This is why we should use ArmA III's Engine.

[gungza 29]

you guys know that parts of the arma 3 engine is in the game right?  You also know that Dean Hall was a gameplay designer on Arma III right?  What ever parts of the Arma III engine wasn't incorporated into the DayZ engine obviously didn't fit their pipeline or vision.  Arma III is great and the greatest thing about it isn't the graphics or the optimisation (allthough it is great) it is the stance adjust function, if we can have that in DayZ it would be incredible.  But i'm glad they didn't use the Arma III engine because a lot of things they did from scratch in the DayZ engine, which wouldn't be possible if they just modded the Arma III engine.  If you want to know more about these things you should watch dev streams and read interviews.

[LaughingJack (DayZ) 767]

I really never can say if AgentNe0 is a good troll or just a fool. Because, well, I pity the fool who thinks, that DayZ can be transferred to the ArmA 3 engine.

 

Regarding mouse movement and aiming: In my opinion (really just the way I feel it) ArmA 3 went closer to the "classical shooter" aiming, than ArmA 2 ever was. But that may be just my impression.

 

 

I'll just quote myself from another post about the exact same topic...

 

BP is pretty amazing...but you can see its limits already, regarding what can be done (same as the DayZ mod saw the coming), because it uses again an engine, that wasn't built to support the game in such a way, but to be a military simulator. ANd hordes of Zs...well the DayZ mod had them too, remember? And with the respawning Zs in the SA + server optimization which will allow a higher object count per server, I'm pretty sure a lot of Zs are coming to the SA.

 

Somewhere I read this analogy which fits imho real good:

Imagine ArmA 2 as a small house with a shower (the Multiplayer) in in the second floor. Somebody started building a bathtub there (DayZ).

The inhabitants were absolute happy, but soon demanded more and more, it should be bigger, have more things, made out of marmor etc. etc. But the stairs were too small to bring the things up, so a crane was put on top of the house and a hole was broken into the side of the house to bring it in. So the bathtub was getting bigger and better, but the house wasn't made for that and it became cracks and the water pressure destroyed the pipes, the floor was hanging through and nearly breaking and the neighbours brats were inserting nasty things in the pipes, since they had to be made outside the house...

So, since there was no way to make the bathtub any bigger without completly destroying the house, a new house was built. This time with a bigger stair, hardened, waterproof floor, better pipes inside the house etc. etc. But the inhabitants only saw the bathtub, that was brought upstairs and as soon as water was running they demanded to bath, even if they were told, that it was not as comfortable or shiny or with all the funny extras they knew from the old bathtub, hell not even the roof of the new house was finished and sometimes it was raining straight into the bathtub.

But since they were begging and begging, they were allowed to bath - and they complained about the missing of the shiny things they were used to, the cold water that sometimes came out, the rain that fell through the roof, and that these idiotic brats still were able to get to the pipes, because some windows were missing. But you could see that now it would be nice, because the bath would be bigger, better without destroying the house.

So saying using the Arma 3 engine is saying "Well someone built a new house, very beautiful with a very nice kitchen. I want my bathtub in there."...whereas it has the same things (small staircase. Pipes on the outside. floor that can't handle the weight. etc.) as the old house.

 

 

To make it short: Yes, it would maybe been better if they would have gone with the ArmA 3 engine from the start. But no, it would not have been better, because until they would have finished reworking the whole engine to fit DayZ (like they did with the arma 2.5), ArmA 4 would have been out and this whole discussion would have started again with different numbers...

[cywehner1234 582]

There's your solution if you want DayZ on Arma 3.

Edited March 5, 2014 by AsOiX

[Lordocalot 14]

No Chernarus , No DayZ.

[flygamer1 176]

So what your saying is DayZ should be on the Arma III engine because of the Graphics?

 

Utterly Ridiculous 

 

Graphics aren't everything

it's so much more

[doctorbadsign 645]

Arma 3 runs better, with higher fps and on higher settings for me than DayZ does.

 

In my opinion Arma 3 looks really nice given it's setting, the strong vibrant lighting fits.

 

However, I think dull and drab fits DayZ. I don't want to walk around Chernarus feeling like its a summers day in the Mediterranean.  

