Razgriz1

That might be the case, but I'm not really convinced, If RV4 performed poorly or had mayor issues I would understand, but the truth is it seems to be working fine. And not just fine, I do get good framerates even on cities with all the graphic bells and whistles turned on. I have to do some research, maybe the devs talked about this decision in the past and I missed it.

I get this too, they knew the engine, they were used to it and BI gave it to them, so this I can understand. But still, why not RV4 instead of 3? As far as I know they are very similar so if you know your way around one you should be fine in the other, and I just think that RV4 is overall superior, it's an improved version of RV3 after all. As I said, instead of splitting your dev teams and make them work on two different engines I'd rather have them working on the latest one, so progress made in one game can potentially be used in the other. Just an example, imagine the DayZ team develops a new occlusion culling algorithm that improves performance on cities and interiors, ArmA3 could benefit from this if they were using the same engine. And don't you think it'd be easier to work with RV4? I mean, compare the player movement in ArmA2 and 3, the later is so much better. Wouldn't it be easier to polish something that is actually more polished?. So why did they choose RV3 remains a mystery for me, I don't see any advantage over the latest iteration of the engine, The only thing I can think of is that they just couldn't get it for whatever reason. Anyone has info on why did they choose RV3 over RV4? I'm genuinely curious about this.

My only gripe is why is the SA running on a modified version of the RV3 instead of the new RV4 that ArmA3 is using. Player movement, while far from being perfect, is just so much better in RV4 than in the standard RV3 (it's better in the SA but still clunky). On top of this RV4 looks better and it also performs better, has better ballistics and for me the most important thing is that is being improved and worked on by BI now. An example of this would be the new HDAO added in the latest patch, and there's many more like the new rain and other things. What I mean is, if DayZ were running on the RV4 it could benefit from improvements made for ArmA3 and the other way around, so instead of working on revamping an old engine it seems logical to me using the newest one that is going to be improved and supported from now on. I would understand not using RV4 if there were critical features unsupported by it, but seeing how many content from RV3 can be ported into RV4 with little to no tweaking at all makes this hard to believe. So I really don't understand why RV3 was chosen over RV4 other than BI not giving permission, as far as I know RV4 is a simply superior version of RV3 so I would like to know why RV3 was chosen and if there's any hope the SA can be ported to RV4. I know changing engines is something you normally won't do unless you want to start from scratch but I'm asking since there seems to be a very high level of compatibility between those two and I think that it would really benefit the SA for the reasons stated above.