Anyone else think DayZ should switch engines?

[Lady Kyrah 1109]

I think that's his point. They should have used the improved ARMA 3 engine for SA instead of sticking with ARMA 2 engine. It's defientely improved in character fluidity, stability, physics, etc... True that it's naive to think that it will fix everything wrong with the game but it would have been an improvment.

there is no such thing as the "arma3" or "arma2" engine. It's the same engine at different points in time, hell whatever dayZ uses now is not even the arma2 version anymore yet isn't the version arma3 is using. Also commonly called a "fork".

[miqueloz 33]

Gotta love it when clueless people tell the devs what they should do, all matter-of-fact like. 

 

Dean's made tons of posts about the engine on reddit, for anyone interested. They're not going to switch and for a good reason, all y'all armchair-developers.

[tinroofer 23]

Let's be honest, an engine swap at this point in time is pretty much a pipe-dream, unless you want to wait 2 years - assuming a decently sized dev team - to be back to exactly where things are now.

 

I mean given what the Dayz engine can do - and at this point it really is the dayz engine, not the arma engine anymore, with so much having changed by this iteration - I think its a good compromise overall.

 

Also, unless an engine has a fundamental design that just won't work for your project, you just make the changes to the engine where needed (most engines of a certain type these days at their most base levels are quite similar overall, its just how you implement them), you don't swap to a new engine and in the process of fixing one set of problems you create a load of others for yourself.

[rickyspanish 158]

Sigh.. Here we go again.

You don't just whip up a game engine in a couple of weeks, it takes years and many of them. I don't understand all the hate the RV engine gets arma 3 is an awesome game that looks gorgeous, runs well and does what it is designed to do which is a military simulator. People who say its to clunky, well its supposed to be to try and simulate the fact you have a body and legs and aren't just a camera floating around.

Saying they should of made DayZ on the Arma 3 engine is nonsense because thats just an updated version of RV3 engine, its not written from the ground up. And thats exactly what they are doing with DayZ anyway and with access to the engine they can basically add most Arma 3 features into it (the ones they want anyway) such as the lighting, physics and renderer.

The engine in its current state is a mess because it isn't finished, they are still working on it. Changing the renderer for example could improve performance ten fold. Zombie ai is down to how ai was handled in arma, it didn't need to take into account tight spaces because most battles took place in open space. So the ai has been redone by a team who specialise in coding ai and pathfinding.

Melee, ai and most complaints are down to programming, not really the engine. This stuff can only go so far in a mod but with full access to the engine they can do quite a bit.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Ricky Spanish

[Etherious 907]

No, they should not change the engine, but should update and fix it up.  It would take even longer for the game to come out and you know the community here won't allow that if there already bitching now about how long a game takes. (When they themselves probably haven't even touched anything remotely relating to game development LOL)

[jeffroland 26]

there is no such thing as the "arma3" or "arma2" engine. It's the same engine at different points in time, hell whatever dayZ uses now is not even the arma2 version anymore yet isn't the version arma3 is using. Also commonly called a "fork".

 

Jeez, ok, same engine different VERSION, whatever wording you want to use. The POINT is that AMRA 2 and DayZ are on the same version and that they SHOULD have used the ARMA 3 version of the engine.

Edited May 15, 2014 by jeffroland

[weedmasta 784]

Nein. You dident think this through...

 

I agree, it is way too early to discuss this as the game has to be finished first to even consider switching or upgrading the engine.

 

I also agree that they should have just used the "Arma 3 engine" and resources. Some they did, like some of the items (e.g. water bottles) but I don't understand why they made entirely new character models and animations when Arma 3 had that awesome stance system ready to go.

Edited May 15, 2014 by weedmasta

[dallas 5195]

I don't think you get it. Obvisouly it's the same engine, different generations. It's been that way since Operation Flashpoint. HIS POINT AND MY POINT IS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE USED THE UPDATED ARMA 3 VERSION. IS THAT WORDING BETTER FOR YOU????

 

And have delayed the standalone by 2 years.

 

It wasn't an option, not matter, how much you fantasize about it.

[jeffroland 26]

And have delayed the standalone by 2 years.

 

It wasn't an option, not matter, how much you fantasize about it.

 

yea, possibly would have delayed it. Or maybe using a more refined version of the engine would have actually helped in some departments. Not sure about using the Chenarus map in ARMA 3 version of the engine but I'm sure it's possible with some tweaks. BTW, how do you know it "wasn't an option"? You have a link you'd like to share? I'm just curious to hear the developer's reasons.

[dallas 5195]

yea, possibly would have delayed it. Or maybe using a more refined version of the engine would have actually helped in some departments. Not sure about using the Chenarus map in ARMA 3 version of the engine but I'm sure it's possible with some tweaks. BTW, how do you know it "wasn't an option"? You have a link you'd like to share? I'm just curious to hear the developer's reasons.

 

Here's the link

 

Where I'm saying delaying DayZ for two years isn't an option.

[xalienax 621]

if this were being discussed while the mod was the only thing out, and content had not already be extensively developed for the RV engine, id say perhaps yes.

 

As it stands now, i think that scratching dayZ to nothing and re-starting from scratch more or less would be a suicidal move buisness wise and comunity wise. I know many people i used to lay with became disenchanted and never came back after the alpha got delayed several times and went back to mod or other games and have no intention of ever playing the SA at this point.

 

Many who bought it after several delays expected more after the long wait since its original projected release.