[Sloddor 167]

just seen this post. whats up with that OPs screenshots? they look like drawn, turned off shaders or something? =)

[Ell360 2]

I love arma 2, I tried to love 3 but it was a buggy piece of shit online, I have a fairly decent PC, 60+fps (no idea what it actually runs at but locked to 60) on solo becomes 15fps online, net code needs some dayz optimisation imo, personally, I refuse to play that game until it is fixed, I've been waiting far too long imo

In short, fuck arma 3! Dayz is fine as it is

[TheScruffyBandit 382]

I don't really care what engine they use so long as they get it running right sooner rather than later.

[deebz1234 243]

wow, I am blown away everytime someone posts a shot at SA or some sort of comparison...jebus, its better than a KOS thread but you fanboys want to linch the OP still.

 

 

 

[agentneo 337]

There's your solution if you want DayZ on Arma 3.

Well the workshop is coming to Day Z eventually so we will see maps ported. Yes i love breaking point but it doesnt have the personal touch that DAY Z has with regards the character, outfits and customisability. Its rougher in that respect.

 

Laughing Jack you really added nothing to the debate , as you do in all debates, other than attempted to belittle and wind me up which  i won't rise to, have seen you troll in many threads already. I expect nothing more of you.

[rickyriot 1009]

FPS > Graphics. 

 

Any serious gamer turns off a lot of the eye candy if it provides them with a better chance of surviving a gun battle. As it is the RV3 engine provides us with better FPS than RV4 does, and that's before you start including the bespoke amendments that have been made to RV3 for DayZ.

Would it be lovely for DayZ to run on CryEngine 3? Would it be lovely for DayZ to run at 60+FPS on a Dual Core? Would it be lovely to snort an illegal white powder from the breasts of a woman of ill repute? All these things would be wonderful but they are not* and until they are perhaps we'll just have take what we have and run with it.

 

 

 

* Well one of them is, I'll leave it for others to decide which of them it is.. ;)

Edited March 5, 2014 by ricp

[weedmasta 784]

Arma 3 is beautiful, it can capture some awesome ambience because of this (see Breakingpoint as an example), so I don't know what people are on about when they say Dayz SA looks prettier, because it doesn't. Also Arma 3 has proper physics unlike DayZ SA, which still is being coded in to my knowledge. Either way, I'd imagine it would take too much time to port it over to the Arma III engine, so it is not viable. Maybe DayZ 2? :P

Edited March 5, 2014 by weedmasta

[LaughingJack (DayZ) 767]

Laughing Jack you really added nothing to the debate , as you do in all debates, other than attempted to belittle and wind me up which  i won't rise to, have seen you troll in many threads already. I expect nothing more of you.

 

Oh my, somebody tried to reason instead of flaming, he must be a troll! *lol*

 

In fact, I troll only sometimes, so "as you always do" is a quite unfair generalization - most of the times I try to be helpful or, at least, only say my opinion and try to show how I came to that conclusion....but I guess you stopped at the first sentence of my post, hm? That's maybe why you came to the conclusion "[...] have seen you troll in many threads already. I expect nothing more of you." - don't stop at the first sentence, you might miss something.

 

And don't be so hurt. I don't belittle you, you are doing that really great with your own posts. I just make jokes about that. And I don't try to wind you up, I just try to show you, sometimes with (mean) jokes, I'll give you that, where you are wrong from my point of view.

But it's ok.

It's far easier to point at somebody and say "He is SO mean to me, and he NEVER does something productive" instead of thinking about the own point of view and what  others said about it and maybe change it a little bit.

And btw...not the whole world is turning around you. I think this is my second post where I am directly answered to one of yours ever. I can be wrong, maybe it's the third.

 

But what should I expect from somebody that wrote "I also agree that they should have used Arma 3 engine or should transfer over regardless of workload it would benefit the game dramatically.", a sentence, which shows that he has no clue what he is talking about.

Why, you ask, I say, you have no clue?

Read my previous post. I tried to explain why, in my opinion, a "porting" to ArmA 3 is just not possible for DayZ and why waiting for the finished engine would have been pointless. But you're right that adds nothing to the debate because, well, it's about...oh, yeah, using the ArmA 3 engine for DayZ.

 

 

Edit: The first post in this thread was a trollpost. But just because there was a thread about the exact same topic going on for an hour or two already, when this thread was created.

Edited March 5, 2014 by LaughingJack