get no FPS improvements in the process. So my question is: Where are the real performance improvements of the long Enfusion engine development cycle if under similar conditions it performs exactly or perhaps only slightly better than the old one?
Arma 4 is still some years away, but that means that development of Arma 4 could begin at literally any time, if it hasn't begun already. Thus, I put forward to the community this question: do you want to see the next Arma game continue to use the Real Virtuality engine? Or do you want to see BIS make a change that has yet to happen in fifteen years, and move to a new, better engine? Personally (warning, rant): I am sick and tired of the RV engine, and all the shit it entails. You heard about the upcoming vehicle-in-vehicle transport feature, I assume? Guess what, we won't be able to actually drive vehicles up a ramp into another vehicle, thanks to, hey-ho, engine limits. However, the limits are only half of what I hate; in fact, what I hate most about the RV engine is the horrendously poor quality of its animations. Arma 3, literally, has the worst animations of a top dollar game and a standard of its genre. Then, of course, you have the lack of detail that's gone into weapons and vehicles. Arma 3 is the definition of quantity over quality, and even then they fail in proper quantity. What really pisses me off, though, is that BIS markets Arma 3 like its animations, visuals, and so on are of Battlefield quality. Hearing Jay Crowe talk about Arma 3 like it's this super smooth, super refined platform when in fact it's a clunky clusterfuck saved only - ONLY - by the modding community and all those mods that bring high quality content and features. Imagine, for a moment, Arma 3 without mods. Yeah. I just watched the Apex trailer (I am buying Apex, by the way), and surprise surprise, BIS makes out Arma 3 as it's not; having gorgeous visuals and 100 FPS, flawless texture and model quality, and best of all, seamlessly smooth and real-looking animations. COME ON! You can fool those who've never played, but you can't fool us! Case in point, I love Arma, but I've been ready for a new engine for a very long time, and Arma 4 seems like the perfect platform for BIS to engine change. I don't care if we have to wait another five years, I want to see a new engine in a new Arma game.