 

tbh if they did this i would just delete the SA and start on my own mod for A3.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Sovetsky

[jeffroland 26]

 

Here's the link

 

Where I'm saying delaying DayZ for two years isn't an option.

yea but you're nobody- hell, you're probably a zombie. I'd like some info from someone on the developer's team. Not saying you're wrong, I just want to hear their opinion on the matter.

[irl-calibre 744]

why on earth would the developers want to walk away for an engine that has lead the field for years in terms of what it does, that they have been building and refining since most of you were still using stabilisers on your bicycles? Do you really believe that these people don't know what their at? Jesus wept.

[dallas 5195]

yea but you're nobody- hell, you're probably a zombie. I'd like some info from someone on the developer's team. Not saying you're wrong, I just want to hear their opinion on the matter.

 

Well you can take it or leave it, because I'm not not able or willing to go through the last year's worth of interviews, articles or presentations for something that's common sense. When development started, ArmA 3 itself was also still in development and yes, believe it or not, it made no sense to halt everything and wait for ArmA 3's completion, especially when ArmA 3 was still designed with easy clientside scripting in mind, which is great for the user content ArmA is famous for, but really bad for very disruptive hacking, which DayZ mod was infamous for. 

 

So work commenced on the standalone, while work continued on ArmA 3 and while the two engines worked in each their separate directions, developers from ArmA 3, also worked on the Standalone, just like Rocket used to too, which is probably why you see reminiscence of ArmA 3 in DayZ and why innovations for ArmA 3, might also reach DayZ, if it makes sense.

[xX_fr0st-w0lf_Xx (DayZ) 343]

Dayz had to choose between delaying the game for 2 years, learning a bunch of new things and reaping unimaginable benefits with the new engine or use the old one, develop faster with previous knowledge but have a dated engine.

 

Both are equally bad. Was a really tough decision for the team. But with the rate development is going they could make dayz on arma 4's engine. 

[hefeweizen 254]

Jeez, ok, same engine different VERSION, whatever wording you want to use. The POINT is that AMRA 2 and DayZ are on the same version and that they SHOULD have used the ARMA 3 version of the engine.

Wrong again. The version used at the beginning of development of DayZ was the one used for "Take on Helicopters". It has since been changed so much that it is safe to call it the DayZ Engine now. The Arma 3 version of BIS's engine wasn't even close to completion when development of DayZ started and if they waited they for it to be finished not only would they be another six months behind they'd also have to spend a ton of time removing additions to the engine that were Arma 3 specific, but wouldn't fit in a game like DayZ. With the knowledge of how long the network architecture (Which is completely new, and entirely unique to DayZ, mind you) would take to create before even the most basic Alpha would see the light of day, the team made the right choice to start work on DayZ when they did, with the engine they had at the time.

[Lady Kyrah 1109]

Jeez, ok, same engine different VERSION, whatever wording you want to use. The POINT is that AMRA 2 and DayZ are on the same version and that they SHOULD have used the ARMA 3 version of the engine.

No they aren't. That's the point i wanted to make. Both versions used by arma3 and DayZ are like different branches of the same tree, they both started with the arma2 codebase but are evolving in different ways (and may still share elements back and forth, we will never know without source access).

[DMentMan 707]

no, definitely no. 100% no

[Gabe Newell 45]

The title says it all. As I read more and more about all the restrictions it has, and how difficult it makes everything for the most part, it gets increasingly annoying. I believe Dean said that they might change the engine later on. I for one really hope they do.

 

EDIT:

    Yes, I am completely aware engines take a long time to transition to/make. I simply asked for opinions on what could be considered a problem on DayZ. Yes, the engine of course has many advantages, but there are also a lot of problems. I'm just going off what Dean said on a video I watched somewhere that they might switch engines down the line.

Rocket spends 2 months in mount Everest, and then leaves the dev team. What a good leader. ._.

[dallas 5195]

Rocket spends 2 months in mount Everest, and then leaves the dev team. What a good leader. ._.

 

So you either thought you could decide that Rocket should cancel a trip, he had prepared for months and cost him $100,000, because he gave you something for free or because you wanted to buy something from him in the future.

 

That, excuse my candor, seems pretty disconnected from an intelligent reality.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Rocket spends 2 months in mount Everest, and then leaves the dev team. What a good leader. ._.

I'd leave too if I saw what kind of community there is on these forums. Hell, I would have just pulled the plug and given everyone their goddamn money back. Fucking whining bastards. Edited May 18, 2014 by Caboose187

[scriptfactory 620]

I'd leave to leave to if I saw what kind of community there is on these forums.  Hell, I would have just pulled the plug and given everyone their goddamn money back.  Fucking whining bastards.

 

Stop talking smack. You would not have given the money back... XD

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Stop talking smack. You would not have given the money back... XD

Megatron always keeps his word

[Gabe Newell 45]

So you either thought you could decide that Rocket should cancel a trip, he had prepared for months and cost him $100,000, because he gave you something for free or because you wanted to buy something from him in the future.

 

That, excuse my candor, seems pretty disconnected from an intelligent reality.

Did I say that he should cancel the trip? No.

[FrostDMG 398]

I don't know exactly when le Everest trip was booked, however, if he booked it before DayZ exploded - i.e before BI came with the cash monay, then sure that's pretty legit.

 

If however the trip was booked once he saw his mod exploding.... That's weak man...