Why ARMA Engine?

[e00c 84]

I mean, you can't polish a turd...

Sorry, couldn't resist...

But in all seriousness. Personally, I think the engine is great for DayZ. You have to remember, from now on - things can only improve / get better. Quick bickering, enjoy being part of the experience of helping build a potentially great game :)

[v3c1c 86]

AI in ArmA is horrible, it's an absolute pain in the arse. What does make ArmA good are things like weapon ballistics and how player skeletons work. Name one other game where your bullets actually spawn in the barrel of your weapon, not just the centre of your screen.

 

 

Well vanilla Arma AI is horrible agree :) but mods can make tham much more better - and realy I have not seen better AI in any game.

 

Other game where your bullets actually spawn in the barrel of your weapon - and ?! - yes its is good to know but does it realy matter in Zombie survival game? I don't think Dayz in the end will be "simulator" like ARMA2 + ACE .... It would be grate but I doubt that something like this woud ever happen.

 

anyway all I want to say - this is fucked up situation where BIS and Rocket just can not win, and I think they totaly understands that.

Because this engine suits ARMA but not for games like DAYZ

 

Dayz mod was experiment, a concept - lots of people showed thay like it, even with tons of bugs ... they hoped (still hope) that dayz mod will some day will come out of ALPHA but we all know the truth

Edited January 28, 2014 by V3C1C

[[frl]myke 68]

AI in ArmA is horrible

AI in ArmA is actually the best in PC gaming since it is real AI and not just bots. I've seen AI in ArmA making better decisions than human players (and also worse, which makes them human like). And please, don't call it "ArmA engine", it's name is RV Engine for Real Virtuality. Afaik DayZ uses a iteration of the ToH version of the RV engine (i could be wrong though).

 

It's correct, regarding world size and fidelity, the RV engine is the best around. But it completely fails when it comes to movement in interiors. It doesn't have decent body control for your char. More than once after a respawn i've managed to crawl to a house without nearby Z's noticing me. I try to crawl into the house and...my char suddenly stands fully up, attracting all Z's around. Bang, you're dead. I mean common, i'm overweighted but even i can manage to crawl in a house without standing up. Also a simple chair wouldn't really block my way for long, that's for sure. Since the loot is in buildings, i would guess interior movement would be a key feature in such a game. Obviously i'm wrong.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

AI in ArmA is actually the best in PC gaming since it is real AI and not just bots.

 

I'm not sure what you think the difference is between the two. A bot needs AI to function. Otherwise it would just stand there doing nothing.

[quobble 175]

kill me...please kill me

[[frl]myke 68]

 

I'm not sure what you think the difference is between the two. A bot needs AI to function. Otherwise it would just stand there doing nothing.

 

For me, a bot is basically following predefined routes, no decision making involved. AI on the other side, is mostly decision making and reacting to permanently changing circumstances.

 

As examples: a bot waits on a predefined positions for a player to pass. Players usually have very little freedom to move (Half Life as example) so a bot doesn't have much to care of. On the other hand, in the ArmA series, the AI can not know from where a player will approach him and therefor react dynamically to the situation as it evolves.

 

Pretty rough description but i hope you see what i mean.

[phoboss 224]

Because of reasons!

[Razgriz1 1]

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.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Razgriz1

[VincentNZ 5]

Well the answer is simple: The Mod was created for the ARMA II engine and the SA was transcirbed to the Take on Helicoptre engine, right? Which is just an improved version of the Arma II engine. So why did they use it? First of all even with being 5 years old it still looks good, it can display large landscapes, the engine is specifically made for this, it can host a whole environment, and the Devs know their way around with the engine.

 

If they used, say the Frostbyte, CryEngine, or even the CoD engine they would be facing problems concerning making DayZ as wide as it is know, just look how small the environments are in BF4 or CoD and how hardware hunger is for these games, it just would not work.

 

Engines that could work are the Oblivion and the Skyrim engine as they too can depict large areas, albeit having loading screens and being solely in an singleplayer environment. It also works fine concerning combat, as gun and melee play is rather uncomplicated and straightforward.

 

Apart from licensing these engines (which costs money, or are not available at all), the Devs would have to learn a new engine, which is just like learning a new language, simplified speaking.

[zeroy 240]

I mean, you can't polish a turd...

 

Please name another engine that can handle natural environment like VR does - add to this thousands of zombies entities, players entities, loot, real time day/night cycle, working celestial system. Please. Thanks. VR is the ideal candidate imo.

[zeroy 240]

Engines that could work are the Oblivion and the Skyrim engine as they too can depict large areas, albeit having loading screens and being solely in an singleplayer environment. 

 

SP only - thats the catch. VR is THE best candidate. Next in line would be Rockstar GTA engine, we shall see when it comes to PC (if it does!)

[mirko666 1]

well, let's see...

 

- climbing ladders

- using stairs

- general interaction between player and enviroment

- every interaction has to be scripted which will always result in some kind of lag

- collision detection

- running through a building and being visible to players outside the building cause of glitching through the walls (server can't keep up)

...

the list goes on and i doubt that the devs are able to fix these issues because the arma engine indeed was not the best choice.

Pretty much this.

I'll add to list:

- Melee combat, which is totally useless and broken

- Control responsiveness (this is somewhat improved in arma 3)

- Broken/clunky animations

 

And yes, these are actual engine problems. I also doubt they'll be able to tackle all or even some of these issues before release... i just hope i'm wrong.

[joeymp 25]

wish DayZ looked like this... (note the animations like grabbing the water bottle)

[phoboss 224]

That would be horrible... I hate these stupid lensflare effects... The whole lighting is for shit. Looks so unreal. 

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Engines that could work are the Oblivion and the Skyrim engine as they too can depict large areas, albeit having loading screens and being solely in an singleplayer environment.

 

Oh, okay. Neat. Bethesda doesn't license its engines. Anymore brilliant ideas?

 

 

And yes, these are actual engine problems. I also doubt they'll be able to tackle all or even some of these issues before release... i just hope i'm wrong.

 

So you don't trust them to address issues in the engine upon which the game was designed and with which they are completely familiar... but somehow you would trust them to take a completely unrelated engine and make it work with DayZ which would undoubtedly be MUCH more complicated and require much more time, effort and money?

[soulfirez 901]

Oh, okay. Neat. Bethesda doesn't license its engines. Anymore brilliant ideas?

 

 

 

So you don't trust them to address issues in the engine upon which the game was designed and with which they are completely familiar... but somehow you would trust them to take a completely unrelated engine and make it work with DayZ which would undoubtedly be MUCH more complicated and require much more time, effort and money?

LOL harsh words mate but have to agree the perfect answer that some people want is well not realistic is what we have and in the future going to  be perfect i doubt it but damn if they cant make it damn bloody good on a engine they know and have used for years how on earth are they going to do it perfect on an engine they dont have so many years experience on.

 

The what ifs have to base there ideas on what could actually be done ( i dont want to be an old old man before i see what i believe will be an epic Dayz perfect no havent ever played a perfect game.

[con635 16]

I logged on to give someone beans so I'll comment, I wouldnt have Dayz the sa or mod any other way, I know the standalone will be far more polished than the mod eventually (and on my low end hw looks better already) but the small flaws give it its character, they add to the tension as said. Everyone has a right to thier opinion and some stuff cant be argued with, its there, like the low fps but imho this is more the fault of ms and thier bloated dx that seems to need £££s worth of cpu to brute force through it leaving most of us with 50%+ of our cpu sitting idle and crap frames. Meanwhile consoles have done just fine with faaaaaar inferior hw.

I said in a suggestion thread to the devs but got no answer, is there any chance of the game/engine being ported to something else in the future like linux/steamos by opengl or even amds' mantle? I would love delete windows once and for all :)

[waffen-79 32]

Hi.

 

Yay, more lads complaining about the rv engine. No other games successfully do what RV does. Is it perfect? of course not, but its in its own league.

 

I would rather play a 13 year old game called operation flashpoint, than any of these modern run and gun shooter games that were designed for children.

 

Meh, never mind, I tire of responding to moronic posts/threads.

 

 

Yeah mate I get you, I also love RV engine, but imagine if you could do ALL THAT but also with fluid animations, proper melee combat and advanced player customization

[Nocturnal (DayZ) 85]

lol Why ArmA engine?!

 

Because the game need's to be released this decade, that's why.

[Razgriz1 1]

Well the answer is simple: The Mod was created for the ARMA II engine and the SA was transcirbed to the Take on Helicoptre engine, right? Which is just an improved version of the Arma II engine. So why did they use it? First of all even with being 5 years old it still looks good, it can display large landscapes, the engine is specifically made for this, it can host a whole environment, and the Devs know their way around with the engine.

/snip/

 

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.  

[Lady Kyrah 1109]

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.  

That's the thing, it's NOT polished, it's full of new (and potentially bugged) code, new code that hasn't passed the test of time.

 

It's the same company they probably share code between projects, if there is an arma 3 feature that dean want I'm sure that all he has to do is walk to the next office floor to get it.

[soulfirez 901]

That's the thing, it's NOT polished, it's full of new (and potentially bugged) code, new code that hasn't passed the test of time.

 

It's the same company they probably share code between projects, if there is an arma 3 feature that dean want I'm sure that all he has to do is walk to the next office floor to get it.

Pretty much he has already used plenty of assets from arma 3(RV4) the only other thing i really want him to use from arma 3 is the incremental stances.

 

Yes i know dayz uses different skelletons to arma 3 so the animations would need to be redone but its not that hard to do lol.

 

I dont understand all the waht ifs here honestly could it be done better on a different engine in theory yes but in practical terms not really , there are other games Dayz like ( possible inspired by Dayz such as warz lol ) are they better than Dayz maybe to some people they are i personally prefer dayz...

 

RV isnt perfect but the game will be epic guys will it always have a few rough edges maybe but i am sure as we round the end of beta stage most if not all of these will be smoothed alot or completely ( melee is never going to match a game that deals in only melee such as mount and blade chivalry etc.

[Razgriz1 1]

That's the thing, it's NOT polished, it's full of new (and potentially bugged) code, new code that hasn't passed the test of time.

 

It's the same company they probably share code between projects, if there is an arma 3 feature that dean want I'm sure that all he has to do is walk to the next office floor to get it.

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.

[dgeesio 1034]

and so it begins...... world building on just cause 2 mp !!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2Il3bWv6Rs

 

add zombies animated and survival aspects you have possibly one of the biggest best looking capable mp games in history .i wonder whole try it. :)

 

imagine 6000 people on a server ! :o

 

build your own world, 6000 people or, great looking graphics. it will be done by someone.

[deebz1234 243]

^ ya that just cause 2 mplayer stuff is insane

 

watched an LGR review and there was ~600 people on the server!
wtf

 

I kinda remember JC2, and the gfx were a bit better than SA i think? maybe way better? cant remember...reminded me of FC3 though. Such beauty in the world.

 

i think it was 3rd person only and 3rd person vehicles as well.